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

net/publication/304099919

Stability Evaluation of Jointed Rock Slope with Curved Face

Conference Paper · June 2016

CITATIONS READS

10 389

5 authors, including:

Jagadish Kundu Bankim Mahanta

Sapienza University of Rome Indian Institute of Technology Bhubaneswar
23 PUBLICATIONS 237 CITATIONS 23 PUBLICATIONS 963 CITATIONS

SEE PROFILE SEE PROFILE

Ashutosh Tripathy Kripamoy Sarkar

Indian Institute of Technology (ISM) Dhanbad Indian Institute of Technology (ISM) Dhanbad
20 PUBLICATIONS 544 CITATIONS 56 PUBLICATIONS 585 CITATIONS

SEE PROFILE SEE PROFILE

All content following this page was uploaded by Jagadish Kundu on 22 June 2016.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

 INDOROCK2016124

Stability Evaluation of Jointed Rock Slope with Curved Face

Jagadish Kundu1, Bankim Mahanta2*, Ashutosh Tripathy2, Kripamoy Sarkar1, T.N Singh2
1
Department of Applied Geology, Indian School of Mines, Dhanbad, Jharkhand, India
2
Department of Earth sciences, Indian Institute of Technology Bombay, Mumbai,
Maharashtra, India
*Corresponding author email: [email protected]

Abstract
Roads in hilly region are very frequently curved along its path. Cut slopes in these curved
region, form slopes either convex or concave faces. The stability of slopes in these regions is
unpredictable due to its continuous change of slope face orientation. Keeping an eye to this
problem, a modified stereographic projection method has been utilized to determine kinematic
stability in a convex slope and a special attention is given to determine slope mass rating in this
curved slope.
Keywords: Slope Mass Rating, Kinematic Analysis, Wedge Failure, Failure Envelope

1. Introduction
Slope instability is very general in hilly terrains and a major concern along the roads in these
area. When the road cuts through the rocks, its natural state of equilibrium is disturbed. Roads
in mountainous region, come across varied structures, lithology, and different slope
orientations, which make it very unpredictable in terms of stability. Moreover, curvatures along
the roads in hilly provinces are common and these curvatures give rise to concave or convex
cut slopes. General practices of stability assessment consider a single orientation of a slope
face but these practices do not holds good particularly for curved slopes. In this case, there is a
continuous change in orientation of slope face and it needs new methodologies or
modification(s) in existing methodologies for stability evaluation.

National Highway (NH) 22 is a very important and crucial road from strategic point of view
which connects India border towards China. The highway encounters frequent curved paths
and so possesses concave and convex cut slopes along its length. These curved slopes along
with regionally and locally varying structures, make the road very complex and unpredictable.
In this paper, a case study has been carried out considering one such convex slope along the
road. Stereographic analysis has been done for the assessment of kinematic stability and a
special attention is given for the determination of slope mass rating (SMR) in this curved face.
INDOROCK 2016: 6th Indian Rock Conference 17-18 June 2016
 Kundu et al. (2016)

Instead of taking a single slope face, a method has been adopted to consider the primary failure
zone for wedges in changing orientation of the slope face as described by Yoon et al. (2002).
In this paper we have added a new secondary failure envelope for the curved slope. The SMR
has been calculated using continuous functions suggested by Tomas et al. (2007) to get the
correction factors.

2. Regional Geology
The studied location is present near to Jeori in the higher Himalayan crystalline zone and the
area comes under Jutogh group of rocks in the Main Central Thrust Zone (MCTZ). Common
rock types in the area are augen migmatite, biotite gneiss, quartz mica schist, garnet bearing
quartz mica schist, muscovite biotite schist, and amphibolite (Kundu et al., 2016; Singh, 1979).
There is a local tectonic detachment of Jutogh group which has occurred through ductile
shearing (Mukhopadhaya et al., 1997) and named as Jeori dislocation (Singh, 1979).
Geological map for the area has been given in Figure 1.

Figure 1 Regional geological map of the area (after Singh et al., 2009).

972
 INDOROCK2016124

3. Kinematic Analysis
Structures such as joints and fracture planes in a rock mass are major elements to possess
weakness and instability. Unfavorably oriented discontinuities risk the stability of rock masses
where it gets release surface(s) either natural or due to human intervention. Kinematic analysis
is an easy and worldwide accepted method to analyze structural instability with the help of
stereographic projection. The analysis takes angular relationship between slope face and joint
planes to determine failure modes and its potential. Yoon et al. (2002) have developed a method
to analyze the structural stability of multifaceted slope considering primary failure envelop of
wedge failure. In this paper, Secondary failure envelope has been proposed for slopes with
multi and curved slope faces along with the adopted primary failure envelop. A comparison
between stereographic projections for wedge failure in single, double, multi and curved faced
slope has been illustrated in Figure 3. As evident from the projections, failure envelops
increase gradually with more number of faces and is highest in case of curved slope.

