See

discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.net/publication/263351304

Probabilistic Approach of Rock Slope Stability

using Monte Carlo Simulation

Conference Paper June 2008

CITATIONS READS

0 157

1 author:

Nur Irfah Mohd Pauzi

Universiti Tenaga Nasional (UNITEN)
31 PUBLICATIONS 13 CITATIONS

SEE PROFILE

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

Long-term settlement prediction of open dumping area using Monte Carlo Simulation method View
project

All content following this page was uploaded by Nur Irfah Mohd Pauzi on 25 June 2014.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file. All in-text references underlined in blue are added to the original document
and are linked to publications on ResearchGate, letting you access and read them immediately.
 ICCBT2008

Probabilistic Approach of Rock Slope Stability Analysis Using

Monte Carlo Simulation

M. S. Mat Radhi, Universiti Putra Malaysia, MALAYSIA

N. I. Mohd Pauzi*, Universiti Tenaga Nasional, MALAYSIA
H. Omar, Universiti Putra Malaysia, MALAYSIA

ABSTRACT
___________________________________________________________________________
Probabilistic analysis has been used as a tool to analyze and model variability and
uncertainty for rock slope analysis. Uncertainty in rock slope may appear as scattered values
of discontinuity length and persistence. This study is to develop the probabilistic approach of
rock slope stability based on discontinuity parameters using Monte Carlo simulation. The
probabilistic analysis was done using kinematic and kinetic analysis. Kinematic analysis is
based on stereographic projection analysis and kinetic analysis is based on the deterministic
analysis. Factor of Safety (FOS) is determined for each type of failure i.e. planar and wedge
failure. The slope that has FOS less than 1.00 is considered as not stable and FOS more than
1.00 is considered as stable. Data of six slopes which is denoted as Slope S1, S2, S3, S4, S5
and S6 show that, Slope S2, Slope S4, and Slope S6 have FOS of 0.953, 0.991, and 0.891
respectively which show the slope as not stable. Whilst for wedge failure analysis, all the
slopes show FOS greater than 1.00 which is stable, although the kinematic analysis
(stereographic projection) shows otherwise. Probabilistic analysis is developed for rock slope
stability using Monte Carlo Simulation. Monte Carlo simulation calculate the probability of
failure for planar and wedge type of failure. The probability of failure (Pf) for planar failure
at slope S2, S4, and S6 are 51.6%, 17.8%, and 49% respectively. Wedge failure analysis show
0% probability of failure for dry slope cases while for wet slope cases, all slopes excluded the
S1 has the probability of failure (Pf) varies from 7.7% to 75.2%. This shows that the
probabilistic analysis will give relevant and enhance results which can help to determine
instability of rock slope. The development of probabilistic analysis using Monte Carlo
simulation is useful tool to get an accurate data in stability analysis of rock slope which have
great values of uncertainty.

Keywords: Probabilistic Approach, Monte Carlo Simulation, Rock slope stability

*Correspondence Authr: Nur Irfah Mohd Pauzi, Universiti Tenaga Nasional, Malaysia. Tel: +60389212020 ext
6254, Fax: +60389212116. E-mail: irfah@uniten.edu.my

ICCBT 2008 - E- (37) pp449-468

Probabilistic Approach of Rock Slope Stability Analysis Using Monte Carlo Simulation

1. INTRODUCTION

Uncertainty and variability are common in engineering geology studies dealing with natural
materials. This is because of rocks and soils are inherently heterogeneous, insufficient amount
of information for site conditions are available and the understanding of failure mechanism is
incomplete. There are many researcher have made efforts to limit or quantify uncertainty of
input data and analysis results. Perhaps, slope engineering is the geotechnical subject most
dominated by uncertainty since slopes are composed of natural materials [2]. Uncertainty in
rock slope engineering may occur as scattered values for discontinuity orientations and
geometries such as discontinuity length and persistence. Therefore, one of the greatest
challenges for rock slope stability analysis is the selection of representative values from
widely scattered discontinuity data. Since geotechnical engineering problems are
characterized by uncertain variables, design is always subjected to uncertainties

Application of probabilistic analysis has provided an objective tool to quantify and model
variability and uncertainty. It makes the rock slope stability possible to consider uncertainty
and variability in geotechnical and geological parameters. There is several commercial
available limit equilibrium codes (such as SWEDGE, ROCKPLANE, SLIDE, SLOPE/W)
often incorporate probabilistic tools, in which variations in discontinuity properties can be
assessed.

