RocPlane

Planar sliding stability analysis for rock slopes

Verification Manual

2001-2003 Rocscience Inc.

Table of Contents

INTRODUCTION 3

ROCPLANE VERIFICATION PROBLEM #1 4

Tension crack present and not present, sensitivity analysis on three parameters.

ROCPLANE VERIFICATION PROBLEM #2 15

Sensitivity analysis on bench dip with varying percent filled TC.

ROCPLANE VERIFICATION PROBLEM #3 17

Graphing factor of safety vs. tension crack depth, varying cohesion

ROCPLANE VERIFICATION PROBLEM #4 19

Seismic loading, varying perent filled tension crack.

ROCPLANE VERIFICATION PROBLEM #5 23

Waviness factor, different strength models (JRC, power curve, linear)

ROCPLANE VERIFICATION PROBLEM #6 25

Sensitivity plot with four parameters, exact reproduction of plot.

ROCPLANE VERIFICATION PROBLEM #7 27

Bolt reinforcement

ROCPLANE VERIFICATION PROBLEM #8 29

Imperial unit analysis

REFERENCES 31

2
INTRODUCTION

This document presents several examples, which have been used as verification
problems for the program RocPlane. RocPlane is an engineering analysis program,
produced by Rocscience Inc. of Toronto, Canada, for assessing the stability of rock
slopes.

The examples presented here, are taken from articles, technical notes and papers
written in the field of Geotechnical Engineering.

The results produced by RocPlane, as documented in this paper, agree very well with
the examples from these sources, and confirm the reliability of results produced by
RocPlane.

3
ROCPLANE VERIFICATION PROBLEM #1

1.1 Introduction:
Here we begin a stability assessment to verify that the ROCPLANE program written by Rocscience
Inc. computes values using the correct equations. The equations we will use to verify the results
produced by ROCPLANE, were originally presented by Dr. Evert Hoek (ref. [1]). In the following
example problem, a rock slope on Sau Mau Ping Road in Kowloon, Hong Kong was analyzed. The
geometry of the slope is illustrated in Figure 1. The overall slope angle is 50o and the individual
bench faces are inclined at 70o to the horizontal. A failure plane dips at 35o. Tension cracks are
frequently observed behind the crests of slopes. However, in this case, it cant be determined whether
or not tension cracks are present. Therefore, two sets of analysis will be carried out for both with
tension cracks and without tension cracks.

Figure 1.1: Geometry of Hoeks slope

Equations:

Without Tension Crack (Figure 2):

cA + (W (cos sc sin ) U + T cos ) tan

F .S . = (1)
W (sin + sc cos ) T sin
H
A= (2)
sin
H2
W= r (cot cot ) (3)
2
wH 2
U= (4)
4 sin

4
 Figure 1.2: Slope without Tension Figure 1.3: Slope with Tension Crack
Crack

With Tension Crack (Figure 3):

cA + (W (cos sc sin ) U V sin + T cos ) tan

F .S . = (1)
W (sin + sc cos ) + V cos T sin

(
z = H 1 cot tan ) (2)
Hz
A= (3)
sin
r H 2 z
2

W = 1 cot cot (4)

2 H

z A
U= w w (5)
2
w z w2
V = (6)
2

H is the slope height. is slope angle. is the failure plane angle. r is the unit weight of rock and
w is the unit weight of water. z is the depth of tension crack. zw is the depth of water in tension crack
or on failure surface. sc is the horizontal seismic coefficient. W is the weight of rock wedge resting on
failure surface. A is the base area of wedge. U is the uplift force due to water failure plane pressure. V
is the horizontal force due to water tension crack pressure. c is the cohesive strength and
is the
friction angle of the Mohr Coulomb Shear Strength Model. T is the magnitude of any added bolt and is
the plunge angle of the added bolt. F.S. is the factor of safety.

