See

discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.net/publication/237378922

Rock slope stability and distributed joint

systems

Article in Canadian Geotechnical Journal · January 2011

DOI: 10.1139/t92-006

CITATIONS READS

11 227

2 authors, including:

Bruce J Carter
Cornell University
35 PUBLICATIONS 748 CITATIONS

SEE PROFILE

All content following this page was uploaded by Bruce J Carter on 05 December 2015.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

 Rock slope stability and distributed joint systems
1

BRUCEJ. CARTER
AND EMERY
Z. LAJTAI
Departments of Civil and Geological Engineering, The University of Manitoba, Winnipeg, Man.,
Canada R3 T 2N2
Received February 5, 1991
Accepted September 30, 1991

A deterministic (GEOSLIDE) and a probabilistic (PROSLIDE) microcomputer code are introduced to aid in performing
rock wedge analyses based on the limit equilibrium method. The deterministic code evaluates the stability of a single
rock wedge formed by discontinuities in rock through three-dimensional vector algebra. GEOSLIDE undertakes a full
Can. Geotech. J. Downloaded from www.nrcresearchpress.com by Guangzhou Jinan University on 06/03/13

kinematic analysis (daylighting and obstruction), analyzes both wedge and plane sliding, and provides for anchor designs
and sensitivity analyses (cohesion, friction, and water forces). Through multiple stability analyses, PROSLIDE evaluates
the probability of failure for a rock slope by examining the distribution of the factors of safety from all the potential
sliding wedges formed by the discontinuities of the rock mass. The probability of failure is expressed as the ratio of
kinematically free wedges that have a factor of safety less than unity to the total number of wedges. PROSLIDE can
form and analyze as many as 2000 different pairs of discontinuities in less than 30 min using a 25 MHz 486 IBM-
compatible computer. In a worked example, the probability of failure for a fixed slope strike and loading condition
is shown to vary with the slope angle, following the characteristic 'S' shape of a cumulative distribution function. The
effect of an anchor force is to spread the distribution over a wider range of the factor of safety (SF), pushing many
wedges into a potential upslide situation and splitting the distribution about the failure zone of the stability diagram
(-1 < SF < 1).
Key words: rock slope, rock wedge, stability analysis, factor of safety, probability of failure, Monte Carlo simulation.

Un code dkterministique (GEOSLIDE) et un code probabilistique (PROSLIDE) pour les micro-ordinateurs sont introduits
pour aider rCaliser des analyses de coins de roc basCes sur 1'Cquilibre limite. Le code dkterministique Cvalue la stabilitk
d'un simple coin de roc, form6 par des discontinuitCs dans la roche, au moyen d'algkbre vectorielle tridimensionnelle.
GEOSLIDE prockde 2 une analyse cinkmatique complkte (espace libre et obstruction), analyse le glissement du coin et
For personal use only.

du plan et fournit la possibilitC de calculer des ancrages et de faire des analyses de sensibiliti (cohision, friction et
forces de pression d'eau). Au moyen d'analyses multiples de stabilitC, PROSLIDE Cvalue la probabilitk de rupture d'un
talus rocheux en examinant la distribution des coefficients de sCcuritC de tous les coins formCs par des discontinuitCs du
massif rocheux et pouvant potentiellement glisser. La probabilitk de rupture est exprimCe par le rapport des coins cinCmati-
quement libres qui ont un coefficient de sCcuritC infkrieur 2 I'unitC, sur le nombre total de coins. PROSLIDE peut former
et analyser jusqu'a 2000 paires differentes de discontinuitCs en moins de 30 min en utilisant un micro-ordinateur compatible
a I'IBM 486 de 25 MHz. Dans un exemple de calcul, l'on montre que la probabilitC de rupture pour une direction
de pente et une condition de chargement donnCes varie avec l'angle de la pente, se conformant a la forme en
S caractkristique d'une fonction de distribution cumulative. L'effet de la force d'un ancrage est de rCpartir la distribu-
tion sur une plage plus large du coefficient de sCcuritC (SF), repoussant plusieurs coins dans une situation potentielle
vers le haut du talus et coupant la distribution du diagramme de stabilitC autour de la zone de rupture (- 1 < SF > 1).
Mots clPs : talus rocheux, coin de roc, analyse de stabilitC, coefficient de stabilitC, probabilitk de rupture, simulation
de Monte Carlo.
[Traduit par la redaction]

Can. Geotech. J. 29, 53-60 (1992)

Introduction approach to slope design is appropriate ( ~ o a t e s1977;

