ROCK SLOPE STABILITY

By
B Sulistijo
E-mail: budis@mining.itb.ac.id
08122021017
Rock Slope Stability Analysis
Rock slope stability analysis depends on the
detail rock mass structures analysis
A good site investigation will lead successful
work, i.e. :
 Determination of rock slope stability and stability
mechanism (if any)
 Determination of slope sensitivity , in correlation
with rain, earthquake, landuse, etc.
 Stabilization of unstable slope / potentially
unstable
 Optimum slope design, in correlation with stability,
application, and economy
Slope Stability Evaluation
Dasar yang dibutuhkan dalam evaluasi
kestabilan lereng:
 Field characteristics (geology and hidrogeology)
 Geotechnical parameter (strength and
deformability)
 Hydrogeological parameter (water pressure
model)
 Unstability mechanism (kinematic model and
potential failure)
SLOPE STABILITY ANALYSIS

Conventional techniques
 Kinematic analysis
 SMR analysis

 Limit-equilibrium analysis

Numerical techniques
 Continuum approach (finite element)
 Discontinuum approach (discrete element)

Non-conventional analysis
Rock Slope Failure
Rock Slope Failure
Rock Slope Failure
Kinematic Analysis
 Kinematic Analysis
Stereographic analysis

• There is no potential failure

indication in active slope.
• There is no potential failure
indication in single slope.
 Potential Failure Analysis at each section

Bidang Lemah
Penampang yang Kondisi Gambar FK
Mempengaruhi

Kering 3,8

Jenuh 2,3
0 0
N 20 E/27

2 dan Kering + Gempa 3,1

N 1310 E/890
Jenuh + Gempa 1,8

Jenuh + tension
<1
crack
Limit-equilibrium Analysis
The output of limit-equilibrium analysis is
safety factor, which is calculated based
on the equilibrium of static force and or
FK 
equilibrium condition
Resisting force Shear strength
SF  
Driving force Shear stress
Where SF> 1 stable
SF<1 unstable
 SAFETY FACTOR

N
Si
W

S
Ni

N tan   CA W  Vg (N)   friction angle

SF 
C  cohesion (N/m 2 )
S   g (N/m ) 3

N  W cos 
S  W sin    kg / m3
if C  0
N tan   CA W cos tan tan 
SF   
S W sin  tan 
N  W cos
S  W sin 
If C  0
N tan   CA TENSION CRACK WILL
SF  REDUCE SAFETY FACTOR
S
N  W cos 
S  W sin 
 5m
K G E

9.8m

30m

45° 30°
B

K G

F1

W D
u - 9.8 w

N tan   CA
1
SF 
F2
B
Aks

K G
S
D N 1  W cos   F2  F1 sin 30
S  W sin   F1 cos 30
S1

B
N1
Reaks
 5m
K G E

9.8m

30m

N tan   CA
1
SF 
45° 30°
B

K G S
N  W cos   F2  F1 sin 30
1
F1

W D
u - 9.8 w

S  W sin   F1 cos 30
F2
B
Aks

K G

S1

B
N1
Reaks
Continuum approach (finite
element)
Discontinuum approach
(discrete element)
 Discrete Element Method

displacement Safety Factor Principal Stress

Minimum Maximum
Cross Section Safety Factor Displacement
(m)
1 5 0,01
2 6 0,01
3 6 0,01
4 5 0,01
 Circular Failure

The circular failure

Circular failure analysis is calculated by
dividing slide surface in
occurred in very slices and is solved
weathered rock using limit equilibrium
method
Type and Development
of Circular Failure

The circular failure

related with the
function of rock
mass and its
characteristic
Circular failure and plane failure analysis
Simple Calculation to Determine
SF for Circular Failure
The calculation of safety factor must be suitable
with the field condition and standard chart. The
steps below should be followed.
 Choose the chart of groundwater conditions
which is closest to existing condition
 Calculate the ratio c/( H tan)

