Professional Documents
Culture Documents
Abstract: Analysing the rock slope stability is a classical problem for geotechnical
engineers. Recently, Hoek-Brown failure criterion has drawn more and more attention
for rock slope stability assessments. It would be due to the fact that the nonlinearity is
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by Tufts University on 11/19/16. For personal use only.
more pronounced at the low confining stresses that are operational in slope stability
problems. However, it is still not popular yet. Therefore, in this study, slope stability
analyses will be performed based on the generalised Hoek-Brown failure criterion
using a commercial software, Phase 2. The Hoek-Brown strength parameters will be
used as direct inputs in numerical simulations. In addition, two rock slope cases will
be investigated. It is expected that better understandings of rock slope mechanisms can
be obtained.
INTRODUCTION
Slopes experience a variety of situations that result in their failing. Stability related
situations are commonly encountered by geotechnical engineers and hence many
methods have been developed to measure and determine their stability and the factors
which influence the safety (Shen et al. 2013). However, this is still an underdeveloped
field of research (Li et al. 2011).
The Mohr-Coulomb criterion is currently more popular than the Hoek-Brown
failure criterion. But the Hoek-Brown failure criterion is more suitable for low
confining stresses which are found in the slopes under analysis (Nekouei and Ahangari
2013). However, most current software is still written in terms of the Mohr-Coulomb
criterion. Fortunately, a finite element based commercial program, Phase 2, is
currently available and it allows for the direct utilization of the Hoek-Brown failure
criterion.
Finite Element analysis (Liu and Quek 2014) can be used to simulate and calculate
stresses, pore pressure, and displacement of rocks. As shown by Lane and Griffiths
(2000), using strength reduction method (SRM) based on the Finite Element Method
(FEM); it is able to assess slope stability by giving a factor of safety. Additionally it
also can incorporate any loads or pressures that arise from external stimulus (Liu and
Quek 2014). Thus, this study aims to use the FEM to investigate rock slope stability
based on the Hoek-Brown failure criterion. These simulations will include calculating
factors of safety and the display potential failure mechanisms.
© ASCE
Geo-China 2016
Geo-China 2016 GSP 267 152
LITERATURE REVIEW
rocks and to be applied in slope stability analysis. However, it should be noted that the
Hoek-Brown failure criterion is more suitable for heavily jointed rock masses which
have randomly arranged discontinuities inside the rock mass.
a
σ'
σ = σ +σ m 3 + s (2)
' '
1 3 ci b σ
ci
Equation 2 shown above is the primary equation for the latest version of the Hoek-
Brown failure criterion. Different parameters represent the nature and material
properties of the intact rock or rock masses. mb, s, and a are defined in Equations 3-5
and σci is the uniaxial compressive strength of intact rock.
( −GSI / 15) ( −20 / 3)
a = 1 / 2 + 1 / 6 * (e −e ) (3)
GSI − 100
mb = mi * exp( ) (4)
28 − 14 D
GSI − 100
s = exp( ) (5)
9 − 3D
The a parameter is used to define how the Hoek-Brown failure criterion is non-linear
as shown in Figure 1 (Li et al. 2008) when compared against the linear Mohr-Coulomb
equivalency. The mb and the s parameters calculated in Equations 4-5 are material
constants which are in turn influenced by the existence of GSI and D value. The
parameter D is the amount of disturbance the rock mass has undergone due to blasting
or mechanical excavations (Nekouei and Ahangari 2013). Where D = 0 for rock
masses that are undisturbed while D = 1 for blasted or mechanically excavated rocks.
GSI which is used in Equations 3-5 is the Geological Strength Index. GSI depends on
how intact the rock is and how weathered or rough the surface presents resulting in a
value ranging from a value of 5 to 100 (Sonmez and Ulusay 1999).
Equation 6 is used to calculate the Young’s modulus. Young’s modulus is calculated
using the disturbance factor (D), GSI and the uniaxial compressive strength of the
intact rock (Hoek and Marinos 2007).
Em (GPa ) = (1 − D / 2) * σ ci 100 *10 (GSI −100 ) 40 (6)
Equation 6 is to be used whenever the σci ≤ 100MPa (Hoek et al. 2002), for the rock
masses that do possess σci above 100MPa Equation 6 is still used, except the term
√(σci/100) is removed.
© ASCE
Geo-China 2016
Geo-China 2016 GSP 267 153
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by Tufts University on 11/19/16. For personal use only.
© ASCE
Geo-China 2016
Geo-China 2016 GSP 267 154
The slopes that were created in the Phase 2 computer program and the following
results that were obtained for both of the case studies which are from the study by
Sonmez and Ulusay (1999).
