ARMA 18–788

Stability analysis of a bedded weak rock slope

Rafiei Renani, H. and Martin, C.D.
University of Alberta, Edmonton, Alberta, Canada

Copyright 2018 ARMA, American Rock Mechanics Association

This paper was prepared for presentation at the 52nd US Rock Mechanics / Geomechanics Symposium held in Seattle, Washington, USA, 17–20
June 2018. This paper was selected for presentation at the symposium by an ARMA Technical Program Committee based on a technical and critical
review of the paper by a minimum of two technical reviewers. The material, as presented, does not necessarily reflect any position of ARMA, its
officers, or members. Electronic reproduction, distribution, or storage of any part of this paper for commercial purposes without the written consent
of ARMA is prohibited. Permission to reproduce in print is restricted to an abstract of not more than 200 words; illustrations may not be copied. The
abstract must contain conspicuous acknowledgement of where and by whom the paper was presented.

ABSTRACT: Stability analysis of weak rock slopes with daylighting bedding planes pose a challenge as a number of competing
mechanisms of failure involving failure through the weak rock mass and sliding on the bedding plane are at play. A bedded weak
rock slope was analyzed using limit equilibrium analysis and finite difference analysis with shear strength reduction method. The
effect of long term cohesion degradation on slope stability was explored using perfectly-plastic and strain weakening models. Lower
values of rock mass cohesion led to lower factors of safety and smaller zones of failure. Excluding the weak bedding plane from
shear strength reduction resulted in a considerable increase in the critical shear strength reduction factor and a smaller zone of failure.
The critical shear strength reduction factors from strain weakening models were in between those obtained from perfectly-plastic
models using the peak and residual values of cohesion. This illustrates that stability of slopes in strain weakening materials can be
dangerously overestimated assuming peak strength and unnecessarily underestimated using residual strength.
More realistic material models such as strain weakening
1. INTRODUCTION
can be implemented in full stress analysis using finite
Slope stability analysis has long been a subject of interest difference or finite element methods. While stress
in geotechnical engineering and numerous approaches analysis with a given material model and associated
have been suggested over the years. Currently, limit parameters provides stress and displacement distribution
equilibrium analysis (LEA) is carried out in most practical within the slope, it does not automatically give the factor
applications to determine slope factor of safety. In this of safety. Implementing the Shear Strength Reduction
approach, the deriving and resisting forces and/or (SSR) method in stress analysis makes it possible to also
moments acting on a potential sliding mass are used to estimate the factor of safety. In this method, shear strength
calculate the corresponding factor of safety. parameters of the model are gradually adjusted to bring
Implementing a slip surface search algorithm, it is the slope to the verge of equilibrium which is the
possible to find the critical slip surface with the lowest boundary between numerical convergence and
factor of safety (Krahn, 2003). divergence. The ratio of actual strength parameters to
Since limit equilibrium analysis is solely based on adjusted parameters at limit equilibrium is used to
equilibrium of forces and moments, displacements never estimate slope factor of safety. In this approach, no
enter the equations. It means that limit equilibrium assumptions or secondary algorithms are required to find
analysis cannot provide any information regarding the the critical slip surface as it naturally develops during
amount and rate of slope displacement. Perhaps more numerical analysis.
importantly, it implies that driving and resisting forces are It has been shown that the results of limit equilibrium
independent of displacements. This corresponds to analysis and shear strength reduction method are in
assuming a perfectly-plastic behavior in which strength reasonable agreement for slopes with simple geometry
remains constant after failure. As much as this assumption and perfectly-plastic behavior (Dawson et al, 1999). For
