International Journal of GEOMATE, Sept., 2016, Vol. 11, Issue 25, pp.

2520-2527
Geotec., Const. Mat. & Env., ISSN: 2186-2982(Print), 2186-2990(Online), Japan

ROCK SLOPES PROCESSES AND RECOMMENDED METHODS

FOR ANALYSIS

A. K. Alzo’ubi

College of Engineering, Abu Dhabi University, UAE

ABSTRACT: The stability of rock slopes is of great concern in many engineering projects, for example; road
cuts, foundations, retaining walls, and dam excavation. Generally, rock slopes susceptible to instability could
be divided into two main categories, the structurally controlled slopes, and the complex rock slopes. In the
later, rock slope instability would involve intact material fracturing to allow for rupture surface to be formed.
Kinematics of a landslide or the type of movement or instability associated with the landsides is one of the
principal criteria for classifying a landslide. In this paper, the modes of instabilities that have been observed in
the field are discussed and examples are given. The most widely used methods of analysis of rock slopes such
as, limit equilibrium, finite element, discrete element; boundary elements are discussed to highlight their
advantages and disadvantages. In this paper, the classification and the methods of analysis are discussed to
provide researches as well as engineers with the tools required to analyze and design rock slopes. In complex
rock slopes, in civil or mining engineering, hybrid numerical methods must be adapted to better understand the
behavior of rock slope. In the case of simple sliding slopes, Limit Equilibrium Techniques can be easily utilized.

Keywords: Slope Stability, Processes, Rock, Numerical, Hybrid, Methods

1. INTRODUCTION where as the most complex slopes require multiple

approaches to be fully understood. This paper
Geomaterial slopes are susceptible to movement presents the most popular methods that can be used
due natural or man-made causes, earthquakes, rain, by engineer to analyze of design rock slopes. In this
temperature are among those causes. To analyze or paper, different analysis and design tools are
design a rock slope prone to movement; engineers presented.
need to understand: the cause and effect of the slope
movement, types of slopes movement, and the 2. MODES OF ROCK SLOPES
available methods and techniques to analyze a slope. INSTABILITIES
Rock slopes susceptible to instability could be
divided into two main categories, the structurally The stability of rock slopes is of great concern
controlled slopes, and the complex rock slopes. In in many projects such as, mining, roadway cuts,
the later, rock slope instability would involve intact foundations, and dam excavation. Hajiabdolmajid
material fracturing to allow for rupture surface to be and Kaiser [1] pointed out that rock slopes
formed. Kinematics of a landslide or the type of susceptible to instability can be divided into two
movement or instability associated with the main categories, the structurally controlled slopes
landsides is one of the principal criteria for and the complex rock slopes. Kinematics of a
classifying a landslide. The height of the slope also landslide or the type of movement or instability
plays a role in the mode of failure; as the height associated with the landslides is a key and important
increases the complex failures may occur. characteristic of the landslide itself and one of the
In this paper, the modes of instabilities that have principal criteria for classifying any landslide [2, 4].
been observed in the field are discussed and Cruden and Varnes [2] recognized five
examples are given. The factors affecting rock slope kinematically distinct modes of landslide
movement can attributed to many causes, and in movement, fall, slide, topple, flow and spread.
rare cases movement of a slope can be attributed to Cruden and Varnes [2] and [3] showed landslide
one single reason. The slope movement process classification system based on the slope kinematics
involves series of events from cause to effect; these and the type of the material involved in the
causes and effects are discussed shortly in this paper instability. These types of landslide movement are
to further our understanding of this issue. Different described briefly in the following sections.
modes of failures requires different solving
approaches to be adapted; simple sliding slopes can 2.1 Falls
be easily analyzed by Limit Equilibrium techniques
shear displacement occurs. Masses and single
Rock fall starts with the detachment of rock fragments descend down the slope at a very rapid to
from slope along a surface on which little or no extremely rapid gravitational movement. The

2520
 International Journal of GEOMATE, Sept., 2016, Vol. 11, Issue 25, pp. 2520-2527

material may fall freely through the air, bouncing, compound, and complex and composite slides.
or rolling depending on the slope angle below the Compound slides are intermediate between
unstable section [5, 2] rotational and transitional and usually have steep
Due to the high kinetic energy involve in the fall, main scarps, flattening with depth.
the masses can be moved a relatively great distance
compared to its original position. Cruden and
Varnes [2] also differentiated between the styles of
falling depending on the slope below the masses,
above 76°free falling occurs while at less than that
bouncing and rolling occurs.

