See

discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.net/publication/272355140

Evaluation of open pit mine slope stability

analysis

Article August 2011

CITATIONS READS

18 1,429

4 authors:

Dhananjai Verma Rahul Thareja

Geological Survey of India University of Nevada, Reno
13 PUBLICATIONS 93 CITATIONS 12 PUBLICATIONS 34 CITATIONS

SEE PROFILE SEE PROFILE

Ashutosh Kainthola T.N. Singh

Indian Institute of Technology Bombay Indian Institute of Technology Bombay
43 PUBLICATIONS 369 CITATIONS 262 PUBLICATIONS 2,415 CITATIONS

SEE PROFILE SEE PROFILE

All content following this page was uploaded by Dhananjai Verma on 18 February 2015.

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.
 International Journal of Earth Sciences and Engineering
590
ISSN 0974-5904, Vol. 04, No. 04, August 2011, pp. 590-600

Evaluation of Open Pit Mine Slope Stability Analysis

DHANANJAI VERMA1, RAHUL THAREJA2, ASHUTOSH KAINTHOLA1 and T. N. SINGH1
1
Dept of Earth Sciences, Indian Institute of Technology Bombay, Mumbai, India-400076
2
Dept of Mining Engineering, Institute of Technology - Banaras Hindu University, Varanasi,
India-221005
Email: ashuddn@live.com, geodhananjai@gmail.com, tnsingh@iitb.ac.in,
rahulthareja@hotmail.com

Abstract: The issues concerned with slope stability in the open cast mines have come to
forefront in the mining operations due to increasing pit depth. The cut slope stability has the
most prominent influence in the productivity and longevity of a mine, collapse of which can
lead enormous damages to man and machinery. It is always considered as economic burden
to mine production. A comprehensive study is necessitated to ensure stable slopes which
are aided by numerical, analytical, physical, kinematic and empirical analyses. In the
present study four cut slopes from a coal mine in Wardha Valley Coal field have been
analyzed using empirical and kinematic tools. The study has involved the classification and
prediction the probable failure mode of the slope mass using slope mass rating and
kinematic analysis. The analysis results have matched well with the field observations and
can help to protect the slope and ensure the safety for better productivity.
Keywords: Slope Stability, SMR, RQD, Kinematic Analysis, Wardha valley

Introduction: Singh, 1992). This scenario poses a big

question as to how to achieve an optimum
Open cast mines call for the excavation of
design a compromise between a slope that
the earth surface to reach the underlying
is flat enough to be safe and steep enough
minerals of economic utility. The excavation
to be economically acceptable. The
process requires cut slopes to be formed on
consequences of a slope failure could be
an earlier plain earth surface. Stability of the
quite serious in terms of safety and
cut slopes is crucial for the safe and
economics and are governed by the location
economical mining operations. The slope
and extent of failure. Hence, the design of
stability is governed by the local geological
the steepest slope with desired stability asks
and geo-technical characteristics of the
for a detailed and reliable geotechnical
slope forming mass and the prevailing
investigation. The factors, which mainly
ground water conditions (Singh et al. 1998;
influence the stability of a typical opencast
Singh et al. 1999). The design of the open
slope, are the shear strength parameters of
pit mine slopes is a deciding factor for
slope forming material, the presence and
efficient exploitation of underground
characteristics of structural discontinuities in
minerals as well as for the safety of the
the slope mass and the ground water
mine and the mineworkers which control the
conditions (Singh and Monjezi, 2000; Singh
economics of the operations. The ever
et al. 2008). There have been quite a
increasing pit depths and production
number of researchers who have proposed
requirements from opencast mines subject
the characterization of the rock mass
the design engineers and planners to work
distinguishing them on the basis of strength
under the constraints of two conflicting
but there always persists a certain degree of
requirements of stability and production.
uncertainty while acquiring the field data for
Economics could be improved by steepening
designing a slope leading to erroneous rock
the slope thereby reducing the amount of
mass characterisation.
waste excavation on the other side,
excessive steepening of slope could result in Rock Mass Classification Schemes:
failure leading to loss of life and damage to
Various researchers have proposed different
property (Singh et al. 1989; Singh and
type of rock mass classification systems,

#02040703 Copyright 2011 CAFET-INNOVA TECHNICAL SOCIETY. All rights reserved.

