See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.

net/publication/346783393

A method for seismic stability analysis of jointed rock slopes using Barton-
Bandis failure criterion

Article in International Journal of Rock Mechanics and Mining Sciences · December 2020
DOI: 10.1016/j.ijrmms.2020.104487

CITATIONS READS

13 244

5 authors, including:

Chenghao Yu Xiao Cheng

Central South University Central South University
3 PUBLICATIONS 33 CITATIONS 24 PUBLICATIONS 323 CITATIONS

SEE PROFILE SEE PROFILE

Shi Zuo Kangf Jiao

Changsha University The Hong Kong Polytechnic University
31 PUBLICATIONS 302 CITATIONS 4 PUBLICATIONS 36 CITATIONS

SEE PROFILE SEE PROFILE

Some of the authors of this publication are also working on these related projects:

Dimensionless Parameter Diagrams for the Active and Passive Stability of a Shallow 3D Tunnel Face View project

All content following this page was uploaded by Shi Zuo on 19 January 2021.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

 International Journal of Rock Mechanics & Mining Sciences 136 (2020) 104487

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

International Journal of Rock Mechanics and Mining Sciences

journal homepage: http://www.elsevier.com/locate/ijrmms

A method for seismic stability analysis of jointed rock slopes using

Barton-Bandis failure criterion
Lianheng Zhao a, b, Chenghao Yu a, Xiao Cheng a, *, Shi Zuo a, **, Kangfu Jiao a
a
School of Civil Engineering, Central South University, Changsha, Hunan, 410075, China
b
Key Laboratory of Heavy-haul Railway Engineering Structure, Ministry of Education, Central South University, Changsha, Hunan, 410075, China

A R T I C L E I N F O A B S T R A C T

Keywords: Earthquakes are the main cause of slope failure in seismic active regions. In this study, we present a method for
Rock slope analyzing the seismic stability of a plane jointed rock slope with two blocks. In this analysis, the Barton-Bandis
Modified pseudo-dynamic method failure criterion is applied, considering the nonlinear characteristics of rock joints. Based on the limit equilibrium
Barton-bandis failure criterion
principle, we derived the safety factor of a jointed rock slope subjected to the modified pseudo-dynamic seismic
Seismic stability charts
forces. In addition, the analytical method developed in this study explains the interaction force between two
blocks. Hence, it can effectively analyze the stability of a jointed rock slope and distinguish the failure modes.
Further, a parametric study was conducted to investigate the effects of geometric and material properties on the
safety factor of a hypothetical slope. The results show that the slope stability is significantly influenced by the
geometry of the slope and the parameters including the joint roughness coefficient JRC, the horizontal seismic
acceleration coefficient kh, the joint compressive strength JCS, and the basic friction angle of the structural plane
ϕb. Moreover, the accuracy of the derivation is verified by the universal distinct element code UDEC 6.0. A
parametric sensitivity analysis is used to determine the key parameters affecting slope stability. Finally, a set of
seismic stability design charts is produced for preliminary design.

1. Introduction
Joints distributed in rock masses have significant effects on the sta­
bility of rock slopes. The Mohr-Coulomb (M − C) failure criterion has
been widely used to estimate the shear strength of joint surfaces.
However, previous studies1,2 have showed that the M − C criterion
overestimated the shear strength of rocks in which the normal stress was
low. As a consequence, researchers developed a nonlinear shear failure
criterion to estimate the shear strength of rock joints. Through extensive
experimental studies, Barton et al.1–3 developed the Barton-Bandis (B–B)
shear strength criterion for rock joints. Zhao4 improved the original B–B
model and adopted it on natural joints with less matched surfaces. Since
the development of the B–B nonlinear failure criterion, many re­
searchers used this nonlinear failure criterion analyze rock slope sta­
bility. Feng et al.5 analyzed the stability of rock slopes using both the
linear M − C failure criterion and the nonlinear B–B failure criterion.
Combining the B–B failure criterion with the reliability theory, Nagpal
et al.6 and Basha et al.7 discussed the influence of anchor rods and
earthquake action on the stability of plane rock slopes. Simon et al.8
discussed the linearization of the B–B failure criterion and developed a
method to determine the equivalent M − C criterion parameters. Ma
et al.9 applied the B–B failure criterion to the discontinuous deformation
analysis (DDA) to replace the original M − C joint shear model. Further,
by combining the B–B failure criterion with the reliability theory, Zhao
et al.10 analyzed the hydraulic impact on the stability of plane rock
slopes with inclined cracks. The preceding literature review shows that
the B–B failure criterion is consistent with the available experimental
and numerical results, and gives more accurate predictions.
Plane failure is one type of rock failure. It is useful in reflecting the
sensitivity of the stability of a rock slope to changes in shear strength,
groundwater, and kinds of forces. The joints in the rock mass are more
prone to cracking, when subjected to earthquake. The cracking joints
further complicates the slope failure Low11 divided the slope failure into
four failure modes and investigated the stability of the slope with the
system reliability theory. Jimenez-Rodriguez12 discussed several failure
modes, and system reliability of rock slope comprising two blocks linked
by joints. Using the B–B failure criterion and the system reliability
theory, Zhao et al.13 investigated the stability of a rock slope system with

* Corresponding author.
** Corresponding author.
E-mail addresses: chengxiao@csu.edu.cn (X. Cheng), zuoshi@csu.edu.cn (S. Zuo).

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijrmms.2020.104487
Received 1 June 2019; Received in revised form 6 September 2020; Accepted 8 September 2020
Available online 6 November 2020
1365-1609/© 2020 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
L. Zhao et al. International Journal of Rock Mechanics and Mining Sciences 136 (2020) 104487