2.2 Topples

Toppling is the forward overturning out of slope

of a mass of rock about of axis below the center of
gravity of the displaced mass [2]. Toppling
sometimes triggered by the forces of gravity, the
forces exerted by adjacent units, fluids, or ice within
discontinuities that stresses the rock mass.
Goodman and Bray [6] described three main Fig. 2 Examples of Rock Slides, after [11]
categories of toppling in nature; the flexural
toppling, the block toppling and the block-flexure 2.4 Spreads
toppling, Benko [7] and [8] discussed a deep seated
large scale toppling failure which is an extension of Terzaghi and Peck [12] introduced the term
simple flexural toppling, they identified these cases spread to the geotechnical community to describe
in mining environments. Large scale toppling sudden movements on water-bearing seams of silt
failure involves tensile failure of toppling columns or sand overlain by homogenous clays or loaded by
as a result of shearing between the in-dipping fills. Cruden and Varnes [2] characterized as
discontinuities. These topples are common toppling “extension of a cohesive soil or rock mass combined
at which the main discontinuity dip into the slope. with a general subsidence of the fractured mass of
Later, Cruden [9] described the underdip topples cohesive material into softer underlying material”.
at which the main set of discontinuities dip outside The movement does not occur on a well-defined
of the slope. Secondary toppling may form in nature rupture surface. They distinguished three types of
and it is generally initiated by undercutting of the spreads; block spreads and Liquefaction spreads
slope toe by natural events such as erosion or and complex spreads as identified in England by
weathering or by human activity. Deep seated
[13].
Complex rock topple may develop in nature or open
pit mines, [7], [8], and [10] discussed the formation
of deep seated topple in open pit mines. 2.5 Flows
2.3 Slides
A spatially continuous movement, in which the
Varnes [4] differentiated between two main surfaces of shear are short-lived, closely spaced and
categories of slides; the rotational slides and the usually not preserved. The bottom boundary of the
transitional slides. The rotational rock slide move sliding mass may be a distinct surface at which
along curved rupture of surface, this curved and differential movement has occurred or a relatively
concave rupture surface may evolve as the stresses thick zone. In some cases, debris slid may develop
inside the rock mass exceed the strength and rupture into debris flows or debris avalanches as the moving
surface formed in progressive manner. In the case material gains water, move into steeper slopes or
of transitional slides, the mass move along a planar loses cohesion.
or undulating rupture surface. The sliding occur on Keefer and Johnson [14] differentiated between
one or more surface of rupture, joint, fault, earth slide and earth flow based on the amount of
weathered interfaces or weak layers, step path internal deformation of the displaced mass. If the
failure which involve intact rock destruction, may displaced mass is strongly internally deformed the
also occur. Wedge slide may occur on two landslide is most likely an earth flow. McRoberts
intersectional joints; this failure is three and Morgenstern [15] define the term skin flow to
dimensional slides, see Figure 1. describe a type of flows in the permafrost; the slope
According to [2], the sliding type of movement movement in the skin flow is rapid movement of a
is further divided into rotational, translational, thin thawed soil and vegetation flows or slides over
the permafrost table. A special category within this