One of the most difficult jobs in rock slope engineering
is selecting design data for a deterministic stability analysis
from a site investigation report prepared by an engineering
or structural geologist. The availability of a contoured
stereonet plot of joints displaying hundreds of careful field
measurements is not necessarily comforting, since the con-
ventional design routine for wedge failure (Hoek and Bray
1977) requires only two planes of weakness. The median
orientations of planes form the representative wedge, but
perhaps the design should be for the worst condition. Alter-
natively, why not analyze all the possible wedges that could
be formed by all possible combinations of the discontinuities
in the rock mass?
The latter technique falls into the general category of
probabilistic design. Since the geological domain from which
the design data must be selected is probabilistic and the geo-
logical data consequently widely distributed, a probabilistic
Printcd in Canada / Imprime au Canada
Einstein and Baecher 1983). Probabilistic techniques require
statistical assessments of multiple analyses. Such analyses
can now be conducted relatively quickly using microcom-
puters. The purpose of this paper is (i) to introduce a
microcomputer tool that performs multiple analyses and
(ii) to show how this tool can solve problems associated with
the design of rock slopes.
Deterministic analyses of slope stability
Rock slope failure may occur in a variety of ways, involv-
ing rigid body movement by translational sliding or rotation
of single or multiple rock slices or wedges (Varnes 1978;
Martin and Kaiser 1984) or through toppling (Goodman and
Bray 1976; Aydan et al. 1989; Scavia et al. 1990). This paper
is concerned with only one type of movement, translational
wedge or planar sliding (Hoek and Bray 1977).
 54 CAN. GEOTECH. J.
The general deterministic method of limit equilibrium
analysis for wedge or planar stability dates back to the 1970s
(Jaeger 1971; Kutter 1974), and recent techniques are based
predominantly on the work of Hoek and Bray (1977) and
Goodman (1976). A typical slope-stability analysis consists
of collecting structural data, selecting the representative
wedge, and a kinematic analysis of this wedge for daylighting
and obstruction. The loads are then introduced, i.e., gravity,
water forces, earthquake loading, surcharge, and other
external forces, and the factor of safety for the most likely
or critical sliding mode, either planar or wedge slide along
dip vectors or along the line of intersection for wedge slide,
Can. Geotech. J. Downloaded from www.nrcresearchpress.com by Guangzhou Jinan University on 06/03/13
is computed by limit equilibrium methods. Sensitivity anal-
yses evaluating the influence of such parameters as cohesion,
friction, and water condition may lead to redesign by
anchoring or by changing the geometry or loading condition.
The final result of the deterministic analysis is a single
factor of safety, the ratio of the available resistance and the
driving force (the component of the total force that points
in the sliding direction).
Statistical analyses of slope stability
In rock mechanics, practically all the parameters are
statistical; the joint set characteristics (Call et al. 1976; Glynn
and Einstein 1979), the rock strength properties (Chowdhury
1986), and the loading conditions (Glass et al. 1978; Tao
and Hong 1987). Since the introduction of probabilistic tech-
niques for rock slope stability (McMahon 1971), site-specific
For personal use only.
applications have been published (Piteau and Martin 1977;
Savely 1985).
In any analysis of rock stability, the first step is always
the collection of field data on joint orientation. The rock
mass is usually divided into structural domains and within
these the discontinuities are separated into sets, with several
sets forming a system. The statistical distributions of the
orientations and possibly the strength-related structural data
can then be established for each set (Coates 1977; Herget
1978; Savely 1985). The interpretation of the field data is
not necessarily a simple process. For instance, joint orien-
tation is subject to error and bias (Barton 1978; Herget 1978;
Baecher and Einstein 1981). However, the bias in orienta-
tion and in other parameters, such as trace length, persis-
tence, and spacing (Baecher and Lanney 1978), can be
treated quantitatively to correct for errors in measuring
(Terzaghi 1965; Wathugala et al. 1990).
Once the correct parameter distributions are known,
stability analyses may proceed in several ways: (i) conven-
tional limit equilibrium analysis using a subjectively selected
critical wedge (Hoek and Bray 1977); (ii) entirely probabi-
listic techniques, either Monte Carlo simulations (Einstein
et al. 1983; Scavia et al. 1990) or reliability index methods
(Nguyen 1985; Ramachandran and Hosking 1985; Barbosa
et al. 1989); or (iii) a combination of deterministic and prob-
abilistic techniques (Piteau et al. 1985; Martin et al. 1986).
Neither the deterministic nor the probabilistic methods are
entirely complete by themselves, as the concepts of cost and
risk assessment (Coates 1977; Call 1985; Kirsten and Moss
1985; Einstein 1988) also merit consideration.
Probabilistic analyses can take many forms. A truly prob-
abilistic method should accept statistical distributions (cor-
rected for bias) for every parameter that is subject to spatial
variability. Monte Carlo simulations can be performed using
random values of the parameter distributions (Coates 1977).
VOL. 29, 1992
If any of the parameters are correlated, however, the Monte
Carlo solution may give incorrect'resultS, in which case the
proper solution lies in the reliability index or first-order
second moment (level 11) method (Glynn and Ghosh 1982;
Nguyen 1985). An additional advantage of this method over
Monte Carlo simulations is a reduction in computer time
(Barbosa et al. 1989). The Monte Carlo simulation method,
however, is very easily adapted to existing limit equilibrium
computer codes.
All Monte Carlo simulations produce not a single factor
of safety, but a distribution of values. The probability of
failure may then be defined by dividing the number of values
less than one by the total number (Savely 1985; Dershowitz
and Einstein 1984). Alternatively, the probability of failure
can be found from the fitted normal probability density dis-
tribution diagram by calculating the area under the curve
for factors of safety less than unity (Savely 1985).
Software description
The stability analysis codes described in this paper have
been developed to enable deterministic wedge or plane slid-
ing using GEOSLIDE and a probabilistic analysis with
PROSLIDE. GEOSLIDE is an interactive, computer implemen-
tation of the conventional, vector-based, wedge analysis
method, and it includes numerous graphical displays of the
stereonet, wedge, and force vectors. It has been designed
to analyze a single wedge or plane geometry. PROSLIDE is
a multiple-analysis version of GEOSLIDE and will run unat-
tended until either a prescribed number or all the possible
combinations of discontinuities have been examined. Both
codes were written in True BASIC and will run on any type
of IBM PC or compatible equipped with a graphics card
and monitor. The codes were tested with monochrome and
color monitors, on PC, XT, AT-286, AT-386, AT-486, and
PS/2 computers.
For a complete slope-stability analysis using the codes
developed by the authors, three different programs may be
required: GEOSLIDE, the solution for the sliding wedge or
plane; PROSLIDE, the discontinuity analysis code (Monte
Carlo simulation); and some type of a statistics-graphics
package. Another routine, DISIT,also written by the
authors, can be used to turn the single-variable True BASIC
record files of PROSLIDE into histograms and cumulative
distributions or to fit Gaussian and Weibull distributions
to the factors of safety. DISIT can only do graphics screen
dumps. For professional-quality figures, a commercial soft-
ware that does x-y plots and can recover the ASCII (text)
files of PROSLIDE would be a better choice.
There have been a number of other computer codes devel-
oped to analyze rock slope stability (ISRM 1988; Gibbs
1989), some of which include probabilistic analyses. Other
programs that have been referenced in papers include
FRACWEDG (Kendorski and Bindokas 1987) and an unnamed
Fortran code written for the PC (Ghosh and Haupt 1989).
Most of the codes have quite similar descriptions, although
actual similarities and differences can only be found by using
all of the codes. A comparison of these codes with each other
and GEOSLIDE-PROSLIDE is beyond the scope of this paper,
however.
GEOSLIDE and PROSLIDE were originally developed as
learning tools for the undergraduate rock mechanics stu-
dents. This is the main reason for the two-part program,
as the actual mechanics of wedge and planar sliding are the
 CARTER AND LAJTAI

