Journal of King Saud University – Science 31 (2019) 101–109

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Journal of King Saud University – Science

journal homepage: www.sciencedirect.com

Review

Plane failure in rock slopes – A review on stability analysis techniques

Tarun Kumar Raghuvanshi ⇑
School of Earth Sciences, College of Natural Sciences, Addis Ababa University, PO Box 1176, Addis Ababa, Ethiopia

a r t i c l e i n f o a b s t r a c t

Article history: In stratified sedimentary and meta-sedimentary rock formations ‘plane mode’ of rock failure is very com-
Received 30 April 2017 mon. The plane failure occurs when a structural discontinuity plane such as; bedding plane, fault plane or
Accepted 15 June 2017 preferred orientations of a joint set dips or daylight towards the valley or excavation at an angle smaller
Available online 17 June 2017
than the slope angle and greater than the angle of friction of the discontinuity surface. The stability of the
slope, having plane mode of failure, depends on the geometry, rock type, potential failure plane charac-
Keywords: teristics, groundwater conditions, dynamic loading and the surcharge conditions. The slope may demon-
Rock slope stability
strate these conditions in a simple uniform manner or there may be complex conditions owing to
Plane failure
Limit equilibrium
variability in the slope geometry and heterogeneity in the slope material. The stability of the slope, hav-
Numerical methods ing plane mode of failure, can be assessed by different methods which can be broadly classified as con-
ventional and numerical methods. Conventional methods include; kinematic methods, empirical
methods, limit equilibrium and probabilistic methods, whereas numerical methods include continuum,
discontinuum and hybrid methods. Each of these methods has their own advantage and limitations
owing to the slope conditions, application requirement and capability of an expert. In this paper a com-
prehensive review on governing parameters and various stability analysis techniques for plane mode of
failure in rock slopes is presented.
Ó 2017 The Author. Production and hosting by Elsevier B.V. on behalf of King Saud University. This is an
open access article under the CC BY-NC-ND license (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/).

Contents

1. Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 102
2. Governing factors . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 102
2.1. Internal factors . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 102
2.1.1. Geometry of the slope . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 102
2.1.2. Potential failure plane characteristics . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 103
2.1.3. Surface drainage and groundwater conditions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 103
2.2. External factors . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 103
2.2.1. Rainfall . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 103
2.2.2. Seismicity . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 104
2.2.3. Manmade activities . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 104
3. Stability analysis techniques . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 104
3.1. Conventional approach . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 104
3.1.1. Kinematic method . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 104
3.1.2. Empirical methods . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 105
3.1.3. Limit equilibrium methods . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 105
3.1.4. Probabilistic methods . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 106

⇑ Corresponding author.
E-mail addresses: [email protected], [email protected]
Peer review under responsibility of King Saud University.

Production and hosting by Elsevier

http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jksus.2017.06.004
1018-3647/Ó 2017 The Author. Production and hosting by Elsevier B.V. on behalf of King Saud University.
This is an open access article under the CC BY-NC-ND license (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/).
102 T.K. Raghuvanshi / Journal of King Saud University – Science 31 (2019) 101–109

3.2. Numerical methods . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 106

3.2.1. Continuum modeling . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 106
3.2.2. Discontinuum modeling . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 106
3.2.3. Hybrid modeling. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 106
4. Effectiveness of stability analysis techniques . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 107
5. Discussion . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 107
6. Conclusion . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 108
Acknowledgement . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 108
References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 108

1. Introduction

In rock slopes plane, wedge, toppling and rock fall are common
modes of failures (Tang et al., 2016; Lee and Wang, 2011; Yoon
et al., 2002; Hoek and Bray, 1981; Hocking, 1976). Plane mode of
failure generally occurs in slope formed by stratified sedimentary
and meta-sedimentary rock formations. The plane failure in rock
slope occur when a structural discontinuity plane dips or daylight
towards the valley at an angle smaller than the slope face angle
and greater than the angle of friction of the discontinuity surface
(Fig. 1) (Tang et al., 2016; Kovari and Fritz, 1984). The strike of
the potential discontinuity surface must be nearly parallel to the
slope face (Fig. 1) and there must be release surfaces present on
either sides of the sliding mass which provides least resistance
during the event of sliding (Fig. 2). In addition, a tension crack must
also be present in the upper portion of the slope (Fig. 1). Under
such conditions the rock mass, which rests on the discontinuity
plane, will slide down the slope when shearing stresses becomes
more than the resisting forces (Bell, 2007; Hoek and Bray, 1981;
Hocking, 1976). In this paper a comprehensive review on plane
failure mode in rock slopes is presented. The review includes dis-
cussion on governing factors and the techniques available for the
plane failure analysis.