factors such as the rock parameters, and slope geometry showed that the
interaction force between the sliders cannot be neglected. Johari
et al.14–16 applied jointly distributed random variables method in rock
slope reliability analyses and adopted the sequential compound method
to improve the computational efficiency. Using the subset simulation
method, Jiang et al.17 developed a method to analyze the reliability of a
rock slope system and explained the correlation among multiple po­
tential failure modes. Most of the previous studies analyzed the slope
stability under static conditions. Rarely researchers consider the seismic
dynamic effect in the stability analysis of multi-block rock slopes.
Compared to static conditions, the inclusion of seismic dynamic effect is
more likely to lead to predictions of instability.18,19 Fig. 1. Stability analysis model for a two-block plane rock slope.
Rock slopes in a seismic-active area are more prone to failure,
especially in the case of slopes with joints. Zhao et al.20,21 established a
where τ is the shear stress on the structural plane; σn is the normal stress
dynamic constitutive model of fracture normal behavior and Li et al.21
on the structural plane; JRC is the joint roughness coefficient of the
developed a nonlinear thin layer interface model to analyze the
structural plane; JCS is the joint compressive strength of the structural
full-wavelength wave propagation across nonlinear parallel joints.
plane; ϕb is the basic friction angle of the structural plane. In practice,
Seismic stability analysis of jointed rock slope is essential to the design.
the values of JRC, JCS, and ϕb can be determined as suggested in the
The pseudo-static method,22 Newmark25 displacement method, and
literature.35–37
pseudo-dynamic method28 are commonly used methods for analyzing
Since Eq. (1) is derived based on low normal stress, it is most
the seismic stability of slopes. Terzaghi22 first developed a so-called
applicable to a structural plane with the stress ratio of 0.01< σ/σc < 0.3,
pseudo-static method in the analysis of slopes subjected to seismic ef­
where σc is the uniaxial compressive strength of the rock.38 Further, for
fects and it is widely used in seismic stability analysis of slopes.23,24 In
most cases, the normal stress in rock slopes is within this range. Hence,
this method, seismic action is converted into horizontal and vertical
Eq. (1) is often used to estimate the shear strength of structural planes in
pseudo-static forces that apply on the slope. The values of the
rock slopes. For the angle [ϕb + JRClog10 (JCS/σn)] in Eq. (1), the earlier
pseudo-static factors (vertical and horizontal) are generally determined
study38 suggested that 70◦ should be the maximum.
by the peak acceleration for the region where the slope is located.
Correspondingly, Newmark25 developed a rigid-plastic sliding block
model for estimating seismic displacement instead of determining the 2.2. Plane failure model
safety factor as the stability criterion of the slope in natural slopes. The
Newmark displacement method provides another criterion for slope Hoek and Bray39 developed a plane failure model for rock slopes in
stability analysis, and the tendency is to use this method on seismic which the top of the slope is horizontal and the tension cracks are ver­
designing for slope engineering.26,27 Steedman and Zeng28 developed a tical. Sharma36 improved the slope model in which both the top of the
simple pseudo-dynamic method and compared the theoretical results slope and the tension cracks can be inclined. Some of the plane failure
with the test results of a centrifugal model in order to verify the models consider only the stability of a single block, that is, Block A. The
method’s accuracy.29 In recent years, the Steedman and Zeng method effect of another block, that is, Block B, is ignored.11,32 In this study, the
was used to analyze the earth pressure of retaining structures30–32 and effect of Block B is considered in the analysis of the stability of a hy­
slope stability.33 Despite the wide application of the Steedman and Zeng pothetical rock slope. In this way, there are four possible states in the
method, it does not satisfy the boundary conditions and ignores the two-block slope system, and they are as follows:
material damping. To overcome these limitations, based on the
visco-elastic behavior of the materials, Bellezza34 modified the 1 Block B is stable, Block A is stable;
pseudo-dynamic Steedman and Zeng method. The modified 2 Block B is stable, Block A is unstable;
pseudo-dynamic method can better reflect the seismic impact on a slope. 3 Block B is unstable, Block A is stable;
In summary, the B–B failure criterion is fit to describe the shear 4 Block B is unstable, Block A is unstable;
characteristics of the clean and rough joints in rock slope and gives
better estimation than the M − C failure criterion. The modified pseudo- For the slope under States 2 and 4, it is considered failed. Hence, the
dynamic method satisfies the zero-stress boundary condition at the free state of Block A determines whether the slope is stable or otherwise.
ground surface and considers the amplification of the acceleration. Thus, However, the state of Block B affects the instability mode of the slope
in this study, based on the modified pseudo-dynamic method and the when the slope is failed.
B–B failure criterion, a seismic stability analysis of a two-block rock The plane failure model comprises two blocks separated by an in­
slope system is conducted. The influence of various parameters on a rock clined tension crack as shown in Fig. 1. In Fig. 1, β is the slope face angle;
slope is investigated in detail. Further, the accuracy of the derivation is θ is the dip of the slope failure plane; α is the dip of the slope top; δ is the
verified by the universal distinct element code UDEC 6.0. To determine dip of the tension crack; H0 is the height of the slope; B is the location of
the key parameters affecting slope stability, a parametric sensitivity the tension crack; IF is the residual sliding force of Block B; WA is the
analysis is carried out. Finally, a set of seismic stability design charts is weight of Block A; WB is the weight of Block B; QAh and QAv are the
produced for preliminary design purposes. horizontal and vertical pseudo-dynamic forces of Block A respectively;
QBh and QBv are horizontal and vertical pseudo-dynamic forces of Block
2. Model and formulation B respectively. Appendix A contains the relationships among geometric
parameters.
2.1. Barton-Bandis failure criterion
2.3. Pseudo-dynamic seismic force
Barton1–3 proposed the Barton-Bandis model by conducting a large
number of shear tests on the surface of a natural structure. The nonlinear To overcome the limitations of the original pseudo-dynamic method
formula for the shear strength of a joint is as follows: developed by Steedman and Zeng,28 Bellezza34 re-derived the formula­
tion of seismic acceleration. The horizontal and vertical accelerations
τ = σ n tan[ϕb + JRClog 10 (JCS / σn )] (1)
are as follows, respectively:

2
L. Zhao et al. International Journal of Rock Mechanics and Mining Sciences 136 (2020) 104487

∫
Q(t) = a(Z, t)m(Z) (6)

where m(Z) is the mass of elemental strip, as shown in Fig. 2:

γ (H − Z)sin(β − θ)sin(β − α)
m(Z) = dZ (7)
g sin 2 β sin(θ − α)
The horizontal and vertical pseudo-dynamic seismic forces acting on
two blocks are as follows, respectively:
∫=H
Z ∫=H
Z
γ(H − Z) sin(β − θ)sin(β − α)
QABh = ah (Z, t)m(Z) = ah (Z, t) dZ
g sin 2 β sin(θ − α)
Z=0 Z=0
Fig. 2. Integral microelement of mass.
(8)