main focus, whereas statistics are not taught in detail.

Because the programs are learning tools, there are a great
number of explanatory screens showing intermediate results
as the analyses proceed. Both GEOSLIDE and PROSLIDE have
been run successfully for more than a year by both gradu- NO SLIDING POSSIBLE

ate and undergraduate rock mechanics students at the

authors' institution. The codes have been verified using the
examples of Hoek and Bray (1977). PROSLIDE, GEOSLIDE,
and DISIT may be obtained from the authors at the cost of
reproduction and postage. A manual may not be necessary
C DISPLAY WEDGE

k
TRUNCATE EDGES
but it can also be supplied at extra cost.
Can. Geotech. J. Downloaded from www.nrcresearchpress.com by Guangzhou Jinan University on 06/03/13

Deterministic analysis using GEOSLIDE

The sliding wedge problem of the Hoek and Bray (1977)
slope-stability analysis is implemented by this code. The
wedge is assumed to be continuous and rigid. The driving
and resisting forces are calculated as vectors, and the factor
of safety is found using three-dimensional vector algebra.
The code works with a single set of geometry and loading,
although a sensitivity-analysis option allows the loading and
strength parameters to be varied once the initial factor of
safety is calculated. The numerator in the factor of safety I
CALCULATE FACTOR O F SAFETY
term is the sum of the total cohesive and frictional resisting
I
forces. The denominator is the sliding-direction-parallel
component of the resultant force which includes weight, sur-
charge, water, earthquake, external, and anchor forces. The
For personal use only.

sliding-direction-parallel component is positive when it

points downslope, negative when it points upslope.
A negative factor of safety signals a potential upslide
(a safety factor between 0 and - 1 is unstable and will slide
upwards).
The program flow is shown in Fig. 1. The third step, < / CHANGE LOADS
kinematic analysis, consists of two parts: a check for SENSITIVITY ANALYSES
QUIT
SENSITIVITY ANALYSES