 DHANANJAI VERMA, RAHUL THAREJA, ASHUTOSH KAINTHOLA
and T. N. SINGH
which find numerous applications in various
aspects of rock mechanics. Bieniawski
(1974) introduced the rock mass rating
(RMR). The RMR-system incorporates six
parameters, whose values are added to
obtain a total RMR rating to characterise a
rock mass. After 1974, the classification has
undergone several changes and it is
important to state which version of the
system is used HoekBrown (Hoek and
Brown, 1988). The rock mass strength
(RMS) classification (Stille et al. 1982) is a
modification of the RMR-system. The sum of
the parameters and the rating reduction
with respect to joints set is the RMS-value
for the rock mass. The Rock Quality
Designation index (RQD) was developed by
Deere (Deere et al. 1967) to provide a
quantitative estimate of rock mass quality
from drill core logs. This is also estimated
through indirectly on the number of
fractures and amount of softening or
alteration in the rock mass as observed in
the rock cores from a drill hole. The
geological strength index (GSI) was
introduced as a complement to their
generalised rock failure criterion (Hoek et al.
1995) which are in turn, used when
estimating the parameters s, a and mb established by the formula:
in the HoekBrown criterion, using empirical
equations. The GSI-system was introduced
to overcome the deficiencies in RMR for very
poor quality rock masses. The original GSI-
table has been subject to several minor
revisions, as well as additions to classify,
particularly weak and soil-like rock masses
(Hoek et al. 2002). The aim of present study
is to assess and evaluate the condition of
slope of Wardha Valley Coalfield (WVC). The
mine is infested with problems related to
slope stability owing to the low strength
slope forming material, its heterogeneity,
anisotropy and the discontinuity guided
failures. The problem of stability is more
aggravated due to presence of Wardha
River/ Ground water and incessant burning
of the coal in some pits. The Slope stability
problem of the cut slopes in the area calls
for a detailed geotechnical investigation for
the scientific and systematic mitigation.
There are number of approaches to assess
the behaviour of slope using different
modelling methods like limit equilibrium,
International Journal of Earth Sciences and Engineering
ISSN 0974-5904, Vol. 04, No. 04, August 2011, pp. 590-600
591
analytical and kinematic tools, physical and
numerical models as well as intelligent
models. The economic and safe design can
be achieved by a systematic approach like
Slope Mass Rating (SMR) (Romana, 1985).
It is used to assess the health of the slope
and is one of the most accepted, versatile
and widely used tool. This tool provides
quick assessment about the behaviour of
slope at a given site. The aim of the present
paper is identifying potentially hazardous
rock cut slopes using the slope mass rating
(SMR) approach in open cast coal mine of
Wardha Valley Coal Field (WVC) Nagpur,
India.
Slope Mass Rating:
Slope Mass Rating is a modified RMR system
for slope, developed by Romana (1985).
SMR is a useful rating tool for evaluation of
slope instability risk based on slope face
relation with geological discontinuities.
SMR = RMR - (F1.F2.F3) + F4
The adjustment rating of joints is the
product of three factors:
F1 depends upon the parallelism between
joints and slope face strike. It ranges from
1.0 to 0.15. The values are empirically
F1 = (1 - Sin A)2
Where A =Angle between the strike slope
face and joints.
F2 refers to the joint dip angle in the planar
mode of failure. Its values range from 1.00
to 0.15. The empirically established formula
is F2 = tan2 Bj
Where Bj = joint dip angle. F3 indicates to
the relationship between slope face and joint
dip. In planar mode of failure, F3 refers to
the probability of joints daylighting on the
slope face. Condition is favourable when
slope face and joints are parallel and
unfavourable when slope dips 10 degree
more than joints. F4 - Adjustment factor for
method of excavation has been fixed
empirically and are follows Natural slope =
+15, Presplitting = +10, Smooth blasting =
+8, Normal blasting = 0, Deficient blasting
= -8 and Mechanical excavation = 0.
According to the SMR values, Romana
(1985) defined five stability classes. They
are described in Table 1.
 592 Evaluation of Open Pit Mine Slope Stability Analysis