Various probabilistic studies of rock slopes and mining areas have been carried out by these
researchers [10, 11, 1, 9, 5, 6, 7, 14]. Though in Malaysia, such research are very few and
limited.

In summary, this study is to determine probabilistic analysis of rock slope stability based on
discontinuity parameters which is analyze and simulate probabilistic analysis method. Hence,
it would become helpful for the engineers to design and monitor the rock slope. The main aim
of this research is to determine probabilistic analysis of rock slope stability based on
discontinuity parameters which will help the slope engineers in rock slope design and stability
analysis.

2. BASIC THEORY

The development of road and highway constructions involved deep cutting into the slope, in
order to minimize the traveling time and distance between the two places. Besides, the need of
development on hilly areas for building and residential purpose has also increased and these
lead to the concern of safety and stability of the slope for the public. The slope failure occur
due to human and natural causes which consist of improper planning, design and
implementation of the projects for human error while natural causes may be result of
weathering process, weak material and geological setting of the area.

In this research, cutting of rock slope is the major concern to be studied since a high degree of
reliability is required because slope failure or even rock falls can rarely be tolerated. Rock
slope stability is concern about analyzing the structural fabric of the site to determine if the
orientation of the discontinuities could result in instability of the slope under consideration.
Basically, there are four types of rock slope failures that always occurred at the rock slope
which are planar failure, wedge failure, toppling failure, and circular failure.

450 ICCBT 2008 - E- (37) pp449-468

 M. S. Mat Radhi et. al.

Planar failure is movement occurs by sliding on a single discrete surface that approximates a
plane and it is analyzed as two-dimensional problems which additional discontinuities may
define the lateral extent of planar failures, but these surfaces are considered to be release
surfaces, which do not contribute to the stability of the failure mass. Wedge failure happened
when rock masses slide along two intersection discontinuities both of which dip out of the cut
slope at an oblique angle to the cut face, forming a wedge-shaped block. Toppling failure
happened most commonly in rock masses that are subdivided into a series of slabs or columns
formed by a set of fractures that strike approximately parallel to the slope face and dip steeply
into the face. Circular failure is defined as a failure in rock for which the failure surface is not
predominantly controlled by structural discontinuities and that often approximately the arc of
a circle. Rock types that are susceptible to circular failures include those that are partially to
highly weathered and those that are closely and randomly fractured.

Applications of probabilistic analysis in geotechnical engineering have increased remarkably

in recent years. This is ranging from practical design and construction problems to advanced
research publications. A lot of study and research have been conducted regarding probabilistic
analysis since geotechnical and geological engineering deal with material whose properties
and spatial distribution are poorly known. Consequently, a somewhat different philosophical
approach is necessary to overcome the uncertainty occurs in geotechnical and geological
engineering.

This paper explains on determining probability of failure of the rock slope which deals with
the uncertainty in geotechnical and geological engineering parameter using Monte Carlo
simulation. The Monte Carlo simulation used the extensive computational effort involved in
the simulations required researchers to develop their own software to solve slope stability
problems. The limitations and sometimes the complexities of probabilistic methods combined
with the poor training of most engineers in statistic and probabilistic theory have substantially
inhibited the adoption of probabilistic slope stability analysis in practice.

3. METHODOLOGY

Methodology of the research can be described by four stages; the first one is literature search
and formulation of objective, the second one is data collection at the field, the third one is
analysis and overview on the data collection and finally, the fourth stage is the development
of the probabilistic approach using Monte Carlo simulation and finally suggestion for further
work to be done for this research. The flow chart of the methodology is shown in Figure 1.

ICCBT 2008 - E- (37) pp449-468 451

Probabilistic Approach of Rock Slope Stability Analysis Using Monte Carlo Simulation

Figure 1. Methodology of the research

The data collections at site are such as discontinuity data on the cut slope, classification and
identification of grade weathering and lithology of the selected cut slope. Then, the analysis
on the fieldwork data is done using kinematic analysis and kinetic analysis. The kinematic
analysis is done using the data collection of geological structural at site. The DIPS 3.0
software is used to give the analysis in Rosette Plot, Scatter Plot, Pole Plot, and Potential
Instability.

Limit equilibrium method which is also known as kinetic analysis is carried out to determine
factor of safety for each cases of potential instability. The probabilistic approach is developed
using Monte Carlo Simulation Method for rock slope stability analysis. The development of
this probabilistic approach is done using spreadsheet software such as EXCEL and
probabilistic simulation is done using RISKAMP. These two software are link together and
the analysis is simulated which is called Monte Carlo Simulation.