daylighting of the line of intersection and the two dip vec-

tors (Hoek and Bray 1977) and an obstruction analysis
(Goodman 1976) if either of the two dip vectors daylights.
This process eliminates those dip slides (wedge sliding along
the dip vector of plane A or B) where the other inactive plane
would block the sliding motion. The daylighting and
obstruction analyses are accompanied by explanatory
graphic displays. If both the daylighting and the obstruc-
tion conditions are passed, i.e., sliding is kinematically possi-
ble, the stability analysis begins.
The wedge is displayed in vector format and in a three-
dimensional view which can be rotated. The shape of the
wedge can be modified by truncating in the lateral direc-
tion and by inserting a tension cutoff at the back of the
wedge. The code then accepts a series of loading conditions:
external forces (anchors, earthquake loading, etc.) and
several options for the water condition.
For every wedge, five different sliding modes can be
examined: (i) wedge sliding along the line of intersection
between plane A and plane B; (ii) wedge sliding along the
dip vector of plane A; (iii) wedge sliding along the dip vec-
tor for plane B; (iv) plane sliding on plane A; and (v) plane
sliding on plane B. The corresponding factor of safety is
calculated for each active sliding direction. The last two
(plane slide) cases represent unobstructed sliding of a block
of rock along the dip vector of either joint plane.
The influence of the loading condition and the strength
parameters can be evaluated through the sensitivity sub-
routines within GEOSLIDE. All the forces, including the water
.I. <
c7->
FIG. 1. The flow chart for the interactive, deterministic, limit
equilibrium, microcomputer code GEOSLIDE.
condition, can be varied, and the effect of the selected
parameter on the factor of safety is displayed on the screen
in x-y plots. An anchor can be installed to increase the factor
of safety to a desired level. The cohesion subroutine can han-
dle back analysis, a procedure to find the cohesive force for
an actual slide.
Probabilistic analysis using PROSLIDE
GEOSLIDE requires the full attention of the user, whereas
PROSLIDE is designed to work unattended. The user must
enter the slope geometry, a system of discontinuities, and
the loading condition. After that, the code will take over
by doing a Monte Carlo simulation. The simulation is done
by randomly selecting the discontinuities rather than ran-
dom values of the individual parameters; the discontinuity
listing includes the trend, plunge, cohesion, and friction.
The actual code is a simplified version of GEOSLIDE
(Fig. 2). For efficiency, all the graphics and displays of inter-
mediate results are eliminated. The sensitivity subroutines,
 CAN. GEOTECH. J. VOL.
C? START
DISCONTINUITIES
LOADING
lf OF RUNS
PAIR OF DISCONTINUITIES
n -
Can. Geotech. J. Downloaded from www.nrcresearchpress.com by Guangzhou Jinan University on 06/03/13
KINEMATIC ANALYSIS
OBSTRUCTION ANALYSIS
FlND THE FACTOR OF SAFETY
FOR ALL SLIDING MODES
For personal use only.
I FlND MINIMUM FACTOR O F SAFETY
STORE DATA IN USER FILES
DETERMINE CUMULATIVE PROBABILITIES
MAKE TEMPORARY DATA FILES
PLOT SF vs CUMULATIVE PROBABILITY
FIG.2. The flow chart for the multiple-analysis code PROSLIDE. (kinematically free) wedges, and the seven columns are the
anchoring subroutine, and the ability to modify the loads
are also dispensed. The discontinuity listing is the new ele-
ment in the analysis. This can be entered from the keyboard
or from previously stored True BASIC record files. The dis-
continuities need not be grouped into sets. The only require-
ment is to enter the (i) trend of the pole, (ii) plunge of the
pole and two strength parameters, (iii) unit cohesion, and
(iv) friction angle. Admittedly, estimating the unit cohesion
and friction angle for each discontinuity is a difficult if not wedge sliding modes (intersection, dip of A, or dip of B).
impossible task. Friction angle could be estimated by using
published surface profiles (Barton 1974), and unit cohesion
used as a weighting parameter. The geologist could weight
the significance of a particular discontinuity by using a single variable (factor of safety for one sliding mode) True BASIC
figure for such descriptive terms as major and minor joint,
joint persistence, length, continuity, and spacing.
Every plane has the same chance of being selected for
either plane A or plane B, and each plane is eventually
29, 1992
E
slope
FIG. 3. A stereonet showing the slope geometry at a slope angle
of 45" and the poles to the discontinuities in the rock mass.
matched with all other planes. Any pair that has already
been analyzed is bypassed in the selection routine; no
duplication of wedges is allowed. After picking a pair of
discontinuities, the usual deterministic, limit equilibrium
analysis is undertaken. If sliding is possible, the code can
calculate as many as five safety factors. The five safety fac-
tors represent the three potential wedge sliding directions
and the two potential plane sliding directions. Only four of
the safety factors are independent because sliding on plane A
and plane B should give identical distributions, since any
discontinuity may appear as either plane A or plane B. The
case is slightly different for wedge sliding on the dip vectors,
since the resulting safety factor will depend on the full
geometry of the wedge. Still, the cumulative distributions
for wedge sliding on the dip vectors of plane A and plane B
should be very similar. For each sliding wedge, the code will
label the lowest of the safety factors as the minimum factor
of safety (MSF).
The output of PROSLIDE is the listing of the factors of
safety in several files. The first file is the largest; the num-
ber of rows is the total number of potentially sliding
identification numbers for plane of weakness A and B and
the five safety factors, namely, sliding along the line of
intersection, wedge slide on plane A, wedge slide on plane B,
plane slide on A, and plane slide on B. The second file con-
tains the discontinuity numbers (A and B) and the minimum
factor of safety, and the third file carries the discontinuity
numbers and the minimum wedge factor of safety (MWSF).
The latter file ignores the factors of safety produced through
plane analysis, so MWSF is the smallest of the three possible
The three ASCII files described above are optionally
created permanent files. There are also several temporary
files that are rewritten during each run of PROSLIDE. Single-
record files are mainly for use in DISIT to make histograms
and cumulative distribution curves. A set of two-variable
ASCII files are for x-y plotting of cumulative probability
against factor of safety.
 CARTER A?qD LAJTAI
Can. Geotech. J. Downloaded from www.nrcresearchpress.com by Guangzhou Jinan University on 06/03/13
factor of safety
FIG. 4. The cumulative probability distribution of the mini-
mum of the five factors of safety, from a PROSLIDE run for a slope
angle of 45".
Probabilistic assessments
The Monte Carlo simulation performed by PROSLIDE
yields a list of factors of safety for every possible, kine-
matically free wedge. Absolute values of the factor of safety
of less than one indicate wedges that will fail. The distribu-
tion of values can be shown by both frequency and cumula-
For personal use only.
tive probability diagrams using either PROSLIDE, DISIT,or
some other statistics program. As mentioned previously, the
probability of failure is taken as (Dershowitz and Einstein
1984)
Unstable wedges
P(f) Total possible wedges
Although this is not the true probability of failure, unless
all the input parameters have been expressed as corrected
probability distributions, it does serve to represent the
stability of the slope.
PROSLIDE is not a fully probabilistic analysis package.
Only the discontinuities (orientation, and the associated
strength parameters) are allowed to vary, thus the Monte
Carlo simulation method is well suited to the analysis. The
code otherwise expects the input of a single set of param-
eters describing the slope geometry and the loading condi-
tion. It is the authors' opinion that the effect of the
variability of the loading conditions is better treated through
the sensitivity analysis option of GEOSLIDE. Ideally, PROSLIDE
would evaluate the influence of the probabilistic nature of
the geological condition by searching for the critical wedge
geometry. This geometry is then used in CEOSLIDE to test
for the sensitivity of this wedge to variations in the loading
conditions and perhaps to find the appropriate support sys-
tem. A new run of PROSLIDE would indicate the effect of
the new loading conditions on the rest of the wedges.
A 100% safe design would move all the wedges out of the
unsafe region; no factors of safety should fall between - 1
and + 1. This may not always be practical or even possible,
and typically a certain percentage of wedges would be
allowed to fail.
Another use for PROSLIDE is to find the ideal slope angle
for the given set of discontinuities, or if a slope higher than
this is required, to find the proper orientation and magnitude
of an anchor force. An anchor installed in a particular orien-
tation may improve the factor of safety for some wedges
57
factor of safety
FIG. 5. The cumulative probability distribution for the mini-
mum factor of safety (total) includes the values for wedge sliding
along a dip vector (dip slide) or along the line of intersection
(intersection slide) and for unobstructed sliding on a single plane
(plane slide). Plane slide is considered only if the discontinuity strike
is within 15" of the strike of the slope. In this example, only dis-
continuity 63 falls into this category.
but could cause upslide conditions for others. In fact, several
runs of PROSLIDE may be required to find the best slope
design. In a typical slope-stability exercise, the user may have
to run both GEOSLIDE and PROSLIDE several times.
Application of probabilistic analysis
The nature and the advantage of a probabilistic analysis
using PROSLIDE are best demonstrated through an example.
A 30 m high slope, striking at S70°E and capped by a top
slope (strike at S60°E and dip of lo0), is to be excavated
in a rock mass that contains three major and one minor set
of discontinuities. Eighty-seven measurements of disconti-
nuities are displayed in Fig. 3. For this example, the first
run has no loading other than the weight and the water
forces arising from a water condition, where the piezometric
surface at the slope crest has a head that is 75% of the depth
to the slide plane below. The latter fixes the position of the
piezometric surface at the crest in the vertical plane of the
line of intersection (or dip vector for plane slide). The head
at the recharge and discharge points is taken as zero. Linear
variation is assumed for intermediate positions. Because esti-
mates of the unit cohesion are often unreliable, it is possible
at this stage to exclude cohesion for all discontinuities, a
feature that will be used later. The user may limit the num-
ber of simulations or let the code examine all possible com-
binations of planes; N discontinuities can form N ( N - 1)/2
different pairs of discontinuities. It is not necessary to
examine all the possible combinations. The shape of the
cumulative distribution curve changes very little once the
number of determinations (measured factors of safety)
exceeds about 100. For this particular discontinuity distri-
bution and slope geometry, 500 pairs of discontinuities will
yield between 100 and 150 potential sliding wedges. The
figures of this paper show cumulative probability plots based
on factor of safety data from a 500 pair run.
To determine the ideal slope angle, several runs of
PROSLIDE using different angles will be required. A good
starting point is a dip of 45". PROSLIDE will automatically
 CAN. GEOTECH. J. VOL. 29, 1992

