Anda di halaman 1dari 116

Chapter 9

- Rock Mass -
A major deficiency of laboratory testing of rock
specimens is that the specimens are limited in size and
therefore represent a very small and highly selective
sample of the rock mass from which they were removed.

In a typical engineering project, the samples tested in the
laboratory represent only a very small fraction of one
percent of the volume of the rock mass.

In addition, since only those specimens which survive
the collection and preparation process are tested, the
results of these tests represent a highly biased sample.

How then can these results be used to estimate the
properties of the in situ rock mass?
In an attempt to provide guidance on the properties of rock
masses a number of rock mass classification systems have been

In Japan, for example, there are 7 rock mass classification
systems, each one developed to meet a particular set of needs.

Probably the most widely known classifications, at least in the
English speaking world, are the

(1) RMR system of Bieniawski (1973, 1974)
(2) Q system of Barton, Lien and Lunde (1974)

The classifications include information on the strength of the
intact rock material, the spacing, number and surface properties
of the structural discontinuities as well as allowances for the
influence of subsurface groundwater, in situ stresses and the
orientation and inclination of dominant discontinuities.

These classifications were developed primarily for the estimation
of the support requirements in tunnels but their use has been
expanded to cover many other fields.
Provided that they are used within the
limits within which they were developed,
as discussed by Palmstrom and Broch
(2006), these rock mass classification
systems can be very useful practical
engineering tools, not only because they
provide a starting point for the design of
tunnel support but also because they force
users to examine the properties of the rock
mass in a very systematic manner.

Discontinuities can be defined as any form
of mechanical breaks or fractures within a
rock mass which can cause tensile
strength across the fracture planes to
approach zero or even lower (ISRM,
Discontinuity formed by the several of

a) Sedimentary

b) Igneous

c) Metamorphic

i. Deposition bedding planes are the result of
repeated sedimentation cycle with a change of
sedimentation material or change in structure
and texture of the sediment at regular

ii. Tectonic deformation ~ inclined, folding

iii. Fault
Horizontal bedding

i. Cooling of magma ~ joint

ii. Tectonic ~ joint, fault

iii. Weathering ~ sheet joint
Joint set has same orientation
Sheet jointing in granite - sometimes
referred to as onion skin joints
Temperature and pressure ~
recrystalliztion mineral ~ foliation
Orientation of platy mineral grains with respect to
direction to highest pressure during metamorphism
Discontinuity data
The orientation of a discontinuity in space is
described by the dip and dip direction, as shown
in Figure 9.3.

The dip, is the maximum inclination of a
structural discontinuity plane to the horizontal,
defined by the angle in Figure 9.3.

Dip direction, or dip azimuth, is the direction of
the horizontal trace of the line of dip, measured
clockwise from true north as indicated by the
angle in Figure 9.3.

The orientation of discontinuities determines the
shape of the individual blocks, beds, or mosaics
comprising the rock mass.
The strike is the trace of the intersection of
an obliquely inclined place with a
horizontal reference plane and it is at right
angles to the dip and dip direction of the
oblique plane.

The practical importance of the strike of a
plane is that it is the visible trace of a
discontinuity, which can be seen on the
horizontal surface of a rock mass.
Figure 9.3 The orientation of a discontinuity in slope
Summary: effect of discontinuities
on rock mass properties
Intact rock (lab test) strength affected by
mineral arrangement, eg. Cleavage.

Rock mass strength affected by the
discontinuities, influences by the scale

Discontinuity Measurement
Scan line mapping

Random mapping

A-B: Scan line; T: Both end exposed
U: Both end unexposed; X: Distance between discontinuity
Discontinuity Measurement
Discontinuity Measurement
The important part of a rock slope analysis is the
systematic collection of geological data.

To collect such data the best tool is the geological

Utilization of the compass can save a great deal of time
because readings of the dip and dip direction, required
for the slope analysis, can be taken directly from the

The procedure for the operation of the compass is
described in detail below.
Types of geological compasses in the market
In the early stages of collecting geological information about a site,
access underground is not possible.