Table 1: Stability Classes as per SMR Values (Romana, 1985)

Class V IV III II I
SMR
0-20 21-40 41-60 61-80 81-100
Values
Rock
mass Very bad Bad Normal Good Very good
description
Completely Completely
Stability Unstable Partial stable Stable
unstable stable
Big planar Planar along
Some
or soil like Planar or big Some joints and
Failures block No failure
or circular wedges Many wedge
failure
failure failure
Probability
0.9 0.6 0.4 0.2 0
of Failure
Study Area: locations in the study area to determine the
various geo-mechanical properties in
Wardha Valley Coalfield (WVC) is a NWSE
laboratory.
elongated structural basin with its coal
bearing seams spreading over an area of
800 sq km along a length of 116 km
situated towards the south of the city of
Nagpur in the central region of India (Figure
1).The slope forming materials in these
mines mainly consists of variable soil, shales
and sandstones as overburden followed by a
composite of coal seam of 1521 m
thickness. The Wardha River forms a major
drainage system of the area and flows from
NW to SE along the central part of WVC. The
study mainly focused on the Ghugus open
cast coal mine. The Ghugus open cast mine
lies exactly East of the Wardha River The
depth of open cast mine at present is around
95-100m. Some coal seams are submerged
in water throughout the year, particularly the
lower benches. WCL has taken on strip
mining method for Ghugus and the other
mines. At present, they are operating on the
11th cut of mine and going down further
Figure 1: Study Area and Sample Collecting
along the dip of the seam. Four locations
Location of different Coalmines (Jhanwar &.
have been selected for the present study for
Thote, 2011)
the assessment of the slope stability.
The aim of the study is to characterize the
Methodology: rock mass forming the slope. The rock
samples collected from the field include
A geological and geotechnical study was
different types of Sandstones, Coal, Shaley
record out to observe the geological data
Coal and Shale. Uniaxial Compressive
viz. discontinuities present in the rock mass,
Strength (UCS) of the samples was
bedding planes, slope geometry and the
determined by loading the NX sized core
hydro-geological conditions. Rock samples
samples using Universal Testing Machine
were collected from four different slope
(UTM) (ISRM, 1978, 1981).

International Journal of Earth Sciences and Engineering

ISSN 0974-5904, Vol. 04, No. 04, August 2011, pp. 590-600
 DHANANJAI VERMA, RAHUL THAREJA, ASHUTOSH KAINTHOLA
593
and T. N. SINGH

Table 2: Uniaxial Compressive Strength of Designation (RQD) was obtained from the
the Rock Samples volumetric joint count (JV) (Palmstrom,
1982).
Sl. Rock UCS
GSI Four locations were selected for recording of
No. Type (MPa)
1 Sandstone 20-Oct 35-50 field data which is described below:

2 Shale 15-Jun 25-35 Location 1:

Shaley Location 1 has beds of Shaley coal and shale,
3 13-Aug 35-40
Coal which have three set of joints named as J1, J2
4 Coal 9.5-15 30-45 and J3 (Figure 2). Bedding plane and the slope
are dipping in the same direction i.e. west,
GSI values were also tabulated from the but inclination of slope is considerably more.
field with help of GSI chart given by Hoek The discontinuity data has been tabulated
and Brown (1998) and adjusted from Hoek with their adjustment factors for different
1994). The resultant value of UCS and GSI joint conditions in Table 3(a,b).
are given in Table 2. The Rock Quality

Figure 2: Field View of Location 1 with Marked Joint Set.