$.:-!.,
45'Slope
100 MN Anchor f
.--
-______-- /

/. -- - - - -I;."'

45" Slope
W~thoutAnchor
Can. Geotech. J. Downloaded from www.nrcresearchpress.com by Guangzhou Jinan University on 06/03/13

I S t , I , , ,

factor of safety factor of safety

FIG. 6. Cumulative probability distribution of the factor of FIG. 8. An anchor force widens the distribution of factors of
safety for slope angles between 30 and 90". safety and splits the distribution about the unsafe region of - 1 to
+ 1.

percent of wedges ..
.-.X- kinematically free to slide .
-3
C
.-
C
50 -

40 :
0
0
.!? . . wedges
percent of
For personal use only.

30
u failing
'4-
0
,-
C
20 : . , (-1 < SF < I )
a, 10 -
2

slope angle
FIG.7. The percentage of wedges that are kinematically free to
slide and the percentage of failing-sliding wedges (- 1 < SF < 1)
as a function of the slope angle. The percentage terms are based
on the number of discontinuity pairs examined in a single PRO-
SLIDE run.
factor of safety
FIG. 9. Changing the magnitude and (or) the plunge of the
anchor force changes the distribution of factors of safety. Although
it may be impractical, an anchor can usually be designed to move
all the safety factors out of the unsafe region (- 1 to + I). 0,100
MN at 15"; A, 150 MN at 15"; 0 , 150 MN at 20".