Probabilistic approach is carried out by simulating the results according to number of

iteration. For each number of iteration, it would give the Factor of Safety (FOS) from where
the probability of failure can be obtained. The simulation carried out here are for 10, 100, 500,

452 ICCBT 2008 - E- (37) pp449-468

 M. S. Mat Radhi et. al.

1000, 5000, and 10000 no of iteration. The input data needed for the development of
probabilistic approach is the kinematic and kinetic analysis data. The kinematic analysis
inputs are the dip and dip direction data, friction angle, cohesion, and slope angle. The outputs
data are the type of failure of the slope whether it is planar, wedge, toppling or combination of
the two type of failure.

The kinetic analysis requires input data such as slope properties, cohesion, friction angle, and
groundwater table. The outputs from this analysis are the FOS of the slope. If FOS is less than
1, the slope is considered fail and if the FOS is more than 1, the slope is stable. The output
from kinetic analysis only gives one value of FOS. Then, when the simulation is carried out
for 10 times, 100 times, 500 times, 1000 times, 5000 times and 10000 times, the RiskAMP
software would gives many results of FOS and probability of failure, Pf for that particular
slope.

4. RESULTS AND ANALYSIS

4.1 Pos Selim Area

The probabilistic analysis which is developed for this study has been tested using data from
Pos Selim Highway. This probabilistic analysis is used to get accurate result and to determine
the uncertainties in geotechnical data. The probabilities of failure of the slope are the outcome
of this research.

Pos Selim Highway is located in Perak and can be accessed from Simpang Pulai or Cameron
Highland. The highway is part of the Malaysian Plan for East West second Link and divided
into eight packages. The highway starts from Simpang Pulai in Perak and ends at Kuala
Berang in Terengganu. Package two has been awarded to MTD Construction Sdn. Bhd. under
a Fixed Turnkey Lump Sum contract of total RM 282 million. The construction of the
highway in package two has started in May 1997 and was scheduled for completion in April
2000 [8]. Due to continuous cut slope failure along the highway, the construction of this
project was delayed [12]. Now in the year of 2005, the project has been opened to be used for
the public.

Along the terrain of Pos Selim Highway, there are two types of main lithological units which
are igneous and metasediment rock (Figure 4.1). The igneous rocks consist of granite and
metasediment rocks consist of quartz mica schist, quartz schist and closely foliated phylite.
Granite rock covers over 65% while metasediment is about 35% [8].

Locations of slope study are distributed over three granite slopes and three schist slopes.
These slopes have been labeled as a S1, S2, and S3, which cover the granitic areas and S4, S5,
and S6 cover the schist areas (Table 1).

ICCBT 2008 - E- (37) pp449-468 453

Probabilistic Approach of Rock Slope Stability Analysis Using Monte Carlo Simulation

S S
S

Figure 2. Pos Selim Area with granite and schist formation

Table 1: Study Locations and Lithology

Slope Location Lithology

S1 Ch 2 + 960 Granite
S2 Ch 9 + 100 Granite
S3 Ch 17 + 600 Granite
S4 Ch 18 + 280 Schist
S5 Ch 18 + 800 Schist
S6 Ch 20 + 750 Schist

4.2 Kinematic Analysis

Kinematic analysis is done to plot the discontinuity data such as dip and dip direction into
graphical method. The graphical method which are discussed in this analysis are pole plot,
rosette plot, scatter plot. From these plots, the potential instability for each slope can be
determined.

4.2.1 Pole plot

From the six slopes that have been chosen for study, about 637 of discontinuity data have
been collected for analysis. From Figure 3, it can be seen that joint is the most dominant and
common at field, followed by fault and lastly foliation. The percentage occurrence of joint
from field measurement is 79.7%, while fault is 10.9% and another 9.4% is foliation. S1, S2

454 ICCBT 2008 - E- (37) pp449-468

 M. S. Mat Radhi et. al.

(Figure 4), and S3 show that joint is dominant and higher which are 97%, 81%, and 97%
respectively from field measurement. S4, S5 (Figure 5), and S6 show that percentage of joint
decrease which is 63%, 70%, and 67% respectively.

120

100

80

60

40

20

0
S1 S2 S3 S4 S5 S6

Joint Fault Foliation

Figure 3. Discontinuity data showing percentage of joint, fault and foliation at S1, S2, S3, S4,
S5 and S6.