2521
 International Journal of GEOMATE, Sept., 2016, Vol. 11, Issue 25, pp. 2520-2527

type of movement is represented by the slow flow analysis so that to cover the shortcomings inherited
in bedrock, known as deep-seated creep. In this type in any individual method. Stead et al [18] discussed
of movement large-scale gravitational deformation different approaches for rock slope stability and
takes place without the formation of a pervasive presented the advantages and disadvantages of each
failure surface. method. In the following I discuss briefly the most
Hungr et al. [3] proposed a classification system important analysis approaches.
based on genetic and morphological aspects. They
divide the flows to the following categories; slow 4.1 Empirical Methods
gravel or non-liquefy sand flow, extremely rapid
sand, silt or debris flow slides accompanied by Due to the fact that experience is essential in
liquefaction, extra-sensitive clay flow slides, peat geotechnical engineering, Empirical methods are
flows, slow to rapid earth flows in non-sensitive based on previous experiences. The controlling
plastic clays, mud flows, debris flow in steep factors influencing instability of slopes, such as
established gullies, debris floods, debris avalanches, slope height, slope angle, geological structure,
the flows formed by large scale failures in bedrock material type, groundwater conditions, and other
as rock avalanches. An example of rock avalanche parameters, are gathered and applied to the problem
is the Frank slide of Alberta. in hand. For example, Hoek and Bray [11] used the
slope height and face angle to plot the stable and
3. FACTORS AFFECTING ROCK SLOPES unstable slopes of previous case histories, this graph
STABILITY AND PROCESSES can be used as preliminary estimation of the
stability of a slope. The process of empirical design
Slope movement, can attributed to many causes, is concentrated on learning from past successes and
and in rare cases movement of a slope can be failures, [19].
specified to one single reason. According to [4] the The rock mass classification systems can serve
slope movement process involves a continuous as an empirical method, these methods incorporate
series of events from cause to effect. many factors affecting the slope, examples of the
In general, rock slopes in mining environment, classification systems are the Q and the RMR
road way cut or natural rock slopes for instance, can systems. The later has been modified by [20] to
be connected through cause and effect relation, classify rock slopes and called the SMR (Slope
Stacey [16] summarized these factors as; ground Mass Rating). In this system, new factors for slope
water conditions, the rock mass geological units, in geometry and joints were added to the RMR system
situ and induced stress state, rock mass strength, proposed by [21]. The stability of a slope is then
rock mass structures and orientations, the geometry assisted for stability and suggested support.
of the rock slope, the seismic environment, in the The empirical methods is relatively easy to
case of the open pit mine, the time frame of the mine apply and give the engineer a chance to learn from
operation may influence the mine. Eberhardt [17] the past experience, but cannot be applied to design
presented the instability of rock slopes processes as large slopes involve very complex geometry,
a cause and effect. He examined many physical coupled problems and/or complex network of
processes that might affect rock slopes numerically discontinuities, especially if these slopes associated
and showed that numerical methods are capable of with high risk.
modeling complex problems relating to geometry,
non-linearity or the presence of coupled processes. 4.2 Kinematic Methods

4. METHODS OF ANALYSIS AND DESIGN These methods of analysis involve utilizing the
OF ROCK SLOPES stereographic projections to evaluate if a block of
rock mass has a potential to move along fully
Many methods for rock slopes analysis and developed discontinuities surround that block.
design are available and can be used by engineers Goodman [22] defined the kinematics as,
ranging empirical methods to complex numerical “kinematics refers to the motion of bodies without
modeling approaches. reference to the forces that cause them to move”.
The method of analysis has to be chosen based Hoek and Bray [11] explored the potential of the
on the problem to be analyzed. For example, simple kinematic methods to explore simple rock slopes
sliding analysis can be performed for a sliding block such as; Planar, wedge, circular and toppling
along persistent surface, while complex movements. The use of the kinematic methods
calculations required to analyze heavily jointed ignores the strength parameters and the acting
rock mass. It is also important to realize that more forces on the slope, but it identify failure potential.
than one method might be needed for slope stability The orientations of the discontinuities and the slope

