LEARNING UNIT 9:

SLOPES

Table of Contents Page no.

1 Introduction and General Overview ................................................................................... 1
2 Purpose and Expected Outcome of the Learning Unit ....................................................... 2
3 Definitions and Abbreviations ............................................................................................ 3
4 Readily Available Sources and Student Guidance .............................................................. 3
5 Introduction to Slopes ........................................................................................................ 4
6 Modes of Slope Failure ....................................................................................................... 4
6.1 Sliding Failure Modes (Soil Slopes).............................................................................. 5
6.2 Sliding Failure Modes (Rock Slopes)............................................................................ 7
7 Factor of Safety ................................................................................................................... 9
8 Strength Criteria Overview ............................................................................................... 10
9 Factors Influencing Slope Stability .................................................................................... 13
10 Site Investigation Overview .............................................................................................. 15
11 Stability Analysis Overview, Requirements and Methods ................................................ 16
11.1 Time Related Stability and Evaluation ...................................................................... 16
11.2 Stability Analysis Methods ........................................................................................ 19
11.3 Requirements and Steps in the Process of Estimating Stability ............................... 21
12 Material Parameters Required for Design Input .............................................................. 22
12.1 Required Parameters for Soil Slopes ......................................................................... 22
12.2 Required Parameters for Rock Slopes ....................................................................... 23
12.2.1 Mohr‐Coulomb, Hoek‐Brown, Barton‐Choubey Shear Strength Criteria .......... 23
12.2.2 Rock Mass Classification (Laubscher MRMR1990 System) .................................. 24
12.2.3 Rock Mass Classification (Bar and Barton’s Q‐Slope 1990 System) .................. 26
13 Stabilisation Measures ...................................................................................................... 30
 13.1 Modifying Slope Geometry ....................................................................................... 31
13.2 Improve Drainage ...................................................................................................... 33
13.3 Resistant Structural Elements ................................................................................... 35
13.4 Construction Walls and Retaining Elements ............................................................. 38
13.5 Surface Protection Measurements ........................................................................... 40
13.6 Rock Cut Stabilization and Protection ....................................................................... 41
14 Maintenance, Inspection, Monitoring and Control .......................................................... 43
15 Self‐Assessment Activities ................................................................................................ 47
16 Further Reading ................................................................................................................ 47
17 Informative Website Links ................................................................................................ 47
18 Worked Examples ............................................................................................................. 47
18.1 Infinite Soil Slope Stability with Steady State Seepage ............................................. 47
18.2 Plastic Limit Upper and Lower Bound Method (Vertical Face) ................................. 49
18.3 Initial Embankment Stability Analysis Constructed on Clay (TRH10, 1994).............. 50
18.4 Limit Equilibrium Analysis in Undrained Soil............................................................. 51
18.5 Stability Number (Tailor’s Method) .......................................................................... 54
18.6 Tailor’s Method by Using Bray Charts (Friction Circle Method) ............................... 58
18.7 Rock Mass Classification System (MRMRL90 Method)............................................... 65
18.8 Rock Mass Classification System (Q‐Slope Method) ................................................. 71
19 References ........................................................................................................................ 71
List of Tables Page no.
Table 1: Influence of Factors on the Conditions of Materials and Slopes (de Vallejo & Ferrer, 2011, p.
563) ....................................................................................................................................................... 14
Table 2: Comparison of Limit Equilibrium Method and Fined Element Method .................................. 21
Table 3: Geotechnical Instrumentation for Measuring Displacements and Pressures in Slopes (de
Vallejo & Ferrer, 2011, p. 445) .............................................................................................................. 46
Table 4: RMR Rating Table I (Part 1 of 2) .............................................................................................. 67
Table 5: RMR Rating Table I (Part 2 of 2) .............................................................................................. 68
Table 6: Adjustment of RMR to obtain MRMR rating ........................................................................... 69
Table 7: MRMRL90 Rating to Obtain the Initial Safe Slope Angle .......................................................... 70

List of Figures Page no.

Figure 1: Outline of the Module (Focus on Learning Unit 9) .................................................................. 1
Figure 2: 5 Modes of Slope Failure as per the Cruden and Varnes (1996) Classification (Das, 2010, pp.
512‐514) .................................................................................................................................................. 5
Figure 3: Major Slip Failure Modes 1 (Soils)............................................................................................ 6
Figure 4: Major Slip Failure Modes 2 (Soils) (Craig & Knappett, 2012, p. 473)....................................... 7
Figure 5: Plane failure (Rock) (Mah & Wyllie, 2004, p. 131) ................................................................... 7
Figure 6: Wedge failure (Rock) (Mah & Wyllie, 2004, p. 155) ................................................................ 8
Figure 7: Circular failure (Rock) (Mah & Wyllie, 2004, p. 178) ............................................................... 8
Figure 8: The Concept of Scale and Modes of Failure in Rock or a Rock Mass ....................................... 9
Figure 9: Pore Water Pressure Over Time (Construction of Embankment) (Das, 2010, p. 569) .......... 17
Figure 10: Factor of Safety Over Time ‐ Construction of Embankment (Das, 2010, p. 569) ................ 18
Figure 11: Pore Pressure Dissipation and FoS variation in a) cut slopes and b) fill slopes. .................. 18
Figure 12: Parameters Required for Strength Properties of Different Soil Types ................................ 23
Figure 13: Overview of the MRMRL90 System ....................................................................................... 26
Figure 14: Q‐slope Stability Chart (Bar & Barton, 2017) ....................................................................... 29
Figure 15: Methods for Increasing the Factor of Safety of Soil Slopes (de Vallejo & Ferrer, 2011, p.
436) ....................................................................................................................................................... 31
Figure 16: Stabilising and De‐Stabilising due to Self‐Weight and External Loads................................. 32
Figure 17: Basic Slope Modification to Stabilise a Slope ...................................................................... 33
Figure 18: General Measures for Slope Drainage and Protection (de Vallejo & Ferrer, 2011, p. 437) 34
Figure 19: Distribution and Efficiency of Drainage Systems in a Slope (de Vallejo & Ferrer, 2011, p.
438) ....................................................................................................................................................... 35
Figure 20: Pile Wall ............................................................................................................................... 36
Figure 21: Micropile Network ............................................................................................................... 37
Figure 22: Ground Anchors ................................................................................................................... 37
Figure 23: Comparison of Passive and Active (Pre‐stressed) Anchors (Bansal, Gupta, & Kurian, 2006)
.............................................................................................................................................................. 38
Figure 24: Gabon Walls (de Vallejo & Ferrer, 2011, p. 442) ................................................................. 39
Figure 25: Wall‐Anchor and Pile‐Anchor Combinations (de Vallejo & Ferrer, 2011, p. 442)................ 40
Figure 26: Reinforced Earth Wall (de Vallejo & Ferrer, 2011, p. 442) .................................................. 40
Figure 27: Categories of Rock Slope Stabilisation Measures (Modified from source (Mah & Wyllie,
2004, p. 284)) ........................................................................................................................................ 42
Figure 28: Rock Slope Reinforcement Methods (Mah & Wyllie, 2004, p. 286) .................................... 43
Figure 29: Types of Movement (Excluding Long‐Term Creep).............................................................. 44
Figure 30: Selective Slope Monitoring Techniques ............................................................................... 45
Figure 31: Infinite Slope with Steady State Seepage (Das, 2010, p. 518) ............................................. 48
Figure 32: Maximum Face Height by Means of Plastic Solutions ......................................................... 49
Figure 33: Embankment on Clay ........................................................................................................... 51
Figure 34: Slope Problem – Saturated Clay........................................................................................... 52
Figure 35: Modes of Failure of Finite Slope (Das, 2010, p. 524) ........................................................... 53
Figure 36: Stability Number (Ns or m) (Das, 2010, p. 527) ................................................................... 54
Figure 37: Slope of Concern (Stability Number Tailor’s Method) ......................................................... 54
Figure 38: Tailor’s Stability Number (Ns or m) (Das, 2010, p. 539) ...................................................... 56
Figure 39: Contours of Equal Factor of Safety (Slope angles a, b, c and d) (Das, 2010) ....................... 57
Figure 40: Contours of Equal Factor of Safety (Slope angles e, f and g) (Das, 2010) ............................ 58
Figure 41: Slope Under Consideration (Bray Chart Stability Analysis – Tailors Method) ..................... 60
Figure 42: Groundwater Flow Conditions (de Vallejo & Ferrer, 2011) ................................................. 60
Figure 43: Chart Number 1 (de Vallejo & Ferrer, 2011) ........................................................................ 61
Figure 44: Chart Number 2 (de Vallejo & Ferrer, 2011) ........................................................................ 62
Figure 45: Chart Number 3 (de Vallejo & Ferrer, 2011) ........................................................................ 63
Figure 46: Chart Number 4 (de Vallejo & Ferrer, 2011) ........................................................................ 64
Figure 47: Chart Number 5 (de Vallejo & Ferrer, 2011) ........................................................................ 65
1 Introduction and General Overview
This is Learning Unit 9 of 11 units in this module (see Figure 1). The module consists of ten
structured learning units and one unit that will be one (or more) geological engineering
project(s). The focus of this learning unit is on “Slopes” for the prospective engineer.

Basic Geology
(Learning Unit 1)
Basic Fundamentals
Geological
and Introduction to
Engineering Projects
Structural Geology
(Learning Unit 11)
(Learning Unit 2)

Geological Factors
Discontinuities and
Affecting Construction
“Properties of Rock”
Projects
(Learning Unit 3)
(Learning Unit 10)

Civil
Engineering
Design
Slopes Construction Geomorphology
(Learning Unit 9) (Learning Unit 4)

Engineering Geological Hazards

Geophysics and Problem Soils
(Learning Unit 8) (Learning Unit 5)

Soil and Rock

Geotechnical Site
Parameters for
Investigations
Design Input
(Learning Unit 7)
(Learning Unit 6)

Figure 1: Outline of the Module (Focus on Learning Unit 9)

Slope (and wall) problems will form part of your everyday engineering problems. Slopes can
be natural or engineered. They may vary from very gentle slopes to steep slopes.
They may be cut slopes (where material is removed in order to form the slope) or constructed
slopes (e.g., road embankments). For the purposes of this learning unit, we will not
differentiate between the definition of a slope (less than or equal to 70° angle) and a wall
(steeper than 70° angle). The unit will provide principles and practical tools that can be used
to conduct basic stability analyses for soil and rock slopes, and outline stabilisation techniques
to consider.

1
2 Purpose and Expected Outcome of the Learning Unit
This unit offers an introduction to soil and rock slopes for the prospective engineer.
The main objectives of this learning unit are to:
a) Provide an introduction to soil and rock slopes in general.
b) Provide guidance on site investigation procedures related to slope problems.
c) Introduce the general factors that have an impact on the stability of slopes.
d) Provide clarification on the steps to consider in a stability evaluation.
e) Introduce the different types and methods of stability analysis.
f) Provide an introduction to the main requirements of a stability analysis.
g) Introduce rock mass classification systems.
h) Outline the soil and rock parameters required for the different stability analyses.
i) Introduce different stabilisation methods.
j) Provide worked examples of basic analyses, including:
o Plastic limit methods;
o Limit equilibrium methods; and
o Rock mass classification methods.
At the end of this learning unit, you should be able to:
List and briefly discuss the different modes of failure that can be expected in specific
materials/settings;
List and discuss the factors that may have an impact on slope stability;
Illustrate your understanding of the different shear strength criteria;
Illustrate your understanding of the different stability analysis methods;
Identify the correct strength criteria and evaluation method to be applied for a specific
problem of interest;
Explain the importance of the immediate, short- and long-term stability of a slope;
Illustrate variation in pore water pressure and factor of safety with time in a constructed
slope (fill/embankment) and an excavated slope (cut slope), by making reference to
the Mohr-Coulomb shear strength criteria and effective stress, total stress and pore
water pressure);
Illustrate your understanding of the concepts of immediate response, regressive
movement, steady state movement, progressive movement and long-term creep;
List the input parameters required for the different types of soil and rock slope
analyses;
Conduct basic initial stability assessments/evaluations by making use of selected:
o Plastic limit methods;

2
 o Limit equilibrium methods; and
o Rock mass classification methods.