Example Verification:

Here we use the data and equations supplied to calculate the factor of safety in both the cases of with
tension crack and without tension crack. A comparison is then made with the results from the
ROCPLANE program.

5
Without Tension Crack:

Input Data:
Height (H) 60 m Unit Weight of Water (w) 0.01 MN/m3
Slope Angle () 50o Cohesion (c) 0.1 MN/m2
Failure Plane Angle () 35o Friction Angle ( ) 35o
Seismic Coefficient (sc) 0.08g Bolt Force (T) 0 MN
Unit Weight of Rock (r) 3
0.027 MN/m Bolt Plunge () 0o

Calculated Values:
Weight of Rock Wedge (W)
rH 2
(cot cot ) = 0.027 60 (cot 35 cot 50) = 28.6278MN
2
W=
2 2
H 60
Base Area of Wedge (A) A = = = 104.6068m 2
sin sin 35
H 2 0.01 60 2
Water FP Pressure Force (U) U = w = = 15.6910MN
4 sin 4 sin 35

cA + (W (cos sc sin ) U + T cos ) tan

Factor of Safety (F.S.) F .S . =
W (sin + sc cos ) T sin
0.1 104.6068 + (28.6278(cos 35 0.08 sin 35) 15.6910 + 0) tan 35
= = 0.8184254
28.6278(sin 35 + 0.08 cos 35) 0

The factor of safety calculated using the input data and equations supplied by Dr. Evert Hoek [1] is
0.8184254. All we have to do now is to enter all the input data in the ROCPLANE program and see if we
can get the same result.

However, we have to first convert all the data into the unit system used in ROCPLANE. (Assume g = 10
m/s2)

r = 0.027 MN/m3 = 2.7x104 N/m3 = 2.7x103 kg/m3 = 2.7 tonnes/m3

w = 0.01 MN/m3 = 1x104 N/m3 = 1 x103 kg/m3 = 1 tonnes/m3

c = 0.1 MN/m2 = 1x105 N/m2 = 1x104 kg/m2 = 10 tonnes/m3

6
Figure 1.4: Geometry input data for slope with no tension crack

Figure 1.5: Strength input data for slope with no tension crack

7
 Figure 1.6: Forces input data for slope with no tension crack

By entering the values as shown in Figures 4-6 and pressing Apply, the calculated factor of safety from
the ROCPLANE program is also 0.818425. This is the same value as what we calculated before. Now,
test out the ROCPLANE program for the case with tension crack. First we calculate the factor of safety
using the equations and data provided by Dr. Evert Hoek [1].

With Tension Crack:

Input Data:
Height (H) 60 m Depth of water in TC (Zw) 90% z
Slope Dip () 50o Cohesion (c) 0.1 MN/m2
Failure Plane Dip () 35o Friction Angle ( ) 35o
Seismic Coefficient (sc) 0.08g Bolt Force (T) 0 MN
3
Unit Weight of Rock (r) 0.027 MN/m Bolt Plunge () 0o
Unit Weight of Water (w) 0.01 MN/m3

Calculated Values:
(
Depth of Tension Crack (z) z = H 1 ) ( )
cot tan = 60 1 cot 50 tan 35 = 14.0092m
r H 2
2
z cot cot
Weight of Rock Wedge (W) W = 1
2 H

14.0092 2
0.027 60 2
= 1 cot 35 cot 50 = 24.8439 MN
60
2

H z 60 14.0092
Base Area of Wedge (A) A = = = 80.1826m 2
sin sin 35
Depth of water in TC (zw) 0.9 x z = 0.9 x 14.0092 = 16.6082 m

8
 w zw A 0.01 16.6082 80.1826
Water FP Pressure Force (U) U = = = 4.4932 MN
2 2
w z w2 0.01 16.6082 2
Water TC Pressure Force (V) V = = = 0.6280MN
2 2
cA + (W (cos sc sin ) U V sin + T cos ) tan
Factor of Safety (F.S.) F .S . =
W (sin + sc cos ) + V cos T sin
0.1 80.1826 + (24.8439(cos 35 0.08 sin 35) 4.4932 0.6280 sin 35 + 0 ) tan 35
=
24.8439(sin 35 + 0.08 cos 35) + 0.6280 cos 35 0
= 1.0654738

The factor of safety calculated using the input data and equations supplied by Dr. Evert Hoek [2] is
1.0654738. All we have to do now is to enter all the input data in the ROCPLANE program and see if we
can get the same result.