is questionable and contrary to the observed behavior of strain weakening materials, however, proper comparison
most geomaterials, it is deeply rooted in many commonly- between the two methods is less clear as limit equilibrium
used methods of geotechnical analysis and design due to analysis does not take into account displacement and
its simplicity. thereby displacement-dependent strength.
Fig. 1. Weak bedding planes and stress release fractures
associated with valley rebound in weak rocks (Adapted from
Patton and Hendron, 1974).
In this study, stability of a bedded weak rock slope is
investigated using the perfectly-plastic and strain
weakening material models. Limit equilibrium analysis
and strength reduction method were adopted. The effect
of strain weakening behavior on the slip surface is
investigated and the results of stability analysis using
different methods and models are compared.
2. INSTABILITY MECHANISMS IN BEDDED
WEAK ROCK SLOPES
River down cutting in weak rocks is known to produce
valley rebound causing shearing displacements along
weak bedding planes and sub vertical stress release
fractures on the valley walls (Figure 1). Ferguson (1967)
first described these features in excavations in the
Allegheny Plateau, and Matheson and Thompson (1973)
reported similar observations for excavations in the Clay
Shales of Western Canada.
Instability mechanisms in weak rocks with bedding-
controlled rupture surfaces were reviewed by
Morgenstern (1990), Bromhead (2013) and Alonso and
and Pinyol (2014). When addressing stability concerns in
these materials, the first and dominant issue is to assess
whether or not pre-existing slip surfaces exist. If weak
bedding planes are identified the next step is to establish
the operational strength of the weak rock matrix.
However, in order to estimate rock mass strength, an
instability mechanism must be assumed.
Figure 2 illustrates three instability mechanisms that are
observed in this class of weak rocks when the bedding
plane is at residual strength. If the rock mass is relatively
strong with few geological features rigid block sliding
along the bedding planes is a plausible mode of
instability. As noted in Figure 2, the stress release
fractures can provide the back-scarp for the block. Such
sliding blocks are sensitive to pore pressures along the
bedding plane or rain-fall induced pore pressures
developing along the back of block.
One of the most common means of simulating instability
mechanism in clay rich rocks assumes elastic-perfectly
plastic behavior for the rock mass. This is the assumption
underpinning the limit equilibrium analysis method of
slices. In order for this instability mechanism to be viable,
the cohesion of the rock mass must already be very low
or none existent. In natural weak rock slopes found in
Western Canada, this mechanism is unlikely.
It is well known that weak clay rich rocks are susceptible
to a gradual loss of strength due to cohesion weakening.
This cohesion loss can be related to the classical
mechanism of “softening” first described by Terzaghi
(1936) for overconsolidated stiff clays. Alternatively,
progressive loosening of the slope as valley rebound
occurs and stress release fractures form could also aid in
reducing the cohesion of the rock mass. The process of
cohesion loss can be captured using a strain weakening
model were the progressive loss of cohesion is a function
of plastic strain. Such an approach has been used to
simulate cohesion loss in brittle rocks (Hajiabdolmajid et
al., 2002; Diederichs, 2007; Rafiei Renani and Martin,
2018).
Fig. 2. Instability mechanisms in weak rock slopes with a
bedding plane rupture surface.
3. STABILITY ANALYSIS OF THE BEDDED
WEAK ROCK SLOPE
In this study, stability analysis was carried out on a weak
rock slope containing a daylighting subhorizontal bedding
plane with low shear strength under three scenarios
namely, dry condition, low water table and high water
table as shown in Figure 3.
Material parameters adopted in this study are given in
Table 1. These include the weak rock deformation
modulus, Em, cohesion, c, friction angle φ and bedding
plane normal stiffness, Kn, shear stiffness, Ks, cohesion,
cbp and friction angle φbp. These values are considered to
be representative of the weak rock mass conditions
typically encountered along the river valley slopes found
in Western Canada (Cornish and Moore, 1985).
Fig. 3. Geometry and ground water condition of the slope.
Table 1. Material parameters for the bedded weak rock slope