3 Definitions and Abbreviations

Definitions and abbreviations are provided and clarified in the relevant sections in the learning
unit. Where there is uncertainty, refer to the original source, article or publication.

4 Readily Available Sources and Student Guidance

Slopes are extensively covered in various textbooks, codes of practice, design manuals and
standards. You can obtain and refer to any textbook (or alternative reliable sources) that
covers the sections addressed in this learning unit. For the purposes of this unit, you will be
directed to a number of readily available sources. You should obtain the sources listed as
compulsory reading. All questions or potential projects will be based on information contained
in the learning unit and/or sources.
The compulsory sources include (refer to download links under the references section of
this learning unit):
 Code of Practice: SAICE 2010, Site Investigation Code of Practice, The Geotechnical
Division of SAICE, January 2010 (SAICE, 2010).
 Practical rock engineering notes by Evert Hoek (Hoek, 2006).
 Technical recommendations for highways, TRH09 on the Construction of Road
Embankments (TRH09, 1982).
 Technical recommendations for highways, TRH10 on the Design of Road
Embankments (TRH10, 1994).
 Technical recommendations for highways, TRH18 on the Investigation, Design,
Construction and Maintenance of Road Cuttings (TRH18, 1993).
 Article by D.H. Laubscher on the MRMRL90 rock mass classification system: “A
geomechanics classification system for the rating of rock mass in mine design”
(Laubscher, 1990).
 Publication by Neil Bar and Nick Ryland Barton on the Q-Slope system: “The Q-Slope
Method for Rock Slope Engineering” (Bar & Barton, 2017).
Suggested textbooks may include:
 Geological Engineering by Vallejo and Ferrer (de Vallejo & Ferrer, 2011).
 A Guide to Practical Geotechnical Engineering in Southern Africa (Franki, 2008).
 Principles of Geotechnical Engineering by Braja M. Das (Das, 2010) (an 8th and a 9th
edition are available).
 Rock Slope Engineering Civil and Mining by Duncan C Wyllie and Christopher W Mah
(Mah & Wyllie, 2004).

3
  Guidelines for Open Pit Slope Design edited by John Read and Peter Stacey (Read &
Stacey, 2010).
 Soil Strength and Slope Stability by Duncan, Wright and Brandon (Duncan, Wright, &
Brandon, 2014).
Additional sources may include (see Learning Unit 6; selected sections may apply to this
learning unit):
 Publication 293 – Geotechnical Engineering Manual, Pennsylvania Department of
Transportation, April 2018 (PDOT, 2018).
 Geotechnical Design Manual M 46-03.05 (August 2011), Washington State
Department of Transportation (WSDOT, 2011).
You are not required to obtain any of the suggested textbooks. It is expected that alternative
or relevant textbooks will form part of the compulsory reference books required in other soil
mechanics or geotechnical modules to follow. The suggested textbooks may, however, be
valuable additions to your geotechnical toolbox.

5 Introduction to Slopes
A slope is any exposed surface that has an angle to the horizontal. Slopes may be natural
(topography due to geomorphological processes) or artificial (cut/earthwork features that are
related to engineering works) in nature. As per the South African National Standards (SANS
207:2011), a slope is considered any slope with an angle of up to 70° to the horizontal. Slopes
exceeding 70° are considered walls. For the purposes of this learning unit, no differentiation
will be made between a wall and a slope.
To evaluate the stability of a slope, we need to be able to estimate the shear strength of the
material, driving forces or resultant shear stresses that develop along the plane of potential
shear/failure. Different shear strength criteria are available. To apply the correct failure criteria
to a specific slope problem, we need to understand the material type and expected mode of
failure.
The following sections offer an introduction to slopes, an overview of some of the principles,
and guidance on evaluation and stabilisation methods.

6 Modes of Slope Failure

Cruden and Varnes (1996) classify the modes of slope failure into the following five major
categories (Das, 2010, p. 512):
 Fall: This is the detachment of soil and/or rock fragments that fall down a slope;
 Topple: This is a forward rotation of soil and/or rock mass about an axis below the
centre of gravity of mass being displaced;
 Slide: This is the downward movement of a soil mass occurring on a surface of rupture;
 Lateral spread: This is a form of slide by translation. It occurs through the “sudden
movement of water-bearing seams of sands or silts overlain by clays or loaded by fills”;

4
  Flow: This is a downward movement of a soil mass similar to a viscous fluid.
The different modes of failure are illustrated in Figure 2.

Figure 2.5: Modes of Slope Failure as per the Cruden and Varnes (1996)
Classification (Das, 2010, pp. 512-514)

The concepts of lateral spreading and flows were introduced in Learning Unit 5. These modes
of failure are generally associated with dilation and soil liquefaction, which are mainly triggered
by seismic events in natural slopes. The exception is tailing storage dams, where production
rates increase beyond the design criteria. The rapid increase in tailings’ height, with insufficient
drainage, results in excessive pore water pressure build-up. Given the nature/grading of
tailings, the material can liquefy under “static” loading conditions.
Falls and topples are equilibrium problems. The focus of this learning unit will be on the sliding
failure modes.

6.1 Sliding Failure Modes (Soil Slopes)

The shape of the failure plane is dependent on the morphology, stratigraphy and lithology of
the slope (de Vallejo & Ferrer, 2011, p. 410). Homogeneous soils generally fail along curved
surfaces. Where the slope consists of residual soil or debris underlain by rock, failure may
occur along the soil/rock interface that is parallel to the slope face. In conditions where the
material or strength of the materials is non-homogeneous, slope failure generally occurs along
polygonal surfaces.
Soil slope sliding failure types:

5
 a) Translational failure: Translation on a planar surface where the length is large
compared to the depth below ground. It is also commonly referred to as “infinite slope
slides”. The failure surface is characterised by a planar slip surface which often lies
parallel to the slope of the ground surface. Failure is generally shallow.
b) Rotational toe failure: Rotation on a curved slip surface approximated by a circular
arc. It generally occurs in homogenous soil. The circle passes through the bottom of
the tension crack (if present). Failure daylights at the toe of the slope.
c) Deep rotational failure: Rotation on a curved slip surface approximated by a circular
arc. It generally occurs in homogenous soil, with a weak layer at depth. The circle
passes through the bottom of the tension crack (if present). Failure daylights some
distance beyond the toe of the slope.
d) Plane failure: Planar slip generally occurs in dense or stiff soils with some
discontinuity. The failure surface daylights in the face or at the toe.
e) Polygonal-type or non-circular failure type: Failure surfaces along the boundary
between materials with significant strength differences, and/or along discontinuities.
f) Wedge failure: Displacement of a wedge mass along one or more planes of
weakness. Sliding occurs on natural discontinuities. Normally occurs in rigid/hard soils
or rock.
g) Compound slip: A combination of any of the above.
Common sliding failure modes are illustrated in Figure 3 andFigure 4.

a) Translational failure d) Plane failure

Hard layer

b) Rotational toe Tension crack e) Polygonal-

failure type failure
(non-circular)
Hard layer

c) Deep rotational
Tension crack
toe failure f) Wedge
failure

Weak layer

Figure 3: Major Slip Failure Modes 1 (Soils)

6
Figure 4: Major Slip Failure Modes 2 (Soils) (Craig & Knappett, 2012, p. 473)

6.2 Sliding Failure Modes (Rock Slopes)

As for soil, the sliding mode of rock will depend on the nature of the rock, internal and external
factors, and the scale under consideration.
Rock slope sliding failure types:
 Plane failure along a discontinuity or discontinuity planes (see Figure 5);
 Stepped surface failure in blocky rock masses (see Figure 6);
 Circular failure in/through a heavily jointed and/or weathered rock mass (see Figure
7).

Figure 5: Plane Failure (Rock) (Mah & Wyllie, 2004, p. 131)

7
Figure 6: Wedge Failure (Rock) (Mah & Wyllie, 2004, p. 155)

Figure 7: Circular Failure (Rock) (Mah & Wyllie, 2004, p. 178)

The importance of scale in rock slopes should be emphasised at this stage (see Figure 8) –
it was covered in detail in Learning Unit 3: “Properties of Rock”. It should be clear by now that
the planar and wedge-type failure modes are structurally controlled, and evaluation of the
shear strength of the discontinuity planes will be required. The circular failure mode can be
expected in rock with sufficient discontinuities to allow a “soil-like” or “mass-like” behaviour. If
there are any uncertainties, refer to Learning Unit 3 and ensure that you understand this critical
concept, as it will determine the strength criteria you select for evaluating a specific problem.

8
Figure 8: The Concept of Scale and Modes of Failure in Rock or a Rock Mass

Refer to section 2.1 in the TRH18 document. Read through the section and refer
to Table 1 and Figure 1 in the document. Take note of the concluding paragraph in this section.

7 Factor of Safety
Slope design is based on stability analyses, which generally include factor of safety
calculations. The factor of safety, expressed in terms of shear strength and stress, is the ratio
between the shear strength of the material and the shear stress developed along the potential
failure surface. The general factor of safety concept can be expressed as:
𝑆ℎ𝑒𝑎𝑟 𝑠𝑡𝑟𝑒𝑛𝑔𝑡ℎ 𝑜𝑓 𝑡ℎ𝑒 𝑠𝑜𝑖𝑙, 𝑑𝑖𝑠𝑐𝑜𝑛𝑡𝑖𝑛𝑢𝑖𝑡𝑦 𝑜𝑟 𝑟𝑜𝑐𝑘 𝑚𝑎𝑠𝑠 𝜏 Equation 7.1
𝐹
𝑆ℎ𝑒𝑎𝑟 𝑠𝑡𝑟𝑒𝑠𝑠 𝑑𝑒𝑣𝑒𝑙𝑜𝑝𝑒𝑑 𝑎𝑙𝑜𝑛𝑔 𝑡ℎ𝑒 𝑝𝑜𝑡𝑒𝑛𝑡𝑖𝑎𝑙 𝑓𝑎𝑖𝑙𝑢𝑟𝑒 𝑠𝑢𝑟𝑓𝑎𝑐𝑒 𝜏

9
8 Strength Criteria Overview
The shear strength of a Mohr-Coulomb failure criterion can be expressed as:

𝜏 𝑐 𝜎 ∙ 𝑡𝑎𝑛 𝜑 Equation 8.1

Where:
c is the cohesion
𝜎 is the normal stress on the failure plane
𝜑 is the friction angle of the material.
It should be clear at this stage that the linear shear strength criteria (Mohr-Coulomb failure
criterion) consist of a cohesion component and a friction component, as indicated below.