However, we first have to calculate the distance from the tension crack to the crest of the slope. This can
be done using simple geometry (Figure 7).

Figure 1.7: Geometry of the slope with tension crack

b = 60 z = 60 14.0092 = 45.9908 m
b 45.9908
x= = = 65.6817m
tan 35 0.7002
60 60
y= = = 50.3460m
tan 50 1.1918
a = x y = 65.6817 m 50.3460 m = 15.3357 m

Distance from Crest = 15.3357 m

9
Figure 1.8: Geometry input data for slope with tension crack

Figure 1.9: Strength Input data for slope with tension crack

10
 Figure 1.10: Forces input data for slope with tension crack.

By entering the values as shown in Figures 8-10 and pressing Apply, the calculated factor of safety from
the ROCPLANE program is also 1.06547. This is the same value as what we calculated before. Now,
we will try to reproduce the same sensitivity plot provided by Dr. Hoek [1]. In the sensitivity input dialog,
enter the values as shown in Figure 11 and Figure 12:

Figure 1.11: Sensitivity Input in ROCPLANE without Tension Crack.

11
 Figure 1.12: Sensitivity Input in ROCPLANE with Tension Crack.

We will get two plots that look like Figure 13 and Figure 14 below:

Figure 1.13: Sensitivity Plot of slope without Tension Crack in ROCPLANE

12
 Figure 1.14: Sensitivity Plot of Slope with Tension Crack using ROCPLANE

The two plots we get from the ROCPLANE program have exactly the same shape as the diagram
provided by Dr. Hoek.

13
ROCPLANE VERIFICATION PROBLEM #2

2.1 Introduction
This example verification is based on the technical note by S.Sharma (ref. [2]). A hypothetical
example was considered in the paper. The authors designed the slope so that the bench dip will vary
from 0o to 30o and the tension crack dip will vary from vertical to 70o. Their analysis yielded the
results as shown in Table 1. In the following, we will verify that ROCPLANE will give the same
output.

Bench Dip (o) Tension Crack Dip (o) Weight (kN) Factor of Safety
0 70 2267.68 1.60
10 70 3317.43 1.54
15 70 4433.85 1.51
20 70 6715.23 1.48
25 70 12998.24 1.45
30 70 71425.55 1.43
0 80 2340.37 1.58
10 80 3456.77 1.53
15 80 4636.49 1.50
20 80 7032.68 1.48
25 80 13465.16 1.45
30 80 46627.40 1.43
0 90 2391.03 1.58
10 90 3558.34 1.53
15 90 4785.03 1.50
20 90 7254.02 1.48
25 90 13932.64 1.45
30 90 47526.01 1.43
Table 2.1: Stability analysis provided by Sharma [2]

Parameter Value Parameter Value

Failure Plane Angle () 35o Slope Height (h) 60 m
Slope Angle () 50o Cohesion (c) 12 t/m2
Bench Dip ( ) 0o 30o Friction Angle 45o
Tension Crack Angle ( ) 90o 70o Unit Weight of Rock 2.6 t/m3
Height of water column in the 14 m Unit Weight of Water 1.0 t/m3
tension crack (Zw)
Table 2.2: Geometry parameters for the hypothetical slope

Now, we have to calculate the distance from the tension crack to the crest and the water percent filled
in the tension crack. We can use the provided equations to get these two values.