kh g ∫=H
Z ∫=H
Z
ah (Z, t) = [(CS Csz + SS Ssz )cos(ωt) + (SS Csz + CS Ssz )sin(ωt)] (2) γ(H − Z) sin(β − θ)sin(β − α)
CS2 + SS2 QABv = av (Z, t)m(Z) = av (Z, t) dZ
g sin 2 β sin(θ − α)
Z=0 Z=0
kv g [( ) ( ) ]
av (Z, t) = CP Cpz + SP Spz cos(ωt) + SP Cpz + CP Spz sin(ωt) (3) (9)
CP2 + SP2
Substituting Eq. (2) into Eq. (7) and Eq. (3) into Eq. (8) gives
where
∫ [
Z=H ]
( ) ( ) CS Csz +SS Ssz ( t ) SS Csz − CS Ssz ( t )
ys1 Z ys2 Z QABh = qh cos 2π + sin 2π (H − Z)dZ
CSZ = cos cosh (4a) CS2 +SS2 T CS2 +SS2 T
H H Z=0
[ ]
( ) ( ) CS Is1 +SS Is2 ( t ) SS Is1 − CS Is2 ( t )
ys1 Z ys2 Z = qh cos 2π + sin 2 π
SSZ = − sin sinh (4b) CS2 +SS2 T CS2 +SS2 T
H H
(10)
CS = cos(ys1 )cosh(ys2 ) (4c)
∫=H [
Z ]
CP Cpz +SP Spz ( t ) SP Cpz − CP Spz ( t )
SS = − sin(ys1 )sinh(ys2 ) (4d) QABv = qv
CP2 +SP2
cos 2π
T
+
CP2 +SP2
sin 2π
T
(H − Z)dZ
Z=0
√̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅
√̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅ ̅
[ ]
ωH 1 + 4D2 + 1 CP Ip1 +SP Ip2 ( t ) SP Ip1 − CP Ip2 ( t )
ys1 = ( ) (4e) = qv cos 2 π + sin 2 π
Vs 2 1 + 4D2 CP2 +SP2 T CP2 +SP2 T
√̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅
̅ (11)
√̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅
ωH 1 + 4D2 − 1
ys2 = − ( ) (4f) where qh and qv are given by
Vs 2 1 + 4D2
sin(β − θ)sin(β − α)
( ) ( ) qh = kh γ (12)
yp1 Z yp2 Z sin 2 β sin(θ − α)
CPZ = cos cosh (5a)
H H
sin(β − θ)sin(β − α)
( ) ( ) qv = kv γ (13)
yp1 Z yp2 Z sin 2 β sin(θ − α)
SPZ = − sin sinh (5b)
H H
where γ is the unit weight of the rock; the calculation of Is1, Is2, Ip1, and
( ) ( )
CP = cos yp1 cosh yp2 (5c) Ip2 is presented in Appendix A.
Similarly, the horizontal and vertical pseudo-dynamic seismic forces
( ) ( )
SP = − sin yp1 sinh yp2 (5d) acting on Block B are as follows, respectively:
[ ( t) S I − C I ( t )]
√̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅
̅ CS IBs1 + SS IBs2
√̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅ (14)
S Bs1 S Bs2
ωH 1 + 4D2 + 1 QBh = qBh 2 2
cos 2π + 2 2
sin 2π
yp1 = ( ) (5e) CS + SS T CS + SS T
Vp 2 1 + 4D2
[ ( t) S I − C I ( t )]
CP IBp1 + SP IBp2
(15)
P Bp1 P Bp2
√̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅
√̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅ ̅ QBv = qBv cos 2π + sin 2π
ωH 1 + 4D2 − 1 CP2 + SP2 T CP2 + SP2 T
yp2 = − ( ) (5f)
Vp 2 1 + 4D2
where
where kh and kv are the horizontal and vertical seismic acceleration sin(δ − θ)sin(δ − α)
coefficients, respectively; g is the acceleration due to gravity; and ω = qBh = kh γ (16)
sin 2 δ sin(θ − α)
2π/T, where T is the period of the harmonic seismic acceleration. ys1 and
ys2 are functions of the normalized frequency ωH/Vs and damping ratio sin(δ − θ)sin(δ − α)
qBv = kv γ (17)
D, respectively. yp1 and yp2 are functions of the normalized frequency sin 2 δ sin(θ − α)
ωH/Vp and damping ratio D, respectively. H is height, z is depth, Vs is
The calculation of IBs1, IBs2, IBp1, and IBp2 in Eqs. (14) and (15) is
velocity of S-wave propagating, and Vp is velocity of P-wave
presented in Appendix A.
propagating.
The horizontal and vertical pseudo-dynamic seismic forces acting on
The pseudo-dynamic seismic force of rock mass is
Block A can be obtained by

3
L. Zhao et al. International Journal of Rock Mechanics and Mining Sciences 136 (2020) 104487

QAh = QABh − QBh (18) Table 1

Parameters of hypothetical rock slope.
QAv = QABv − QBv (19) Parameter Value Range

The weights of the whole block, Block B, and Block A are as follows, H0 (m) 10 10–70
respectively: B/H0 0.5 0.5, 0.6, 0.7
β (◦ ) 65 45–90
γ θ (◦ ) 30 20–40
WAB = H0 (H0 − H1 )(cot α − cot θ) (20)
2 α (◦ ) 15 5, 10, 15
δ (◦ ) 70 70–90
γ ϕb (◦ ) 25 20–30
WB = H1 H2 (cot α − cot θ) (21)
2 JCS (MPa) 50 10–90
JRC 9 0–20
WA = WAB − WB (22) kh 0.3 0.1–0.4
kv 0.5kh − 0.5, 0, 0.5, 1.0