2522
 International Journal of GEOMATE, Sept., 2016, Vol. 11, Issue 25, pp. 2520-2527

face such as dip and dip direction, are projected to with real rock mass properties, a 0.5 m modeled
lower hemisphere stereonet, the potential of slope needs an acceleration of 800 g, which is hard
forming block that is free to move is then evaluated. and expensive to achieve. The advantage of this
The strength of the discontinuities and of the rock modelling approach is that the major rock structures
mass is essentially ignored, as they are considered can be incorporated in the modeled slope as seen in
not to have an effect on the potential for failure [25] and [26] models
Computer programs such as, DIPS developed by the
Rocscince group can be used to plot the 4.4 Probabilistic Methods
discontinuities; Figure 2 kinematic shows an
example of such kinematic analysis using the The rock slopes involve many variable factors,
stereonet projections. in addition to the common variable factors between
the soil and rock slopes such as the strength
4.3 Physical Modelling parameters, rock slopes have discontinuities that are
naturally variable and not a constant value, example
Rock mass behavior can be tested through of these, the length of the gab and the orientation
physical modelling which involves three methods; angles. Incorporating parameters variation in rock
down scaling model material, larger loads on slopes design might shed a light on the important
stronger material and the centrifugal forces factor controlling the slope under study. In addition
modeling. Physical modelling can be applied in to estimate the probability of failure, risk analysis
rock slopes modeling to predict the failure mode in associated with some parameters might give
a rock slope. In the first method, the down-scaling confidence in the decision-making process for rock
method involves the use of weak material such as slope design, [27].
plaster to model a rock mass which might fail under The parameters controlling rock slope behavior
its own gravity weight, is more likely to have a distribution such as normal
or beta distribution, rather than an exact
deterministic value, which is more realistic.
Although, the probabilistic approach is more
powerful than a deterministic approach, but it has
important limitations such as, the distributions of
the parameters such as, the cohesion, friction and/or
tensile strength must be identified, which is difficult
to have due to the high cost associated with
collecting of these data [7]. In numerical methods,
incorporating probability theory required huge
computational power; this might be achieved in the
future as the computer power increase, the discrete
Fig. 2 Kinematic analysis for wedge failure element code UDEC [28] can accommodate some
probability variables such as, the joint’s spacing,
Barton [23] used very weak material to model gap and length. Limitations to deterministic
rock slopes. In the second method, using of large methods lie in the accuracy of defining the various
loads in the laboratory such as, Uniaxial, biaxial or input parameters; in addition, failure mode must be
triaxial loading, can be applied to strong material identified in most cases.
such as concrete to simulate rock slopes behavior, In probabilistic methods the parameter
[24] used this method to examine the failure of controlling the slope behavior are distributions and
modeled material. The third method involves the not a single value, so, to evaluate the probability of
using of centrifugal forces to model the increase of failure all of these distributions must be
height of a slope, [25] and [26] used centrifugal incorporated in the solution to obtain a performance
acceleration to model toppling in rock slopes. function of the factor of safety.
Benko [6] described the limitations of physical One of the methods is to combine all the
modelling, which include accounting for the effect statistical distribution by using the Monte Carlo
of scaling from field conditions to the laboratory, simulation. In the Monte Carlo simulation, each
and in deriving reliable quantitative results from the controlling parameter distribution is sampled
experiments. Physical modeling and especially the randomly and the performance function is evaluated,
use of centrifugal acceleration is relatively if this procedure is repeated a large number of times
expensive and limited in terms of the force required a statistical distribution of the performance function
to cause failure of strong rock material in large rock can be built up, the probability of failure is then
slopes. For example, to simulate a 400 m rock slope