Mohr-Coulomb Failure Criterion

Cohesive Frictional
component component

You will recall from Learning Unit 3 “Properties of Rock”, that the shear strength of a planar
smooth rock discontinuity can be expressed as indicated below:

Mohr-Coulomb Failure Criterion

(Planar Smooth)

Cohesive Frictional
component component

The shear strength of a planar rough rock discontinuity can be expressed as:

Mohr-Coulomb Failure Criterion

(Planar Rough)

Cohesive Frictional
component component

The shear strength of a rock mass (i.e., rock with sufficient joints to act as a “mass”) can be
expressed in terms of principal stresses or the Mohr-Coulomb failure criterion (refer to
Learning Unit 3):

10
 Mohr-Coulomb Failure Criterion
Cohesive Frictional
component component

Where the Hoek-Brown equivalent Mohr-Coulomb effective cohesion and effective

friction angle are defined by:

⎛ ⎞
𝜎 , 𝜎 ,
⎜ 1 2∙𝑎 ∙𝑠 1 𝑎 ∙𝑚 ∙ 𝑠 𝑚 ∙ ⎟
𝜎 𝜎
𝑐 𝜎 ⎜ ⎟ Equation 8.2
⎜ 𝜎 ⎟
,
⎜ 6∙𝑎∙𝑚 𝑠 𝑚 ∙ ⎟
𝜎
1 𝑎 2 𝑎 ∙ 1
⎝ 𝑎 𝑎 2 𝑎 ⎠

⎡ 𝜎 , ⎤
⎢ 6∙𝑎∙𝑚 ∙ 𝑠 𝑚 ∙ ⎥
𝜎
𝜑 sin ⎢ ⎥ Equation 8.3
⎢2 ∙ 1 𝜎 , ⎥
𝑎 ∙ 2 𝑎 6∙𝑎∙𝑚 𝑠 𝑚 ∙
⎣ 𝜎 ⎦

The Barton-Choubey criterion can be expressed as (see Learning Unit 3):

11
 Barton-Choubey Failure Criterion

The “i” part in φp=φb+i

It is a measure of roughness

Frictional Geometrical Asperity Frictional

component component component component

Note: As normal stress increases, the roughness component

becomes insignificant. This relationship incorporates dilation.

You will recall that the Mohr-Coulomb failure criterion is simplified, based on the concept of
cohesion plus (+) friction, and a linear failure envelope where in reality the failure envelope is
non-linear, with generally higher friction angles (steeper envelope slope) at lower stresses
(due to dilation or apparent cohesion) and lower friction angles (flatter failure envelope slope)
at higher stress conditions. Hoek-Brown addresses this non-linearity with the implementation
of shape factors. The Barton-Choubey failure criterion addresses the effect of roughness and
the associated dilation on the shear strength, by incorporating geometrical and asperity
components. For details, refer back to Learning Unit 3.
For the purposes of this learning unit, we will mainly focus on the linear Mohr-Coulomb
relationship. It should be clear at this stage that the strength of the material is dependent on
the material type, the scale of the problem under consideration, induces stresses, etc. It should
also be clear that different strength criteria apply to the different problems. It is thus critical to
understand the material you are dealing with, that you identify the correct expected failure
mechanism, and that you select the appropriate failure criteria. Once you have an
understanding of the problem and know how to evaluate it, you can properly plan your site
investigation to obtain the required parameters for evaluation/design.

Refer to section 4.2 (pp. 20 and 21 only) in the TRH10 document. Note the
following:
 The general factor of safety concept.

12
 Refer to section 5 in the TRH18 document. Read through sections 5.1, 5.2 and
5.3. Note the following:
 Different ways in which a factor of safety can be defined;
 Typical factors of safety applied (these will differ based on the consequences of the
failure).

9 Factors Influencing Slope Stability

To conduct a focused investigation and evaluation of a slope, you need to understand the
factors that can/will influence the stability of a slope.
The major factors influencing the stability of slopes are (de Vallejo & Ferrer, 2011):
 Stratigraphy and lithology (strength, deformation, structures);
 Geological structures and discontinuities (failure mechanism, strength criteria);
 Hydrogeological conditions (reduction in shear strength – can you recall the impact
which pore water pressure has on the effective stress, and thus on the shear strength
of the material?);
 Geomechanical properties of soil, rock or rock mass (strength and deformational
characteristics);
 In-situ stress state (effect on shear strength – can you recall from Learning Unit 3?);
 Static and dynamic loads (activating/driving forces that can overcome the shear
strength or resisting forces);
 Precipitation and climatic regime (weathering, change of slope geometry, the impact
on groundwater, pore water pressures and shear strength);
 Weathering processes (reduction in shear strength, changes in slope geometry and in
water pressure).
The geological, hydrogeological and geotechnical factors are intrinsic to the material. These
are referred to as passive (or conditioning) factors. They determine the shear strength of
material and dictate the failure modes.
Active factors are generally referred to as triggering factors and play an important role in the
stability of any slope. These are generally the factors that cause/trigger instability, hence the
term “triggering” factors.
The main passive and active factors and their influences/effects are summarised in Table 1.

13
Table 1: Influence of Factors on the Condition of Materials and Slopes (de
Vallejo & Ferrer, 2011, p. 563)

Factor
Factor Influences and Effects
Class
Relief (gradients, geometry) Distribution of ground weight

Lithology (composition, texture) Unit weight, strength

Hydrogeological behaviour
Geological structure and state of stress Strength, deformability
Passive Discontinuous and anisotropic behaviour
Factors Weak zones
(Conditioning
Geomechanical properties of materials Hydrogeological behaviour
Factors)
Pore pressure generation.
Deforestation Alteration in hydraulic balance
Erosion
Weathering Physical and chemical changes, external and
internal erosion, generation of weak zones.
Rainfall and water infiltration Variation in pore pressure and ground weight
Soil saturation
Changes in hydrogeological conditions Erosion

Application of static or dynamic loads Changes in material weight distribution and state of
stress
Active Increase of pore pressures
Factors Changes in slope morphology and Variation of forces due to weight
(Triggering geometry Change in state of stress
Factors) Erosion or undermining of toe Changes in slope geometry
Changes in material weight distribution and state of
stress
Climatic action (thawing, freezing, Change in ground water content
drought process) Generation of tension cracks and weakness planes
Decrease of strength properties

Modified from source

An understanding of the factors and associated influences or effects which may have an
impact on the stability of a slope, is critical for the evaluation and design of any slope. A slope
may be stable in the short term, but climatic and other factors may have an impact on the
stress state, the strength of the materials or changes in pore water pressures. These factors
need to be considered before you conduct a site investigation and select an appropriate design
criterion, during your evaluation and in the slope monitoring schedules.

Refer to section 2.2 in the TRH18 document on the main causes of instability in
cuts. Take note of the following:
 The equilibrium or near-equilibrium state of natural slopes and the impact which cuts
have on this state;
 Triggering mechanisms (external factors);
 The main causes of instability in cuts.

14
10 Site Investigation Overview
Now that we have an understanding of the basic modes of failure, the selection of shear
strength criteria for different material types and the factors influencing the stability of slopes,
we can identify target parameters and conduct a focused site investigation with a focused field
and laboratory testing program.
Site investigations were covered in Learning Unit 7. We emphasised the importance of
understanding the works, the impact the works have on the soils, the effect, the level of
investigation required, and the expectations of the investigation. A general overview of the
investigation requirements for slopes is provided in this section.
The main purpose of a site investigation for slopes is to provide the input required for
evaluation and design, namely:
 Geometrical model (slope height, slope angle, general dimensions of the problem);
 Geological model (material types, contacts, structures);
 Hydrogeological model (water levels and pore water pressures);
 Material parameters needed for the stability analysis (strength and deformation
parameters, stress state, groundwater/pore water pressures);
 Factors that may affect the material parameters and geometry of the slope (refer to
Table 1 with reference to active factors).
Other important factors to consider in planning and executing the investigation, include the
accessibility, excavatability and workability of materials in cut or excavated slopes.
The phased investigation approach is generally taken (refer to Learning Unit 7). Your
knowledge of geology, mineralogy and geomorphology must be applied in order to adapt an
investigation approach that is specific to your problem. Typical investigative procedures for a
slope include:
 A preliminary geological survey, to properly plan the investigation;
 An initial trial pit exercise in soils and heavily weathered rock (if permitted by steep
gradients);
 Seismic refraction along the slope profile, to estimate the depth to rock and material
excavatability/rippability, if excavation is required;
 Drilling of boreholes (various methods can be considered, depending on your
model/problem) along the slope, toe and crest area, to determine the geological
profile/model;
 Sampling and tests (in-situ and laboratory) to determine the required parameters
(strength, deformation, hydraulic properties).
Laboratory, field and empirical methods to obtain target parameters were covered in previous
modules/learning units. Make sure that you know what factors affect the stability of a slope,
what strength criteria to apply to a specific problem, what material parameters are required for
the specific criteria, and what laboratory and/or field techniques can be used to obtain the
required parameters.

15
 Refer to sections 3 and 4 in the TRH18 document on the recognition of potential
instability and the investigation thereof. Familiarise yourself with the content. Take special note
of the following:
 Weathering products, stability, possible types of failure and the erodibility potential of
the different rock groups (Table 3 in the document);
 Exposure of discontinuities in cuts (Figure 3 in the document);
 The need for further investigation. At what stage should the specialist (engineering
geologist or geotechnical engineer) become involved?
 Minimum information to be provided by a site investigation (section 4.1);
 The idealised site investigation process (phased approach) (Figure 6 in the document);
 Field and laboratory techniques and considerations.

11 Stability Analysis Overview, Requirements and

Methods
Once the problem has been identified, along with the likely mode of failure, the applicable
strength criteria and the factors that may have an impact on the stability of the specific slope,
and a focused geotechnical investigation has been conducted, we can start with the slope
analysis.
It is important to note that the stability of a soil and rock slope changes over time. The concept
is introduced in the next section, from where analysis methods and requirements will be
addressed.

11.1 Time-Related Stability and Evaluation

Before moving on to the analysis methods, we need to introduce the concept of time-related
stability. A slope stability analysis generally requires a number of assessments, including:
1. Stability of the slope for all the construction phases;
2. Stability of the slope immediately after construction;
3. The long-term condition;
4. Natural disturbances, such as flooding and earthquakes;
5. Rapid drawdown (for water-retaining structures such as earth dams).
The stability of a constructed slope, embankment or cut should be analysed for each
construction phase, along with the short- and long-term stability of the slope. The short-term
stability is the stability under the effective stress condition immediately after construction. The
long-term stability is the stability under equilibrium stress conditions (once pore water
pressures have stabilised). You will recall that the Mohr-Coulomb failure criterion, expressed
in terms of effective stress, is:

16
 𝜏 𝑐 𝜎 ∙ 𝑡𝑎𝑛 𝜑 Equation 11.1

And that the effective stress is expressed as:

𝜎 𝜎 µ Equation 11.2

Where:
𝜎 is the total normal stress on the failure plane
µ is the pore water pressure.
Pore water pressure changes during and after construction. There will be an initial increase in
pore water pressure if the embankment is constructed on or with slow-draining soil, due to the
self-weight of the material. After the construction of a fill slope/embankment there will be a
dissipation of pore water pressure (draining of water out of soil) until equilibrium is reached.
The change in pore water pressure affects the effective stress in the soil, thus the shear
strength of the material. That is why it is important to take note of the construction phases,
drainage characteristics of the slope, embankment or material it is founded on, and how the
changes in additional weight or build-up of pore water pressure may affect stability during each
construction phase and during its service life. The same principle applies to slopes or
embankments which are subjected to rapid water drawdown, such as earth dams or excavated
slopes.
The increase in pore water pressure in an embankment, with raising of the embankment up to
point “t1” in time, and the dissipation thereof after construction to point “t2” in time, is illustrated
in Figure 9. The change in pore water pressure and shear strength of the material affects the
stability of the slope. This effect is expressed as a factor of safety with time in Figure 10.

Figure 9: Pore Water Pressure Over Time (Construction of Embankment) (Das,

2010, p. 569)

17
Figure 10: Factor of Safety Over Time – Construction of Embankment (Das,
2010, p. 569)

The pore pressure dissipation and factor of safety variation for excavated (the removal of soil,
e.g., a cutting) and constructed slopes (addition of soil, e.g., an embankment) are depicted
in Figure 11.