Therefore surface outcrops and road cuts must be used to obtain
information of the engineering and structural properties of the rock

One such method of collecting this information is the scanline survey.

A scanline is a line set on the surface of the rock mass, and the survey
consists of recording the information about the discontinuities that
intersect this line.

The procedure to carry out a scanline survey is outlined below.

One of the most important aspects of rock slope analysis is the
presentation of the geological data.

The data has to be presented so that it can be easily evaluated and
incorporated into stability analyses.

Experience shows that the stereographic projection provides a useful
and convenient means for the presentation of geological data.
The Scanline Survey Procedure
When carrying out a scanline survey the
information should be recorded for each of the
discontinuities that intersect the scanline.

Figure 9.5 shows a diagram illustrating rock
mass properties which is will measure when a
scanline survey is performed.

Figure 9.6 shows the discontinuity survey data
sheet that using while performed scanline
Scan-line survey
Figure 9.5 Diagram illustrating rock mass properties
Figure 9.6 The discontinuity survey data sheet
Once the geological data have been collected,
computer processing or stereonet plotting of this
data can be of considerable assistance in
plotting the information and in the interpretation
of statistically significant trends.

Figure 9.7 illustrates a plot of contoured pole
concentrations and corresponding great circles
produced by the program DIPS developed at the
University of Toronto and now available from
Rocscience Inc.
Figure 9.7 Plot of structural features using the program DIPS
Rock Quality Designation Index (RQD)
The Rock Quality Designation index (RQD) was
developed by Deere (Deere et al 1967) to provide a
quantitative estimate of rock mass quality from drill core

RQD is defined as the percentage of intact core pieces
longer than 100 mm (4 inches) in the total length of core.

The core should be at least NW size (54.7 mm or 2.15
inches in diameter) and should be drilled with a double-
tube core barrel.

The correct procedures for Rock mass classification
measurement of the length of core pieces and the
calculation of RQD are summarized in Figure 9.8.
Figure 9.8 Procedure for measurement and calculation of RQD (After Deere, 1989)
Figure 9.9 Rock sample from rock coring of borehole
Palmstrm (1982) suggested that, when no core is
available but discontinuity traces are visible in surface
exposures or exploration adits, the RQD may be estimated
from the number of discontinuities per unit volume.

The suggested relationship for clay-free rock masses is:

RQD = 115 - 3.3 Jv (1)

where Jv is the sum of the number of joints per unit length
for all joint (discontinuity) sets known as the volumetric joint

RQD is a directionally dependent parameter and its value
may change significantly, depending upon the borehole

The use of the volumetric joint count can be quite useful in
reducing this directional dependence.
RQD is intended to represent the rock mass quality in situ.

When using diamond drill core, care must be taken to ensure that
fractures, which have been caused by handling or the drilling
process, are identified and ignored when determining the value
of RQD.

When using Palmstrm's relationship for exposure mapping,
blast induced fractures should not be included when estimating

Deere's RQD was widely used, particularly in North America,
after its introduction.

Cording and Deere (1972), Merritt (1972) and Deere and Deere
(1988) attempted to relate RQD to Terzaghi's rock load factors
and to rockbolt requirements in tunnels.

In the context of this discussion, the most important use of RQD
is as a component of the RMR and Q rock mass classifications
covered later in this chapter.
Rock mass classification
1. Rock Mass Rating system, RMR
2. Rock Tunneling Quality Index, Q
Geomechanics Classification
Bieniawski (1976) published the details of a rock mass
classification called the Geomechanics Classification or
the Rock Mass Rating (RMR) system.

Over the years, this system has been successively
refined as more case records have been examined and
the reader should be aware that Bieniawski has made
significant changes in the ratings assigned to different

The discussion which follows is based upon the 1989
version of the classification (Bieniawski, 1989).