2.2 Equations
(
TCDist . = h cot cot cot )
Zw
PercentFilled =
Z
cot cot cot
h sin 1 +
cot cot cot 1
Z=
sin tan cos

14
 The distance from tension crack to the crest is 15.33576m and the water percent filled value depends
on the tension crack length in each case.

2.3 Conclusion
The results obtained from ROCPLANE program are listed in Table 3.

Bench Dip (o) Tension Crack Angle (o) Weight (t) Percent Filled (%) Factor of Safety
0 70 2267.76 74 1.57049
10 70 2268.91 62 1.56472
15 70 2265.85 58 1.55308
20 70 2259.95 53 1.55761
25 70 2250.62 49 1.55549
30 70 2236.97 46 1.54370
0 80 2341.05 87 1.58310
10 80 2373.24 73 1.57812
15 80 2388.45 68 1.56995
20 80 2403.29 63 1.56679
25 80 2417.85 58 1.56812
30 80 2432.20 54 1.56231
0 90 2392.38 100 1.58612
10 90 2446.29 84 1.58148
15 90 2474.30 77 1.58373
20 90 2503.66 71 1.58382
25 90 2534.95 66 1.57957
30 90 2568.90 61 1.57849
Table 2.3: Factor of Safety using ROCPLANE

By comparing the factors of safety, we observe that only the values at 0o bench dip are the same. The
program is studied, and we found that the equation provided in ref. [2] for calculating the wedge
weights is incorrect in the paper. For reference, the equation is supplied below:
1
W = [(h + a )X D Z L ]
2
where is the unit weight of rock, a is the bench height, X is the whole bench length, D is the
distance from the top of the bench to the tension crack, and ZL is the vertical depth of the tension
crack. This formula is incorrect except when the bench dip is 0o. Since the weights are wrong, the
factor of safety provided by the paper is not dependable.

15
ROCPLANE VERIFICATION PROBLEM #3

3.1 Introduction
In this example, we are going to test the ROCPLANE program against the Hoek & Brays formulae
for the assessment of the stability in case of plane failure. We will verify the accuracy of the
ROCPLANE program by reproducing the plot of the influence of tension crack depth on the factor of
safety (Figure 16) provided by Froldi P. (ref. [3]).

Figure 3.1: Plane geometry of the unstable slope

The geometry for this unstable slope is shown in Figure 15. We will transform the provided data into
the format that the ROCPLANE program uses. The information we have now is listed in Table 4.

Slope Angle () 70o Unit Weight of Slope () 2.6 t/m3

Failure Plane Angle () 35o Unit Weight of Water (w) 1.0 t/m3
Bench Dip () 0o Slope Height (H) 1m
Tension Crack Angle 90o Cohesion (c) 0 t/m2 1.0 t/m2
Water Percent Filled TC 100% Friction Angle () 30o
Table 3.1: Geometry information for the slope

All we need to do is to find the distance from the tension crack to the crest of the slope (b), which can
be calculated using the following formula:

Z
1 H
b=
H H

tan tan

After acquiring all the necessary input data, the obtained results are listed in Table 5, and the plot
created by Microsoft Excel in Figure 17.