Table 3a: Orientation of Discontinuities and Slopes (Location 1)
Joint Strike Dip angle Dip direction
J1 N 330 80 ENE
J2 N 175 55 W
J3 N 250 55 SE
Slope N 180 55 W
Bedding plane N 20 8 W
Table 3b: Adjustment Factor for different Discontinuities (Location 1)
Conditions F1 F2 F3 F1* F2* F3
J1 and slope 0.15 1.0 50 7.5
J2 and slope 1.0 1.0 25 25
J3 and slope 0.65 1.0 25 16.25
*Normal Blasting and Mechanical Excavation is the Case so F4 = 0.

International Journal of Earth Sciences and Engineering

ISSN 0974-5904, Vol. 04, No. 04, August 2011, pp. 590-600
 594 Evaluation of Open Pit Mine Slope Stability Analysis

Location 2: Location 1. The rock mass is highly

weathered. The discontinuity data has been
Location 2 has layers of shale and
tabulated with their adjustment factors for
Sandstone, with two prominent joint set
different joint conditions in Table 4(a, b).
marked as J1 and J2 (Figure 3). Bedding plane
and the slope orientation are similar to
Table 4a: Orientation of Discontinuities and Slopes (Location 2)
Joint Strike Dip angle Dip direction
J1 N 180 30 W
J2 N 185 60 W
Slope N 180 45 W
Bedding plane N 20 8 W
Table 4b: Adjustment Factor for different Discontinuities (Location 2)
Conditions F1 F2 F3 F1* F2* F3
J1 and slope 1.0 0.57 25 14.25
J2 and slope 1.0 1.0 60 60.0
*Normal Blasting and Mechanical Excavation is the Case so F4 = 0.

Figure 3: Field View of Location 2 with Marked Joint Set and Highly Weathered Rock Mass.
Location 3: Location 1 and 2 and J2 and J3 are forming a
wedge. The discontinuity data has been
The slope in location 3 is composed of shale
tabulated with their adjustment factors for
and Sandstone, which have three sets of
different joint conditions in Table 5(a, b).
joints marked as J1, J2 and J3 (Figure 4). This
slope is steeply inclined as compared to

International Journal of Earth Sciences and Engineering

ISSN 0974-5904, Vol. 04, No. 04, August 2011, pp. 590-600
 DHANANJAI VERMA, RAHUL THAREJA, ASHUTOSH KAINTHOLA
595
and T. N. SINGH

Figure 4: Field View of Location 3 with Broken Rock Mass.

Table 5a: Orientation of Discontinuities and Slopes (Location 3)
Joint Strike Dip angle Dip direction
J1 N 10 81 W
J2 N 100 60 SSW
J3 N 50 70 NW
Slope N 180 60 W
Bedding plane N 20 6 W
Table 5b: Adjustment Factor for different Discontinuities (Location 3)
Conditions F1 F2 F3 F1* F2* F3
J1 and slope 0.15 1.0 50 7.5
J2 and slope 0.70 1.0 6 4.2
J3 and slope 0.85 1.0 25 21.25
*Normal Blasting and Mechanical Excavation is the Case so F4 = 0.
Location 4: location 3. The strata are highly weathered
which indicates continuous spalling due to
Shaley coal, Shale and Sandstone form the
the presence of vertical joints which have
slope in this location which is traversed by
less spacing as compared to the inclined
two sets of joint marked as J1, J2 and J3
joints. The discontinuity data has been
(Figure 5). Bedding plane and the slope are
tabulated with their adjustment factors for
dipping in the same direction, but the slope in
different joint conditions in Table 6(a, b).
this location is steeper as compared to

International Journal of Earth Sciences and Engineering

ISSN 0974-5904, Vol. 04, No. 04, August 2011, pp. 590-600
 596 Evaluation of Open Pit Mine Slope Stability Analysis

Figure 5: Field View of Location 4 with Vertical Joints.