ICCBT 2008 - E- (37) pp449-468 455

Probabilistic Approach of Rock Slope Stability Analysis Using Monte Carlo Simulation

Figure 4. Pole Plot at S2

Figure 5. Pole Plot at S5

4.2.2 Scatter Plot Analysis

Scatter plot data (Figures 6) collected for six numbers of slopes, the total number of plot is
584. Table 2 has summarized scatter plot for each slope which shows three category of plot;
one, two, and three plots. The importance of the scatter plot is to distinguish any discontinuity
data that have the same value of dips and dips direction, where in pole plot it does not show
the poles that share the same value.

456 ICCBT 2008 - E- (37) pp449-468

 M. S. Mat Radhi et. al.

Figure 6: Scatter plot data

Table 2. No. of Scatter plot for each study slope

Slope One Plot() Two Plot() Three Plot() Total Plot

S1 89 10 1 100
S2 98 7 1 106
S3 91 4 1 96
S4 85 6 1 92
S5 81 9 3 93
S6 94 3 0 97

Total 538 39 7 584

4.2.3 Rosette Plot Analysis

There are 525 of planes out of 637 discontinuities that have been plotted into rosette plot
(Figure 7) covering S1, S2, S3, S4, S5, and S6. Dips direction of each slope is plotted into
respected bin at interval of 10 degrees. Table 3 shows the maximum and minimum
frequencies of plotted plane for each slope, which are 10 and 1 respectively. Each slope has
only two bin of maximum frequency, whilst the number of bin for minimum frequency varies
between two and four.

ICCBT 2008 - E- (37) pp449-468 457

Probabilistic Approach of Rock Slope Stability Analysis Using Monte Carlo Simulation

Figure 7. Rosette Plot

Table 3. No of plotted plane in Rosette Plot for each study slope

Plotted Maximum Plot Minimum Total

Slope
Planes (Bin No) Plot (Bin No) Discontinuity

S1 92 6a & 24a 4c, 12c, 16c, 22c, 29c, & 112

34c
S2 98 7b & 25b 1 , 5 , 13 , 19c, 23c,&
c c c
115
31c
S3 92 13a & 31a 6c, 10c, 24c, & 28c 102

S4 79 7a & 25a 4c, 5c, 9c, 21c, 22c, & 100

27c
S5 84 6a & 24a 4 , 11 , 14d, 22d, 29d, &
d d
108
32d
S6 80 18a & 36a 8c, 16c, 26c, & 34c 100
Total 525 118 38 637
a = frequency of 10, b = frequency of 9, c = frequency of 1, d = frequency of 2.

4.2.4 Potential Instability

Potential instability analysis is determined using stereoplot computer software, DIPS. This
analysis facilitates the determination of possible kinematic sliding of weathered rock slope in
types of planar, wedge, and toppling failure. Planar and wedge failure analysis is referred to
the work by Hoek and Bray [4], but toppling failure analysis is referred to Goodman and Bray
[3].

458 ICCBT 2008 - E- (37) pp449-468

 M. S. Mat Radhi et. al.

The discontinuity sets obtained from the geological mapping are then plotted for potential
instability analysis together with geometry of the slope and its friction angle. Planar failure
analysis describe that any pole (discontinuity) falling outside of pole friction cone represents a
plane which could slide if kinematically possible. The crescent shape zone formed by the
Daylight Envelope and the pole friction circle therefore encloses the region of planar sliding.
Any poles in this region represent planes that can and will slide (Figure 8).

Figure 8. Planar sliding zone represented by crescent shaped region.

The discontinuity set will be plotted together with the slope face and friction angle to
determine the type of potential failure. Major discontinuities sets and stereographic intensities
for each location of slope are shown in Table 4.