Both this version and the 1976 version deal with
estimating the strength of rock masses.
The following six parameters are used to
classify a rock mass using the RMR system:

1. Uniaxial compressive strength of rock material.

2. Rock Quality Designation (RQD).

3. Spacing of discontinuities.

4. Condition of discontinuities.

5. Groundwater conditions.

6. Orientation of discontinuities.
The following example illustrates the use of these
tables to arrive at an RMR value.

A tunnel is to be driven through slightly weathered
granite with a dominant joint set dipping at 60o
against the direction of the drive. Index testing
and logging of diamond drilled core give typical
Point-load strength index values of 8 MPa and
average RQD values of 70%. The slightly
rough and slightly weathered joints with a
separation (aperture) of < 1mm, are spaced at
300 mm, no infilling and discontinuity length
(persistence) about 1-3 m. Tunneling conditions
are anticipated to be wet.
The RMR value for the example under
consideration is determined as follows:
Tunnel drive with dip and drive against dip
Note 1. For slightly rough and altered discontinuity
surfaces with a separation of < 1 mm, Table 9.1.A.4
gives a rating of 25.

When more detailed information is available, Table 9.1.E
can be used to obtain a more refined rating.

Hence, in this case, the rating is the sum of: 4 (1-3 m
discontinuity length), 4 (separation 0.1-1.0 mm), 3
(slightly rough), 6 (no infilling) and 5 (slightly weathered)
= 22.

Note 2. Table 9.1.F gives a description of Fair for the
conditions assumed where the tunnel is to be driven
against the dip of a set of joints dipping at 60

Using this description for Tunnels and Mines in Table
9.1.B gives an adjustment rating of -5.
Table 9.1 Rock Mass Rating System (After Bieniawski 1989)
For the case considered earlier, with RMR = 59, Table
9.2 suggests that a tunnel could be excavated by top
heading and bench, with a 1.5 to 3 m advance in the top

Support should be installed after each blast and the
support should be placed at a maximum distance of 10
m from the face.

Systematic rock bolting, using 4 m long 20 mm diameter
fully grouted bolts spaced at 1.5 to 2 m in the crown and
walls, is recommended.

Wire mesh, with 50 to 100 mm of shotcrete for the crown
and 30 mm of shotcrete for the walls, is recommended.
Table 9.2 Guidelines for excavation and support of 10 m span rock tunnels in
accordance with the RMR system (After Bieniawski 1989)
Bieniawski (1989) published a set of guidelines
for selection of support in tunnels in rock which
the value of RMR has been determined. These
guidelines valid for:-

i. 10m span horseshoe shaped tunnel. (Support
should be installed after maximum distance of
10m from support area)

ii. Constructed using drill and blast methods

iii. Rock mass subjected to a vertical stress <
25MPa (equivalent to a depth below surface of <
Rock Tunneling Quality Index, Q
On the basis of an evaluation of a large
number of case histories of underground
excavations, Barton et al (1974) of the
Norwegian Geotechnical Institute
proposed a Tunneling Quality Index (Q) for
the determination of rock mass
characteristics and tunnel support
The numerical value of the index Q varies on a
logarithmic scale from 0.001 to a maximum of 1,000 and
is defined by:



RQD = the Rock Quality Designation
Jn = the joint set number
Jr = the joint roughness number
Ja = the joint alteration number
Jw = the joint water reduction factor
SRF = stress reduction factor
In explaining the meaning of the parameters used to
determine the value of Q, Barton et al (1974) offer the
following comments:

The first quotient (RQD/Jn), representing the structure of
the rock mass, is a crude measure of the block or
particle size, with the two extreme values (100/0.5 and
10/20) differing by a factor of 400.

If the quotient is interpreted in units of centimeters, the
extreme 'particle sizes' of 200 to 0.5 cm are seen to be
crude but fairly realistic approximations.