16
 Z/H b Factor of Safety
c=1 t/m2 c=0.8 t/m2 c=0.6 t/m2 c=0.4 t/m2 c=0.2 t/m2 c=0 t/m2
0 1.06418 3.02169 2.58226 2.14283 1.7034 1.26397 0.824542
0.05 0.99277 2.88437 2.46605 2.04773 1.62941 1.21109 0.792763
0.1 0.92136 2.75449 2.35571 1.95693 1.55815 1.15937 0.760587
0.15 0.84996 2.63054 2.24995 1.86936 1.48878 1.10819 0.727601
0.2 0.77855 2.51112 2.14757 1.78402 1.42046 1.05691 0.693355
0.25 0.70714 2.39489 2.04738 1.69988 1.35237 1.00486 0.657346
0.3 0.63573 2.28048 1.94818 1.61588 1.28358 0.951284 0.618984
0.35 0.56433 2.16646 1.84868 1.5309 1.21312 0.895342 0.577563
0.4 0.49292 2.05122 1.74741 1.44361 1.13981 0.83601 0.532208
0.45 0.42151 1.93292 1.64269 1.35247 1.06225 0.772028 0.481805
0.5 0.35010 1.8093 1.53242 1.25554 0.97866 0.701779 0.424898
0.55 0.27870 1.6775 1.41391 1.15031 0.886717 0.623121 0.359526
0.6 0.20729 1.53368 1.28354 1.03339 0.783252 0.533111 0.28297
0.65 0.13588 1.37245 1.13623 0.900003 0.663777 0.427551 0.191326
0.7 0.06447 1.18596 0.964518 0.743079 0.521641 0.300202 0.078763
Table 3.2: Calculated Factor of Safety for the slope at different cohesion using ROCPLANE

Figure 3.2: F.S. vs. Z/H from Froldi [3]. Figure 3.3: Factor of Safety vs. Z/H with values
calculated using ROCPLANE

3.2 Conclusion
By comparing the plots provided by Froldi P. [3] and the ROCPLANE program, we can find that the
two plots have the same shape and similar data points, with slight discrepancies as the tension crack
depth (Z/H) values get closer to 0.7 since the tension crack will be in the slope face if Z/H exceeds
0.7. Hence, the ROCPLANE program is verified to work for this specific example.

17
ROCPLANE VERIFICATION PROBLEM #4

4.1 Introduction
In this example, the slope stability along the side of the River Yamun in Garhwal Himalaya, India,
where the Lakhwar Dam is located, will be analyzed. We will verify the ROCPLANE program by
comparing the results produced by the ROCPLANE program with the data provided S.Sharma in ref.
[4]. We will also carry out a series of sensitivity analysis with various heights to the release joint.

4.2 Description and Geometry

Figure 4.1: Geometry of slope

Input Data:
Slope Angle 58o Unit Weight of Slope 2.75 t/m3
Failure Plane Angle 53o Unit Weight of Water 1.0 t/m3
Tension Crack Angle 134o Cohesion 10 t/m2
Distance from TC to Crest 0m Friction Angle 40o
Slope Height 20 m 160 m
Water Percent Filled TC 0%, 50%, 100% Seismic Coefficient 0 or 0.15

Example Verification

Here we enter the supplied data in the ROCPLANE program to calculate the factor of safety. The
analysis by S. Sharma [4] is listed in Table 6, and the results calculated by ROCPLANE are displayed in
Table 7.

Slope Height Factor of Safety

(m) Without Seismic Loading With Seismic Loading
100% Filled 50% Filled 0% Filled 100% Filled 50% Filled 0% Filled
20 4.81 4.95 5.06 4.21 4.33 4.43
40 2.62 2.74 2.84 2.24 2.35 2.44
60 1.89 2.00 2.11 1.58 1.68 1.78
80 1.52 1.63 1.74 1.25 1.35 1.45
100 1.30 1.41 1.52 1.06 1.15 1.25
120 1.15 1.26 1.37 0.93 1.02 1.12
140 1.05 1.16 1.26 0.83 0.93 1.02
160 0.97 1.08 1.18 0.76 0.86 0.95
Table 4.1: Stability analysis for plane failure from S.Sharma [4]