Weak rock Bedding plane
E c φ Kn Ks cbp φbp
(GPa) (kPa) (°) (GPa/m) (GPa/m) (kPa) (°)
4.0 250 35 40 4 0 9
Limit equilibrium analysis of the slope was carried out
using the SLIDE software (RocScience Inc, 2016). The
General Limit Equilibrium method also known as the
Morgenstern-Price method (Morgenstern and Price, 1965;
Fredlund and Krahn, 1977) was adopted as it assumes a
realistic interslice force distribution and satisfies both
force and moment equilibrium. Among different slip
surface search algorithms, the block search algorithm
with Monte Carlo optimization (RocScience Inc, 2016)
consistently produced lowest values of factor of safety for
the analyzed slope. Therefore it was adopted to find the
critical non-circular slip surface above the bedding plane
with the lowest factor of safety.
Numerical modeling of the slope was carried out using the
finite difference code, FLAC3D (Itasca Inc, 2012). Shear
Strength Reduction (SSR) method was used in which trial
SSR factors were applied to shear strength parameters.
Too low SSR factors result in stable slopes and numerical
convergence while too high SSR factors lead to unstable
slopes and numerical divergence. The Critical SSR Factor
which brings the slope to the verge of instability marked
by transition from numerical convergence to divergence
provides an estimate of factor of safety. Since failure
above the bedding plane was being investigated, an elastic
model was assigned to the material below the bedding
plane which eliminated the possibility of slip surface
developing in that region.
3.1. Effect of Rock Mass Cohesion
Limit equilibrium analysis
As mentioned earlier, long term degradation of cohesion
due to repeated precipitation and accumulated slope
displacement affects the stability of weak rock slopes.
Hence, slope stability analysis is typically carried out
using a perfectly-plastic model with a possible range for
cohesion. In this study, cohesion values ranging from 250
kPa down to 25 kPa were used.
Figure 4 shows the predicted slip surfaces and slope
Factor of Safety (FOS) from LEA and Critical SSR Factor
from SSR method using perfectly-plastic models with the
high water table and cohesion values of 250, 150, and 50
kPa. The effect of cohesion on FOS and Critical SSR
Factor is shown in Figure 5 with cohesion values ranging
from 250 to 25 kPa.
It can be observed that decreasing cohesion results in
lower values of factor of safety and smaller zones of
failure. In addition, lowering the water table with
effective drainage can significantly increase slope factor
of safety for this class of problem. Figure 6 shows the
relationship between cohesion and length of failure on the
bedding plane. The sharp change in the slip length on the
bedding plane is due to the specific slope geometry which
governs the location of critical slip surface.
3.2. Effect of Bedding Plane Friction Angle
Generally, strength of all materials present in the domain
of the problem is adjusted to determine factor of safety.
Limit equilibrium analysis of slopes follows this logic and
involves shear strength parameters of all materials on the
slip surface. However, shear strength reduction method
offers more flexibility and allows shear strength of certain
materials to be excluded from shear strength reduction.
For the bedded weak rock slope analyzed in this study, the
bedding plane has zero cohesion. In addition, the assigned
friction angle of 9° appears to be a lower bound for this
material and further decrease of bedding plane friction
angle in the general process of factor of safety calculation
appears too conservative.
Figure 7 shows the comparison between zone of failure
when the bedding plane is included and excluded from
shear strength reduction. Note that when bedding plane
friction angle is excluded from shear strength reduction,
slope movement is more concentrated near the excavation
surface. The relationship between cohesion and Critical
SSR Factor when the bedding plane is excluded from
shear strength reduction is shown in Figure 8.
It can be observed that excluding the bedding plane from
strength reduction algorithm leads to a considerable
increase in the Critical SSR Factor. That is to be expected
as a large portion of failure happens on the bedding plane
and not reducing its friction angle should lead to improved
slope stability.
Shear strength reduction
 550
525
FOS = 1.86 Critical SSR Factor = 2.16
500
475
Cohesion =250 kPa
450