Figure 11: Pore Pressure Dissipation and FoS Variation in a) Cut Slopes and b)
Fill Slopes

The term tc in Figure 11 indicates end-of-construction of the slope. Note that in the cut slope
there is a decrease in pore water pressure during construction, with a steady increase in pore
water pressure after construction. The increase in pore water pressure reduces the effective
stress and thus the shear strength of the material. The factor of safety will thus be lower in the
long term. An analysis of the long-term scenario will be critical. In the fill slope there is an
increase in total stress during construction. The pore water pressure will decrease once
construction is completed, with a resulting increase in effective stress, thus an increase in the
shear strength of the material. The factor of safety will become higher with time. In this
scenario, the short-term stability (during the different construction phases and immediately
after construction) will be critical to assess.

18
It should be clear at this stage that the shear strength of the material in a specific slope can
change over time, and all the critical phases/conditions should be identified for the problem
under investigation. These conditions should be evaluated, to ensure that the slope and/or
construction speed or sequencing is such that the slope is stable under all possible conditions.

Refer to section 4.2 (p. 22, 3rd paragraph, up to p. 26) in the TRH10 document.
Familiarise yourself with the content.

11.2 Stability Analysis Methods

Numerous analysis methods are available. These methods are deterministic or probabilistic
in nature. Our focus will be on the deterministic methods, of which the limit equilibrium and
stress-strain methods form part.
Deterministic methods indicate whether or not a slope is stable, once its conditions are
known or assumed. The physical and strength parameters determining the behaviour of the
materials need to be selected, and the factor of safety approach is used to determine stability.
There are two sub-groups, namely the limit equilibrium method and the stress-strain
method.
Probabilistic methods evaluate the probability of failure. Distribution functions are assigned
to the physical and strength parameters of the soil/materials. These properties and parameters
are treated as variables in the analysis, and the probability of failure is determined by analysing
all possible scenarios.
The methods of analysis can be summarised as:
1. Plastic limit analysis methods (based on upper and lower bound theorems of a
perfectly plastic soil/clay model):
2. Limit equilibrium methods:
a. Analytical techniques – methods of slices:
i. Swedish slip circle method of analysis;
ii. Ordinary method of slices;
iii. Modified Bishop’s method of analysis;
iv. Lorimar’s method of analysis;
v. Spencer’s method of analysis;
vi. Sarma’s method of analysis;
vii. Taylor’s stability number.
3. Finite element methods:
a. The probabilistic finite element (FE) method;
b. Perturbation method;

19
 c. Monte Carlo simulation and direct coupling approach.
4. Numerical methods:
a. Continuum modelling;
b. Discontinuum modelling;
c. Hybrid/coupled modelling.
5. Rock mass classification systems (empirical methods based on classification of the
rock mass). Rock mass classifications for geotechnical use include:
a. Rock load classification (RLC) (Terzaghi, 1946);
b. Rock quality designation (RQD) (Deere et al., 1967);
c. Rock structure rating (RSR) (Wickham et al., 1972);
d. Rock tunnelling quality index (Q-system) (Barton et al., 1974);
e. Geomechanics classification (RMR76 and RMR89) (Bieniawski, 1976, 1989);
f. Mining rock mass rating (MRMR77 and MRMR01) (Laubscher, 1977; Laubscher,
& Jakubec 2001);
g. Q-slope (Bar & Barton, 2017).
6. Stereographic and kinematic analysis (this method is used to evaluate whether
failure is kinematically possible in a rock mass with one or more discontinuities).
The plastic limit analysis adopts a perfectly plastic behavioural model for soil and considers
a lower- and an upper-bound condition for collapse to occur. The following definitions apply:
 Lower bound: If there is a set of external loads and the state of stress at no point
exceeds the failure criterion of the material, collapse cannot occur;
 Upper bound: If there is a set of external loads and a plastic collapse mechanism, such
that in an increment of deformation the work done by the external loads equals the
work done by the internal stress, collapse must occur.
The lower bound is termed a “statically admissible stress field” and the upper bound is termed
a “kinematically admissible velocity field”.
The limit equilibrium methods determine the overall stability of the sliding mass. Various
potential failure surfaces are analysed to determine the failure surface with the lowest factor
of safety. This analysis method only considers forces acting on one or several points of the
failure surface, assuming that failure occurs instantaneously, and that the strength is mobilised
at the same time along the whole surface.
The stress-strain methods use the principles of elasticity to evaluate stress and strain
throughout a slope. These analysis methods consider the stress-strain relationships of the
material during the deformation and failure process at each point in the model.
The most widely applied analysis methods for soil slopes in practice at this stage, are the limit
equilibrium and finite element modelling methods.

20
Rock slopes are commonly evaluated through stereographic and kinematic analysis to
identify possible structurally controlled failure mechanisms, and by means of rock mass
classification systems.
The comparisons between the limit equilibrium and finite element methods are summarised in
Table 2.
Table 2: Comparison of Limit Equilibrium Method and Finite Element Method

No. Limit Equilibrium Method Finite Element Method

1 The method is currently most widely used due to The method is not used as widely as the limit
affordability, simplicity, accuracy and the low equilibrium method, mainly due to affordability,
computing power required required computing power and modelling time
Fast results Models can take tens of minutes, up to hours to run
Models can be computed in seconds to minutes
2 Codes of practice readily address the LE There is still a need for a code of best practice for
analysis method this analysis method
3 Can evaluate relatively non-complex models Can evaluate complex models

4 Analysis by means of simple Mohr-Coulomb soil Analysis requires a complete stress-strain model for
model the soil
4 Evaluations are based on the principles of Evaluations are based on stress-strain behaviour
statics (thus the summation of the moments,
vertical and horizontal forces)
5 The method evaluates and searches for a critical In this method the critical surface is automatically
surface by using geometry computed
6 The method cannot compute displacement The method can compute displacement

7 As the method is based on statics and cannot This method analyses stress-strain, computes
compute displacement, it does not satisfy displacement and satisfies displacement
displacement compatibility compatibility
8 The method cannot model progressive failure (it This method can model progressive failure, which
assumes instantaneous failure along the entire allows for the evaluation of failure initiation and
failure surface) optimisation in stabilisation techniques

The focus of this learning unit is on the plastic limit, equilibrium limit and rock mass
classification methods of analysis. Finite element and numerical methods fall outside the
scope of this learning unit.

11.3 Requirements and Steps in the Process of Estimating

Stability
Slope stability analyses involve a comparison of the induced stresses in a slope to the
available shear strength and any external activating or resisting forces, such as induced loads
or retaining structures. The static equilibrium methods used in the analysis methods solve for
one or more of the three equations of equilibrium, namely horizontal forces, vertical forces and
moments.
For an evaluation of the static stability of a slope, we require the following input:
 Slope configuration (geometric input);
 External loading conditions;

21
  Distribution of earth materials;
 Subsurface water conditions;
 Material densities;
 Material strength.
There are four general steps in the process of estimating stability.
1) Step 1: Estimate disturbing forces – gravity acting on the body of the soil.
Superimposed loads (if any). Seepage force due to water flow (if any). Earthquake
forces (not dealt with in this learning unit).
2) Step 2: Select appropriate data (parameters) for analysis – the thicknesses and
distribution of the different materials in the problem of concern. The strength
parameters of each material. The deformation parameters of each material. Select a
limit to the maximum mobilised shear resistance on a failure plane for the specific
problem under consideration. Thus, select a factor of safety that will be considered as
an appropriate design, given the consequences of failure.
3) Step 3: Select appropriate analysis methodology (plastic limit, limit equilibrium, finite
element, numerical methods, rock mass classification methods, etc.) – for the
purposes of this learning unit, we focus on selected limit equilibrium methods with a
worked example of the plastic limit method.
4) Step 4: Conduct an analysis for the different construction and critical effective stress
(pore water pressure) phases (refer to section 11.1).

12 Material Parameters Required for Design Input

12.1 Required Parameters for Soil Slopes

With reference to the limit state analysis method, we consider the shear strength properties of
the materials.
For the short-term (undrained condition) stability assessment of cohesive soils (c-soils) we
require the undrained shear strength of the material. Note that the frictional components
become zero and the undrained shear strength = cohesion kPa or kN/m2 (or 0.5 × UCS of the
clay).
For the drained condition we need to analyse drained shear strength. We require the effective
cohesion (c’) and effective angle of internal friction (φ’) of the material. We require the cohesion
and frictional components of the shear strength criteria.
For cohesionless soils (e.g., clean sand and/or gravel mixes) we analyse the drained shear
strength of a material. Refer to the flow chart in Figure 12.

22
 Factor
Strength Properties

Material Type
Cohesive Soils Cohesionless Soils
Clays (c Soils) Clean sand-gravel soils (φ Soils)
Clay and sand mixtures (c- φ Soils)

Parameters
Undrained Drained Shear Drained Shear
Shear Strength Strength Strength

Assessment
In-Situ Tests Laboratory Tests In-Situ Tests Laboratory Tests In-Situ Tests
Vane Shear Triaxial CU tests CPT Correlations Triaxial CD tests CPT Correlations
CPT Correlations Box Shear Test SPT Correlations Triaxial CU with PWP SPT Correlations
SPT Correlations Index Property Index Property Index Property
Correlations Correlations Correlations

Mohr-Coulomb Failure Criterion

Cohesive Frictional
component component

Figure 12: Parameters Required for Strength Properties of Different Soil Types

The other required parameters, as discussed in section 11.3, include the material density,
water conditions, and geometric and external loads. The geometric data, external loads,
material density and water conditions are required in order to determine the unit weight and
distribution of disturbing and stabilising forces.

12.2 Required Parameters for Rock Slopes

The required rock strength parameters, shear strength of intact rock, shear strength of
discontinuities and shear strength of rock as a mass, were covered in detail in Learning Unit
3: “Properties of Rock”. Two criteria for the shear strength of a rock mass were covered,
namely Hoek-Brown and Barton-Choubey (see overview in section 8 of this learning unit).
The application of the Hoek-Brown criterion in the Mohr-Coulomb failure criterion is illustrated
in the next section, with brief overviews of two rock mass classification systems that are often
applied for initial safe slope angle estimations in jointed rock masses. The two rock mass
classification systems considered are the Laubscher (1990) MRMR (Mining rock mass rating)
system and Bar and Barton’s (2017) Q-slope rating system.

12.2.1 Mohr-Coulomb, Hoek-Brown, Barton-Choubey Shear Strength Criteria

For structural controlled instabilities, the shear strength of the discontinuities will be
considered.
For failure through a highly jointed rock mass, the shear strength of the rock mass will be
considered.

23
The failure criteria that can be considered for failure through the rock mass are the Hoek-
Brown failure criterion and the Barton-Choubey failure criterion. The Hoek-Brown failure
criterion is generally considered in practice to be the Hoek-Brown equivalent Mohr-Coulomb
shear strength parameters (c’ and φ’), and can be directly applied in software packages that
are mostly programmed for soils which make use of the Mohr-Coulomb failure criterion.
Can you recall the required parameters/inputs for obtaining the Hoek-Brown equivalent Mohr-
Coulomb parameters, c’ and φ’? If not, refer back to Learning Unit 3. The Hoek-Brown
equivalent Mohr-Coulomb effective cohesion (c’) and effective friction (φ’) can thus be plugged
directly into the shear Mohr-Coulomb shear strength criterion, as indicated below.

Mohr-Coulomb Failure Criterion

Cohesive Frictional
component component

Hoek-Brown equivalent Mohr-Coulomb

Input Parameters (c’ and φ’)

Hoek-Brown equivalent Mohr-Coulomb Effective Cohesion Hoek-Brown equivalent Mohr-Coulomb Effective Friction Angle
(Highly Jointed Rock Mass) (Highly Jointed Rock Mass)

The other required parameters, as discussed in section 11.3, include the material density,
water conditions, geometric input, stress regime and external loads (refer to Learning Unit 3).