18
 Factor of Safety
Slope Height Without Seismic Loading With Seismic Loading
(m) 100% Filled 50% Filled 0% Filled 100% Filled 50% Filled 0% Filled
20 4.64392 4.88666 5.06271 4.07428 4.28132 4.43549
40 2.49203 2.68763 2.84751 2.1353 2.30415 2.44525
60 1.77473 1.95463 2.10911 1.48897 1.64509 1.78184
80 1.41608 1.58812 1.73991 1.1658 1.31556 1.45013
100 1.20089 1.36822 1.51839 0.971904 1.11784 1.25111
120 1.05743 1.22162 1.37071 0.842639 0.98603 1.11842
140 0.954959 1.1169 1.26522 0.750306 0.891879 1.02365
160 0.878106 1.03836 1.18611 0.681056 0.821266 0.95257
Table 4.2: Stability analysis for plane failure with ROCPLANE

A series of sensitivity analysis is also carried out with varying slope height, cohesion, friction angle,
water pressure, tension crack dip, and failure plane dip. The plots generated with the sensitivity data
in Microsoft Excel is shown in Figure 20 and Figure 21. The parameters for the sensitivity analysis
are listed in Table 8.

Slope Height 20 160 m Tension Crack Angle 128o 140o

Cohesion 0 20 t/m2 Failure Plane Angle 49o 57o
Friction Angle 30o 50o Water Percent Filled TC 0% 100%
Table 4.3: Functions and parameters for sensitivity analysis

Figure 19:Sensitivity of FOS to various factors causing instability of the failure plane by Sharma [4]

19
Figure 20: Sensitivity of Factor of Safety to various factors causing instability of the failure plane,
with 0% water filled tension crack and no seismic loading

Figure 21: Sensitivity Analysis in ROCPLANE with Slope Height varied from 20 m to 160 m

20
4.3 Conclusion
By comparing the calculated and supplied factor of safety, we find that with no water force, the
results are exactly the same. With 50% and 100% water filled tension crack, we find that there are
slight differences in the calculated data. By examining the supplied equations, we conclude that the
discrepancies may come from the different equations Sharma [4] used for the factor of safety
calculations. The equations Sharma [4] used are:

With tension crack dip between 10o and 60o:

F .S . = CA +
(W cos U ) tan
W sin + V

With tension crack dip between 61o and 90o:

(W cos U V sin ) tan
F .S . = CA +
W sin + V cos

The above equations are quite different from the standard Hoek & Bray equations.

On the other hand, the ROCPLANE program generated the same sensitivity plots as Sharmas [4]
(Figure 19). The ROCPLANE program verifies this example.

21
ROCPLANE VERIFICATION PROBLEM #5

5.1 Introduction
This example is based on the reference article on modeling shear strength by S.M.Miller in ref. [5].
In this example, both linear and curved relationships between the shear strength and normal stress for
rock failure planes are analyzed here. Two types of shear strength models will be examined: the
Barton-Bandis Model, which is based on JRC (joint roughness coefficient), basic friction angle, and
JCS (joint-wall compressive strength), and the Power Curve Model. As for the Power Curve Model
analysis, both linear and curved models will be used. A linear model (Linear 2) that is fitted to three
data points and another linear model (Linear 3) that is fitted to five shear data points will be
considered.

5.2 Equations
JCS
JRC Model: = n tan JRC log10 + b
n
Power Curve Model: = 0.017 + 1.340 n 0.836
Linear 2: = 0.938 + 0.783 n
Linear 3: = 2.978 + 0.624 n

5.3 Geometry and Properties

Slope Angle 64o Bench Angle 14o

Slope Height 30, 15, 6 and 3 m JCS* 10000 t/m2
Unit Weight 2.7 t/m3 Basic Friction Angle* 32o
Failure Plane Angle 35o and 50o JRC* 3, 7 and 11
Waviness** 3o, 11o and 20o
Table 5.1: Conditions of the slope in stability analysis.
* - JRC model only. ** - Power Curve, Linear 2 and Linear 3 model.

5.4 Results
Many different cases are considered, with varying slope height, failure plane dip, JRC and waviness
values. The computed values by M.Miller [5] are listed in Table 10, and the results produced by
ROCPLANE are listed in Table 5.2.