2.4. Stability analysis and failure modes

A is
To determine whether the plane of a slope is safe or otherwise, the FAresist = τ⋅LEF
safety factor of the plane (FS) is defined as the resisting force (Fresist) { [ ( )]}
JCS
divided by the sliding force (Finduce) acting on the plane, as follows37,39: = σ An tan ϕb + JRClog 10 ⋅LEF
σAn
Fresist
FS = (23) = [(WA − QAv )cos θ − QAh sin θ]× (30)
Finduce ⎧ ⎡ ⎤⎫
⎪
⎪ ⎪
⎪
As mentioned in Sec. 2.2, for a rock slope comprising two blocks, ⎨ ⎢ JCS ⎥⎬
there are four potential states for the slope in which two are failure tan ϕb + JRClog 10 ⎢ ⎥
⎣(WA − QAv )cos θ − QAh sin θ⎦⎪
⎪
⎪ ⎪
⎩ ⎭
modes (i.e., States (2) and (4)). A clear distinction between the four LEF
modes should be established so as to distinguish the state of the slope.
Substituting Eqs. (32) and (33) into Eq. (26) gives the safety factor of
For Case 1, Block B is stable (i.e., FSB > 1), there is no interaction be­
Block A, as follows:
tween the two blocks. For Case 2, Block B is unstable (i.e., FSB < 1), there
⎧ ⎡ ⎤⎫
is an interaction force IF acting on Block A. ⎪ ⎪
⎪
⎨ ⎪
⎢ ⎥⎬
[(WA − QAv )cosθ − QAh sinθ]⋅tan ϕb +JRClog 10 ⎢ JCS ⎥
2.4.1. Case 1: block B is Stable（FSB >1） ⎪
⎪
⎣(WA − QAv )cos θ− QAh sin θ⎦⎪
⎪
⎩ LEF
⎭
The normal stress of Block B is
FSA =
(WA − QAv )sinθ +QAh cosθ
(WB − QBv )cos θ − QBh sin θ
σ Bn = (24) (31)
LEG
The sliding force of Block B is 2.4.2. Case 2: block B is Unstable（FSB <1）
If Block B is unstable, the interaction force between the two blocks is
FBinduce = (WB − QBv )sin θ + QBh cos θ (25)
IF = [(WB − QBv )sin θ + QBh cos θ] − [(WB − QBv )cos θ − QBh sin θ]×
Based on the B–B failure criterion, the resisting sliding force of Block ⎧ ⎡ ⎤⎫
B is ⎪
⎪ ⎪
⎪
⎨ ⎢ JCS ⎥⎬
FBresist = τ⋅LEG tan ϕb + JRClog 10 ⎢⎣
⎥
⎦
⎪
⎪ (WB − QBv )cos θ − QBh sin θ ⎪⎪
{ [ ( )]} ⎩ ⎭
JCS LEG
= σ Bn tan ϕb + JRClog 10 ⋅LEG
σBn (32)
= [(WB − QBv )cos θ − QBh sin θ]× (26) According to the equilibrium condition, the safety factor of Block A is
⎧ ⎡ ⎤⎫
⎪ ⎪ ⎧ ⎡ ⎤⎫
⎪
⎨ ⎪
⎢ JCS ⎥⎬ ⎪
⎪
⎨
⎪
⎪
tan ϕb + JRClog 10 ⎢ ⎥ ⎢ ⎥⎬
⎪ ⎣ ⎦
(WB − QBv )cos θ − QBh sin θ ⎪ ⎢ JCS ⎥
[(WA − QAv )cosθ − QAh sinθ]⋅tan ϕb +JRClog 10 ⎣(WA − QAv )cos θ− QAh sin θ⎦
⎪
⎩ ⎪
⎭ ⎪ ⎪
LEG ⎪
⎩ LEF ⎪
⎭
FSA =
Substituting Eqs. (28) and (29) into Eq. (26) gives the safety factor of (WA − QAv )sinθ +QAh cos θ+IF
Block B, as follows: (33)
⎧ ⎡ ⎤⎫
⎪ ⎪ The safety factor of Block B is
⎪
⎨ ⎪
⎢ ⎥⎬ ⎧ ⎡ ⎤⎫
⎢ JCS ⎥
[(WB − QBv )cosθ − QBh sinθ]⋅tan ϕb +JRClog 10 ⎣(WB − QBv )cos θ− QBh sin θ⎦ ⎪ ⎪
⎪ ⎪ ⎪
⎨ ⎪
⎪
⎩ LEG ⎪
⎭ ⎢ ⎥⎬
[(WB − QBv )cosθ − QBh sin θ]⋅tan ϕb +JRClog 10 ⎢ JCS ⎥
⎣(WB − QBv )cos θ− QBh sin θ⎦⎪
FSB = ⎪
⎪ ⎪
(WB − QBv )sinθ +QBh cos θ ⎩ LEF
⎭
(27) FSB =
(WB − QBv )sinθ +QBh cos θ− IF
The normal stress of Block A is (34)
(W − QAv )cos θ − QAh sin θ If Block B is unstable, Eq. (36) is the safety factor of Block A which
σ An = A (28)
LEF takes the interaction force between the two blocks into account. The
safety factor FSA reflects the stability of the whole slope, and the safety
The sliding force of Block A is
factor FSB distinguishes the failure modes.
FAinduce = (WA − QAv )sin θ + QAh cos θ (29)
Based on the B–B failure criterion, the resisting sliding force of Block