Table 6a: Orientation of Discontinuities and Slopes (Location 4)
Joint Strike Dip angle Dip direction
J1 N 45 75 SE
J2 N 10 90 -
Slope N 180 70 W
Bedding plane N 20 7 W
Table 6b: Adjustment Factor for different Discontinuities (Location 3)
Conditions F1 F2 F3 F1* F2* F3
J1 and slope 0.75 1.0 25 18.75
J2 and slope 0.55 1.0 50 27.5
*Normal Blasting and Mechanical Excavation is the Case so F4 = 0.
Analysis of Slope: the results well with the field condition. In
the present study, all the locations have
Rock mass characterization is another tool
different joint density with the bedding
to classify the slope particularly in mines.
planes having a dip slope. RMR weightage
SMR is the most common classification
and subsequently its SMR value is given in
scheme, which is frequently used by
Table 7. SMR ratings for Locations 1 and 3
different researchers for the stability
fall under the SMR class III, which is
analyses of cut slopes in various mines
described as 'normal' rock mass and is
(Jhanwar et al. 2010; Pradhan et al. 2011;
partially stable with a 0.4, probability of
Singh et al. 2011). Slope Mass Rating is
failure. Figures 2 & 4 clearly indicate that
main tool to understand the rock mass
the possible failure mode is planer and
behaviour of slopes in surface mines, which
wedge type. Locations 2 and 4 are falling
always poses serious problems due to
under the SMR class IV, which is considered
increase in depth and slope angle. Due to
to have 'bad' rock. The stability of this slope
the presence of various geological
face is observed as unstable and chances of
complexities, the problem of stability is
failure are planer and toppling with a 0.6,
more aggravated. Singh et al (2011) have
probability of failure.
corroborated the results of numerical
simulations with the SMR value and matched

International Journal of Earth Sciences and Engineering

ISSN 0974-5904, Vol. 04, No. 04, August 2011, pp. 590-600
 DHANANJAI VERMA, RAHUL THAREJA, ASHUTOSH KAINTHOLA
597
and T. N. SINGH

Table 7: RMR, RQD and SMR Values of different Locations

Parameters Location 1 Location 2 Location 3 Location 4
UCS in MPa 10-15 13-16 14-19 12-16
(Rating) 2 2 2 2
RQD from JV 30-45 25-40 40-55 30-50
(Rating) 8 8 13 8
Spacing of 40-90 40-100 20-40 15-40
discontinuities
in cm
(Rating) 15 15 10 10
Conditions of Rough surfaces Slightly rough Rough surface Slightly rough
discontinuities slightly surface highly slightly surface highly
weathered weathered weathered weathered
(Rating) 25 20 25 20
Ground Water Dry Dry Dry Damp
condition
(Rating) 15 15 15 10
RMR basic 65 60 65 50
F1 0.60 1.0 0.57 0.65
F2 1.0 0.78 1.0 1.0
F3 33.33 42.5 27.0 37.5
F4 0 0 0 0
F1* F2* F3 19.99 33.15 15.39 24.37
SMR Value 45.01 26.85 49.61 25.63
SMR Class III IV III IV
Rock Mass
Normal Bad Normal Bad
Description
Partially
Stability Partially stable Unstable Unstable
stable
Planar along
Planar along Planar or big Planar or big
some joint
Failure some joint and wedges wedges
and many
many wedges
wedges
Probability of
0.4 0.6 0.4 0.6
Failure

Kinematic Analysis of Slopes: are parallel to the slope and forms a critical
failure plane. The results are supported by
Kinematic slope stability analysis was
the field observation of that particular
carried out using the Stereonet plots. It is
location (Figure 2). At location 2, there are
an easy tool to analyse the planar and
two joint set, which is running parallel to the
wedge failures in the rock slopes. The
slope face. The J2 has a steeper dip as
structural data is geometrically plotted in an
compared to J1 which results in day lighting
equal area net to establish the mode and
on the slope face (Figure 3). There is chance
probability of failure. At location 1,
of planer failure due to the presence of J2
intersected by three joint set present, shows
(Figure 6 b).
the possibility of wedge failures as indicated
by the plot (Figure 6 a). Joint set, J3, which

International Journal of Earth Sciences and Engineering

ISSN 0974-5904, Vol. 04, No. 04, August 2011, pp. 590-600
 598 Evaluation of Open Pit Mine Slope Stability Analysis

Figure 6: Equal Area Stereonet Plot of all Location A) Location 1, B) Location 2.