1
425
400

1.567
375
550
350
525

100 125 150 175 200 225 250 275 300 325 350 375

FOS = 1.56 Critical SSR Factor = 1.88

500
475
Cohesion =150 kPa
450

1
425
400
375
350550
525

100 125 150 175 200 225 250 275 300 325 350 375

FOS = 0.95 Critical SSR Factor = 1.51

500
475
Cohesion =50 kPa
450

1
425
400
375
350

100 125 150 175 200 225 250 275 300 325 350 375

Fig. 4. Results of LEA and SSR method with a perfectly-plastic model and high water table.

Limit equilibrium analysis Shear strength reduction

2.5 2.5

2.0 2.0
Critical SSR Factor
Factor of Safety

1.5 1.5
Dry Dry
1.0 Low WT 1.0 Low WT
High WT High WT
0.5 0.5

0.0 0.0
0 50 100 150 200 250 300 0 50 100 150 200 250 300
Cohesion (kPa) Cohesion (kPa)

Fig. 5. FOS from LEA and Critical SSR Factor from SSR method with a perfectly-plastic model.
 200 6.0

Slip length on bedding plane (m) 175

5.0

Critical SSR Factor

150
4.0
125
100 Dry 3.0 Dry
75 Low WT Low WT
2.0
50 High WT High WT
1.0
25
0 0.0
0 50 100 150 200 250 300 0 50 100 150 200 250 300
Cohesion (kPa) Cohesion (kPa)

Fig. 6. Effect of rock mass cohesion on length of failure on Fig. 8. Critical SSR Factor using a perfectly-plastic model
the bedding plane. and bedding plane excluded from shear strength reduction.

Bedding plane included in shear strength reduction, Critical SSR Factor = 2.16

Bedding plane excluded from shear strength reduction, Critical SSR Factor = 3.92

Fig. 7. Slip surface and Critical SSR Factor using a perfectly-plastic model.