4
L. Zhao et al.
Fig. 3. Variations of FS and IF with time.
Fig. 4. Variations of FSA with H0 for different B/H0.
3. Parametric analysis
A detailed parametric study is carried out to investigate the influence
of different parameters on the stability of the slope. Using Fig. 1 as an
example, the rock slope stability is analyzed. According to the litera­
ture,31,40 the following deterministic parameters are used in the
Fig. 5. Variations of FSA with ϕb andθ: (a) FSA versus θ with different ϕb; (b) FSA versus ϕb with different θ.
5
International Journal of Rock Mechanics and Mining Sciences 136 (2020) 104487
analysis: γ = 27 kN/m3, Vs = 2500 m/s, Vp = 3900 m/s, T = 0.5 s, and D
= 0.05. Further, Table 1 shows the values and the ranges of the variable
parameters used in the analysis.
3.1. The time history curve of safety factor
The safety factor changes periodically. Fig. 3 shows the time history
curve of safety factor in a period. The following values are used for
parameters: θ = 20◦ , JRC = 6. Other parameters are obtained from
Table 1. Since the seismic acceleration is considered as a simple har­
monic function, the inertial seismic forces acting on the slope are varied
with time, and the fluctuation of FSA between maximum and minimum
can be found in Fig. 3. When t/T = 0.5, the horizontal inertial force
points to the failure surface and the vertical inertial force points to the
direction of gravity which in fact contributes to the stability of rock
slope, and the maximum of FSA is obtained at t/T = 0.5. The slope of FSA
curve changes at the critical point when Block B fails, and it is due to the
additional interaction force, IF, acting on Block A. With conservative
consideration, in the following cases, the value of FSA is taken as the
minimum value of FSA with respect to time t/T in a period, and the value
of t/T is determined as the one which makes FSA minimum in a period of
seismic acceleration.
3.2. Influence of H0 and B on safety factor
Based on the basic parameters listed in Table 1, the variations of the
safety factor of Block A, FSA, with the height of the slope, H0, for B/H0 =
0.5, 0.6, and 0.7 are shown in Fig. 4.
In Fig. 4, the red line corresponds to Block B and is stable, and there is
no interaction force acting on Block A. The black line corresponds to
Block B and is unstable, and there is an interaction force acting on Block
A. Fig. 4 shows that with a rise in the height of the slope H0 and a
decrease of the location of the tension crack B, the slope tends to be more
unstable. For B/H0 = 0.5, as H0 increases from 10 m to 70 m, the value of
FSA decreases by about 44%. Meanwhile, Fig. 4 also shows that the
location of tension crack has a significant influence on the stability of
rock slope. When Block B is unstable, the value of FSA is affected by
interaction force IF; FSA becomes more sensitive to slope height H0. It can
be claimed that the influence of slope height H0 and the location of
tension crack B on the stability of rock slope is significant.
3.3. Influence of θ and ϕ b on safety factor
Fig. 5(a) shows the variations of the safety factor of Block A, FSA,
with the dip of the slope failure plane, θ, for the basic friction angle of
the structural plane ϕb = 22◦ , 24◦ , and 26◦ . It can be seen that FSA de­
creases with increasing θ. For example, for ϕb = 22◦ , as the value of θ
increases from 20◦ to 40◦ , the value of FSA decreases from 1.44 to 0.69.
Namely, the dip of the slope failure plane θ has a great influence on the
L. Zhao et al.
Fig. 6. Variations of FSA with δ, α, and β: (a) FSA versus δ with different β; (b) FSA versus δ with different α; and (c) FSA versus β with different α.
Fig. 7. Variations of FSA with JCS and JRC: (a) FSA versus JCS with different JRC; (b) FSA versus JRC with different JCS.
stability of rock slope. This can be attributed to the fact that an increase
in the dip of the slope failure plane θ causes the sliding force of the slope
to increase. Further, Fig. 5(b) shows the variations of FSA with ϕb, for θ
= 25◦ , 30◦ , 35◦ , and 40◦ . It can be seen that FSA increases with
increasing ϕb. For θ = 25◦ , for example, as the value of ϕb increases from
20◦ to 30◦ , the value of FSA increases from 1.09 to 1.56. Namely, the
basic friction angle ϕb has a great influence on the stability of rock slope.
This can be attributed to the fact that an increase in the basic friction
angle ϕb causes the resisting sliding force of the slope to increase. So, the
conclusion can be drawn that both the dip of the slope failure plane θ
and the basic friction angle ϕb have a significant impact on slope
stability.
3.4. Influence of δ, α, and β on safety factor
Fig. 6(a) shows the variations of the safety factor of Block A, FSA,
with the dip of the tension crack, δ, for the slope face angle β = 60◦ , 65◦ ,
and 70◦ . Fig. 6(b) shows the variations of FSA, with δ, for the dip of slope
6
International Journal of Rock Mechanics and Mining Sciences 136 (2020) 104487
top α = 5◦ , 10◦ , and 15◦ . Fig. 6(c) shows the variations of FSA with β for
α = 5◦ , 10◦ , and 15◦ . It can be found from Fig. 6(a)–(b) that the influence
of the dip of the tension crack δ and the dip of slope top α on FSA is
limited. Fig. 6(c) shows that the effect of β on FSA is significant, and
when Block B is unstable, the interaction force makes FSA more sensitive
to the value of β. For α = 5◦ , for example, as the value of β increases from
50◦ to 90◦ , the value of FSA decreases from 1.12 to 0.53. For the case
where the crack position is determined, the change in δ changes the
weight of the two blocks. Hence, an increase in δ reduces the weight of
Block B, which makes the slope more stable. If H0 and θ are determined,
the size of the failure plane is fixed. With a decrease in β and an increase
in α, the weight of the slope decreases, which makes the slope more
stable. When Block B is unstable, the interaction force IF which is also
affected by β makes the stability of rock slope more sensitive to the value
of slope face angle β. Thus, the conclusion can be drawn that the dip of
slope top α and the dip of the tension crack δ have limited influence on
the stability of rock slope, and the slope face angle β has a significant
influence on the stability of rock slope.
L. Zhao et al.
Fig. 8. FSA versus kh with different kv.
3.5. Influence of JCS and JRC on safety factor
Fig. 7(a) shows the variations of the safety factor of Block A, FSA,
with the joint compressive strength, JCS for joint roughness coefficient
JRC = 3, 6, and 9. Fig. 7(b) shows variations of FSA with JRC for JCS =
20 MPa, 40 MPa, 60 MPa, and 80 MPa. It can be seen from Fig. 7(a) that
the JCS has a significant influence on the stability of rock slope. For JRC
Fig. 9. Comparison of FS determined by UDEC 6.0 and presented method: (a) comparison of numerical and theoretical FS for different θ; (b) relative error between
numerical and theoretical FS for different θ.
Fig. 10. Variations of sensitive coefficients of JRC, kh, H0, JCS, B, ϕb, δ, θ, α, and β with H0: (a) variations of sensitive coefficients of JRC, kh, H0, JCS, and B with H0;
(b) variations of sensitive coefficients of ϕb, δ, θ, α, and β with H0.
7
International Journal of Rock Mechanics and Mining Sciences 136 (2020) 104487
= 9, for illustrate, as the value of JCS increases from 10 MPa to 90 MPa,
the value of FSA increases from 0.78 to 1.19. Fig. 7(b) shows that the JRC
has a great influence on the stability of rock slope. For JCS = 40 MPa, for
example, as the value of JRC increases from 0 to 20, the value of FSA
increases from 0.25 to 1.98. The increase in the value of JCS and JRC
leads to an increase in the resisting sliding force, which makes the slope
more stable. So, it can be claimed that the JCS and the JRC have a sig­
nificant impact on slope stability.
3.6. Influence of kh and kv on safety factor
Fig. 8 shows the variations of the safety factor of Block A, FSA, with
the horizontal seismic acceleration coefficient, kh, for kv/kh = − 0.5, 0,
0.5, and 1. It can be seen from Fig. 8 that horizontal seismic acceleration
coefficient kh has a significant influence on the stability of rock slope.
For kv = 0.5kh, for example, as the value of kh increases from 0.1 to 0.4,
the value of FSA decreases by about 55%. Fig. 8 also shows that vertical
seismic acceleration coefficient kv has a limited influence on the stability
of rock slope. So, it can be claimed that horizontal seismic acceleration
coefficient kh has a significant influence on the stability of rock slope,
and vertical seismic acceleration coefficient kv has a limited influence on
the stability of rock slope.
4. Numerical simulation validation
It is difficult to check the accuracy of the new analytical model
developed in this study. Thus, the universal distinct element code UDEC
6.0 is used to verify the accuracy of the derivation in Sec. 2. Different
from the derivation, UDEC 6.0 uses the strength reduction method to
solve the safety factor of a slope, which is not applicable to the B–B joint
L. Zhao et al. International Journal of Rock Mechanics and Mining Sciences 136 (2020) 104487

Fig. 11. Seismic stability design charts of a rock slope with kh = 0.1, JRC = 5: (a) H0 = 10 m; (b) H0 = 20 m; and (c) H0 = 30 m.

Fig. 12. Seismic stability design charts of a rock slope with kh = 0.1, JRC = 7: (a) H0 = 10 m; (b) H0 = 20 m; and (c) H0 = 30 m.

Fig. 13. Seismic stability design charts of a rock slope with kh = 0.1, JRC = 9: (a) H0 = 10 m; (b) H0 = 20 m; and (c) H0 = 30 m.