2523
 International Journal of GEOMATE, Sept., 2016, Vol. 11, Issue 25, pp. 2520-2527

calculated as the ratio between the cases of failure Large rock slopes are in general complex due to the
to the total number of simulations. heterogeneity, stress state, discontinuities, coupled
processes, geometry, progressive failure and non-
4.5 Limit Equilibrium Analysis linearity of material behavior.
Due to these complexities, numerical simulation
Many limit equilibrium methods have been must be used to account for these factors; the
developed in geotechnical engineering to analyze numerical methods is capable of handling the
and design slopes in both soil and rock mechanics. boundary conditions, the constitutive equations of
It is based on the concept of the factor of safety. In the material, the differential equations of
its simplest form the factor of safety is the ratio equilibrium, and the strain compatibility equations.
between the sum of the forces resisting failure, and Many numerical methods have been developed and
the sum of the forces driving failure; a factor of used in the geotechnical engineering; Stead et al.
safety greater than unity implies stability. [18] discussed the advantages and disadvantages of
In general, to solve a geomechanical problem some of the methods mentioned above. A brief
and achieve an exact solution, the differential description of the most important methods is
equations of equilibrium, the strain compatibility discussed in the following sections.
equations, the constitutive equations for the
material, and the boundary conditions of the 4.6.1 Continuum Modeling
problem must be solved. The methods of limit
equilibrium analysis attempt to achieve this by a Continuum modelling assumes that the
number of assumptions to simplify the problem, displacement field is continuous and results in a
[29]. Computer programs have been developed that small displacement, shear failure by sliding along
rapidly solve limit equilibrium equations, and the maximum shear strain zone, and the tensile
determine a factor of safety. The programs SLIDE strength plays a minor role. The actual rupture
and SWEDGE [30] can be used to conduct limit surface does not form in the continuum modelling,
equilibrium analysis for rock slopes. so, the after failure analysis is not possible. Also,
The most popular limit equilibrium method is the discontinuities inside a rock mass cannot be
the method of slices, a slip surface is assumed and modeled explicitly except for few major ones.
To overcome some of the shortcomings of the
then the moving mass divided into slices, at each
continuum modelling, new approaches have been
slice the force and/or moment equilibrium
developed such as, introducing new constitutive
equations are solved to determine the inter-slice models and simulating localization of shear bands
normal and shear forces. Major difference between in the intact material. For example, Adhikary et al.
various methods of slices techniques depends on [34] used the Cosserat medium to simulate rock
which equations of statics are satisfied and the slopes, but the actual rupture surface did not form.
assumption regard the inter-slice forces. For This approach according to [35] is a mesh
example, while, Ordinary method only satisfies dependent and the shear band has tendency to
moment equilibrium Morgenstern-Price method follow the pattern of the discretized mesh. Some
[31] satisfies moment and force equilibrium and constitutive models such as the ubiquitous joint
include both normal and shear inter-slice forces. model can simulate implicitly the behavior of the
Fredlund and Krahn [32] developed the General jointed rock mass.
Limit Equilibrium method (GLE); it is based on two Two continuum methods have been used in
factors of safety; one with respect to moment geotechnical engineering, the finite element method
equilibrium and one with respect to the horizontal and the discrete element method. The difference
forces. Understanding the limitations and between the two methods is the method of solution
assumptions included in each method of slices must of the differential equations systems. One of the
be recognized prior to use of any method of slices advantages of the finite element over finite