Table 4. Major discontinuities set and Fisher Concentration

Slope and Fisher Discontinuity set Types of
Marked Lithology
Location Concentration (dip/dip direction) discontinuity
4-7% 77/170 J1 Joint Granite
S1 4-7% 80/318 J2 Joint Granite

CH 2960 4-7% 33 /13 J3 Joint Granite

4-7% 72 /244 J4 Joint Granite

4.5-6% 59/231 J1 Joint Granite

S2 >12% 82/336 J2 Joint Granite
CH 9100 3-4.5% 80/301 J3 Joint Granite
3-4.5% 48/351 J4 Joint Granite

ICCBT 2008 - E- (37) pp449-468 459

Probabilistic Approach of Rock Slope Stability Analysis Using Monte Carlo Simulation

Table 4 Continue

5-6% 86/122 J1 Joint Granite

S3 >10% 68/220 J2 Joint Granite
CH 17600 3-4% 52/79 J3 Joint Granite
7-8% 71/313 J4 Joint Granite

8-9% 45/87 J1 Joint Schist

S4 6-7% 65/322 J2 Joint Schist
CH 18280 6-7% 74/208 J3 Joint Schist
6-7% 66/237 J4 Joint Schist

>12% 35/98 J1 Foliation Schist

S5 10.5-12% 71/252 J2 Joint Schist
CH 18800 4.5-6% 87/176 J3 Joint Schist
4.5-6% 62/315 J4 Joint Schist

>10% 62/261 J1 Joint Schist

S6 7-8% 19/191 J2 Joint Schist
CH 20750 6-7% 68/292 J3 Joint Schist

4.3 Kinetic Analysis

Kinetic analysis is carried out by applying direct formula using single fixed values (typically,
mean values). Therefore, the stability analysis is carried out using only one set of geotechnical
parameter. Factor of safety, based on limit equilibrium is widely used to evaluate slope
stability because of its simple calculation and results.

From this study, three slopes out of six slopes have been identified potential planar failure
which is S2, S4, and S6. Through these three slopes, only three joint sets have fall and satisfy
with conditions for planar failure. Table 5 below shows factor of safety for each joint set for
wet and dry case for planar failure.

460 ICCBT 2008 - E- (37) pp449-468

 M. S. Mat Radhi et. al.

Table 5. Results of Factor of Safety for Planar Failure

Slope Planar Factor of Factor of

Joint Set Mean Friction
Slope Face Failure Safety Safety
I.D. Angle (deg)
(deg) (deg) (Wet) (Dry)
S1 J1 63 77 30 Stable Stable
J2 80 30 Stable Stable
J3 33 30 Stable Stable
J4 72 30 Stable Stable
S2 J1 63 59 30 0.879 0.953
J2 82 30 Stable Stable
J3 80 30 Stable Stable
J4 48 30 Stable Stable
S3 J1 73 86 30 Stable Stable
J2 68 30 Stable Stable
J3 52 30 Stable Stable
J4 71 30 Stable Stable
S4 J1 63 45 30 0.899 0.991
J2 65 30 Stable Stable
J3 74 30 Stable Stable
J4 66 30 Stable Stable
S5 J1 102 35 30 Stable Stable
J2 71 30 Stable Stable
J3 87 30 Stable Stable
J4 62 30 Stable Stable
S6 J1 63 62 30 0.767 0.891
J2 19 30 Stable Stable
J3 68 30 Stable Stable

For wedge planar failure case, five slopes have been identified potential to fail which are S2,
S3, S4, S5, and S6. Nine intersections of joint sets have been identified and satisfied for this
type of failure. The results for factor of safety for each intersection joints are shown in Table
6 below for wet and dry case.

Table 6. Results of Factor of Safety for Wedge Failure

Dip of Mean Factor of

Intersection Slope Face Factor of
Slope intersection Friction Safety
Joint (deg) Safety
(deg) Angle (deg) (Dry)
S2 J1J2 63 58 30 1.296 Stable
J1J3 36 30 1.411 Stable
J1J4 33 30 Stable Stable
S3 J3J1 73 43 30 0.931 Stable
J3J4 48 30 0.999 Stable
S4 J1J3 63 56 30 1.395 Stable
S5 J2J3 102 17 30 1.434 Stable
J3J4 38 30 0.831 1.572
S6 J1J3 63 30 30 Stable Stable

ICCBT 2008 - E- (37) pp449-468 461

Probabilistic Approach of Rock Slope Stability Analysis Using Monte Carlo Simulation

4.4 Probabilistic Analysis

Probabilistic analysis is carried out using Monte Carlo Simulation method which simulates
results according to number of iteration. Each number of iteration would give factor of safety
(FOS) which from this probability of failure can be calculated for that particular plane of
failure. The simulation carried out here are for 10, 100, 500, 1000, 5000, and 10000 no of
iteration. Same like deterministic analysis, probabilistic analysis has been carried out for
planar failure and wedge failure analysis to determine the factor of safety for each case.