Probably the largest blocks should be several times this
size and the smallest fragments less than half the size.
(Clay particles are of course excluded).
The second quotient (Jr/Ja) represents the roughness
and frictional characteristics of the joint walls or filling

This quotient is weighted in favor of rough, unaltered
joints in direct contact. It is to be expected that such
surfaces will be close to peak strength, that they will
dilate strongly when sheared, and they will therefore be
especially favorable to tunnel stability.

When rock joints have thin clay mineral coatings and
fillings, the strength is reduced significantly.

Nevertheless, rock wall contact after small shear
displacements have occurred may be a very important
factor for preserving the excavation from ultimate failure.
Where no rock wall contact exists, the conditions are extremely
unfavorable to tunnel stability.

The 'friction angles' (given in Table 9.3) are a little below the
residual strength values for most clays, and are possibly down-
graded by the fact that these clay bands or fillings may tend to
consolidate during shear, at least if normal consolidation or if
softening and swelling has occurred.

The swelling pressure of montmorillonite may also be a factor

The third quotient (Jw/SRF) consists of two stress parameters.
SRF is a measure of:

1) loosening load in the case of an excavation through shear zones and
clay bearing rock

2) rock stress in competent rock

3) squeezing loads in plastic incompetent rocks.
It can be regarded as a total stress parameter. The parameter Jw is
a measure of water pressure, which has an adverse effect on the
shear strength of joints due to a reduction in effective normal stress.
Water may, in addition, cause softening and possible outwash in the
case of clay-filled joints.

It has proved impossible to combine these two parameters in terms
of inter-block effective stress, because paradoxically a high value of
effective normal stress may sometimes signify less stable conditions
than a low value, despite the higher shear strength.

The quotient (Jw/SRF) is a complicated empirical factor describing
the 'active stress'. It appears that the rock tunneling quality Q can
now be considered to be a function of only three parameters which
are crude measures of:

1. Block size (RQD/Jn)

2. Inter-block shear strength (Jr/ Ja)

3. Active stress (Jw/SRF)
Undoubtedly, there are several other parameters which could be added to
improve the accuracy of the classification system. One of these would be
the joint orientation.

Although many case records include the necessary information on structural
orientation in relation to excavation axis, it was not found to be the important
general parameter that might be expected.

Part of the reason for this may be that the orientations of many types of
excavations can be, and normally are, adjusted to avoid the maximum effect
of unfavorably oriented major joints.

However, this choice is not available in the case of tunnels, and more than
half the case records were in this category.

The parameters Jn, Jr and Ja appear to play a more important role than
orientation, because the number of joint sets determines the degree of
freedom for block movement (if any), and the frictional and dilational
characteristics can vary more than the down-dip gravitational component of
unfavorably oriented joints.

If joint orientations had been included the classification would have been
less general, and its essential simplicity lost.

A 15 m span crusher chamber for permanent
underground mine is to be excavated in a norite at a
depth of 2,100 m below surface. The rock mass contains
two sets of joints controlling stability. These joints are
undulating, rough and unweathered with very minor
surface staining. RQD values range from 85% to 95%
and laboratory tests on core samples of intact rock give
an average uniaxial compressive strength of 170
MPa. The principal stress directions are
approximately vertical and horizontal and the magnitude
of the horizontal principal stress is approximately 1.5
times that of the vertical principal stress. The rock mass
is locally damp but there is no evidence of flowing
The numerical value of RQD is used directly in the calculation of Q and, for this rock
mass, an average value of 90 will be used.

Table 9.3.2 shows that, for two joint sets, the joint set number, Jn = 4.

For rough or irregular joints which are undulating, Table 9.3.3 gives a joint roughness
number of Jr = 3.

Table 9.3.4 gives the joint alteration number, Ja = 1.0, for unaltered joint walls with
surface staining only.

Table 9.3.5 shows that, for an excavation with minor inflow, the joint water reduction
factor, Jw = 1.0.

For a depth below surface of 2,100 m the overburden stress will be approximately 57
MPa and, in this case, the major principal stress s1 = 85 MPa.