At location 3, there are three set of joint
present, which are forming a wedge
between the slope face and joint sets J2 & J3
(Figure 7a) . As J1 is steeply inclined to the
slope, there is a likelihood of a toppling
failure (Figure 4). At location 4, there are
two set of joints present. J1 is steeply
inclined with the slope face (Figure 5) and
the probable failure mode would be toppling
as similar to location 3, whereas J2 is
represented as vertical joint (Figure 7b).
The slope face in Location 4 is slightly
steeper than the all above locations. Here,
the joint have almost a similar strike, with
variation in dip amount.

Figure 7: Equal Area Stereonet Plot of all Location A) Location 3, B) Location 4.

Conclusion: analysis. The maximum three joint sets
were observed at a particular location. The
In the present study four vulnerable
slopes in the studied locations have same
locations were examined using a slope mass
strike direction with slight variation in their
rating classification scheme which were
inclination towards west. The bedding has a
further investigated through kinematic

International Journal of Earth Sciences and Engineering

ISSN 0974-5904, Vol. 04, No. 04, August 2011, pp. 590-600
 DHANANJAI VERMA, RAHUL THAREJA, ASHUTOSH KAINTHOLA
and T. N. SINGH
dip slope towards west gently inclined at an
angle between 6 to 8. The SMR study of
different locations indicates that the rock
mass are partially stable to unstable with
probability of failure 0.4 to 0.6 (SMR class
III to IV), which is further confirmed by
kinematic analysis. The failure is of wedge,
toppling and planer mode which is matching
with field investigations and observations.
For long term stability and its sustainability,
the slope requires immediate attention to
prevent and mitigate chances of failure in
order to enhance the productivity of the
mine. The similar approach should be
adapted to other virgin areas prior to the
beginning of the excavation to understand
the mode and mechanism of probable
failures.
Acknowledgment:
The authors would like to thank the
management of WCL, India, for their
cooperation and support during the field
work. The views expressed in the article are
those of the author and are not necessarily
any organization or institution.
References:
[1] Bieniawski, Z.T. (1974) Geomechanics
classification of rock masses and its
application in failure tunnelling. In: Proc.
of the 3rd Int. Congress on Rock Mech.
Denver, pp. 2732.
[2] Bieniawski, Z.T. (1989) Engineering Rock
Mass Classification: A Manual. Wiley,
New York, pp. 205219.
[3] Deere, D.U., Hendron, A.J., Patton, F.D.
and Cording, E.J. (1967) Design of
surface and near surface construction in
rock. In Failure and breakage of rock,
proc. 8th U.S. Symp. Rock Mech., (ed. C.
Fairhurst), pp. 237-302.
[4] Singh, A. and Connolly, M. (2003)
VRFSR - An Empirical Method for
Determining Volcanic Rock Excavation
Safety on Construction Sites, Jr. of the
Inst. of Eng. (India), V. 84 (3), pp. 176-
191.
[5] Hoek, E. and Brown, E.T. (1998)
Practical estimates of rock mass
strength, Int. Jr. of Rock Mech. & Min
Sci., V.34, pp. 11651186.
International Journal of Earth Sciences and Engineering
ISSN 0974-5904, Vol. 04, No. 04, August 2011, pp. 590-600
599
[6] Hoek, E. and Brown, E.T. (1988) The
HoekBrown failure criterion a 1988
update. In: Proc. of 15th Canadian. Rock
Mech. Sym., University of Toronto, pp.
3138.
[7] Hoek, E., Carranza-Torres, C. and
Corkum, B. (2002) HoekBrown failure
criterion 2002 ed. In: Proc. of the 5th
North Am. Rock Mech. Symp., 17th
Tunnelling Association of Canada Conf.:
NARMS-TAC, University of Toronto, pp.
267271.
[8] Hoek, E., Kaiser, P.K. and Bawden, W.F.
(1995) Support of underground
excavations in hard rock. A.A. Balkema,
Rotterdam Brookfield.
[9] Hoek, E. (1994) Strength of rock and
rock masses. ISRM News Jr., V. 2, pp.
416.
[10] ISRM (1978) Suggested method for
determining sound velocity, Int. Jr. of
Rock Mech.& Min Sci., Geomech
Abstract, V.15, pp. A100.
[11] ISRM (1981) Commission on
classification of rocks and rock masses.
Int. Jr. Rock Mech. &Min., Abstract,
V.18, pp. 85110.
[12] Jhanwar, J.C. and Barsagade, D.S.
(2010) Design of ultimate pit slopes for
open cast Limestone mines working
under the construction of surface
structure- A case study, Min. Eng. Jr.,
V. 11, pp. 19-27
[13] Jhanwar, J. C. and Thote, N. R. (2011)
Slope Failures in the Opencast Coal
Mines of Wardha Valley Coalfield in
Central India: A Study, Rock Mech. &
Rock Eng., DOI 10.1007/s00603-011-
0139-4
[14] Palmstrom, A. (1982) The volumetric
joint count A useful and simple
measure of the degree of rock mass
jointing. In Proc. 4th Conf. Int. Assoc.
Eng. Geol., V. 5, pp. 221-228.
[15] Pradhan, S.P. Vishal, V., Singh, T.N. (
2011) Slope mass rating for evaluation
of health of slope in an open cast mine
in Jharia coalfield, India, Min. Eng. Jr.,
V. 12 (10), 36-40
[16] Romana, M. (1985) New adjustment
ratings for application of Bieniawaski
classification to slopes, Int. Symp. on
 600 Evaluation of Open Pit Mine Slope Stability Analysis