For the purpose of this paper, only the results for slope S2 are shown. The type of wedge
failure has been identified for slope S2. Intersection of J1 and J2 at S2 for wedge failure
analysis shows that, probability of failure is 75% and 0% for wet and dry slope respectively
for the case of iteration of 10000 (Table 7). The mean of FOS for this analysis in Figure 9
shows that the values are constant and maintain at the rate of 0.68 to 0.716 for wet slope
cases. However, Figure 10 shows that the Pf of each number of iteration varies and this is
support by the Figure 11 which shows more details about histogram of factor of safety for
each number of iteration.

Table 7. Probabilistic Analysis on Wedge Failure, S2, J1J2 showing the values of Factor
of Safety
No of Standard
Mean Min Max Med Pf
Iteration Deviation
WS 10 0.68 0.22 1.36 0.7 0.36 0.9
100 0.75 0.09 1.64 0.75 0.33 0.76
500 0.71 0 1.83 0.67 0.32 0.798
1000 0.71 0 1.9 0.69 0.32 0.769
5000 0.72 0 1.89 0.68 0.32 0.802
10000 0.716 0 1.983 0.683 0.328 0.752
DS 10 1.896 1.41 2.572 1.921 0.364 0
100 1.967 1.304 2.85 1.979 0.33 0
500 1.921 1.21 3.033 1.888 0.318 0
1000 1.925 1.22 3.105 1.894 0.323 0
5000 1.927 1.207 3.093 1.897 0.323 0
10000 1.927 1.145 3.186 1.893 0.327 0
Legend: WS = Wet slope, DS = Dry slope

462 ICCBT 2008 - E- (37) pp449-468

 M. S. Mat Radhi et. al.

2.5

Mean o f F o S 2

1.5

0.5

0
10 100 500 1000 5000 10000
No of Iteration
Wet Slope Dry slope

Figure 9. Mean of FOS at J1J2, S2 for each iteration.

0.8

0.6
Pf

0.4

0.2

0
10 100 500 1000 5000 10000
No of Iteration
Wet Slope Dry Slope

Figure 10. Probability of wedge failure at J1J2, S2 for each iteration.

ICCBT 2008 - E- (37) pp449-468 463

Probabilistic Approach of Rock Slope Stability Analysis Using Monte Carlo Simulation

3.5 2.5

3
2
2.5
1.5
2

Frequency
Frequency

1.5 1
1
0.5
0.5

0 0

4
44

56

68

92

04

16

28

52

64
27

39

51

63

75

87

99

11

23

35

47

1.

2.
1.

1.

1.

1.

2.

2.

2.

2.

2.
0.

0.

0.

0.

0.

0.

0.

1.

1.

1.

1.
Factor of Safety Factor of Safety

(a) Wedge Failure Wet Slope (left) and Dry Slope (right) for 10 iteration

12 14

10 12

10
8
8
Frequency

Frequency

6
6
4
4
2 2

0 0
17

33

49

65

81

97

13

29

45

61

77

5
38

54

86

02

18

34

66

82

98
1.

2.
0.

0.

0.

0.

0.

0.

1.

1.

1.

1.

1.

1.

1.

1.

2.

2.

2.

2.

2.

2.
Factor of Safety Factor of Safety

(b) Wedge Failure Wet Slope (left) and Dry Slope (right) for 100 iteration

70 70

60 60

50 50

40 40
Frequency

Frequency

30 30

20 20

10 10

0 0
07

25

43

61

79

97

15

33

51

69

87

29

47

65

83

01

19

37

55

73

91

09
0.

0.

0.

0.

0.

0.

1.

1.

1.

1.

1.

1.

1.

1.

1.

2.

2.

2.

2.

2.

2.

3.

Factor of Safety Factor of Safety

(c) Wedge Failure Wet Slope (left) and Dry Slope (right) for 500 iteration

Figure 11. Histogram of FOS calculated in probabilistic analysis for combination of joint set 1
and 2 at S2.

464 ICCBT 2008 - E- (37) pp449-468

 M. S. Mat Radhi et. al.

140 120

120 100

100
80
80

Frequency
Frequency

60
60
40
40

20 20

0 0

31

49

67

85

03

21

39

57

75

93

11
06

26

46

66

86

06

26

46

66

86

06

1.

1.

1.

1.

2.

2.

2.

2.

2.

2.

3.
0.

0.

0.

0.

0.

1.

1.

1.

1.

1.