Since the uniaxial compressive strength of the norite is approximately 170 MPa, this
gives a ratio of sc / s1= 2.

Table 9.3.6 shows that, for competent rock with rock stress problems, this value of sc
/ s1 can be expected to produce heavy rock burst conditions and that the value of
SRF should lie between 10 and 20. A value of SRF = 15 will be assumed for this
calculation. Using these values gives:

In relating the value of the index Q to the stability
and support requirements of underground
excavations, Barton et al (1974) defined an
additional parameter which they called the
Equivalent Dimension, De, of the excavation.

This dimension is obtained by dividing the span,
diameter or wall height of the excavation by a
quantity called the Excavation Support Ratio,
ESR. Hence:
The value of ESR is related to the intended use of the excavation
and to the degree of security which is demanded of the support
system installed to maintain the stability of the excavation. Barton
et al (1974) suggest the following values:
Table 9.3 Classification of individual parameters used in the Tunneling Quality Index, Q
Table 9.3(cont'd.) Classification of individual parameters used in the Tunneling Quality Index, Q (After Barton et al 1974)
Table 9.3 (cont'd.) Classification of individual parameters in the Tunneling Quality
Index, Q (After Barton et al 1974)
The crusher station discussed earlier falls into the category of
permanent mine openings and is assigned an excavation support
ratio ESR = 1.6.

Hence, for an excavation span of 15 m, the equivalent dimension,
De = 15/1.6 = 9.4.

The equivalent dimension, De, plotted against the value of Q, is
used to define a number of support categories in a chart published
in the original paper by Barton et al (1974).

This chart has recently been updated by Grimstad and Barton (1993)
to reflect the increasing use of steel fiber reinforced shotcrete in
underground excavation support.

Figure 9.11 is reproduced from this updated chart.

From Figure 9.11 a value of De of 9.4 and a value of Q of 4.5 places
this crusher excavation in category (4) which requires a pattern of
rockbolts (spaced at 2.3 m) and 40 to 50 mm of unreinforced
Because of the mild to heavy rock burst conditions which are
anticipated, it may be prudent to destress the rock in the walls of this
crusher chamber.

This is achieved by using relatively heavy production blasting to
excavate the chamber and omitting the smooth blasting usually used
to trim the final walls of an excavation such as an underground
powerhouse at shallower depth.

Caution is recommended in the use of destress blasting and, for
critical applications, it may be advisable to seek the advice of a
blasting specialist before embarking on this course of action.

Lset (1992) suggests that, for rocks with 4 < Q < 30, blasting
damage will result in the creation of new joints with a consequent
local reduction in the value of Q for the rock surrounding the

He suggests that this can be accounted for by reducing the RQD
value for the blast damaged zone.
Assuming that the RQD value for the distressed rock around the
crusher chamber drops to 50 %, the resulting value of Q = 2.9.

From Figure 9.11, this value of Q, for an equivalent dimension, De of
9.4, places the excavation just inside category (5) which requires
rockbolts, at approximately 2 m spacing, and a 50 mm thick layer of
steel fiber reinforced shotcrete.

Barton et al (1980) provide additional information on rockbolt length,
maximum unsupported spans and roof support pressures to
supplement the support recommendations published in the original
1974 paper.

The length, L of rockbolts can be estimated from the excavation
width, B and the Excavation Support Ratio ESR:

The maximum unsupported span can be estimated from:

Maximum span (unsupported) = 2 ESR Q 0.4

Based upon analyses of case records, Grimstad and Barton (1993)
suggest that the relationship between the value of Q and the
permanent roof support pressure Proof is estimated from:

Figure 9.11 Estimated support categories based on the
tunneling quality index, Q (After Grimstad and Barton, 1993,
reproduced from Palmstrom and Broch, 2006)
Table 9.4 Shear strength of filled discontinuities and filling materials (After Barton 1974)
Structurally Controlled Instability



Rock Slope
Rock Slope Assessment
The discontinuity data from the scanline survey of rock
slope will analysis.