12.2.2 Rock Mass Classification (Laubscher MRMR1990 System)

The Laubscher (1990) MRMR system considers the Bieniawski RMR89 rating with adjustments
for in-situ stresses, induced stresses, weathering and blasting. The spacing of fractures and
joints is either assessed by the sum of RQD rating and joints spacing rating, or by the fracture
frequency rating.
The input parameters are:
1. Uniaxial compressive strength (UCS) of intact rock;
2. Rock quality designation (RQD);
3. Discontinuity spacing (Js);
4. Fracture frequency (FF/m);
5. Discontinuity condition (JCondL90)
a. Large-sale joint expression;
b. Small-scale joint expression;
c. Joint wall alteration;

24
 d. Joint infill
6. Groundwater conditions (Gw);
7. Respective discontinuity orientation.
The rating ranges are:
1. UCS (IRS=intact rock strength): 0–20
2. RQD = 0–15
3. Js = 0–25
4. Fracture Frequency Rating (FF/m) = 0–40
5. JCondL90 = 40 × Adjustment for A, B, C and D:
a. A: Large-sale joint expression: 60–100% (water condition dependent)
b. B: Small-scale joint expression: 40–95% (water condition dependent)
c. C: Joint wall alteration: 60–75% (water condition dependent)
d. D: Joint infill: 10–90% (water condition dependent).
The RMR rating is the sum of 1) UCS rating, 2) RQD rating, 3) RQD rating + JS rating or FF
rating and 4) joint condition rating. The RMR value can then be adjusted for 1) weathering, 2)
orientation, 3) induced stress and 4) blasting, with the following possible adjustment ranges:
1) Weathering: 30–100%
2) Orientation: 63–100%
3) Induced stress: 60–120%
4) Blasting: 80–100%
The system rating varies between 0 and 100 on a linear scale. The adjusted RMR89 is referred
to the MRMR Laubscher 1990 (MRMR or RMRL90). An initial safe slope angle can then be
obtained from the MRMRL90 rating (Class I to Class V). The rating system is explained in
Figure 13, and a worked example is provided at the end of this unit.

25
Figure 13: Overview of the MRMRL90 System

Refer to the compulsory source listed: D.H. Laubscher on the MRMRL90 rock mass
classification system: “A geomechanics classification system for the rating of rock mass in
mine design” (Laubscher, 1990). Read through the article. You will apply the knowledge in the
worked example provided.

12.2.3 Rock Mass Classification (Bar and Barton’s Q-Slope 1990 System)
The Q-slope2017 system is based on the Q-system, which was developed by Barton, Lien and
Lunde in 1974. The development of the system was based on tunnel information and case
studies.
A rock quality index, the Q-index, is used to estimate the geomechanical parameters of a rock
mass for decision making in preliminary design and support requirements of tunnels and
underground caverns. The numerical value determined from the system varies on a
logarithmic scale between 0.001 and 1 000, and does not directly incorporate the
joint/discontinuity orientation.

26
The Q-value is defined by:
𝑅𝑄𝐷 𝐽 𝐽
𝑄 ∙ ∙ Equation 12.1
𝐽 𝐽 𝑆𝑅𝐹
Where the parameters are:
1) RQD is the rock quality designation
2) Jn is the joint set number
3) Jr is the joint roughness number
4) Ja is the joint alteration number
5) Jw is the joint water reduction factor
6) SRF is the stress reduction factor.
Three factors are presented by the three quotients, namely:

1) Quotient represents the structure or interlock (or block size);

2) Quotient represents the roughness and frictional characteristics of the joint walls/fill
(thus shear strength between blocks);

3) Quotient represents stress regime, considering the two stress parameters (thus
influences of the specific state of subjected stress).
The numerical value of RQD is used directly in the calculation of Q, however where RQD is
reported or measured ≤ 10 (including 0), a nominal value of 10 is used to evaluate Q.
The Q value then provides the rock mass quality classification categorised as:
1) 0.001 to 0.01: Exceptionally poor rock
2) 0.01 to 0.1: Extremely poor rock
3) 0.1 to 1: Very poor rock
4) 1 to 4: Poor rock
5) 4 to 10: Fair rock
6) 10 to 40: Good rock
7) 40 to 100: Very good rock
8) 100 to 400: Extremely good rock
9) 400 to 1 000: Exceptionally good rock
Based on the Q-value, tunnel/excavation support can be recommended. The Q-system was
developed for slope applications by Bar and Barton (1990). This system, referred to as Q-
slope1990, is expressed as:
𝑅𝑄𝐷 𝐽 𝐽
𝑄 ∙ ∙ Equation 12.2
𝐽 𝐽 𝑆𝑅𝐹

27
Where:
RQD is the rock quality designation
𝐽 is the joint set number
𝐽 is the joint roughness number
𝐽 is the joint alternation number
𝐽 is the environmental and geological condition number
𝑆𝑅𝐹 is strength reduction factor (use maximum of 𝑆𝑅𝐹 , 𝑆𝑅𝐹 𝑜𝑟 𝑆𝑅𝐹 .
The rock quality designation (RQD) is determined as presented by Deere (1963) and Deere
et al. (1967). The parameters 𝐽 , 𝐽 , 𝐽 , 𝐽 and 𝑆𝑅𝐹 are as per the published tables (Bar
& Barton, 2017).
Once the Q-value (𝑄 ) is calculated, the steepest slope angles (𝛽) not requiring
reinforcement or support for slopes less than 30 m in height, are (Barton & Bar, 2015):
𝑄 = 10  Slope angle 85°

𝑄 = 1.0  Slope angle 65°

𝑄 = 0.1  Slope angle 45°

𝑄 = 0.01  Slope angle 85°

The above relationship was extended to all slope heights (Bar & Barton, 2017):

𝛽 20 log 𝑄 65° Equation 12.3

The stable slopes, unstable slopes and zones of uncertainty are depicted in Figure 14.

28
Figure 14: Q-slope Stability Chart (Bar & Barton, 2017)

A rock mass with a Qslope rating of 0.1 should have a maximum slope angle of 45°. A rock
mass with a Qslope rating of 10 should have a maximum slope angle of 85°.
The Q-slope is intended for use in reinforcement-free site access road cuts, road or rail
cuttings, or individual benches in open-cast mines. It is not intended for assessing the stability
of large slopes developed by several excavation stages over significant periods of time, such
as inter-ramp or overall slopes in open-cast mines.

Refer to the compulsory source listed: Neil Bar and Nick Ryland Barton on the Q-
slope system: “The Q-Slope Method for Rock Slope Engineering” (Bar & Barton, 2017). Read
through the article. The worked examples provided, will form part of the self-study section of
this unit.

29
13 Stabilisation Measures
The design and application of stabilisation measures require an understanding of at least the
following:
 Ground properties and geomechanical behaviour;
 Type of failure and failure mechanism;
 Factors causing instability.
The above were covered in earlier learning units, with an overview provided in this learning
unit. The concept is to reduce the activating forces or moments, provide additional resisting
forces or address parameters that influence of the shear strength of the material, discontinuity
or rock mass. You thus want to increase the numerator (top part of the fraction) and decrease
the denominator (bottom part of the fraction) factor of safety fraction.

Increase Stability of a Slope, FoS Illustration

Improve Aim to Improve Shear Strength Increase Numerator

Stability (Strength of Material)

Aim to Reduce Shear Stress

(Increase Stabilisation Forces) Decrease Denominator
(Decrease Mobilisation Forces)

These techniques may involve:

 Modifying slope geometry;
 Improving drainage;
 Inserting resistant structural elements;
 Constructing walls and retaining elements;
 Using surface protection measures.
These concepts are illustrated in Figure 15 (de Vallejo & Ferrer, 2011).

30
Figure 15: Methods for Increasing the Factor of Safety of Soil Slopes (de
Vallejo & Ferrer, 2011, p. 436)

13.1 Modifying Slope Geometry

Modification of the slope geometry mainly aims to reduce the driving forces/moments due to
the weight of the soil or addition of unit weight, thus increasing the resisting forces/moments.
General modifications include:
1. Reduction of slope angle;
2. Construction of slope benches;
3. Removal of weight from the head of the slope;
4. Increase in weight at the toe of the slope.
The modification moves the centre of gravity of the mass and increases the overall stability of
the slope by reducing the shear stress due to the reduction of the driving forces. The concept
is illustrated in Figure 16 andFigure 17.

31
 Stabilising and Activation
Due to Self-Weight and
External Load
External Loads (Activating Force)
Ab)

External Load
(Stabilising Force) Sb)

Centre of Gravity
Aa)

Sa)

Sa) and Sb) – Stabilising effect due to Aa) and Ab) – Activating (de-stabilising)
unit weight of material and external effect due to unit weight of material and
loading. external loading.

Figure 16: Stabilising and De-Stabilising due to Self-Weight and External

Loads

32
 Stabilising and Activation
Due to Self-Weight and
External Load
External Loads (Activating Force)

Ab)

Sb)
External Load
(Stabilising Force)

Centre of Gravity
Aa)

Sa)

Sa) and Sb) – Stabilising effect due to Aa) and Ab) – Activating (de-stabilising)
unit weight of material and external effect due to unit weight of material and
loading. external loading.

Figure 17: Basic Slope Modification to Stabilise a Slope

13.2 Improve Drainage

Drainage precautionary measures are generally relatively cheap and highly effective.
Drainage reduces the weight of the material upslope, thus decreasing the destabilising force
due to self-weight. Drainage also decreases pore water pressure with a resultant increase in
shear strength. Refer to the Mohr-Coulomb shear strength criteria and the calculation of
effective stress. If you increase the effective stress, you increase the shear strength of the
material. Do you recall the effective stress in the shear strength definition, as indicated in the
following equations?

𝜎 𝜎 µ Equation 13.1

𝜏 𝑐 𝜎 ∙ 𝑡𝑎𝑛 𝜑 Equation 13.2

Various drainage techniques can be considered, including but not limited to:
 Horizontal drains drilled into the slope;
 Drainage ditches at the toe of a slope;
 Up-slope drainage ditches to reduce infiltration;
 Vertical shafts, horizontal drainage galleries, etc.

33
The main aim of a drainage technique should be to lower the water table, prevent or limit
perched seepage water, and reduce or prevent surface infiltration water from entering the
slope. Typical drainage methods are illustrated in Figure 18. The geology, structures and
hydraulic properties of the materials need to be considered in the drainage design. A number
of suitable and unsuitable drainage options are illustrated in Figure 19.

Figure 18: General Measures for Slope Drainage and Protection (de Vallejo &
Ferrer, 2011, p. 437)

34
Figure 19: Distribution and Efficiency of Drainage Systems in a Slope (de
Vallejo & Ferrer, 2011, p. 438)

Refer to section 5.6.4 on drainage in the TRH18 document. Familiarise yourself

with the content. Take special note of the following:
 Ways that surface water may affect the slope;
 Techniques to limit the destabilising effect of surface water;
 Techniques for controlling or draining water in a slope.
Consider the reference document by Paige-Green (1981) on drainage techniques for cut
slopes as additional reading. The download link is provided in the references.

13.3 Resistant Structural Elements

Structural elements can be installed in a slope to either provide shear resistance through the
installed element itself, or to provide additional force to increase the frictional component of
the shear strength criteria along the potential failure plane.

35
The first option requires structural shear resistance of the element itself, the second requires
axial (tensile) strength in order to provide the required tension, to increase the normal stress
and thus shear strength of the failure plane.
Typical resistant structural elements are:
 Pile walls: Installed through critical failure surface to provide shear resistance (see
Figure 20);
 Micropile walls: Installed through critical failure surface to provide shear resistance
(see Figure 21);
 Jet-grouting columns: Installed through critical failure surface to provide shear
resistance;
 Anchors: Installed/fixed some distance behind the critical failure surface. Anchors can
be classified as active (pre-stressed) or passive. The tension increases normal stress
on the failure surface, in order to increase the shear strength. These methods do not
provide any shear resistance through the element itself. Relatively significant
displacement of the stabilised body/material/ground is required in order to tension the
passive anchor, where the pre-stressed (active) anchor requires very little movement
for full tensile force mobilisation. Pre-stressed anchors are generally installed where
limited movement/displacement can be tolerated, while passive anchors are generally
considered where larger movement/displacement tolerances are acceptable. The
concept of ground anchors is illustrated in Figure 22, with a comparison between the
dynamics of “passive” and “active” anchors in Figure 23;
 Bolts: These are steel bars inserted into rock slopes at some distance behind the
critical failure surface/slab/block, and can be considered low-capacity passive anchors
which provide some shear resistance.