22
 Table 5.2: Safety factor values computed by M.Miller [5] for example plane-shear failure The left
column shows data with failure plane dip of 35o and the right column shows data with failure plane
dip of 50o.

Failure Factor of Safety

Height (m) Power Linear 2 Linear 3 JRC
30 1.269 0.863 1.268 0.813 1.204 0.924 1.209 0.741
JRC = 3
15 1.414 0.963 1.343 0.926 1.441 1.281 1.248 0.765
Waviness =
3o 6 1.634 1.118 1.567 1.263 2.154 2.351 1.301 0.798
3 1.828 1.256 1.942 1.824 3.343 4.134 1.343 0.824
30 1.471 0.982 1.471 0.932 1.406 1.043 1.778 1.158
JRC = 7
15 1.616 1.083 1.546 1.045 1.644 1.400 1.919 1.253
Waviness =
11o 6 1.837 1.237 1.770 1.382 2.357 2.470 2.127 1.395
3 2.031 1.375 2.144 1.943 3.545 4.253 2.306 1.519
30 1.714 1.125 1.713 1.075 1.649 1.186 2.711 1.948
JRC = 11
15 1.858 1.225 1.788 1.187 1.886 1.542 3.138 2.307
Waviness =
20o 6 2.079 1.379 2.012 1.524 2.599 2.612 3.904 3.003
3 2.273 1.518 2.387 2.086 3.788 4.395 4.736 3.848
Table 5.3: Factor of safety computed by ROCPLANE for plane-shear failure with failure plane
dips at 35o and 50o

Also, the sensitivity plot of factor of safety with varying slope height for failure plane dip at 50o and
JRC = 7 and waviness = 11o is shown in Figure 5.1. The similar graph generated with Microsoft
Excel with factor of safety data generated with the ROCPLANE program is shown in Figure 5.2.

23
 Figure 5.1: Sensitivity plot of factor of safety Figure 5.2: Sensitivity plot of factor of safety
versus slope height by Miller (1 Power Curve versus slope height by ROCPLANE
Model, 2 Linear 2, 3 Linear 3, 4 JRC)

5.5 Conclusion
By comparing the data in Table 10 with Table 11 and Figure 22 with Figure 23, we find that the
results are either the same or within a difference of 1.5%. Therefore, the ROCPLANE program has
verified the results provided by Miller [5].

24
ROCPLANE VERIFICATION PROBLEM #6

6.1 Introduction
This problem was taken from Priest (1993). It is his example question on the analysis of rigid blocks,
and the sensitivity of various parameters.

6.2 Description
Verification problem 6 analyzes a slope undergoing planar failure (Figure 6.1). The slope has a
tension crack at the crest 15m deep. A water table is also present, filling the tension crack 25% at the
line of failure. No seismic forces are present. The factor of safety for the block is required. A
sensitivity analysis must be performed varying cohesion, friction angle, slope angle, and percent TC
filled (Figure 6.2).

Figure 6.1 Slope geometry

Table 6.1: Properties

Cohesion (t/m2) 2 Percent filled TC (%) 25
Friction Angle (deg.) 30 Peak Pressure TC Base
Unit Weight (t/m3) 2.5 Unit Weight of Water (t/m3) 0.981
Cohesion Variation 0 to 4 Friction Angle Variation 28 to 36
Failure Plane Angle Var. 28 to 36 Water Percent filled TC 0 to 100

25
 Figure 6.2 Sensitivity analysis parameters

6.3 Results
ROCPLANE Factor of Safety = 1.049
Priests Factor of Safety = 1.049
1.3

c
Factor of Safety

rw

0.8

Figure 6.3 Sensitivity Analyses of ROCPLANE and Priest compared

26
ROCPLANE Verification Problem #7

7.1 Introduction
This problem was taken from Rock Slope Stability by Kliche. It is his example problem on kinematic
slope stability analysis of planar failure, and it includes reinforcement requirements.