3.3. Effect of Strain Weakening

While the commonly-used material model in slope
stability analysis is perfectly-plastic, behavior of
geomaterials rarely satisfies this assumption. In an
attempt to take into account the possibility of strain
weakening behavior in limit equilibrium analysis, it is
possible to carry out a parametric study and change
material properties over a possible range (see Section
3.2). However, it is worth mentioning that none of those
analyses truly captures strain weakening behavior.
Strain weakening behavior, however, can be implemented
in finite difference/finite element method and combined
with shear strength reduction method to estimate slope
factor of safety. To explore the effect of strain weakening
behavior, a cohesion weakening model was implemented
in shear strength reduction method with cohesion
reducing from the peak value of 250 kPa to the residual
value of 25 kPa at 0.1% plastic strain.
Figure 9 shows the Critical SSR Factor, shear bands and
velocity vectors obtained from strain weakening models
with the high water table. Similar to perfectly-plastic
models, excluding bedding plane friction angle from
strength reduction leads to an increase in factor of safety
and a small zone of failure.
4. DISCUSSION
Figure 4 shows that while the slip surface obtained from
limit equilibrium analysis and shear strength reduction
method are in close agreement, the values of Critical SSR
factor obtained from the shear strength reduction method
are somewhat higher than FOS values obtained from limit
equilibrium analysis and the difference increases for
lower values of rock mass cohesion. It should be noted
that the results of limit equilibrium analysis are sensitive
to the adopted slip surface search algorithm and using
other search algorithms narrows the gap between the
results of limit equilibrium analysis and shear strength
reduction method.
Note that the general mechanism of failure obtained from
perfectly-plastic models (Figures 4 & 7) is similar to the
rock mass failure mode shown in Figure 2. On the other
hand, the contours of plastic shear strain shown in Figure
9 clearly show the formation of shear bands. This is
similar to the driving wedge mode of failure shown in
Figure 2. Note that the velocity vectors in the driving
wedge are almost parallel to the back-scarp and their
direction suddenly changes to horizontal in the passive
wedge.
In an attempt to intuitively compare the results of
perfectly-plastic and strain weakening model, one may
suppose that at the time of failure, shear strength on the
slip surface has been reduced to the residual value and
therefore conclude that the Critical SSR Factor from a
strain weakening model must be equal to that of a
perfectly-plastic model with residual shear strength
parameters. However, as the results of this study
illustrates, that is not the case and the Critical SSR Factor
from a strain weakening model is between those of
perfectly-plastic models when using peak and residual
shear strength parameters.
In Figure 10, solid lines show the relationship between
rock mass cohesion and Critical SSR Factor using a
perfectly-plastic mode and high water table in shear
strength reduction method. The horizontal dashed lines
show the values of Critical SSR Factor obtained using the
strain weakening model with the bedding plane excluded
from and included in shear strength reduction (Figure 10).
It can be observed that at cohesion value of about 60 kPa,
the corresponding solid and dashed lines intersect. It
implies that the Critical SSR Factor of a strain weakening
slope with cohesion rapidly decreasing from 250 to 25
kPa is similar to a perfectly-plastic slope with constant
cohesion of 60 kPa. Interestingly, this relationship holds
for both cases when bedding plane is included in and
excluded from shear strength reduction.
Examination of cohesion on the failure surface indicates
that at the time of failure, shear strength on the slip surface
is in fact reduced to residual strength. However, that does
not mean that the Critical SSR Factor from a strain
weakening model must be equal to that of a perfectly-
plastic model with residual shear strength parameters.
The reason is that in a strain weakening model, onset of
failure is governed by peak strength and residual strength
has no effect, whatsoever until the first element fails.
Afterwards, shear strength of the failed element is reduced
and its excess load is redistributed to the adjacent
elements and this propagation of failure continues until a
slip surface is formed. In a perfectly-plastic model with
residual shear strength, on the other hand, onset of failure
and propagation of failure are both controlled by the same
low residual shear strength parameters. Hence, although
the end product of both models is a slip surface with
identical residual strength, the strain weakening model
with peak cohesion of 250 kPa and residual cohesion of
25 kPa can sustain higher strength reduction factors
before onset of failure than a perfectly-plastic model with
cohesion of 25 kPa.
It should be noted that the rate of cohesion weakening can
affect the Critical SSR Factor. The adopted value of 0.1%
plastic strain to reach residual strength may correspond to
a sharp cohesion weakening compared to values of up to
0.5% used in modeling brittle failure of hard rock
(Hajiabdolmajid et al., 2002; Diederichs, 2007; Rafiei
Renani and Martin 2018). As a result, the Critical SSR
Factors obtained from strain weakening models may be
somewhat conservative.
 Bedding plane included in shear strength reduction, Critical SSR Factor = 1.55

Bedding plane excluded from shear strength reduction, Critical SSR Factor = 2.40

Fig. 9. Critical SSR Factor and shear bands obtained from SSR method with a strain weakening model.