display the cumulative probability of the minimum factor
of safety at the end of the simulations (Fig. 4). The distri-
bution does not include all the factors of safety computed
during the run, only the minimum of the five sliding modes.
One of the files will have the discontinuities identified with
the minimum factors of safety. A check of the listings shows
the small vertical segment at SF = 0.994 is due to multiple
plane analysis of plane sliding on discontinuity 63, which
happens to run subparallel with the slope. In the postprocess-
ing routine of PROSLIDE, there are several ways to display
the factor of safety distributions for individual sliding
modes. It is also possible to decompose the total distribu-
tion into its components. Figure 5, for example, shows that
the lowest values are coming from the wedge sliding along
the dip vectors of the discontinuities rather than from sliding
along the line of intersection between them. Only the dis-
tribution of the minimum wedge factors of safety will be
considered now, even though the plane-failure case may be
more important in many cases.
While keeping the external loading condition the same,
the minimum wedge factors of safety will vary with the slope
angle (Fig. 6). Only the 30" and the 40" slopes have no
wedges with factors of safety less than unity. The 45" slope,
not shown in this figure, has about 6% of the wedges fail-
ing. As expected, both the number of wedges free to slide
increases and the number of failures among these increases
with the slope angle (Fig. 7). Both relationships have the
characteristic shape of the cumulative distribution shown
by others (Young and Hoerger 1988; Piteau and Martin
1977). The effect of the slope angle is relatively minor at
low and at high angles. The largest effect is indicated for
slopes between 40 and 60".
Anchoring the potentially unsafe slope is always an alter-
native. The effect of an installed anchor is relatively simple
to establish for a single wedge using GEOSLIDE. The
influence of an anchor, designed for one particular wedge,
on the rest of the wedges is more problematic. When the
data are widely distributed, as in this case, a force pointing
upslope will spread the distribution even wider, possibly into
negative values. The benefit of an anchor force is seen in
the splitting of the distribution by moving some or all the
failing wedges out of the - 1 to + 1 failure zone (Fig. 8).