model. Using a tangential technique to obtain the equivalent Mohr- pseudo-static method to conduct a seismic stability analysis. In this
Coulomb parameters that can satisfy the nonlinear shear behavior of study, the relative error is used to assess the accuracy of the safety factor
rock joints, Prassetyo et al.41 developed a linearized implementation of determined in theory. The expression for the relative error, RE, is
the B–B model, which is as follows:
RE = (FSn − FSA ) / FSA (38)
( )
∂τ
ϕi = arctan (35) where FSn is the safety factor solved by UDEC 6.0, and FSA is the safety
∂σ n
factor of Block A solved in theory. Fig. 9(a) shows a comparison of FSn
( )
∂τ JCS and FSA for θ = 20◦ , 25◦ , and 30◦ . It can be seen from Fig. 9(a) that the
= tan JRClog 10 + ϕb
∂σ n σn values of FSn and FSA decrease as the value of slope height H0 increases,
πJCS
[ (
JCS
) ] and the values of FSn and FSA are close to each other. Furthermore, Fig. 9
− tan 2 JRClog 10 + ϕb + 1 (36) (b) shows that the value of RE decreases as the value of slope height
180 ln 10 σn
increases generally, and when H0 is higher than 50 m, for θ = 20◦ , 25◦ ,
ci = τ − σ n tan(ϕi ) (37) the value of RE increases as the value of H0 increases. Fig. 9(b) also
shows that the maximum value of RE between FSn and FSA for θ = 20◦ ,
where ϕi is the equivalent basic friction angle, and ci is the equivalent 25◦ , and 30◦ is less than 0.12. The variation of relative error with respect
cohesion of the structural plane. to “H0” attributes to the different definitions of safety factor of two
The pseudo-static analysis is a special case of the pseudo-dynamic methods and the application of linearization of the B–B model in the
analysis. Hence, it can be readily transformed from the pseudo- numerical simulation. Furthermore, the application of pseudo-static
dynamic analysis. In UDEC 6.0, it is more convenient to use the method in the numerical simulation would also contribute to the

8
L. Zhao et al. International Journal of Rock Mechanics and Mining Sciences 136 (2020) 104487

Fig. 14. Seismic stability design charts of a rock slope with kh = 0.1, JRC = 11: (a) H0 = 10 m; (b) H0 = 20 m; and (c) H0 = 30 m.

Fig. 15. Seismic stability design charts of a rock slope with kh = 0.2, JRC = 5: (a) H0 = 10 m; (b) H0 = 20 m; and (c) H0 = 30 m.

Fig. 16. Seismic stability design charts of a rock slope with kh = 0.2, JRC = 7: (a) H0 = 10 m; (b) H0 = 20 m; and (c) H0 = 30 m.

difference. Since the pseudo-static/dynamic methods are applied in two ⃒ ⃒

⃒∂P(αk )⃒ αk
methods respectively and two methods have different comprehension of Sk (αk ) = ⃒⃒ ⃒ k = 1, 2, …, n (40)
the safety factor, and the safety factors determined by two methods are ∂αk ⃒ P
close to each other, the theoretical method can therefore be considered Fig. 10 shows the variations of the sensitive coefficients of JRC, kh,
validated. H0, JCS, B, ϕb, δ, θ, α, and β with H0. It can be seen that for H0 varies
between 10 and 70 m, among the ten parameters, the most sensitive is
5. Parametric sensitive analysis JRC, followed by ϕb, θ, β, kh, and H0; the least sensitive are α, δ, JCS, and
B. The parameter with higher sensitivity has a large influence on the
In seismic stability analysis, rock slope stability is affected by many stability of a slope. Hence, it should receive more attention in the design.
factors. In this section, a sensitivity analysis is conducted by analyzing Fig. 10 shows that when the slope height changes within a certain
the influence of different factors on slope stability. Zhang and Zhu42 range, the most sensitive among the parameters is JRC, followed by
defined the dimensionless form of the sensitivity function and the parameters such as ϕb, θ, β, kh, and H0; the sensitivity of parameters such
sensitivity factor. The ratio of the relative error of the system charac­ as α, δ, JCS, and B is relatively small. The parameter with higher
teristics δP = |ΔP|/P to the relative error of the parameters δα = |Δαk|/αk sensitivity has a great influence on the stability of the slope and should
is defined as the sensitivity function of the parameter Sk (αk): receive more attention.
( )/( ) ⃒ ⃒
|ΔP| |Δαk | ⃒ ΔP ⃒ αk
Sk (αk ) ≜ = ⃒⃒ ⃒ k = 1, 2, …, n (39) 6. Seismic stability design charts
P αk Δα k ⃒ P
If |Δαk |/αk is small, Eq. (41) reduces to Stability design charts are widely used by geotechnical engineers to
estimate the stability of slopes. Hence, based on the B–B failure criterion,

9
L. Zhao et al. International Journal of Rock Mechanics and Mining Sciences 136 (2020) 104487

Fig. 17. Seismic stability design charts of a rock slope with kh = 0.2, JRC = 9: (a) H0 = 10 m; (b) H0 = 20 m; and (c) H0 = 30 m.

Fig. 18. Seismic stability design charts of a rock slope with kh = 0.2, JRC = 11: (a) H0 = 10 m; (b) H0 = 20 m; and (c) H0 = 30 m.

Fig. 19. Seismic stability design charts of a rock slope with kh = 0.3, JRC = 5: (a) H0 = 10 m; (b) H0 = 20 m; and (c) H0 = 30 m.

a set of seismic stability design charts is developed so as to provide a
convenient and more advanced approach for estimating the stability of a
rock slope. The design charts in Figs. 11–22 are for the parameter α = 5◦ ,
δ = 70◦ , β = 65◦ , kv = 0.5kh, and JCS = 50 MPa.
The seismic charts in Figs. 11–22 can be used to estimate the stability
of a rock slope. Three illustrative examples are as follows:
Example 1. A simple rock slope of height 10 m is used to illustrate the
application of Fig. 20. The other parameters of the slope are kh = 0.3,
JRC = 7, B = 0.5H0, ϕb = 27◦ , and θ = 25◦ .
Using the previously mentioned parameters, Fig. 20(a) shows that
the value of FSA is determined to be 1.00, and Block B is unstable.
Therefore, the slope is in a critical failure state.
Example 2. A simple rock slope of height 20 m is used to illustrate the
application of Fig. 17. The other parameters of the slope are kh = 0.2,
JRC = 9, B = 0.5H0, ϕb = 27◦ , and θ = 25◦ .
Using the previously mentioned parameters, Fig. 17(b) shows that
the value of FSA is determined to be 2.00, and Block B is unstable.
Therefore, the slope is in a critical failure state.
Example 3. A simple rock slope of height 20 m is used to illustrate the
application of Fig. 19. The other parameters of the slope are kh = 0.3,
JRC = 5, B = 0.5H0, ϕb = 25◦ , and θ = 15◦ .
Using the previously mentioned parameters, Fig. 19(b) shows that
0.5 < FSA < 1.0, and Block B is unstable. Therefore, the slope is unstable.
7. Conclusions
In this study, using the Barton-Bandis failure criterion, a seismic
analysis of a jointed rock slope with two blocks is conducted. Based on
the limit equilibrium principle, an expression for the safety factor of a
jointed rock slope with the modified pseudo-dynamic seismic force is
derived. The accuracy of the derivation is verified by the universal
distinct element code UDEC 6.0. A parametric sensitivity analysis is used
to determine the key parameters affecting slope stability. Further, a set
of seismic stability design charts is developed which can be used for
preliminary designs. The main conclusions of this study are as follows:

10
L. Zhao et al. International Journal of Rock Mechanics and Mining Sciences 136 (2020) 104487

Fig. 20. Seismic stability design charts of a rock slope with kh = 0.3, JRC = 7: (a) H0 = 10 m; (b) H0 = 20 m; and (c) H0 = 30 m.