Figure 2 A: The studied slope with curved face; B: Failed region of the curved slope between 65° to 75° face
direction.

A curve faced slope near Jeori along NH 22 has been analyzed as a case study and analyzed to
see kinematic feasibility (Figure 2A). The slope has a constant inclination of 75° and slope
face direction varies from 60° to 95°. Joint details of the slope has been given in

Table 1.

Table 1 Joint orientations of the studied slope.

Joint Dip Dip direction

J1 62 293
J2 61 79
J3 70 21

INDOROCK 2016: 6th Indian Rock Conference 17-18 June 2016

 Kundu et al. (2016)

Figure 3 Primary and secondary failure envelops for wedge failure. A: single faced slope; B: double faced
slope; C: multi faced slope; D: curved faced slope.

Angle of friction for the joints is considered 34° from the tilt test of jointed rock and the data
are projected on a stereographic net with a plane friction cone of 34° (Figure 4). The slope has
potential for wedge failures and it forms wedges with two intersection lines trending towards
4° and 70°.

974
 INDOROCK2016124

Figure 4 Stereographic projection for kinematic analysis of the studied slope showing wedges with two
intersection lines towards 4° and 70°

4. Slope Mass Rating

Conventional methods such as Rock Mass Rating (RMR), (Bieniawski, 1989) Slope Mass
Rating (SMR) (Romana, 1985), Geological Strength Index (GSI) (Hoek et al., 1998; Marinos
and Hoek, 2000), Rock mass quality (Q) (Barton et al., 1974) and Rock Mass Strength (RMS)
(Selby, 1980) are well established among rock mass classification systems to estimate strength
of rock masses. RMR was initially developed for tunneling purpose but it was latter modified
for the application in mines, foundations, and slopes. RMR, though considered for slopes, there
is no explicit consideration of discontinuity orientation. The RMR System uses six parameters
to classify a rock mass which are, (i) Uniaxial compressive strength (UCS) of rock material,
(ii) Rock Quality Designation (RQD), (iii) spacing of discontinuities, (iv) condition of
INDOROCK 2016: 6th Indian Rock Conference 17-18 June 2016
 Kundu et al. (2016)

discontinuities (v) Ground water conditions and (vi) orientation of discontinuities. Out of these
parameters, first five parameters constitute basic RMR (RMRb) which is unadjusted for
discontinuity orientations. RMRb for the location has been calculated according to the rating
scheme of Bieniawski (1989) and is given in Table 2.
Table 2 Basic rock mass rating of the studied slope

UCS RQD Joint Joint Ground water RMRb

(A) (B) spacing condition rating (A+B+C+D+E)
(C) (D) (E)
9 17 8 10 15 59

Romana (1985) proposed SMR system based on basic RMR, where he considered slope face,
joints orientation and their interrelationships. The expression for SMR is given by
SMR=RMR basic +F1 ×F2 ×F3 +F4 Eq. 1
Where,
F1 depends on difference between dip direction of Joint (αj) and slope (αs). In case of wedge
failure it depend on difference between αs and trend of line of intersection αi.
F2 depends on dip of joint (ßj) in case of planar failure and plunge of line of intersection (ßi) in
case of wedge failure. For toppling failure F2 remains 1 everywhere.
F3 depends on difference between ßj and dip of slope ßs for planar failure, difference between
(ßi) and for wedge failure. For topple failure, it depends on ßj + ßs.
F4 is the adjustment for method of excavation.

The corrections factors for SMR have been derived from the continuous functions given by
Tomas et al. (2007) and Umrao et al. (2011).
Where,
16 3 1
F1 = − tan-1 ( (|A| − 17)) Eq. 2
25 500 10

9 1 17
F2 = + tan-1 ( B − 5) Eq. 3
16 195 100

For planar and wedge failure,

1
F3 = − 30+ tan-1 C Eq. 4
3

And for topple failure,

1
F3 = − 13 − tan-1 (C − 120) Eq. 5
7

Where,

976
 INDOROCK2016124

A= parallelism between slope Strike and joint strike for planar and toppling failures and
difference between slope strike and plunge direction of angle of intersection for wedge
failure.
B= dip of joint in planar failure and plunge of angle of intersection in wedge failure.
C= difference between angle of slope and dip of joint for planar failure, difference
between angle of slope and plunge of line of intersection for wedge failure and addition of
slope angle and dip of joint in case of toppling failure.