Pile Wall

Identified Slip
Surface

Weak Soil/Material

Competent Soil/Material

Figure 20: Pile Wall

36
 Micropile Networks Identified Critical Failure
Surface

Figure 21: Micropile Network

Tensioned
Anchor
Identified Critical Failure
Surface

Secured Anchor
(Behind critical failure surface)

Increase in normal stress and

shear strength of material

Figure 22: Ground Anchors

37
Figure 23: Comparison between Passive and Active (Pre-stressed) Anchors
(Bansal, Gupta, & Kurian, 2006)

13.4 Construction Walls and Retaining Elements

Walls can be built at the toe of a slope to reinforce it and prevent deterioration in this area,
which is critical for slope stability. It provides resisting force and protects the region of
maximum shear stress, the toe, where failure generally propagates. Walls can be rigid or
flexible, and may serve the purpose of stopping movement or providing additional strength (de
Vallejo & Ferrer, 2011).
There are different kinds of walls or retaining structures/elements:
 Gabion walls: These consist of fragments or rock or rip-rap, enclosed in a steel mesh.
They serve as gravity walls, generally to stabilise the toe of a slope;
 Diaphragm walls: Consist of continuous reinforced concrete sections constructed in-
situ in slots mechanically excavated below the ground surface. These walls are
generally considered if only minor deformations can be permitted, and if the excavation
base lies below the ground water level;

38
  Reinforced earth (RE) walls: A mechanically stabilised earth wall system consisting
of skin (facing), backfill and reinforcement. RE walls consist of an outer facing (made
of prefabricated concrete panels or metal sheets) with a layered reinforced fill
construction and reinforcing strips anchoring the wall panels to the reinforced earth;
 Anchored walls: Slopes that are reinforced with anchors to increase the resistance of
the structure to toppling and sliding.
Selective concepts are illustrated in Figure 24,Figure 25 andFigure 26. Importantly, proper
drainage precautionary measures should be ensured for wall construction to avoid water build-
up, an increase in pore water pressure and subsequent failure.

Figure 24: Gabon Walls (de Vallejo & Ferrer, 2011, p. 442)

39
Figure 25: Wall-Anchor and Pile-Anchor Combinations (de Vallejo & Ferrer,
2011, p. 442)

Figure 26: Reinforced Earth Wall (de Vallejo & Ferrer, 2011, p. 442)

13.5 Surface Protection Measurements

The aim of surface protection is to:
 Stabilise loose rock/material;
 Prevent shallow surface failure;
 Prevent or reduce erosion and weathering of the slope face;
 Prevent the infiltration of run-off water.
Common measures taken are:
 Installation of wire meshes;
 Concreting of the slope face;
 Layout of geotextiles;

40
  Implementing water infiltration control;
 Planting vegetation cover to reinforce the ground surface of slopes in excavated soils.

Refer to section 4.9 on slope protection in the TRH09 document. Note that the
document is for embankments (constructed/engineered slopes). Study section 4.9 and note
the following:
 Soils prone to wind and water erosion;
 Factors that determine the method of protection;
 Various methods of slope protection.

13.6 Rock Cut Stabilisation and Protection

The fundamentals for the previous sections apply to rock slopes as well, but some of the
stabilisation and protection measures will not be practical to implement in rock slopes. These
may include, for example, piling, jet grouting, diaphragm walls, and some of the slope
protection measures such as wind erosion and vegetation cover. The stabilisation measure to
implement will depend on the topographical, geological and operational conditions at a specific
site. Methods of slope stabilisation fall into three categories:
1. Rock removal (modification of the slope or removal of loose rocks, thus modification
of the slope geometry) (refer to section 13.1);
2. Reinforcement (rock bolting, dowels, tied-back walls, shotcrete, buttresses, etc.) (the
principles of either providing shear resistance to the failure surface, increasing normal
stress on the failure surface or increasing resisting forces/moments, as discussed in
sections 13.3 and 13.4);
3. Protection from the environment. The slope face can be protected from
environmental conditions that may result in excessive deterioration and resulting slope
failures. These may be very effective in, for example, slaking mudrocks. Protection
against climatic exposure in this instance will be very effective against slaking,
excessive ravelling and ultimately slope failure;
4. Protection. This is protection in the event of actual failure. Thus, the focus is on limiting
the impact once failure occurs. Protection measures may include the construction of
ditches to catch falling rock, mesh to catch and reduce the energy of falling or failing
slopes, catch fences to catch and reduce the energy of falling rock, and rock sheds
and tunnels to protect services from rock falls or failures.
The different categories of rock slope stabilisation measures are illustrated in Figure 27.

41
Figure 27: Categories of Rock Slope Stabilisation Measures (Modified from
Source (Mah & Wyllie, 2004, p. 284))

42
Some rock slope reinforcement methods are illustrated in Figure 28.

Figure 28: Rock Slope Reinforcement Methods (Mah & Wyllie, 2004, p. 286)

Refer to section 6.3 on slope protection in the TRH18 document. Familiarise

yourself with the content.

14 Maintenance, Inspection, Monitoring and Control

The monitoring of slopes and the maintenance of associated infrastructure are an essential
part of ensuring the long-term stability of a slope. Monitoring of slopes is also essential to
identify the onset of failure, in order to evacuate a specific area.
To select and set up an effective monitoring program, it is necessary to understand the types
of movement that occur. It is important to note that there are three types of movement, namely
(Mah & Wyllie, 2004, p. 322):
1. Initial response;
2. Regressive, steady and progressive movement; and
3. Long-term creep.
Initial response: When a slope is first excavated or exposed, there is a period of initial
response as a result of elastic rebound, relaxation and/or dilation of the rock/soil mass due to
changes in stress induced by the excavation.

43
Regressive, steady and progressive movement: Following a period of initial response and
then possible stability, slope “failure” would be indicated by the presence of tension cracks at
or near the crest of the slope. The development of such cracks is evidence that the movement
of the slope has exceeded the elastic limit of the rock mass.
Creep: Slow movement or deformation as a result of prolonged pressure and stress.
It is important to understand the problem and limits of the movements under consideration.
For the purposes of this learning unit, we ignore the initial response and focus on the
regressive, steady and progressive movements (illustrated in Figure 29).
Displacement

Regressive

Steady

Progressive
Initial Response

Time

Figure 29: Types of Movement (Excluding Long-Term Creep)

Regressive movement patterns indicate a slowing down in movement/deformation and

generally lead to the stabilisation of the slope. The steady movement and progressive
movement types are of the outmost importance. Once movement reaches a certain point,
onset of failure may occur, and limitations of the movement or identification of the failure onset,
is crucial. It is important to understand the failure mechanism you are monitoring, in order to
make sense of the relative movements of the monitoring stations/beacons/points. It may be
that upper slope monitoring beacons have a steady or regressive pattern, while the lower or
toe beacons show a progressive pattern. This may be an indication of a deep rotational failure.
The following important aspects are generally monitored:
1. Surface movements;
2. Movement inside the ground;
3. Pore pressures and changes in these pressures; and
4. Pressures/stress on/in supporting systems (anchors, bolts, walls, abutments, etc.)
It is critical to ensure that regular maintenance is performed on the water infiltration protection,
drainage channels and drain (weep) holes. Working systems are required to ensure effective
drainage, to prevent the build-up of pore water pressures that ultimately result in slope failure.

44
Selective slope-monitoring techniques and associated equipment are summarised in Figure
30 and Table 3.

Selective Slope
Monitoring Techniques

Monitoring Pressures
Monitoring Monitoring Monitoring Water
Conventional (Anchors, Bolts,
Surface Subsurface Level and Pore
Methods Retaining walls,
Movements Movements Water Pressures
Abutments etc.

Piezometers Pressure cells

Visual Digital Extensometers for pore water (Pneumatic,
Inspection Photogrammetry pressure hydraulic or
electrical
Survey Network / Mechanical
Tension Crack pressure
Inclinometers measurement
Mapping Total Stations transducers)
of water level

Global
Positioning Piezometers
Systems (GPS)

Non Reflective Time Domain

LiDAR Reflectometry

Slope Stability Seismic

Radar (SSR) Monitoring

Figure 30: Selective Slope-monitoring Techniques

45
Table 3: Geotechnical Instrumentation for Measuring Displacements and
Pressures in Slopes (de Vallejo & Ferrer, 2011, p. 445)

Magnitude Measures Methods Equipment

Convergence tape
Measuring tape
Mechanical reading system
Callipers
Displacement between points
Displacement gauges
in close proximity
Potentiometer
Electrical reading system LVDT
Vibrating wire
Topographical surveys
Geodesic methods, levelling and
Surface displacements Differential Global Positioning
collimation
System (DGPS Survey)
Inclinometer Vibrating wire and others
Displacements inside the
slope Wires or rods
Extensometer
Mechanical or electrical reading
Mechanical piezometers
Pore water pressures Piezometer Hydraulic piezometers
Electrical piezometers
Mechanical measure of distance from
Water table Slotted stand-pipe
ground level
Pneumatic pressure transducer
Pressures (anchors, bolts,
Pressure cells Hydraulic pressure transducer
retaining walls, abutments…)
Electrical pressure transducer

Refer to section 6 on monitoring and maintenance in the TRH09 document. Note

that the document is for embankments (constructed/engineered slopes). Study section 6 and
take note of the following:
 The two main purposes of monitoring;
 Factors to consider in the selection and monitoring processes;
 Important aspects to consider in maintenance and the importance of an effective
system;
 Notes on the purpose of the monitoring, with specific reference to the expected
duration of monitoring.
Refer to sections 7, 8 and 9 on maintenance, inspection, monitoring and remedial actions in
the TRH18 document. Note that the document is for road cuttings. Familiarise yourself with
the content. Note which principles can be applied to engineered slopes as well as natural
slopes.

46
15 Self-Assessment Activities
Refer to the purpose and expected outcome of this learning unit (section 2). Read through the
provided compulsory sources and self-assessment activities emphasised under the specific
headings.

16 Further Reading
Further reading will be beneficial to you. Address the topics introduced in this learning unit.
Familiarise yourself with the different kinds of slope stabilisation measures. Conduct online
searches on wire mesh, geotextiles, gabion walls, diaphragm walls, reinforced earth and
anchor walls in the stabilisation of slopes/walls. Familiarise yourself with these concepts.
Familiarise yourself with the techniques and equipment listed in Figure 27,Figure 28
andFigure 30, and Table 3. Ensure that you obtain a basic understanding of these.

17 Informative Website Links

The following links may contain informative information:
 Nick Barton (Shear strength and Q-slope): http://www.nickbarton.com/
 The Southern African Institute of Mining and Metallurgy (SAIMM):
https://www.saimm.co.za/
 SAIMM (direct link to Laubscher MRMRL90):
https://www.saimm.co.za/Journal/v090n10p257.pdf
 RocScience – Hoek’s Corner (Hoek-Brown Criteria, GSI, Quantification of GSI,
Fundamentals of slope design, Practical rock engineering):
https://www.rocscience.com/learning/hoeks-corner
 Slope monitoring: http://www.alpine-space.org/2000-
2006/uploads/media/ClimChAlp_-_Work_Package_6_Report.pdf
 Article by Paige-Green on techniques in groundwater control in cut slopes:
https://journals.co.za

18 Worked Examples
A number of practical soil and rock slope stability analyses are provided in this section. Work
through the examples and ensure that you can follow the calculations. These methods will be
useful for rapid initial slope stability evaluations.