The analysis is divided into three categories to obtain the

1. Pole density

2. Discontinuity sets

3. Potential instability of slopes

Plotting Poles
Poles can be plotted on the polar stereonet (Figure 9.18) on which the dip direction is
indicated on the periphery of the circle, and the dip is measured along radial lines
with zero degrees at the center.

It should be noted that the stereonet shown on Figure 9.18 is the lower hemisphere
plot in which the dip direction scale starts at the bottom of the circle and increases in
a clockwise direction, with the north arrow corresponding to the dip direction of 180

The reason for setting up the scale in this manner is that if the field readings, as
measured with a structural compass, are plotted directly on the stereonet, the poles
are correctly plotted on the lower hemisphere plot.

The procedure for plotting poles is to lay a sheet of tracing paper on the printed polar
net and mark the north direction and each quadrant position around the edge of the
outer circle.

A mark is then made to show the pole that represents the orientation of each
discontinuity as defined by its dip and dip direction.

Poles for shallow dipping discontinuities lie close to the center of the circle, and poles
of steeply dipping discontinuities lie close to the periphery of the circle.
Step of ploting pole using equal-
area polar net : eg. 220/70
Step of ploting pole using equal
area equatorial net: eg. 220/70
Contouring Pole Concentrations
Concentrations of pole orientations can be identified using a
counting net such as that shown in Figure 9.19.

The Kalsbeek net is made up of mutually overlapping
hexagons, each with an area of 1/100 of the full area of the
stereo net.

Contouring is performed by overlaying the counting net on the
pole plot and counting the number of poles in each hexagon;
this number is marked on the net.

These numbers of poles are converted into percentages by
dividing each by the total number of poles and multiplying by

Once a percentage is written in each hexagon, contours can
be developed by interpolation.
Plotting Great Circles
Great circles are plotted on the equatorial net (Figure 9.20), but they cannot be plotted
directly on this net because the true dip can only be scaled off the horizontal axis.

The plotting procedure for great circles consists of the following steps:

1. Lay a piece of tracing paper on the net with a thumbtack through the center point so that
the tracing paper can be rotated on the net.

2. Mark the north direction of the net on the tracing paper.

3. Locate the dip direction of the plane on the scale around the circumference of the net
and mark this point on the tracing paper. Note that the dip direction scale on the equatorial
net for plotting great circles starts at the north point at the top of the circle and increases in
a clockwise direction.

4. Rotate the tracing paper until the dip direction mark coincides with one of the horizontal
axes of the net, that is, the 900 or 1800 points of the dip direction scale.

5. Locate the arc on the net corresponding to the dip of the plane and trace this arc on to
the paper. Note that a horizontal plane has a great circle at the circumference of the net,
and a vertical plane is represented by a straight line passing through the center of the net.

6. Rotate the tracing paper so that the two north points coincide and the great circle is
oriented correctly.
Step of ploting great circle: eg.
Lines of Intersection
The intersection of two planes is a straight line, which defines the direction
of sliding of a wedge formed by these two planes.

The procedure for determining the orientation of the line of intersection
between two planes is:

1. Locate the line of intersection between the two planes, which is
represented by the point at which the two great circles intersect.

2. Draw a line from the center of the net through the point of intersection
and extend it to the circumference of the net.

3. The trend of the line of intersection is given by the position where the line
drawn in step 2 intersects the scale on the circumference of the net.