The SMR has been calculated for kinematically vulnerable wedges in the slope face presented
in Error! Reference source not found.. Error! Reference source not found.A shows variation of
SMR with changing slope directions of slope face for wedge with intersection line trending 4°.
SMR for this wedge is increasing continuously from one end to other end of the slope. Figure
5B represents variation of SMR with slope face direction for the wedge with intersection line
trending 70°. For this wedge, SMR is minimum in the zone where slope face directs 70° and
comes under very bad rock mass quality according to (Romana, 1985) classification based on
rating. The result is aided by field photo in Figure 2B, which shows failed region in between
slope face direction of 65° to 75°.

Figure 5 Variation of SMR with Slope face direction for the wedge with intersection line trending 4° (A)
and 70° (B).

5. Conclusion
Application of modified stereographic method for kinematic analysis in curved slope face is
very useful which would otherwise may neglect the potential failures in the region. SMR is a
dominant classification system for the slope rock masses and its determination for curved
slopes should be for all changing angles of slope face. SMR for curved slope would reveal the
continuous change in slope health from one end to the other and this would help for better

INDOROCK 2016: 6th Indian Rock Conference 17-18 June 2016

 Kundu et al. (2016)

planning of preventive measures. The studied location has a potential for wedge failure with
intersection lines trending 4° and 70°. The wedge with intersection line trend towards 70° is
more vulnerable throughout the slope and is most susceptible towards 70°.

References
1. Barton, N., Lien, R., Lunde, J., 1974. Engineering classification of rock masses for the design of tunnel
support. Rock Mech. Rock Eng. 6, pp.189–236.
2. Bieniawski, Z.T., 1989. Engineering Rock Mass Classifications: A complete Manual for Engineering
and Geologists in Mining, Civil and Petroleum Engineering. Wiley, Chichester, London.
3. Hoek, E., Marinos, P., Benissi, M., 1998. Applicability of the Geological Strength Index (GSI)
classification for very weak and sheared rock masses. The case of the Athens Schist Formation. Bull.
Eng. Geol. Environ. 52, pp.151–160.
4. Kundu, J., Sarkar, K., Singh, A.K., 2016. Integrating structural and numerical solutions for road cut
slope stability analysis-A case study, India., in: Proceedings of the 2nd International Conference on
Rock Dynamics and Applications. pp.457–462.
5. Marinos, P., Hoek, E., 2000. GSI – A geologically friendly tool for rock mass strength estimation, in:
Proceedings GeoEng2000 Conference. Melbourne, Australia, pp.1422–1442.
6. Mukhopadhaya, D.K., Ghosh, T.K., Bhadra, B.K., Srivastava, D.C., 1997. Structural and metamorphic
evolution of the rocks of the Jutogh Group, Chur half-klippe, Himachal Himalayas: A summary and
comparison with the Simla area, in: Proceedings of the Indian Academy of Sciences- Earth and Planetary
Sciences. pp.197–207.
7. Romana, M., 1985. New adjustment ratings for application of Bieniawski classification to slopes., in:
Proceedings of International Symposium on Role of Rock Mechanics in Excavations for Mining and
Civil Works, ISRM. Zacatecas, Mexico, pp.49–53.
8. Selby, M.J., 1980. A rock mass strength classification for geomorphic purposes: with tests from
Antarctica and New Zealand. Z. Geomorpho 24, pp.31–51.
9. Singh, K.P., 1979. Deformation history of the rocks around Sarahan Bushair, Himachal Pradesh, in:
Saklani, P.S. (Ed.), Structural Geology of the Himalaya. pp. 163–182.
10. Singh, S., Jain, A. K., Barley, M.E., 2009. SHRIMP U-Pb c. 1860 Ma anorogenic magmatic signatures
from the NW Himalaya: implications for Palaeoproterozoic assembly of the Columbia Supercontinent.
Geol. Soc. London, Spec. Publ. 323, pp.283–300.
11. Tomas, R., Delgado, J., Seron, J.B., 2007. Modification of slope mass rating (SMR) by continuous
functions. Int. J. Rock Mech. Min. Sci. 44, pp.1062–1069.
12. Umrao, R.K., Singh, R., Ahmad, M., Singh, T.N., 2011. Stability Analysis of Cut Slopes Using
Continuous Slope Mass Rating and Kinematic Analysis in Rudraprayag District, Uttarakhand.
Geomaterials 01, pp.79–87.
13. Yoon, W.S., Jeong, U.J., Kim, J.H., 2002. Kinematic analysis for sliding failure of multi-faced rock
slopes. Eng. Geol. 67, pp.51–61.

978

View publication stats