Case study 1 is a slope based on an open pit barite mine with a slope height of 20m, an
approximate slope angle of 34°, GSI = 16, and mi = 7. The slope has a mean unit
weight of 22.2kN/m3 and a uniaxial compressive strength of 5.2MPa. It should be
noted that D = 0.7 is assumed based on the suggestion of Hoek et al. (2002), as its
magnitude is not available. Case Study 2 has a slope height of 80 meters and an
approximate slope angle of 60°, and can be found in coal mine in Western Turkey.
The GSI = 37 and mi = 9.04, the slopes mean unit weight is 21kN/m3 and the uniaxial
compressive strength is 40MPa. The disturbance factor for the slope is set to 1.0 as the
slope undergoes blasting.
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by Tufts University on 11/19/16. For personal use only.
In these figures the shape of the slopes for each case study can be seen along with
possible data that can be retrieved from the computer program Phase 2. The factor of
safety obtained for Case Study 1 is 0.95. As shown in Figures 3 and 4, Case study 2
has a factor of safety of 1.09. Additionally, the deformation vectors for both cases can
also be observed in Figures 5 and 6.
The images displayed in Figures 3 and 5 are the shear strain contours from the SRM
for Case 1 and Case 2 respectively, which can be seen as the slope failure
mechanisms. Figure 7 is the failure surfaces presented by Sonmez and Ulusay (1999)
based on the limit equilibrium method and Li et al. (2011) based on numerical limit
analysis methods (Lyamin and Sloan 2002) (Lyamin and Sloan 2002), (Krabbenhoft et
al. 2005). It can be seen that, by using Phase 2, similar failure mechanism was
obtained for Case 1. However, Case 2 results are slightly different among various
approaches.
© ASCE
Geo-China 2016
Geo-China 2016 GSP 267 155
© ASCE
Geo-China 2016
Geo-China 2016 GSP 267 156
Figure 7: Case Study 1 (left) and 2 (right) – failure mechanisms adapted from (Li
et al. 2011)
In addition, it can be observed in Figures 5 and 7 that the plastic contours concentrated
more on the slope lower bench for both of the finite element and numerical limit
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by Tufts University on 11/19/16. For personal use only.
analysis results. The results obtained from various methods implied that Case 2 is
sensitive for the slope stability assessment. It would be due to the fact that the rock
masses for this case are heterogeneous. However, it should be noted that the results
obtained using different methods Sonmez and Ulusay (1999) and Li et al. (2011)
which indicated that Case 2 are critical as its F is close to 1.
CONCLUSIONS
This study utilizes the finite element based computer program, Phase 2 to investigate
rock slope stability based on the Hoek Brown failure criterion. The two case studies
were shown and factors of safety obtained from this study agreed well with the rock
slope real states. The program allows for the direct application of the Hoek-Brown
failure criterion to determine the nature of various other attributes that the slopes
possess. The simulations offer up the means to better understand the rock slope failure
mechanisms. This can be used to further understand the rock slopes and how they will
react to whatever external or internal stimulus is acting upon the slope. However, the
results obtained for Case 2 indicated that it is not an easy task to capture exact rock
slope failure mechanism if the rock masses are heterogeneous. Therefore more
detailed investigations are still needed to improve current design method.
REFERENCES
Duncan, J. M. (1996). "State of the Art: Limit Equilibrium and Finite-Element
Analysis of Slopes." Journal of Geotechnical Engineering, ASCE,.
Fu, W. and Y. Liao (2010). "Non-linear shear strength reduction technique in slope
stability calculation." Computers and Geotechnics 37(3): 288-298.
Hoek, E. and P. Marinos (2007). "A brief history of the development of the Hoek-
Brown failure criterion." Brazilian Journal of Soil and Rocks.
© ASCE
Geo-China 2016
Geo-China 2016 GSP 267 157
Li, A. J., R. S. Merifield and A. V. Lyamin (2008). "Stability charts for rock slopes
based on the Hoek–Brown failure criterion." International Journal of Rock
Mechanics and Mining Sciences 45(5): 689-700.
Li, A. J., R. S. Merifield and A. V. Lyamin (2011). "Effect of rock mass disturbance
on the stability of rock slopes using the Hoek–Brown failure criterion." Computers
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by Tufts University on 11/19/16. For personal use only.
Lyamin, A. V. and S. W. Sloan (2002). "Lower bound limit analysis using non-linear
programming." INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL FOR NUMERICAL METHODS IN
ENGINEERING.
Lyamin, A. V. and S. W. Sloan (2002). "Upper bound limit analysis using linear finite
elements and non-linear programming." INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL FOR
NUMERICAL AND ANALYTICAL METHODS IN GEOMECHANICS.
Shen, J., M. Karakus and C. Xu (2013). "Chart-based slope stability assessment using
the Generalized Hoek–Brown criterion." International Journal of Rock Mechanics
and Mining Sciences 64: 210-219.
© ASCE
Geo-China 2016