18.1 Infinite Soil Slope Stability with Steady State Seepage

This worked example is for the calculation of 1) the safety factor against sliding along the rock-
soil interface of an infinitely long slope, and 2) the safe height of a slope with a specified
required safety factor. Consider the model presented in Figure 31 (Das, 2010, p. 518).

47
Figure 31: Infinite Slope with Steady State Seepage (Das, 2010, p. 518)

𝑐 𝛾 𝑡𝑎𝑛𝜑 Equation 18.1

𝐹
𝛾 𝐻𝑐𝑜𝑠 𝛽𝑡𝑎𝑛𝛽 𝛾 𝑡𝑎𝑛𝛽
Where:
𝐹 is the factor of safety (FoS)
𝑐 is the effective cohesion
𝜑 is the effective angle of internal friction (effective friction angle of the soil)
𝐻 is the vertical height of the soil column under consideration
𝛽 is the angle from the horizontal of the soil/rock interface
𝛾 is the effective unit weight of the soil under consideration
𝛾 is the saturated unit weight of the soil under consideration.
We have all the parameters except the effective unit weight of the soil. We can calculate the
effective unit weight, as we know the water level is at surface and we have the saturated unit
weight of the soil. We also know the unit weight of water can be considered a constant for the
purposes of this assessment.
𝑘𝑁
𝛾 𝛾 𝛾 17.8 9.81 7.99
𝑚
Now that we have the effective weight of the soil under consideration, we can calculate the
FoS against failure.
𝑐 𝛾 𝑡𝑎𝑛𝜑
𝐹
𝛾 𝐻𝑐𝑜𝑠 𝛽𝑡𝑎𝑛𝛽 𝛾 𝑡𝑎𝑛𝛽
10 7.99𝑡𝑎𝑛20
𝐹 0.375 0.61 0.985
17.8 6 𝑐𝑜𝑠15 𝑡𝑎𝑛15 17.8𝑡𝑎𝑛15
The FoS is thus 0.985 and the slope will not be stable (FoS<1, thus failure).
To obtain the allowable height of a slope with an FoS of 2, simply solve H.

48
 10 7.99𝑡𝑎𝑛20 2.247
2 0.61
17.8 𝐻 𝑐𝑜𝑠15 𝑡𝑎𝑛15 17.8𝑡𝑎𝑛15 𝐻
2.247
𝐻 1.62 𝑚
2 0.61

18.2 Plastic Limit Upper and Lower Bound Method (Vertical Face)
Determine the maximum unsupported vertical face height in a “c-soil” (cohesive soil, clay, no
friction, total stress) by means of upper- and lower-bound plastic solutions. The material
properties are provided in Figure 32.

Determine the Maximum Unsupported Vertical Face

Height (Hmax) by Means of Upper and Lower Bound
Plastic Solutions

Hmax? = 20 kN/m^3
cu=100 kN/m^2 (kPa)

Figure 32: Maximum Face Height by Means of Plastic Solutions

This worked example is for calculating the maximum unsupported height of a vertical cut,
making use of the upper- and lower-bound plasticity solutions. The maximum height can be
established by means of plastic solutions (upper- and lower-bound methods). The upper value
of the lower bound (3.7752) as per Kammoun et al. (2020) and the lower value of the upper
bound (3.7776) as per Pastor et al. (2009) will be considered in this worked example.

The maximum height of a vertical face will be between the upper and lower limits provided in
the following equation:

49
 3.7752𝑐 3.7776𝑐
𝐻 Equation 18.2
𝛾 𝛾
Where:
𝑐 is the cohesion of the clay (𝑐 = cohesion = shear strength = 0.5 ͯ UCS)
𝛾 is the unit weight of the clay
𝐻 is the maximum vertical height of the face (without a factor of safety!).
𝑘𝑁
3.7752𝑐 3.7752 100
𝐻 𝑚 19.26 𝑚
𝛾 𝑘𝑁
19.6
𝑚

𝑘𝑁
3.7776𝑐 3.7776 100
𝐻 𝑚 19.27 𝑚
𝛾 𝑘𝑁
19.6
𝑚
The maximum face height based on the lower- and upper-bound plastic approach is
approximately 19 m. Remember to add a safety factor! With application of an FoS of 2, you
will be looking at a slope face height of between 9 and 10 m.

18.3 Initial Embankment Stability Analysis Constructed on Clay

(TRH10, 1994)
For a stability analysis for an embankment on clay, refer to TRH10 (1994) on the design of
road embankments. Refer to section 5.2 of the document.
Note the following:
 The initial stability assessment of the embankment on clay makes use of a plastic
solution. Note the formulation of Hmax. Does it look familiar?
 The calculation includes a conservative factor of safety.
 Note the importance of a proper description of the material, for example, the presence
of desiccation cracks or a slickensided structure.
 Note the methods to obtain cu and estimates of cu provided in TRH10. Also refer to
estimations based on description (consistency of the profile, Appendix B).
 Note the typical properties and parameters provided for guideline purposes, mainly
based on material type and density or consistency descriptions.
 When do you require further analysis?
Conduct initial stability analyses for the embankment of a clay layer, as indicted in Figure 33.
Make use of the simplified plastic limit method, as presented in TRH10.
 Follow the worked example on the stability analysis and ensure that you obtain the
same answer as provided in the example calculation.

50
  Follow the elastic settlement worked example for an estimation of settlement below
the embankment (section 5.3.1).

Road Embankment on Clay

Engineered Fill
H=10m

L
Clay D=10m
cu = 100 kN/m^2 (kPa)

Figure 33: Embankment on Clay

18.4 Limit Equilibrium Analysis in Undrained Soil

In this worked example we will calculate the factor of safety against failure, considering a
rotational slip failure along a specified potential failure surface in saturated clay, making use
of a limit equilibrium analysis. The slope geometry, failure surface under consideration and
material properties, are provided in Figure 34.

4,5 m
O

3,5 m 89.5°
D C

8,0 m
cu = 100 kN/m^2

45.0° Unit Weight = 19 kN/m^3

B
Cross‐Sectional Area ABC = 70m^2
A

51
Figure 34: Slope Problem – Saturated Clay

To obtain the factor of safety for this specified failure surface, we need to calculate the ratio
between the shear strength along the failure surface and the shear stress on the specific slip
circle. This ratio should be larger than one.
𝑆ℎ𝑒𝑎𝑟 𝑠𝑡𝑟𝑒𝑛𝑔ℎ 𝑜𝑓 𝑡ℎ𝑒 𝑓𝑎𝑖𝑙𝑢𝑟𝑒 𝑠𝑢𝑟𝑓𝑎𝑐𝑒 𝑟𝑒𝑠𝑖𝑠𝑡𝑎𝑛𝑐𝑒 Equation 18.3
𝐹
𝑆ℎ𝑒𝑎𝑟 𝑠𝑡𝑟𝑒𝑠𝑠 𝑎𝑙𝑜𝑛𝑔 𝑡ℎ𝑒 𝑓𝑎𝑖𝑙𝑟𝑢𝑒 𝑠𝑢𝑟𝑓𝑎𝑐𝑒 𝑑𝑟𝑖𝑣𝑖𝑛𝑔 𝑓𝑎𝑐𝑡𝑜𝑟𝑠

𝑐 ∙𝐿 ∙𝑅 Equation 18.4
𝐹𝑜𝑆
𝑊∙𝑑
Where:
𝑐 is the undrained shear strength of the clay (cohesion or 0.5 ͯ UCS)
𝐿 is the length of the failure surface under consideration (arc length A-B-C)
R is the radius
W is the weight of the soil mass
D is the moment arm of the centroid of the soil mass A-B-C-D (geometric centre or centre
of gravity) around point “O”.
𝜃 Equation 18.5
𝐴𝑟𝑐ℎ𝑙𝑒𝑛𝑔𝑡ℎ 2𝜋𝑟 𝑜𝑟 𝑅𝑎𝑑𝑖𝑢𝑠 ∗ 𝜃
360

𝜃 89.5
𝐴𝑟𝑐 𝑙𝑒𝑛𝑔𝑡ℎ 𝐴𝐵𝐶 𝑜𝑟 𝐿𝑎 2𝜋𝑟 2𝜋𝑟 𝑜𝑟 𝑅𝑎𝑑𝑖𝑢𝑠 𝜃 ~18.9 𝑚
360 360

The weight of the soil mass is the surface area of ABCD, multiplied by the unit weight of the
soil. Thus 𝑊 𝐴∙𝛾 70 𝑚 ∙ 1 330 𝑘𝑁

𝑐 ∙𝐿 ∙𝑅 100 𝑘𝑁/𝑚 ∙ 18.9 𝑚 ∙ 12.1 𝑚 22 869 𝑘𝑁

𝐹𝑜𝑆 3. 821
𝑊∙𝑑 1330 𝑘𝑁 ∙ 4.5 𝑚 5 985

The factor of safety against failure for the specific failure circle is 3.821. Note that this FoS is
not necessarily the critical failure surface. A number of failure surfaces need to be evaluated,
to obtain the critical failure surface.
We can calculate the factor of safety of the critical failure surface by evaluating numerous
failure surfaces by means of the method above, or by making use of the stability number
method. The stability number is defined by:
𝑐
𝑁 Equation 18.6
𝐹𝛾ℎ
Where:

52
 𝑁 is a non-dimensional stability number
𝑐 is the shear strength of the clay
𝐹 is the factor of safety (FoS)
𝛾 is the unit weight of the soil
ℎ is the slope height.
The factor of safety can thus be expressed as:
𝑐
𝐹 Equation 18.7
𝑁 𝛾ℎ
Considering a “toe circle” failure type (see Figure 35), and the stability number for the 45°
slope angle (𝛽), the stability number Ns or m is obtained from Figure 36 as 1.75, thus:
𝑐 100
𝐹 3.759
𝑁 𝛾ℎ 0.175 ∙ 19 ∙ 8
Considering a shallow slope failure, with Ns of 1.8, the Fs will be ~3.655.

Figure 35: Modes of Failure of Finite Slopes (Das, 2010, p. 524)

53
Figure 36: Stability Number (Ns or m) (Das, 2010, p. 527)

18.5 Stability Number (Tailor’s Method)

You want to construct a slope with a 45° face angle (𝛽). The soil properties are indicated in
the model provided in Figure 37. You want to determine the following:
1) The critical height of the slope; and
2) The FoS for a 10 m-high slope.

c’ = 24 kPa (or kN/m^2)

H φ’ = 20°
Unit Weight of Soil = 18,9 kN/m^3

Figure 37: Slope of Concern (Stability Number Tailor’s Method)

We have:

54
 𝑐 Equation 18.8
𝑁 𝑜𝑟 𝑚
𝛾𝐻
Where:
𝑁 𝑜𝑟 𝑚 is the stability number
𝑐 is the effective cohesion
𝛾 is the unit weight of the soil
𝐻 is the critical height of the slope.
Solving for 𝐻 .
𝑐 Equation 18.9
𝐻
𝛾𝑁
We have 𝑐 and 𝛾. We need to obtain the stability number 𝑁 or m (refer to Figure 38). For the
𝛽 = 45° (slope angle) and 𝜑 = 20° we can obtain 𝑁 = ~0.059 and then:

𝐻 ~21.5 m. The critical slope height is thus approximately 25 m.

. ∙ .

To obtain the factor of safety for a 10-m slope, we have:

𝑐 24
𝑁 𝑜𝑟 𝑚 0.127
𝛾𝐻 18.9 ∙ 10

Now that we have the stability number Ns, refer to chart c) with slope 1:1 (thus 45° slope) as
provided in Figure 39 c. We also have the friction angle as 20°, so we can read the
corresponding factor of safety from the chart as FoS = 1.4.