 Put to slope angle

 Calculate safety factor by finding the

corresponding value of tan/F atau c/( H F)
 X

Location of centre of critical circle

Groundwater surface
H
Tansion crack

Failure through toe of slope

 BISHOP
where :
x
X


Centre of rotation

x  c i  (h   w hw ) tan  i 
b Tension crack
cos 
Y  tan  tan  i
Phreatic
surface

R
Z  hx sin 
Y z
1/2Y w z2 z/3 1 a
Q   wz2
H

2 R
The following condition must be satisfied for each slice :
Typical slice
c i tan 
Failure trough toe of slope h   w hw  F
x 1)  i  0
Y
1
F
 Y
h 2) cos 1    0.2
h
 F
hw
x
 Y 
z
1  
 1
Safety Factor  F   F
Z Q
 JANBU
where :

Tension crack

Phreatic
surface x  c i  (h   w hw ) tan  i (1  tan 2  )x

1/2Y w z2 z/3
z
Y  tan  tan  i
H
Z  hx sin 
1
Q   wz2
Typical slice

2
d Failure trough toe of slope

x
Correction f o :
d  d 
2

fo  1  K   1,4  
L  L  
h 
h
hw for c c  0; K  0,31
c1  0,  1  0; K  0,50
x
fo 
z
 1
 Y
1  
Safety Factor  F   F
Z Q
Discontinuity Failure

Most of the rock mass is assumed as the

composition of massive rock which is limited
to 3 dimensional-discontinuity system
Strength discontinuity

The influenced of roughness to strength

Plane Failure Kinematic
The slope face must be greater than the
discontinuity angle
The sliding plane must daylight
The sliding plane must be greater than
strength
The plane on which sliding occurs must
be approximately 200 to the slope face

Possible No possible
kinematc kinemtic
The example by using soil
mechanics software
PLANE FAILURE CONCEPT
Safety Factor
Condition
Dry Saturated
Without tension crack 3.187 2.904
With tension crack with distance of 0 m from crest 2.444 0.651
With tension crack earth quake factor 0.1 g 2.189 0.608
 Slope stability analysis
Safety Factor
Condition
Dry Saturated
Without tension crack 3.187 2.904
With tension crack with distance of 0 m from crest 2.444 0.651
With tension crack earth quake factor 0.1 g 2.189 0.608

Grafik FK terhadap Jarak Tension Crack dari Crest

2.5
Faktor Keamanan

2
Faktor Gempa 0,1 g
1.5
Tanpa faktor gempa

0.5

0
0 2 4 6 8 10 12
Jarak Tension Crack (m)
Plane Failure-Limit equilibrium
Depth of Water Vs FS and
Friction angle Vs FS
 Wedge Failure –
Kinematic Analysis
The slope angle must
be greater than the line
of intersection
The line of intersection
must daylight
The dip of intersection
must be greater than
the strength of two
sliding planes
 Wedge Failure –
Kinematic Analysis
 Wedge Failure-
Limit Equilibrium Analysis
 Slope Stability Analysis

Safety Factor
Condition Individual
slope Overall slope
Dry 9.826 15.270
Saturated 9.278 12.910
Saturated with tension crack 0.92 2.335
Single Slope Stability Analysis

Grafik FK terhadap Jarak Tension Crack dari Crest

7

5
Faktor Keamanan

0
0 2 4 6 8 10 12
Jarak Tension Crack (m)
Overall Slope Stability Analysis

Grafik FK terhadap Jarak Tension Crack dari Crest

4.5

3.5

3
Faktor Keamanan

2.5

1.5

0.5

0
0 2 4 6 8 10 12
Jarak Tension Crack (m)
Direct Toppling
Direct-Toppling
 Direct Toppling-Kinematic Analysis
Gambar III.17 Penentuan kestabilan Column stabil atau tidak
(Goodman,1989) The easiest way to determine
whether flexible column toppling
stable or not is conducted by
using stereographic projection.
FLEXIBEL COLOMN TOPPLING The flexible column toppling will
occur whenkondisi
Cara yang termudah untuk mengetahui the following
flexibel colomn stabil ata
dengan cepat adalah dengan condition are met :proyeksi stereografis (G
menggunakan
III.17). Flexibel colomn toppling1. βakan 0+ Φ – α
> 90terjadi jika
1.  > 90 +  - 
2. The strike of joint is
approximately 300 of the strike
2 Strike dari joint adalah
face30 terhadap strike face

Gambar III.18 Simulasi toppling

Flexural Toppling
 Direct Toppling-
Limit Equilibrium Analysis