5. SUMMARY results of limit equilibrium analysis were found to be

sensitive to the adopted slip surface search algorithm and
For the bedded weak rock slope analyzed in this study,
using other search algorithms could provide results
decreasing cohesion in perfectly-plastic models led to
similar to those from shear strength reduction method. It
lower values of factor of safety and smaller zones of
was shown that excluding bedding plane from shear
failure. While the location of slip surface from limit
strength reduction can considerably increase the Critical
equilibrium analysis and shear strength reduction method
SSR Factor of the slope.
were similar, the values of Critical SSR Factor from the
shear strength reduction method were somewhat higher
than FOS values from limit equilibrium analysis. The
 5.0
Bedding plane excluded from SSR
Critical SSR Factor 4.5 Bedding plane included in SSR
4.0
3.5
3.0
2.5
2.0
1.5
1.0
0 50 100 150 200 250 300
Cohesion (kPa)
Fig. 10. Comparing the Critical SSR Factor from perfectly-
plastic models with varying rock cohesion and strain weakening
models with Critical SSR Factor of 2.40 and 1.55 when bedding
plane is excluded from and included in SSR, respectively.
It was observed that the general mechanism of failure
using perfectly-plastic models is similar to the overall
rock mass failure mode whereas the driving wedge mode
of failure could be captured using strain weakening
models with active and passive wedges separated by shear
bands. The Critical SSR Factors obtained from strain
weakening models were in between those obtained from
perfectly-plastic models with peak and residual values of
cohesion.
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
We wish to acknowledge the Natural Sciences
and Engineering Research Council of Canada who
provided funding for this work.
RFERENCES
1. Alonso, E. E., and Pinyol, N. M. 2014. Slope stability in
slightly fissured claystones and marls. Landslides, 12(4),
1–14.
2. Bromhead, E. N. 2013. The Twelfth Glossop Lecture:
Reflections on the residual strength of clay soils, with
special reference to bedding-controlled landslides.
Quarterly Journal of Engineering Geology and
Hydrogeology. Vol. 46, pp. 132–155
3. Cornish, L. J., and Moore, D.P. 1985. Dam foundation
investigations for a project on soft shale. In Proceedings
38th Canadian Geotechnical Conference, Edmonton,
Alta., pp. 171-178.
4. Dawson, E. M., Roth, W. H., Drescher, A. 1999. Slope
stability analysis by strength reduction. Geotechnique,
vol. 49, no. 6. pp. 835-840.
5. Diederichs, M.S. 2007. The 2003 geotechnical
colloquium: mechanistic interpretation and practical
application of damage and spalling prediction criteria for
deep tunnelling. Canadian Geotechnical Journal. 44,
1082–1116.
6. Ferguson, H. F. 1967. Valley Stress Relief in the
Allegheny Plateau. Association of Engineering
Geologists Bulletin, 4(1), 63–71.
7. Fredlund, D.G., Krahn, J. 1977. Comparison of slope
stability methods of analysis. Canadian Geotechnical
Journal, vol. 14, pp. 429–439.
8. Hajiabdolmajid, V., Kaiser, P.K., Martin, C.D. 2002.
Modelling brittle failure of rock. International Journal
of Rock Mechanics and Mining Sciences. 39, 731–741.
9. Itasca Inc. 2012. FLAC3D, Fast Lagrangian Analysis of
Continua in 3 Dimensions. Version 5.00. Minneapolis,
USA.
10. Krahn, J. 2003. The 2001 R.M. Hardy lecture: The limits
of limit equilibrium analysis. Canadian Geotechnical
Journal, vol. 40, pp. 643-660.
11. Matheson, D. S., and Thomson, S. 1973. Geological
implications of valley rebound. Canadian Journal of
Earth Sciences, 10(6), 961–978.
12. Morgenstern, N. R. 1990. Instability Mechanisms in
Stiff Soils and Weak Rocks. In Proceedings Tenth
Southeast Asian Geotechnical Conference, Taipei (pp.
27–36).
13. Morgenstern, N.R., Price, V.E. 1965. The analysis of the
stability of general slip surfaces. Geotechnique, vol. 15,
no. 1. pp. 79–93.
14. Patton, F. D., and Hendron Jr, A. J. 1974. General Report
- Mass Movements. In Proceedings Second
International Congress of the International Association
of Engineering Geology, Sao Paulo, Brazil (Vol. II, pp.
1–57).
15. Rafiei Renani, H., Martin, C.D. 2018. Modeling the
progressive failure of hard rock pillars. Tunnelling and
Underground Space Technology, 74: 71–81.
16. Rocscience Inc. 2016. SLIDE-2D limit equilibrium
analysis of slope stability, Version 7.0, Toronto, Canada.
17. Terzaghi, K., 1936. Stability of slopes in natural clays.
Proc. 1st Int. Conf. Soil mechs. Found. Eng., Cambridge,
Mass., Vol. 1, p. 161-165.