7.2 Description
This problem models planar failure with a tension crack. The tension crack is 51% filled with water,
and water is also observed to be leaking out of the failure plane at the slope interface. The properties
of the slope are listed in Table 7.1. The safety factor of the unreinforced slope is required. Then, using
the parameters for reinforcement given in Table 7.1, stabilize the slope so that it has a reinforced
safety factor of 1.5. Determine the capacity of the rock bolt.

7.3 Geometry and Properties

Table 7.1: Slope properties

Cohesion (t/m2) 7 Percent filled TC (%) 51
Friction Angle (deg.) 30 Peak Pressure TC Base
Unit Weight (t/m3) 2.79 Unit Weight of Water (t/m3) 0.981
Rock-bolt angle (deg.) 30 Bolt type active
External Force (t/m) 37 Failure plane angle (deg.) 35
Slope angle (deg.) 50 Slope height (m) 30
TC distance from crest (m) 9 Seismic acceleration 0.10g

Figure 7.1 - Geometry

27
7.4 Results
No reinforcement FS = 1.222
With rock bolt Capacity of 111 t/m gives an FS = 1.5006

Figure 7.2 Results of reinforced wedge

These results agree with Kliches required rock bolt capacity of 111 t/m.

28
ROCPLANE Verification Problem #8

8.1 Introduction
This problem was taken from Watts and West (1985). It looks at slope stability analysis problems
done by notebook computers in the early eighties. ROCPLANE must do the analysis in imperial units
in order to use the parameters quoted by the authors.

8.2 Description
Verification problem #8 analyzes a simple slope with three different definitions of material properties
(Table 8.1). There is no tension crack present, and the failure surface is dry. The upper slope is
horizontal. The geometry is given in Figure 8.1.
Note: Parameters are given in kg/ft3. In order to change them into t/ft3, divide by 907 (short tons).

8.3 Geometry and Properties

Table 8.1: Material Properties

Case c (t/ft2) (deg.) (t/ft3)
1 0 20 0.18192
2 1.1025 20 0.18192
3 2.2051 35 0.18192

Figure 8.1 Geometry of slope

29
8.4 Results

Case ROCPLANE Watts and West

Factor of Safety Factor of Safety
1 0.364 0.364
2 0.644 0.644
3 1.260 1.260

Figure 8.2 Case 3 in ROCPLANE, also showing wedge properties

Figure 8.3 Case 3 using the authors electronic filed notebook system

30
REFERENCES

1. Dr. E Hoek, 2000, A slope stability problem in Hong Kong, Practical Rock Engineering, pp. 92-
104.

2. S.Sharma, T.K. Raghuvanshi and R.Anbalagan, 1995, Plane failure analysis of rock slopes,
Geotechnical and Geological Engineering , 13, pp. 105-111.

3. Froldi P., 1996, Some Developments to Hoek & Brays Formulae for the Assessment of the Stability
in Case of Plane Failure, BULLETIN of the International Association of ENGINEERING
GEOLOGY, No. 54, pp. 91-95.

4. Sanjeev Sharma, Tarun Raghuvanshi, Atul Sahai, 1993, An Engineering geological appraisal of the
Lakhwar Dam, Garhwal Himalaya, India, Engineering Geology, pp. 381-398.

5. Stanley M. Miller, 1988, Modeling Shear Strength at Low Normal Stresses for Enhanced Rock
Slope Engineering, Proc. Of 39th Highway Geology Symp, pp. 346-356.

6. Priest, Steven. 1993. Discontinuity analysis for rock engineering. London: Chapman and Hall.

7. Kliche, C.A. 1999. Rock Slope Stability. Litttleton CO: Society for Mining, Metallurgy, and
Exploration.

8. Watts, C.F., and West, T.R., 1985, Electronic notebook analysis of rock slope stability at Cedar
Bluff, Virginia., Bulletin of the Association of Engineering Geologists, No. 1, pp. 67-85.

31