in rock slope analysis. Sarma [33] introduced a difference is that the mesh generation is more
flexible. For Example, FLAC [36] is a finite
method capable of handling internal shears
difference code developed by the Itasca group,
observed in the rock mass.
while PHASE2 is a finite element code developed
by the Rocsience group [30]. Figure 3 shows an
4.6 Numerical modeling approaches example of a finite element model using PHASE2.
The development of computers and 4.6.2 Discontinuum Modeling
computational speed in the last three decades has
resulted in development of numerical methods Rock masses are generally characterized by
applications in the geotechnical field, for both block nature and a network of discontinuities that in
surface structures and underground excavations.

2524
 International Journal of GEOMATE, Sept., 2016, Vol. 11, Issue 25, pp. 2520-2527

most cases dominate the behavior of a rock mass. fracturing through intact material between two
Including the structures in the rock slope modelling joints, their approach was limited to one parallel
is essential and must be taken into account. Cundall joint set. Shen et al. [42] developed an approach to
[37] introduced the distinct element modelling simulate fracturing through intact material by using
approach at which the discontinuities can be the displacement discontinuity method; in his
modeled explicitly. approach the fracture toughness for MODE I
fracturing is compared to the stress intensity factor
at the tip of a joint to allow fracturing from the tip
of a pre-existing joint. He also includes the G-
Criterion at which MODE II failure occur when the
strain energy release rate is larger than the surface
energy required to separate the material.
Scavia [43] and used the displacement
discontinuity method and fracture mechanics
principles to model fracture initiation and
development through a network of pre-existing
joints. He used the linear elastic stress intensity
factor at the joint tip to initiate the fractures. Kaneko
Fig. 3 Finite Element model et al. [44] used the same principals to simulate a
homogeneous rock slope. The failure was initiated
The blocks forming the model are free to move at the toe and incorrectly propagated to the upper
and rotate and completely detached from the rock face of the slope, not to its crest.
mass body as failure occur. The blocks in this The Particle Flow Code (PFC2D) [45] is a
modeling approach are discretized into finite discrete element code at which the rock mass is
difference mesh at which failure can occur at the simulated by circular particles that can be bonded
same manner of the continuum modelling approach. together to represent intact rock. However, it is not
Cundall [37] proposed the discrete element clear how spheres should be calibrated to represent
numerical modeling method. This logic is used by discontinuities as the spheres create very irregular
the Universal Distinct Element Code [28], which is surfaces. Potyondy and Cundall [46] concluded that
one of the most commercially available distinct extensive numerical calibration is needed to use
element programs by Itasca Consulting group. Rock bonded particles to simulate intact rock. Stead et al.
slopes can be reasonably well modelled by using [18] and Stead and Coggan [47] used the ELFEN
UDEC code. It can handle complex geometries hybrid method to simulate other rock slopes. This
along with number of material types and complex technique is promising, further comparison with
constitutive models. Any number of discontinuity deformation pattern might be needed. Figure 4
sets and orientations can be included, all with shows an example from their work. Alzo’ubi [48]
different strength characteristics. But, the also used a hybrid modeling modelling approach to
traditional discrete element methods require a observe the effect of layers thickness on the mode
defined failure surface and the actual rupture of instability. This hybrid approach is capable of
surface is not free to develop inside the rock mass. modelling the evolving of non-directional physical
rupture surface; it allows the formation, propagation,
4.6.3 Hybrids Methods and coalescence of cracks inside rock slopes.