Fig. 21. Seismic stability design charts of a rock slope with kh = 0.3, JRC = 9: (a) H0 = 10 m; (b) H0 = 20 m; and (c) H0 = 30 m.

Fig. 22. Seismic stability design charts of a rock slope with kh = 0.3, JRC = 11: (a) H0 = 10 m; (b) H0 = 20 m; and (c) H0 = 30 m.

(1) The effects of the slope height H0, the dip of the slope failure
plane θ, the basic friction angle of the structural surface ϕb, the
joint roughness coefficient JRC, the joint compressive strength
JCS, and the horizontal seismic acceleration coefficient kh are
more significant on slope stability. As H0, θ, and kh increase, and
ϕb, JRC, and JCS decrease, the slope tends to be more stable. The
location of the tension crack B, the dip of the tension crack δ, the
vertical seismic acceleration coefficient kv, the slope face angle β,
and the dip of the slope top α have limited effects on slope sta­
bility. As B, δ, and α increase, and kv and β decrease, the slope
tends to be more stable.
(2) The universal distinct element code UDEC 6.0 is used to verify the
validity of the method developed in this study. Within the
allowable range of errors, the prediction by the new method is
reasonable.
(3) Using the developed method, a set of seismic stability design
charts of a rock slope in Barton-Bandis failure criterion is
produced. Using these design charts is a convenient way to esti­
mate the stability of a jointed rock slope.
Declaration of competing interest
The authors declare that they have no known competing financial
interests or personal relationships that could have appeared to influence
the work reported in this paper.
Acknowledgements
This work was supported by the National Natural Science Foundation
of China (Nos. 51878668; 51978666) and the Guizhou Provincial
Department of Transportation Foundation (No. 2018-123-040).The
financial supports are gratefully acknowledged.

11
L. Zhao et al. International Journal of Rock Mechanics and Mining Sciences 136 (2020) 104487

Appendix A

According to Fig. 1, the following equations can be derived:

cot θ − cot α
H= H0 (A1)
cot β − cot α

cot α − cot δ
H1 = H2 (A2)
cot θ − cot δ

H2 = (H0 cot θ − B − H cot β)tan α (A3)

H3 = H1 − H2 (A4)
The expressions of Is1, Is2, Ip1, and Ip2 in Eqs. (10) and (11) are as follows:
∫=H
Z

Is1 = Csz (H − Z)dZ

Z=0
(A5)
1 [ ( 2 2
) ( 2 2
)]
=(
2 2
)2 2ks1 ks2 sin(ks1 H)sinh(ks2 H) − ks1 − ks2 cos(ks1 H)cosh(ks2 H) + ks1 − ks2
ks1 + ks2

∫=H
Z

Ip1 = Cpz (H − Z)dZ

(A6)
Z=0

1 [ ( ) ( ) ( 2 ) ( ) ( ) ( 2 )]
2 2
=( )2 2kp1 kp2 sin kp1 H sinh kp2 H − kp1 − kp2 cos kp1 H cosh kp2 H + kp1 − kp2
2 2
kp1 + kp2

∫=H
Z

Is2 = Ssz (H − Z)dZ

Z=0
(A7)
1 [( 2 2
) ]
=( )2 ks1 − ks2 cos(ks1 H)cosh(ks2 H) + 2ks1 ks2 sin(ks1 H)sinh(ks2 H) − 2ks1 ks2
2 2
ks1 + ks2

∫
Z=H

Ip2 = Spz (H − Z)dZ

(A8)
Z=0

1 [( ) ( ) ( ) ( ) ( ) ]
2 2
=( )2 kp1 − kp2 cos kp1 H cosh kp2 H + 2kp1 kp2 sin kp1 H sinh kp2 H − 2kp1 kp2
2 2
kp1 + kp2

The expressions of IBs1, IBs2, IBp1, and IBp2 in Eqs. (14) and (15) are as follows:
Z=H
∫ 3
IBs1 = Csz (H3 − Z)dZ
Z=0
(A9)
1 [ ( 2 2
) ( 2 2
)]
=(
2 2
)2 2ks1 ks2 sin(ks1 H3 )sinh(ks2 H3 ) − ks1 − ks2 cos(ks1 H3 )cosh(ks2 H3 ) + ks1 − ks2
ks1 + ks2

Z=H
∫ 3
IBp1 = Cpz (H3 − Z)dZ

(A10)
Z=0

1 [ ( ) ( ) ( 2 ) ( ) ( ) ( 2 )]
2 2
=( )2 2kp1 kp2 sin kp1 H3 sinh kp2 H3 − kp1 − kp2 cos kp1 H3 cosh kp2 H3 + kp1 − kp2
2 2
kp1 + kp2

∫ 3
Z=H

IBs2 = Ssz (H3 − Z)dZ

Z=0
(A11)
1 [( 2 2
) ]
=( )2 ks1 − ks2 cos(ks1 H3 )cosh(ks2 H3 ) + 2ks1 ks2 sin(ks1 H3 )sinh(ks2 H3 ) − 2ks1 ks2
2 2
ks1 + ks2

12
L. Zhao et al. International Journal of Rock Mechanics and Mining Sciences 136 (2020) 104487

Z=H
∫ 3
IBp2 = Spz (H3 − Z)dZ

(A12)
Z=0

1 [( ) ( ) ( ) ( ) ( ) ]
2 2
=( )2 kp1 − kp2 cos kp1 H3 cosh kp2 H3 + 2kp1 kp2 sin kp1 H3 sinh kp2 H3 − 2kp1 kp2
2 2
kp1 + kp2

where ks1 = ys1/H0, ks2 = ys2/H0, kp1 = yp1/H0, kp2 = yp2/H0. Vs = (G/ρ)1/2 is the velocity of the S-wave where G is the static shear modulus of the rock,
and ρ is the rock density; Vp = [2G (1 − ν)/ρ(1 − 2ν)]1/2 is the velocity of the P-wave in which ν is the Poisson ratio; and D is the damping ratio.