the role of Rock Mech., ISRM. Sandstone Quarry of Mizoram, Inst. of

Zacatecas, pp. 4953. Eng. (Mining), pp. 16-19.
[17] Singh, P.K., Singh, T.N. and Singh, D. [21] Singh, T.N. and Monjezi, M. (2000)
P. (1998) A Study of the Effect of Fault Slope Stability Study in Jointed
Plane on Slope Stability of Opencast Rockmass - A Numerical Approach, Min.
Mine by Equivalent Material-Modelling, Eng. Jr., V.1(10), pp. 12-13.
MINETECH, pp. 37-44. [22] Singh, T.N., Gulati, A., Dontha, L. and
[18] Singh, T.N., Ulabhaje A. and Singh, D. Bhardwaj, V. (2008) Evaluating cut
P. (1989) Planning of Slope Stability in slope failure by Numerical Analysis - A
an Opencast Mine- A Model Approach, Case Study, Natural Hazards, V.47, pp.
National Seminar on Surface Mining, 263-279.
Dhanbad edited by the Ind. Min. and [23] Singh, T. N., S. P. Pradhan and V.
Eng. Jr., pp. 5.2.1-5.2.10. Vishal, 2011. Stability of slopes in a
[19] Singh, T.N. and Singh, D. P. (1992) fire-prone mine in Jharia Coalfield,
Slope Stability Study in an Opencast India, Arab Jr. Geosci. DOI
Mine Over Previously Worked Seam, 10.1007/s12517-011-0341-4
Int. Symp. Rock Slope, New Delhi, pp. [24] Stille, H., Groth, T. and Fredriksson, A.
467-477. (1982) FEM-analysis of rock mechanical
[20] Singh, T.N., Kumar, S. and Singh, D. P. problems with JOBFEM, Stiftelsen
(1999) Analysis of Toppling failure in Bergteknisk Forskning BeFo,
Stockholm, Report no. 307, 1/82.

International Journal of Earth Sciences and Engineering

ISSN 0974-5904, Vol. 04, No. 04, August 2011, pp. 590-600

View publication stats