2.
Factor of Safety Factor of Safety

(d) Wedge Failure Wet Slope (left) and Dry Slope (right) for 1000 iteration

700 700

600 600

500 500

400
Frequency

400
Frequency

300 300
200
200
100
100
0
0
1

19

39

59

79

99

19

39

59

79

99
.0

3
2

2
0.

0.

0.

0.

0.

1.

1.

1.

1.

1.
-0

1.

1.

1.

1.

2.

2.

2.

2.

3.
Factor of Safety Factor of Safety

(e) Wedge Failure Wet Slope (left) and Dry Slope (right) for 5000 iteration
1400 1400

1200 1200

1000 1000

800 800
Frequency

Frequency

600 600

400 400

200 200

0 0
0.04 0.24 0.44 0.64 0.84 1.04 1.24 1.44 1.64 1.84 2.04 1.24 1.44 1.64 1.84 2.04 2.24 2.44 2.64 2.84 3.04 3.24
Factor of Safety Factor of Safety

(f) Wedge Failure Wet Slope (left) and Dry Slope (right) for 10000 iteration

Figure 11: Histogram of FOS calculated in probabilistic analysis for combination of joint set 1
and 2 at S2 (continued).

The result could be interpreted that the increase in the number of iteration in Monte Carlo
simulation, the result becomes even details and thus increase the accuracy of calculation of
factor of safety of the rock slope. Probability of failure for dry slope at slope S2 is zero which
means the slope is stable and when the slope in wet condition, the probability of failure is in
the range of 0.752 to 0.802.

ICCBT 2008 - E- (37) pp449-468 465

Probabilistic Approach of Rock Slope Stability Analysis Using Monte Carlo Simulation

5. CONCLUSIONS

For the planar failure shown in Table 8 for 10000 number of iteration, deterministic
analysis of J1 at S2 gives 0.879 and 0.953 for wet and dry slope cases, while in probabilistic
analysis it gives 76.3% and 51.6% respectively. For J1 at S4, deterministic analysis
shows the lowest values of FOS; 0.899 and 0.991. But probabilistic analysis gives
the result of 38% and 17.8% for wet and dry slope cases. For planar failure of J1 at S6 gives
the high values of probability failure which is 62.9% and 49% and deterministic analysis
results are 0.767 and 0.891 respectively. These indicate that the slope has high possibility
of planar failure at J1 for S2 and S6, compare to J1 of S4. The Slope of S2, S4, and S6 also
show that probability of failure is high even the slopes are in dry condition.

For wedge analysis shown in Table 9 for 10000 number of iteration, high probability of
failure are determined at J1J2 and JIJ3 of S2, with 75.2 % and 57.9% respectively,
J3J4 of S3 with 48.2%, and J1J3 of S4 with 43%. Even deterministic values show
the FOS is more and equal to 1.00, it still has a higher probability to fail in these
circumstances. For example in slope S2 for wedge failure in Table 9, the FOS values is 1.434
but the probabilistic analysis result show otherwise where its probability of failure is 0.77 for
wet slope. This means that although factor of safety calculation said the slope is stable but the
probabilistic analysis run using Monte Carlo has detailed out the calculation and indicates the
slope is not stable.

Others intersection shows the lower results of probabilistic analysis with less than 40% for
each cases. The probabilistic analysis for wedge failure show that in dry condition, the value
of Pf is equal to 0, which mean that the slope is stable.

Table 8. Comparison of results for the deterministic and probabilistic analysis

(iteration of 10000) for planar failure
Deterministic Probabilistic
Joint Set Potential
Slope Analysis (FOS) Analysis (Pf)
I.D Instability
Wet Dry Wet Dry
J1 No Stable Stable 0 0
J2 No Stable Stable 0 0
S1
J3 Planar Stable Stable 0 0
J4 No Stable Stable 0 0
J1 Planar 0.879 0.953 0.763 0.516
S2 J2 No Stable Stable 0 0
J3 No Stable Stable 0 0
J4 No Stable Stable 0 0

J1 No Stable Stable 0 0

466 ICCBT 2008 - E- (37) pp449-468

 M. S. Mat Radhi et. al.

Table 8 continue
S3 J2 No Stable Stable 0 0
J3 Planar Stable Stable 0 0
J4 No Stable Stable 0 0