55
Figure 38: Tailor’s Stability Number (Ns or m) (Das, 2010, p. 539)

56
Figure 39: Contours of Equal Factors of Safety (Slope Angles a, b, c and d)
(Das, 2010)

57
Figure 40: Contours of Equal Factors of Safety (Slope Angles e, f and g) (Das,
2010)

18.6 Tailor’s Method, Using Bray Charts (Friction Circle Method)

In this example we use the charts developed by Hoek and Bray (1981) to calculate the stability
of a slope. We will consider a cohesion-friction soil with properties and geometry as presented
in Figure 41. We will calculate the factor of safety for a dry slope and a totally saturated slope.
The Bray charts are based on Taylor’s method, that is the friction circle method illustrated in
the previous worked example. The charts allow for a quick calculation of the FoS of the slope,
with circular failure at the slope toe. Charts were developed for five slope water conditions.

58
The water conditions and relevant chart number to use, are presented in Figure 42. The
stability charts (numbers 1–5) are provided as Figure 43–Figure 47.
For the dry condition we select chart no. 1 (Figure 43). We solve the expression:
𝑐 15
0.1787
𝛾 ∙ 𝐻 ∙ 𝑡𝑎𝑛𝜑 18 ∙ 10 ∙ tan 25

Read value 0.1787 from the chart with the axis with the above expression, and follow down to
the slope angle of 45°. From here, draw a horizontal line to the vertical axis and a vertical line
to the horizontal axis. From the vertical axis, you read the value of ~0.37.

𝑡𝑎𝑛𝜑 tan 25
~0.37 𝑡ℎ𝑢𝑠 𝐹 ~1.260
𝐹 ~0.37

From the horizontal axis, you read the value of ~0.66, now solve for F.
𝑐 𝑐
~0.066 𝑡ℎ𝑢𝑠 𝐹 ~1.262
𝛾∙𝐻∙𝐹 𝛾 ∙ 𝐻 ∙ ~0.066

The safety factors calculated by both expressions are ~1.26. The slope is stable under this
condition, as FoS>1.

For the saturated condition, we select chart no. 5 (Figure 47).

𝑐 15
0.1787
𝛾 ∙ 𝐻 ∙ 𝑡𝑎𝑛𝜑 18 ∙ 10 ∙ tan 25

𝑡𝑎𝑛𝜑 tan 25
~0.37 𝑡ℎ𝑢𝑠 𝐹 ~0.914
𝐹 ~0.51
𝑐 𝑐
~0.091 𝑡ℎ𝑢𝑠 𝐹 ~0.915
𝛾∙𝐻∙𝐹 𝛾 ∙ 𝐻 ∙ ~0.091

The safety factors calculated by both expressions are ~0.91. The slope is thus unstable under
this condition and will fail, as FoS<1.

c’ = 15 kPa (or kN/m^2)

10 m φ’ = 25°
Unit Weight of Soil = 18 kN/m^3

45.0°

59
Figure 41: Slope Under Consideration (Bray Chart Stability Analysis – Taylor’s
Method)

Figure 42: Groundwater Flow Conditions (de Vallejo & Ferrer, 2011)

60
Figure 43: Chart Number 1 (de Vallejo & Ferrer, 2011)

61
Figure 44: Chart Number 2 (de Vallejo & Ferrer, 2011)

62
Figure 45: Chart Number 3 (de Vallejo & Ferrer, 2011)

63
Figure 46: Chart Number 4 (de Vallejo & Ferrer, 2011)

64
Figure 47: Chart Number 5 (de Vallejo & Ferrer, 2011)

18.7 Rock Mass Classification System (MRMRL90 Method)

You have been provided a conceptual slope angle of 55° for a road cut into a jointed rock
mass of 50 m in height. You have obtained additional information and need to determine
whether the conceptual slope angle will be safe. Excavation will be done by means of
conventional blasting, and a very experienced blasting contractor will be used.
An engineering geologist conducted a geotechnical site investigation for a similar site in the
same geology. For the purposes of testing the validity of your conceptual design, we assume
conditions are similar.

65
The representative site conditions were assessed by means of a detailed face-mapping
exercise, with some field and laboratory tests to determine the intact rock strength (Tip: As it
is a face-mapping exercise, you need not do core recovery adjustments). You can assume
the properties provided are true. The following properties were provided by the competent
person:
Properties of the rock and discontinuities:
a) The rock face/mass is moist, with no water seepage anywhere in the face;
b) The rock is unweathered;
c) There are no shear zones present;
d) Uniaxial compressive strength (UCS) of intact rock (IRS) = 110 MPa;
e) Rock quality designation (RQD) = 50;
f) Number of joint sets = 3;
g) Average discontinuity spacing (Js) = 0.2 m;
h) Average fracture frequency (FF/m) = 5 (inverse of fracture spacing, thus average joint
spacing = 0.2 m);
i) All joints/fractures are continuous (thus factor of 1 to be applied, see Table IV in the
article (Laubscher, 1990));
j) The rock blocks formed are defined by three joint sets, and two of the joint faces are
inclined away from the vertical (only one joint face dips unfavourably towards the cut);
k) Discontinuity condition (JCondL90)
a. Large-scale joint expression = slightly undulated;
b. Small-scale joint expression = smooth undulating;
c. Joint wall alteration = no wall alteration or alteration stronger than joint infill
material;
d. Joint infill = fine soft-sheared talc.
l) Groundwater conditions (Gw);
m) Respective discontinuity orientation;
n) Induced stresses: Ignore (thus do not adjust for) induced stresses. (Tip: use 100% for
the adjustment);
o) The excavation was conducted by means of conventional blasting and the blasting
quality provided, was good.
In this worked example we make use of the rock mass rating system (RMR system) and apply
adjustment factors to it, to obtain the MRMRL90 and safe slope angle that we will consider in
the conceptual design and planning phases of the project. Refer to the article provided in the
list of references. Considering the descriptions and parameters provided above, we can assign
the RMR rating to the rock under consideration. The rating selections are indicated in Table 4
and Table 5.

66
Table 4: RMR Rating Table I (Part 1 of 2)

67
Table 5: RMR Rating Table I (Part 2 of 2)

We can now calculate the RMR rating:

 IRS rating = 12
 FF/m rating = 15
 Joint condition rating = 9.45
 RMR = IRSrating + FF/mrating + Jcrating = 12 + 15 + 9.45 = 36.45 or RMR ~36.

68
To obtain the MRMRL90 rating, we need to apply correction factors to the RMR rating. We need
to correct for:
1) Weathering;
2) Orientation of the block surfaces with respect to the excavation face;
3) Induced stresses;
4) Damage factor, considering the excavation method (blasting).
The ratings assigned, based on the information provided by the engineering geologist, are
illustrated in Table 6.
Table 6: Adjustment of RMR to obtain MRMR rating

69
We can now adjust the RMR to obtain the MRMR rating:
1) RMR = 36.45
2) MRMR = RMR × % Adjustments
3) MRMRL90 = RMR × WeatheringAdj × JointOrientAdj × Induced StressAdj × BlastingAdj
4) MRMRL90 = 36.45 × 100% × 80% × 100% × 94%
5) MRMRL90 = 27.41 = ~24
Now that we have the MRMRL90 rating, we can obtain the initial safe slope angle for the
proposed cut, as illustrated in Table 7.
Table 7: MRMRL90 Rating to Obtain the Initial Safe Slope Angle

Based on this MRMRL90 rock mass rating system, an initial safe slope angle will be 45°. You
will thus consider changing your conceptual angle of 55° to 45°.
It is important to note that a kinematic analysis should be conducted, considering the dip and
dip direction of all joint sets (and variations thereof) in relation to the proposed face angle, and
strike to evaluate the possibility of plane, wedge and toppling failures.

70
This is done by means of stereonet plots. The assessment methodology falls outside the
scope of this learning unit.

18.8 Rock Mass Classification System (Q-Slope Method)

The Q-slope method was introduced in this learning unit (section 12.2.3). Refer to the
publication by Bar and Barton (2017) “The Q-Slope Method for Rock Slope Engineering”. Read
through the article and ensure that you understand this rock mass rating system. Worked
examples are provided in the publication for:
 Planar sliding (section 4.1);
 Wedge sliding (section 4.2);
 Steep stable slopes (section 4.3);
 Weak rocks and increasing slope heights (section 4.4).
Follow the examples step by step, and ensure that you can conduct similar analyses by means
of the Q-slope system.

References
Bansal, S., Gupta, V., & Kurian, J. (2006). Use of Prestressed Soil Anchors in the Construction
of an Underpass in High Water Table Zone. Fédération Internationale de Béton,
Proceedings of the Second International Congress. Naples: FIB.

Bar, N., & Barton, N. (2017). The Q‐Slope Method for Rock Slope Engineering. Austria:
Springer‐Verlag.

Craig, R. F., & Knappett, J. A. (2012). Graig's Soil Mechanics (8 ed.). London and New York:
Spon Press, Taylor & Francis.

Das, B. M. (2010). Principles of Geotechnical Engineering (7th ed.). Stamford, USA: Cengage
Learning.

de Vallejo, L., & Ferrer, M. (2011). Geological Engineering. CRC Press, Taylor & Francis.

Duncan, J. M., Wright, S. G., & Brandon, T. L. (2014). Soil Strength and Slope Stability ( 2nd
ed.). << >>: John Wiley & Sons.

Franki. (2008). A Guide to Practical Geotechnical Engineering in Southern Africa (4th ed.).
Franki.

Hoek, E. (2006). RockScience. Retrieved 02 10, 2020, from www.rockscience.com:

https://www.rocscience.com/assets/resources/learning/hoek/Practical‐Rock‐
Engineering‐Full‐Text.pdf

71
Laubscher, D. (1990). A Geomechanics Classification System for the Rating of Rock Mass in
Mine Design. Journal of the South African Institute of Mining and Metallurgy, 90,
257‐273.

Mah, C. W., & Wyllie, D. C. (2004). Rock Slope Engineering ‐ Civil and Mining (4 ed.). London
and New York: Spon Press, Taylor & Francis.

Page‐Green, P. (1981). Current Techniques in Groundwater Control Applied to Cut Slopes.

Trans. Geol. Soc. S. Afr., 161‐167. Retrieved February 05, 2020, from
https://journals.co.za/docserver/fulltext/sajg/84/2/2783.pdf?expires=1591362547&i
d=id&accname=guest&checksum=3A63AE872F9F9A5D926E13A161F9E91C

PDOT. (2018). Publication 293 ‐ Geotechnical Engineering Manual. Pennsylvania Department

of Transportation. Retrieved 02 10, 2020, from
http://www.dot.state.pa.us/public/pubsforms/Publications/Pub%20293.pdf

Read, J., & Stacey, P. (2010). Guidelines for Open Pit Slope Design. Australia: CSIRO
Publishing and CRC Press/Balkema.

SAICE. (2010). Site Investigation Code of Practice. The South African Institution of Civil
Engineering ‐ The Geotechnical Division of SAICE.

TRH09. (1982). Technical Recommendations for Highways ‐ Construction of Road

Embankments. Pretoria, RSA: Department of Transport.

TRH10. (1994). Technical Recommendations for Highways ‐ The Design of Road

Embankments. Pretoria, RSA: Department of Transport.

TRH18. (1993). Technical Recommendations for Highways ‐ The Investigaiton, Design,

Construction and Maintenance of Road Cuttings. Pretoria, RSA: Department of
Transport.

WSDOT. (2011, August). Geotechnical Design Manual, M 46‐03.05, August 2011,

Washington State Department of Transportation, Environmental and Engineering
Programs, Geotechnical Services. Retrieved 02 10, 2020, from
https://www.wsdot.wa.gov/publications/manuals/fulltext/M46‐03/M46‐
03.05Complete.pdf

72