The previous mentioned methods are not 5. CONCLUSION

capable of handling fracturing through intact
material from the pre-existed structures inside the Understanding modes of movements of rock
rock mass. Terzaghi [39] stated that most of the rock slopes is detrimental in choosing an effective
masses include non-continuous rock joints and the method or methods of analysis. Failure of man-
strength must be derived from both the joints and made and/or natural geomaterial slopes may highly
the intact rock between the joints. impact societies. Rock slopes susceptible to
To simulate this effect different methods have instability could be divided into two main
been developed based on the fracture mechanics categories, the structurally controlled slopes, and
principles; failure between rock joints can occur the complex rock slopes. To classify a landslide or
through tensile failure (MODE I) or as shear failure potential one, the type of movement or instability
(MODE II). Lajtai [40] presented experimental must be identified. This paper introduced the modes
study on Plaster of Paris and showed that the tensile of movements that have been observed in the field.
strength control the failure of rock bridges Several causes might cause rock instabilities such
especially at a low normal stresses range. Einstein as freezing/thawing cycles, high water table, and
et al. [41] developed an approach to model the over cutting of slopes; the slope movement process

2525
 International Journal of GEOMATE, Sept., 2016, Vol. 11, Issue 25, pp. 2520-2527

involves series of events from cause to effect. To Engineering for Foundations and Slopes, 1976,
analyze rock slopes; many numerical modeling pages 201–234, Boulder, CO.,. ASCE.
approaches are at the disposal of engineers. I [7] B. Benko. Numerical Modelling of Complex
recommend to use more than one tool to produce Slope Deformations. PhD thesis, Department of
results and compare them with the actual behavior Geological Sciences, 1997.
of a rock slope. The classification, the causes, and [8] J. Sjoberg. Analysis of large scale rock slopes.
the methods of analysis available will help PhD thesis, Lulea University of Technology,
researches as well as engineers to establish their Lulea, Sweden, 1999.
method of choice to investigate a rock slope. [9] D. M. Cruden. Limits to common toppling. Can.
Geotechnical Journal, 1989, 26: 737–742.
[10] J.R. Tosney, D. Milne, and F. Chance, A.V. and
Amon. Verification of a large scale slope
instability mechanism at highland valley copper.
Int. J. Surface Mining, Reclamation and
Environment, 2004, 18(4):273–288.
[11] E. Hoek and J.W. Bray. Rock Slope
Engineering. London Institution of Mining and
Metallurgy, 1981.
[12] K. Terzaghi and R.B Peck. Soil Mechanics in
Engineering Practice. John Wily and Sons, New
York, 1948
[13] J.N. Hutchinson. General report:
Morphological and geotechnical parameters of
Fig. 4 Rock slope failure simulation by ELFEN landslides in relation to geology and hydrology.
In C. Bonnard, editor, Fifth International
Symposium on Landslides, 1988, volume 1,
6. ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS pages 3–35, A.A. Balkema, , Netherlands.
[14] D.K. Keefer and A.M. Johnson. Earthflows:
The Author would like to acknowledge the Morphology, mobilization and movement.
financial contribution of the Office of Research at Technical report, U.S. Geological Survey
Abu Dhabi University, UAE. This work was funded Professional Paper 1264, 1983. 56 pp.
under grant number 1920194. [15] N.R. McRoberts and N.R. Morgenstern.
Stability of slopes in frozen soil, Mackenzie
7. REFERENCES valley, North West territories. Canadian
Geotechnical Journal, 1974, 11(4):554–573.
[1] V. Hajiabdolmajid and P. Kaiser. Slope stability [16] T.R. Stacey. Stability of rock slopes in open pit
assessment in strain-sensitive rocks. In In: mines. CSIR report MEG 737, National
EUROCK2002, Proc. of the ISRM International Mechanical Engineering Research Institute,
Symposium on Rock Engineering for Council for scientific and Industrial Research,
Mountainous Regions, Fuchal, Madeira, 2002b. Pretoria, South Africa, 1968.
[2] D.M. Cruden and D.J. Varnes. Landslide types [17] E. Eberhardt. From cause to effect: Using
and processes. In A.K. Turner and R.L. Schuster, numericall modelling to understand rock slope
editors, Landslides: Investigation and instability mechanics. In S.G. Evans, G.S.
Mitigation, Special Report, number 247, 1996, Mugnozza, A. Strom, and R.L. Hermanns,
pages 36–75, Washington, D.C. Transportation editors, Landslides from Massive Rock Slope
Research Board, National Academy Press. Failures, volume 49, 2006, pages 85–101.
[3] O. Hungr, S.G. Evans, M.J. Bovis, and J.N. [18] D. Stead, E. Eberhardt, J. Coggan, and B.
Hutchinson. A review of the classification of Benko. Advanced numerical techniques in rock
landslides of the flow type. Environmental and slope stability analysis-application and
Engineering Geoscience, 2001, 7(3):221–238. limitations. In: Landslide-Causes, Impacts and
[4] D.J. Varnes. Slope movement types and Countermeasures, 2001, 615–624, Davos,
processes. R.L. Schuster and R.J. Krizek, editors, Switzerland.
In special report 176: Landslides: analysis and [19] J.R. Tosney. A design approach for large scale
Control, 1978, pages 11–33, Washington, D.C. rock slopes. Master’s thesis, University of
TRB, National Research Council. Saskatchewan, 2001.
[5] O. Hungr and S.G Evans. Engineering [20] M.R. Romana. A geomechanical classification
evaluation of fragmental rockfall hazards. In C. for slopes: Slope mass rating. In Comprehensive
Bonnard, editor, Fifth International Symposium Rock Engineering. Principles, Practice and
on landslides, 1988, volume 1, 685–690, A.A. Projects, V 3: Rock Testing and Site
Balkema, Rotterdam, Netherlands. Characterization, 1993, pages 575–600. Oxford.
[6] R.E. Goodman and J.W. Bray. Toppling of rock
slopes. In Specialty Conference on Rock