1 0 .
X 0 8 r
E
,.) ... ...
... . . .. ..
--
Z
~l
m
no cohes~on /./" * /%--@- e-#-
~l
06
8°
I"
C )
a
:
a,
f-heson
- 0 4
3
$0 0 2 ,I
f gU
/*
45" Slope
I ..., /
Can. Geotech. J. Downloaded from www.nrcresearchpress.com by Guangzhou Jinan University on 06/03/13
E , ,, , , , method described in this paper expresses the probability of
0 0
o 1 2 3
factor of safety
FIG. 10. Eliminating the cohesion, a parameter that is difficult
to evaluate, for all the discontinuities shifts the cumulative proba-
bility distribution curve toward a lower factor of safety.
A successful design would move all the wedges out of the
danger zone using the smallest possible force. This is best
done by trial and error. There are two parameters that can
be adjusted in PROSLIDE, the magnitude and the orientation
of the anchor. The orientation itself involves two param-
eters, the trend and the plunge. Increasing the anchor
For personal use only.
magnitude will generally increase the upslide potential. This
can be counteracted by increasing the plunge of the anchor.
Changing the trend of the anchor leads to results that are
harder to anticipate. The distribution shown in Fig. 8 sug-
gests too many upslope failures for the 100 MN anchor at
a 5" plunge and a trend along that of the normal to the slope.
Using the same magnitude, the upslide potential can be elim-
inated completely by increasing the plunge to 15" (Fig. 9).
This condition leaves a single failing wedge. This may be
a successful design, since the probability of failure is less
than 1%. Furthermore, the failing wedge is identified as a
sliver: an overlapping wedge formed by discontinuities 52
and 15. Both discontinuities come from the same set.
Analyzing this pair in GEOSLIDE would help in evaluating
the risk of ignoring this unstable wedge. Alternatively, a few
tries with a higher anchor force and a steeper plunge could
clear the failure zone.
Anchors were examined in this case, simply to indicate
the general applications of probability to slope-stability
design. For actual slope designs, costs and risk assessment
would have to be included as well. In this particular example,
the failing wedges were mostly slivers and it is possible that
some small failures would be acceptable. Alternatively,
anchors could be installed on a local basis in areas of high
risk.
After the design of the anchor, one practical problem still
remains. The discontinuity listing requires the input of spe-
cific values of unit cohesion and friction angle. The con-
ventional attitude is that the friction angle can be estimated
with acceptable accuracy, but estimates of the unit cohesion
will always be open to significant error. Cohesion may be
ignored and PROSLIDE allows setting cohesion for all planes
equal to zero. This shifts the distribution to the left toward
lower factors of safety (Fig. lo), indicating a greater prob-
ability of failure.
CARTER AND LAJTAI 59
Summary and conclusions
8'-
f
*--
&u-
The stability of a rock slope depends greatly on the dis-
continuities in the rock mass. For a deterministic slope-
----
0 *-
stability analysis, specific values for such discontinuity
parameters as orientation (trend and plunge), unit cohesion,
and friction angle are required. All the parameters are sub-
ject to statistical variation. The usual procedure in a deter-
ministic design is to select a representative wedge with prop-
erties that are judged to be appropriate and then calculate
a factor of safety. Probabilistic techniques, on the other
hand, incorporate the variability of design parameters and
express stability in probabilistic terms. The probabilistic
4 5 failure as the ratio of wedges that fail under the given loading
conditions to the total number of wedges. The wedges are
defined by randomly selecting a pair of discontinuities from
the entered list.
Designs of rock slopes with representative values of the
discontinuities, as done in a deterministic analysis, could be
in significant error. The 50" slope of Fig. 6, for example,
would suggest a safety factor of 1.7 (median value) for the
representative wedge. However, the probability of failure
for this slope is quite high at 16%.
For the same loading condition and slope strike, the prob-
ability of failure varies with the slope angle. The relation-
ship, however, is not linear but follows the characteristic
S shape of the cumulative distribution function. The prob-
ability of failure for the presented example shows little
change for the low and high slope angles but varies rapidly
in the 40"-60" range. Interestingly, the percentage of wedges
that have the kinematic freedom to slide varies with the slope
angle in a similar manner.
The effect of an upslope-pointing external force, an
anchor, is to spread the factor of safety distribution wider,
possibly into negative values, and to split the distribution
around the SF = - 1 to + 1 failure zone.
Acknowledgements
The code GEOSLIDE was developed from the ideas and
concepts found in Rock slope engineering by Hoek and Bray
(1977) and in Methods in geological engineering in discon-
tinuous rocks by Goodman (1976). Earlier versions of
GEOSLIDE were prepared by graduate students Neil Chandler
and Alan Wan of the University of Manitoba. Debugging
of both GEOSLIDE and PROSLIDE would not have been possi-
ble without the input of undergraduates who had to use both
codes in assignments. Discussions on the concepts of prob-
abilistic analysis with Brian Stimpson and Alan Woodbury
of the University of Manitoba have been of great help.
Aydan, O., Shimizu, Y., and Ichikawa, Y. 1989. The effective fail-
ure modes and stability of slopes in rock mass with two discon-
tinuity sets. Rock Mechanics and Rock Engineering, 22: 163-188.
Baecher, G.B., and Einstein, H.H. 1981. Statistical and proba-
bilistic methods in rock engineering. Workshop Notes,
Massachusetts Institute of Technology, Cambridge.
Baecher, G.B., and Lanney, N.A. 1978. Trace length biases in joint
surveys. Proceedings, 19th U.S. Symposium on Rock Mechanics,
Lake Tahoe, Nev., pp. 56-65.
Barbosa, M.R., Moriss, D.V., and Sarma, S.K. 1989. Factor of
safety and probability of failure of rockfill embankments.
Geotechnique, 39: 47 1-483.
 60 CAN. GEOTECH. J. VOL. 29, 1992
Barton, C.M. 1978. Analysis of joint traces. Proceedings, 19th U.S.
Symposium on Rock Mechanics, Lake Tahoe, Nev., pp. 38-41.
Barton, N.R. 1974. Estimating the shear strength of rock joints.
Proceedings, 3rd Congress, International Society Rock
Mechanics, Denver, Colo., pp. 219-220.
Call, R.D. 1985. Probability of stability design of open pit slopes.
In Rock masses: modeling of underground openings/probability
of slope failure/fracture of intact rock. Editedby C.H. Dowding.
Proceedings of the Geotechnical Engineering Division, American
Society of Civil Engineers, Denver, Colo., pp. 56-71.