J1 Planar 0.899 0.991 0.38 0.178

S4 J2 No Stable Stable 0 0
J3 No Stable Stable 0 0
J4 No Stable Stable 0 0

J1 Planar Stable Stable 0 0

S5 J2 No Stable Stable 0 0
J3 No Stable Stable 0 0
J4 No Stable Stable 0 0

J1 Planar 0.767 0.891 0.629 0.49

Stable 0
S6 J2 No Stable 0
J3 No Stable Stable 0 0

Table 9. Results of wedge failure for the deterministic analysis and the
probabilistic analysis (iteration of 10000)
Deterministic Probabilistic
Set Set Potential
Slope No. I No. 2 Instability Analysis (FOS) Analysis (Pf)
Wet Dry Wet Dry
S1 J2 J3 No Stable Stable 0 0
J1 J2 Wedge 1.296 Stable 0.752 0
S2 J1 J3 Wedge 1.411 Stable 0.579 0
J1 J4 Wedge Stable Stable 0.203 0
J3 J4 Wedge 0.999 Stable 0.482 0
S3
J3 J1 Wedge 0.931 Stable 0.203 0
S4 J1 J3 Wedge 1.395 Stable 0.43 0
J3 J2 Wedge 1.434 Stable 0.77 0
S5
J3 J4 Wedge 0.831 1.572 0.386 0
S6 J1 J3 Wedge Stable Stable 0.32 0

ICCBT 2008 - E- (37) pp449-468 467

Probabilistic Approach of Rock Slope Stability Analysis Using Monte Carlo Simulation

Acknowledgements

The authors would like to thanks Universiti Putra Malaysia (UPM) for the funding of this
project and Universiti Tenaga Nasional (UNITEN) for their constant support and
encouragement.

REFERENCES

[1]. Baecher, G.B. and Einstein H.H., 1978, Slope Stability models in pit optimisation, Proc. 16
Apcom Symp., Tucson, AZ, USA, Golden Press, 16: 501-512
[2]. El-Ramly, H.H., Morgenstern N.R. and Cruden, D.M., 2002, Probabilistic slope stability analysis
for practice, Can. Geotech. J., 39: 665-685
[3]. Goodman R.E. and Bray J.W., 1976, Toppling of Rock Slopes, In Proc. Specialty Conference on
Rock Engineering for Foundation and Slopes, Boulder, Colo., American Society of Civil
Engineers, New York, Vol. 2, 201-234
[4]. Hoek, E. and Bray, J.W., 1981, Rock slope engineering. The Institution of Mining and
Metallurgy, London
[5]. Hoerger S. F., and Young, D. S., 1987, Predicting local rock mass behavior using geostatistics,
in: Proc. of 28th Symp. Rock Mech., Rotterdam, Balkema, 99-106
[6]. Kulatilke P.H.S.W., 1988, State-of-the-art in stochastic joint geometry modeling, Proc. 29th US
Symp. on Rock Mech., University of Minnesota, Minneapolis, A. A. Balkema, Rotterdam,
Netherlands, 29: 155-169
[7]. Leventhal A.R., Barker, C. S., and Ambrosis, L. P., 1992, Malanjk-hand copper project-overview
of the geotechnical investigation for optimum mining exploration, in: Regional Symp. On Rock
Slope, India, 69-78
[8]. Madun. A., 2002, Stability Analysis of Weathered Rock Cut Slope using Geological Mapping
and Laboratory Tests., Master thesis, Universiti Putra Malaysia
[9]. Marek J. and Savely J.P., 1978, Probabilistic analysis of plane shear failure mode in: Proc. 19th
US Symp. On Rock Mech., Nevada, USA. A.A. Balkema, Rotterdam, Netherlands, 40-44
[10]. McMahon B.K., 1971, A statistical method for the design of rock slopes, in: Proc. Of 1st
Australia -New Zealand Conf. on Geomech., Melbourne, Australia, 314 321.
[11]. McMahon B.K., 1975, Probability of Failure and expect volume of failure in high rock slopes,
Proc. 2nd Australia New Zealand Conf. on Geomech., Brisbane, Australia, 308 314.
[12]. Omar H., 2002, Development of Risk Assessment And Expert Systems For Cut Slope, PhD
Thesis, Universiti Putra Malaysia
[13]. Piteu D.R. and Martin D.C., 1977, Slope stability analysis and design based on probability
techniques at Cassiar Mine., Can. Min. Metall. J. (March), 1 12
[14]. Young D.S., 1993, Probabilistic slope analysis for structural failure. Int. J. Rock. Mech. Min. Sci.
Geomech. Abstr. 30 (7), 1623-1629

468 ICCBT 2008 - E- (37) pp449-468