2526
 International Journal of GEOMATE, Sept., 2016, Vol. 11, Issue 25, pp. 2520-2527

[21] Z.T. Bieniawski. Engineering Rock Mass [37] P. A. Cundall. A computer model for
Classification. John Wiley and Sons, New York, simulating progressive large scale movements
1989. in blocky rock systems. In proc. of the
[22] R.E. Goodman. Introduction to Rock Symposium of the Int. Society of Rock
Mechanics. J. Wiley and Sons, 1989. Mechanics, 1971, 129–136, Nancy, France.
[23] N. Barton. Rock slope performance as revealed [38] B. Benko and D. Stead. The frank slide: a
by a physical joint model. In Advances in Rock reexamination of the failure mechanism. Can.
Mechanics, Proceedings of the 3rd Congress of Geotechnical Journal, 1998, 35:299–311.
the Int. Society for Rock Mechanics, 1974. [39] K. Terzaghi. Stability of steep slopes on hard
[24] B. Ladanyi and G. Archambault. Direct and un- weathered rock. Geotechnique, 1962, 12:
indirect determination of shear strength of rock 251–270.
mass. In Preprint Number 80-25, AIME Annual [40] E.Z. Lajtai. Mechanics of second order faults
Meeting, Las Vegas, Nevada, 1980. Littleton: and tension gashes. Geological society of
Society of Mining Engineering of A.I.M.E. American bulletin, 80, 1969a, 2253–2272.
[25] D. P. Adhikary, A. V. Dyskin, R. J. Jewell, and [41] H.H. Einstein, D. Venezaino, G.B. Baecher,
D. P. Stewart. A study of the mechanism of and K.J. O’reilly. The effect of discontinuity
flexural toppling failure of rock slopes. Rock persistence on rock slope stability. Int. journal
Mechanics and Rock Eng., 1997a, 30:75–93. of rock mechanics and mining science and
[26] J. H. Zhang, Z. Y. Chen, and X.G. Wang. geomechanics abstract, 1983, 20(5):227–236.
Centrifugal modeling of rock slopes susceptible [42] B. Shen, O. Stephanson, H. H. Einstein, and B.
to block toppling. Rock Mechanics and Rock Ghahreman. Coalescence of fractures under
Engineering, 2006, 40:363–382. shear stresses in experiments. Journal of
[27] N.I. Norrish and D.C. Wyllie. Rock slope Geophysical Research, 1995, 100: 5975–5990.
stability analysis. A.K. Turner and R.L. [43] C. Scavia. A method to study the crack
Schuster, editors, In Landslides: Investigation propagation in rock structures. Geotechnique,
and Mitigation, number Special Report 247, 1995, 45(3):447–463.
pages 391–425, Washington, D.C., 1996. [44] K. Kaneko, J. Otani, Y. Noguchi, and N.
Transportation Research Board (National Togashiki. Rock fracture mechanics analysis of
Research Council), National Academy Press. slope failure. In In: Deformation and
[28] UDEC, Version 4.0. Itasca Consulting Group, Progressive Failure Geomechanics, 1997, pages
Inc., Minneapolis, 2004a.Ver. 3.1 671–676, Nagoya, Japan.
[29] J. Krahn. The 2001 r.m. hardy lecture: The [45] PFC2D. Itasca Cons Group, Minneapolis,
limits of limit equilibrium analyses. Canadian U.S.A, 2004b. ver. 4.0.
Geotechnical Journal, 2003, 40(3):643–660. [46] D.O. Potyondy and P.A. Cundall. A bonded-
[30] Rocscience. Rocscience Software products, particle model for rock. International Journal of
DIPS, SWEDGE, SLIDE and PHASE2. Rock Mechanics and Mining Sciences and
Rocsience Inc., Toronton, 20014 Geomechanics Abstract, 2004, 41:1329–1364.
[31] N.R. Morgenstern and V.E. Price. The analysis [47] D. Stead and J.S. Coggan. Numerical
of the stability of general slip surfaces. modelling of rock slopes using a total slope
Geotechnique, 1965, 15:79–93. failure approach. In S.G. Evans, G.S. Mugnozza,
[32] D.G. Fredlund and J. Krahn. Comparison of A. Strom, and R.L. Hermanns, editors,
slope stability methods of analysis. Canadian Landslides from Massive Rock Slope Failures,
Geotechnical Journal, 1977, 14:429–439. 2006, volume 49, pages 129–138.
[33] S. K. Sarma. Stability analysis of embankments [48] A. K. Alzo’ubi. The role of block ratio and
and slopes. Journal of the Geotechnical layer thickness on rock slopes movement style.
Engineering Division, ASCE, 105(GT12), 1979, International Journal of Geomate. 2015, Vol. 8,
1511–1524. No. 2, pp. 1271-1277.
[34] D. P. Adhikary, A. V. Dyskin, and R. J. Jewell.
Numerical modelling of the flexural International Journal of GEOMATE, Sept., 2016,
deformation of foliated rock slopes. Vol. 11, Issue 25, pp. 2520-2527.
International Journal of Rock Mechanics and MS No. 34052 received on Dec. 13, 2015 and
Mining Science and Geomechanics Abstract,
reviewed under GEOMATE publication policies.
1996, 33(6):595–606.
Copyright © 2016, Int. J. of GEOMATE. All rights
[35] E. Schlangen. Fracture simulation of brittle
heterogeneous materials. In Engineering reserved, including the making of copies unless
mechanics, Proceedings of the 10th Conference, permission is obtained from the copyright
volume 1, 1995, pages 130–133, Boulder, May proprietors. Pertinent discussion including
21-24. New York, (ASCE). authors’ closure, if any, will be published in Sept.
[36] FLAC. Itasca consulting group, Minneapolis, 2017 if the discussion is received by March 2017.
U.S.A., 2000. Corresponding Author: A. K. Alzo’ubi

2527