Call, R.D., Savely, J.P., and Nicholas, D.E. 1976. Estimation of
joint set characteristics from surface mapping data. Proceedings,
17th U.S. Symposium on Rock Mechanics, Snowbird, Utah,
Can. Geotech. J. Downloaded from www.nrcresearchpress.com by Guangzhou Jinan University on 06/03/13
pp. 65-73.
Chowdhury, R.N. 1986. Geomechanics risk model for multiple
failures along rock discontinuities. International Journal of Rock
Mechanics and Mining Sciences and Geomechanics Abstracts,
23: 337-346.
Coates, D.F. 1977. Pit slope manual. Chap. 5 Design. Canada Cen-
tre for Mineral and Energy Technology (CANMET), Report
77-5.
Dershowitz, W.S., and Einstein, H.H. 1984. Application of
artificial intelligence to problems of rock mechanics. Pro-
ceedings, 25th U.S. Symposium on Rock Mechanics, Northwest-
ern University, Evanston, Ill., p. 489.
Einstein, H.H. 1988. Special lecture: landslide risk assessment pro-
cedure. In Landslides, Proceedings of the 5th International Sym-
posium on Landslides, Lausanne, Switzerland, A.A. Balkema,
Rotterdam, vol. 2, pp. 1075-1090.
Einstein, H.H., and Baecher, G.B. 1983. Probabilistic and
For personal use only.
statistical methods in engineering geology. Specific models and
examples, part I: exploration. Rock Mechanics and Rock
Engineering, 16: 39-72.
Einstein, H.H., Veneziano, D., Baecher, G.B., and O'Reilly, K.J.
1983. The effect of discontinuity resistance on rock slope
stability. International Journal of Rock Mechanics and Mining
Sciences and Geomechanics Abstract, 20: 227-236.
Ghosh, A., and Haupt, W. 1989. Computation of the seismic
stability of rock wedges. Rock Mechanics and Rock Engineer-
ing, 22: 109-125.
Gibbs, B.L. 1989. Directory of mining programs. Gibbs Associates,
Boulder, Colo.
Glass, C.E., Savely, J.P., and Call, R.D. 1978. Determining seismic
risk for economic optimum slope design. Proceedings, 19th U.S.
Symposium on Rock Mechanics, Lake Tahoe, Nev., pp. 89-95.
Glynn, E.F., and Einstein, H.H. 1979. Probability of kinematic
instability in rock slopes-a numerical approach. Proceedings,
20th U.S. Symposium on Rock Mechanics, Austin, Tex.,
pp. 317-325.
Glynn, E.F., and Ghosh, S. 1982. Effect of correlation on rock
slope stability analyses. Proceedings, 23rd U.S. Symposium on
Rock Mechanics, Berkeley, Calif., pp. 95-115.
Goodman, R.E. 1976. Methods of geological engineering in discon-
tinuous rocks. West Publishing Company, St. Paul, Minn.
Goodman, R.E., and Bray, J.W. 1976. Toppling of rock slopes.
Proceedings of a Specialty Conference on Rock Engineering for
Foundations and Slopes, American Society of Civil Engineers,
Boulder, Colo., vol. 2, pp. 201-234.
Herget, G. 1978. Analysis of discontinuity orientation for a prob-
abilistic slope stability design. Proceedings, 19th U.S. Sym-
posium on Rock Mechanics, Lake Tahoe, Nev., pp. 42-50.
Hoek, E., and Bray, J.W. 1977. Rock slope engineering. 2nd ed.
The Institution of Mining and Metallurgy, London.
ISRM (International Society of Rock Mechanics) 1988. List of com-
puter programs in rock mechanics. International Journal of Rock
Mechanics Mining Sciences and Geomechanics Abstracts, 25:
183-252.
View publication stats
Jaeger, J.C. 1971. Friction of rocks and stability of rock slopes.
GCotechnique, 21: 97-134. \
Kendorski, F.S., and Bindokas, A. 1987. Fracture geometry
characterization for use in rock mechanics design. Proceedings,
28th U.S. Symposium on Rock Mechanics, Tucson, Ariz.,
pp. 89-97.
Kirsten, H.A.D., and Moss, A.S.E. 1985. Probability applied to
slope design-case histories. In Rock masses: modeling of under-
ground openings/probability of slope failure/fracture of intact
rock. Edited by C.H. Dowding. Proceedings of Geotechnical
Engineering Division, American Society of Civil Engineers,
Denver, Colo., pp. 56-71.
Kutter, H.K. 1974. Analytical methods for rock slope analysis. In
Rock mechanics. Edited by L. Muller. Springer-Verlag,
New York, pp. 198-211.
Martin, C.D., and Kaiser, P.K. 1984. Analysis of a rock slope with
internal dilation. Canadian Geotechnical Journal, 21: 605-620.
Martin, D.C., Steenkamp, N.S.L., and Lill, J.W. 1986. Applica-
tion of a statistical analysis technique for design of high rock
slopes at Palbora mine, South Africa. Mining Latin America
IMM Conference, Santiago, Chile, pp. 241-255.
McMahon, B.K. 1971. A statistical method for the design of rock
slopes. Proceedings, 1st Australia - New Zealand Conference
on Geo-Mechanics, Melbourne, Australia, pp. 314-321.
Nguyen, V.U. 1985. Reliability index in geotechnics. Computers
and Geotechnics, 1: 117-138.
Piteau, D.R., and Martin, D.C. 1977. Slope stability analysis and
design based on probability techniques at Cassiar mine. CIM
Bulletin, 70(No. 799): 139-150.
Piteau, D.R., Stewart, A.F., Martin, D.C., and Trenholme, B.S.
1985. A combined limit equilibrium and statistical analysis of
wedges for design of high rock slopes. In Rock masses: modeling
of underground openings/probability of slope failure/fracture
of intact rock. Edited by C.D. Dowding. Proceedings of the
Geotechnical Engineering Division, American Society of Civil
Engineers, Denver, Colo., pp. 93-121.
Ramachandran, K., and Hosking, I.A. 1985. Reliability approach
to stability analysis of soil/rock slopes. Proceedings, 5th Inter-
national Conference on Numerical Methods in Geomechanics,
Nagoya, Japan, pp. 1019-1028.
Savely, J.P. 1985. An application of probability of rock slope
design. In Rock masses: modeling of underground openings/
probability of slope failure/fracture of intact rock. Edited by
C.D. Dowding. Proceedings of Geotechnical Engineering Divi-
sion, American Society of Civil Engineers, Denver, Colo.,
pp. 73-91.
Scavia, C., Barla, G., and Bernaudo, V. 1990. Probabilistic stability
analysis of block toppling failure in rock slopes. International
Journal of Rock Mechanics and Mining Sciences and Geo-
mechanics Abstracts, 27: 465-478.
Tao, Z.Y., and Hong, W. 1987. The effects of joint cohesion and
water saturation on rock slope stability. Reliability and Risk
Analysis in Civil Engineering 2, Proceedings, 5th International
Conference on Applications of Statistics and Probability in Soil
and Structural Engineering, Vancouver, B.C., vol. 2, pp. 791-796.
Terzaghi, R.D. 1965. Sources of error in joint surveys. GCotechnique,
15: 287-304.
Varnes, D.J. 1978. Slope movement types and processes. In Land-
slides: analysis and control. Special Report 176, Transportation
Research Board, National Academy of Sciences, pp. 11-33.
Wathugala, D.N., Kulatilake, P.H.S. W., Wathugala, G. W., and
Stephansson, 0. 1990. A general procedure to correct sampling
bias on joint orientation using a vector approach. Computers
and Geotechnics, 10: 1-31.
Young, D.S., and Hoerger, S.F. 1988. Geostatistics applications
to rock mechanics. Proceedings, 28th U.S. Symposium on Rock
Mechanics, University of Arizona, Tucson, Ariz., pp. 271-282.