References 20 Zhao J, Cai JG, Zhao XB, Li HB. Dynamic model of fracture normal behaviour and
application to prediction of stress wave attenuation across fractures. Rock Mech Rock
Eng. 2008;41(5):671–693.
1 Barton NR. The shear strength of rock and rock joints. Int J Rock Mech Min Sci
21 Li XF, Li HB, Li JC, et al. Research on transient wave propagation across nonlinear
Geomech Abstr. 1976;13(9):255–279.
joints filled with granular materials. Rock Mech Rock Eng. 2018;51(8):2373–2393.
2 Bandis S, Lumsden AC, Barton NR. Experimental studies of scale effects on the shear
22 Terzaghi K. Mechanisms of Landslides, Engineering Geology (Berdey) Volume.
behaviour of rock joints. Int J Rock Mech Min Sci Geomech Abstr. 1981;18(1):1–21.
Geological Society of America; 1950.
3 Barton NR, Choubey V. The shear strength of rock joints in theory and practice. Rock
23 Zhao LH, Cheng X, Zhang Y, Li L, Li DJ. Stability analysis of seismic slopes with
Mech. 1977;10(1):1–54.
cracks. Comput Geotech. 2016;77:77–90.
4 Zhao J. Joint surface matching and shear strength part B: JRC-JMC shear strength
24 Zhao LH, Cheng X, Li DJ, Zhang YB. Influence of non-dimensional strength
criterion. Int J Rock Mech Min Sci. 1997;34(2):179–185.
parameters on the seismic stability of cracked slopes. J Mt Sci. 2019;16(1):153–167.
5 Feng P, Lajtai EZ. Probabilistic treatment of the sliding wedge with ezslide. Eng Geol.
25 Newmark NM. Effects of earthquakes on dams and embankments. Geotechnique.
1998;50(1):153–163.
1965;15(2):139–160.
6 Nagpal A, Basha BM. Reliability analysis of anchored rock slopes against planar failure.
26 Zhao LH, Cheng X, Dan HC, Tang ZP, Zhang Y. Effect of the vertical earthquake
In: Proceedings of Indian Geotechnical Conference. vols. 1–4. 2012. New Delhi, India.
component on permanent seismic displacement of soil slopes based on the nonlinear
7 Basha BM, Moghal AAB. Load Resistance Factor Design (LRFD) approach for reliability
Mohr–Coulomb failure criterion. Soils Found. 2017;57(2):237–251.
based seismic design of rock slopes against wedge failures. Proceedings of the Design,
27 Zhao LH, Cheng X, Li L, Chen JQ, Zhang Y. Seismic displacement along a log-spiral
Analysis and Performance of Rock Slopes and Rock Fill. SanDiego: ASCE Geotechnical
failure surface with crack using rock Hoek–Brown failure criterion. Soil Dynam Earthq
Special Publication; 2013:582–591.
Eng. 2017;99:74–85.
8 Prassetyo SH, Gutierrez M, Barton NR. Nonlinear shear behavior of rock joints using
28 Steedman RS, Zeng X. The influence of phase on the calculation of pseudo-static
a linearized implementation of the barton-bandis model. J Rock Mech Geotech Eng.
earth pressure on a retaining wall. Geotechnique. 1990;40(1):103–112.
2017;9(4):671–682.
29 Steedman RS, Zeng X. On the behaviour of quay walls in earthquakes. Geotech. 2015;
9 Ma S, Zhao Z, Nie W, Nemcik J, Zhang Z, Zhu X. Implementation of displacement-
43(3):417–431.
dependent Barton-Bandis rock joint model into discontinuous deformation analysis.
30 Choudhury D, Nimbalkar SS. Pseudo-dynamic approach of seismic active earth
Comput Geotech. 2017;86:1–8.
pressure behind retaining wall. Geotech Geol Eng. 2006;24(5):1103–1113.
10 Zhao LH, Cao JY, Zhang Y. Effect of hydraulic distribution form on the stability of a
31 Choudhury D, Nimbalkar S. Seismic passive resistance by pseudo-dynamic method.
plane slide rock slope under the nonlinear Barton-Bandis failure criterion. Geomech
Geotech. 2015;55(9):699–702.
Eng. 2015;8(3):391–414.
32 Ghosh P. Seismic passive earth pressure behind non-vertical retaining wall using
11 Low BK. Reliability analysis of rock slopes involving correlated nonnormals. Int J
pseudo-dynamic analysis. Geotech Geol Eng. 2007;25(6):693–703.
Rock Mech Min Sci Geomech Abstr. 2007;44(6):922–935.
33 Chanda N, Ghosh S, Pal M. Seismic stability of slope using modified pseudo-dynamic
12 Jimenez-Rodriguez R, Sitar N, Chacon J. System reliability approach to rock slope
method. Int J Geotech Eng. 2017;3:1–12.
stability. Int J Rock Mech Min Sci. 2006;43(6):847–859.
34 Bellezza I. A new pseudo-dynamic approach for seismic active soil thrust. Geotech
13 Zhao LH, Zuo S, Li L, Lin YL, Zhang YB. System reliability analysis of plane slide rock
Geol Eng. 2014;32(2):561–576.
slope using Barton-Bandis failure criterion. Int J Rock Mech Min Sci. 2016;88:1–11.
35 Liu MW, Fu H, Wu JL. Current status and thinking of determination method of shear
14 Johari A, Fazeli A, Javadi A. An investigation into application of jointly distributed
strength parameters of rock mass structural plane. J Chongqing Jianzhu Univ. 2005;24
random variables method in reliability assessment of rock slope stability. Comput
(5):65–67.
Geotech. 2013;47(JAN):42–47.
36 Sharma S, Raghuvanshi TK, Anbalagan R. Plane failure analysis of rock slopes.
15 Johari A, Lari AM. System probabilistic model of rock slope stability considering
Geotech Geol Eng. 1995;13:105–111.
correlated failure modes. Comput Geotech. 2017;81:26–38.
37 Wyllie DC, Mah CW. Rock Slope Engineering. London: Spon Press; 2004.
16 Johari A, Lari AM. System reliability analysis of rock wedge stability considering
38 Chen ZY, Wang XG, Yang J. Rock Slope Stability Analysis-Theory, Methods and
correlated failure modes using sequential compounding method. Int J Rock Mech Min
Programs. Beijing: China Water And Power Press; 2005.
Sci. 2016;82:61–70.
39 Hoek E, Bray JD. Rock slope engineering[M]. CRC Press; 1981.
17 Jiang SH, Huang J, Zhou CB. Efficient system reliability analysis of rock slopes based
40 Das BM. Principles of Soil Dynamics. Boston, MA: PWS-Kent Publishing Company;
on subset simulation. Comput Geotech. 2017;82:31–42.
1993.
18 Chakraborty D, Choudhury D. Pseudo-static and pseudo-dynamic stability analysis of
41 Prassetyo SH, Gutierrez M, Barton N. Nonlinear shear behavior of rock joints using a
tailings dam under seismic conditions. Proc Natl Acad Sci India. 2013;83(1):63–71.
linearized implementation of the Barton-Bandis model. J Rock Mech Geotech Eng.
19 Zhou X, Qian Q, Cheng H, Zhang H. Stability analysis of two-dimensional landslides
2017;9(4):671–682.
subjected to seismic loads. Acta Mech Solida Sin. 2015;28(3):262–276.
42 Zhang G, Zhu WS. Parameter sensitivity analysis and experimental optimization.
Rock Soil Mech. 1993;1:51–58.

13

View publication stats