4. Rotate the tracing paper until the line drawn in step 2 lies over one of the
horizontal axes of the net (dip direction 90 or 180). The plunge of the line
intersection is read off the scale on the horizontal axis, with a horizontal
plunge having a point of intersection at the circumference and a vertical
plunge at the center of the net.
Step of ploting lines of
intersection: eg. 220/70
Figure 9.18 Equal-area polar net for plotting poles
Figure 9.19 Kalsbeek counting net
for contouring pole concentrations
Figure 9.20 Equal-area equatorial net
for plotting poles and great circles
Table 9.5: Mode of slope failures
based on discontinuity
i. The discontinuities dip direction must lie between 10 of slope dip direction (opposite direction).
p j f
| s + ) 90 (

Modes of failure
Criteria are met
i. Very weak material, highly jointed or fractured or weak soil
ii. Homogenous soil
i. Dip direction lie within 20
from the design slope dip direction.
> | (slope angle>plane angle>friction angle)
iii. Release surfaces must be present to define the lateral boundaries of the slide.
> | (slope angle>intersection of 2 plane angle>friction angle)
ii. driving force due to the weight of wedge must exceed the frictional resistance of the planes.
i. The discontinuities dip direction must lie between 10 of slope dip direction (opposite

p j f
| s + ) 90 (
Figure 9.21 The stereographic plot of potential instability analysis and types of failure mode (Hoek and Bray, 1981)
Circular failure
Circular failure
Plane Failure
Plane Failure
Plane Failure
Wedge Failure
Wedge Failure
Toppling Failure
Limit Equilibrium Models
The stability of rock slopes for the
geological conditions depends on the
shear strength generated along the sliding
surface. For all shear type failures, the
rock can assumed to be a Mohr-Coulomb
material in which the shear strength is
expressed in terms of the cohesion c and
friction angle .
For a sliding surface on which there is an
effective normal stress, acting, the shear
strength developed on this surface is
given by;

| o t tan
+ = c


p p
| tan cos sin
+ =
Shear stress,
Driving force = Resisting force

is dip of sliding surface
A is area of sliding surface
W is weight of block lying
above sliding surface.

Driving force = Resisting force


Shear stress,

Driving force = Resisting force
W cA

tan cos +

tan cos
The stability of rock slope:
If the cohesion zero, thus;

Driving force = Resisting force
3 slope conditions;

1.The slope is fully saturated; such
that the tension crack is full-filled
with water.

2.The slope is partially saturated; the
tension crack is half-filled with water.

3. The slope is dry or in drainage
condition; the tension crack is empty
with water.

Driving force = Resisting force
Geometries of plane slope failure;
(a) tension crack in the upper slope;
(b) tension crack in the face.

Driving force = Resisting force
| | ) tan (tan
) cot
)( tan . cot 1 (
2 2
p s f p f r
b H bH W + + =
( )


= 1 tan cot cot 1
f p p r
For case (a), the weight of sliding block W is;
For case (b), the weight of sliding block W is;
p p
p p
V U W cA

cos sin
tan ) sin cos (

The water forces acting in the tension crack,
V, and on the sliding plane,
U, are as follows:
w w
h V =
A h U
w w

p s
ec z b H A cos ) tan ( + =
) tan cot 1 (
p f
H z =
) cot cot cot (
f p f
H b =

cos =

sec =

cot =
Where A is given by:

Driving force = Resisting force
) sin(
p T T
T N + =
) cos(
p T T
T S + =
( )
p T p p
p T p p
T V U W cA

+ +
+ + +
cos cos sin
tan )] sin( sin cos [
Slope remedial
Example geometry assumed for the two-
dimensional analysis of the slope
Factor of Safety for Planar Mode
The two models are defined in:

1. Figure 9.23

2. Figure 9.24.
| o t tan ' + = c
Figure 9.23 Factor of Safety calculation for a slope with no tension crack
Figure 9.24 Factor of Safety calculation
for a slope with a water-filled tension crack
Table 9.6 The Symbols and dimensions
used in these models are as follows
Factor of Safety for Wedge Mode
Figure 9.25 The important data for analyzing wedge failure

Ca = Cohesion b = Friction angle

H = height of wedge a = dip angle for plane a

b = dip angle for plane b 5= dip angle for wedge intersection

X, Y, A, B are factor which depend upon the geometry of wedge

Q & A

End of the Chapter 9 and
Good luck for your final exam