2. Governing factors

Stability of the slope is concerned with the relationship

between driving and resisting forces. Some factors contribute for
driving forces whereas others add to the resisting forces. Therefore,
these governing factors are very important for the stability analysis
of the rock slopes in general and for plane mode of failure in par-
ticular. The main internal governing factors are; geometry of the
slope, potential failure plane characteristics, surface drainage and
groundwater condition (Wang and Niu, 2009; Ayalew et al.,
2004; Turrini and Visintainer, 1998; Anbalagan, 1992), whereas
the external factors are rainfall, seismicity and manmade activities
(Girma et al., 2015; Raghuvanshi et al., 2014; Wang and Niu, 2009;
Dahal et al., 2006; Gorsevski et al., 2006; Malamud et al., 2004;
Bommer and Rodrı’guez, 2002; Keefer, 2000). These factors in com-
bination will be responsible in defining the stability condition of
the slope.

2.1. Internal factors

2.1.1. Geometry of the slope

The geometry of the slope having plane mode of failure is
defined by; inclination of the slope (af), upper slope surface incli-
nation (as), slope height (h), potential failure plane – dip amount
(ap) and dip direction (Wp), tension crack or upper release joint
(at) and the lateral release surfaces (Hoek and Bray, 1981)
(Fig. 1). The main driving force acting on the slope is the gravita-
tional force which is directly proportional to the slope inclination
(af). Steeper slope will be more susceptible for instability (Hamza
and Raghuvanshi, 2017; Raghuvanshi et al., 2014). As the upper Fig. 1. Potential plane mode of failure.
 T.K. Raghuvanshi / Journal of King Saud University – Science 31 (2019) 101–109 103

2.1.2. Potential failure plane characteristics

The main resisting stress along the potential failure surface is
defined by the shear strength parameters namely; cohesion (c)
and the angle of friction (u) (Fig. 3). The shear strength along the
potential failure plane depends on the engineering geological char-
acteristics of the discontinuity surface. These include orientation of
the failure plane, continuity of the failure surface, roughness of the
surface, aperture etc. (Johnson and Degraff, 1991). Assessment of
these characteristics is important in defining the shear strength
of the potential failure plane. The angle of friction (u) along the
potential failure plane can be estimated by law of friction proposed
by Barton and Bandis (1990). The commonly used methods for esti-
mation of ‘u’ and ‘c’ are empirical methods and back analysis. The
empirical methods are based on rock mass classification systems
(Bieniawski, 1989; Hoek et al., 2002). Further, back analysis is con-
sidered to be the most reliable method to make an estimate for
cohesion (c) along the potential failure plane for the anticipated
conditions (Sharma et al., 1999; Singh and Goel, 2002).

2.1.3. Surface drainage and groundwater conditions

Surface flow on upper slope will easily find its way through the
tension crack to recharge the potential failure surface. Thus, this
water in tension crack will develop a water force (V) and an uplift
water force (U) along the potential failure surface, this will reduce
the stability of the slope (Hossain, 2011; Ahmadi and Eslami, 2011;
Sharma et al., 1995; Hoek and Bray, 1981) (Fig. 4). The water along
the potential failure surface will reduce the shear strength and also
lubricate the surface that may facilitate the sliding process
(Raghuvanshi et al., 2015; Hack, 2002). Therefore, it is very impor-
tant to consider surface drainage conditions while assessing the
stability of the slope.

2.2. External factors

2.2.1. Rainfall
Rainfall is a principal instability triggering factor in rock slopes
(Ermias et al., 2017; Raghuvanshi et al., 2014; Dahal et al., 2006;
Ayalew et al., 2004; Dai and Lee, 2001; Collison et al., 2000). This
is evident from the fact that most of the slopes fail during rainy
season (Ermias et al., 2017; Raghuvanshi et al., 2015, 2014). Sur-
face flow on upper slope due to rainfall will easily find its way
through tension crack to recharge the potential failure surface.
Thus, instability in the slope will be induced.
Fig. 2. Orientation of lateral release surfaces.

slope inclination (as) increases, additional rock mass will add to

the weight component, thus shearing stresses will increase and
instability in the slope will be induced (Sharma et al., 1995).
Increase in height (h) of the slope will increase the shear stresses
(Raghuvanshi et al., 2014; Anbalagan, 1992; Hack, 2002). Further,
if potential failure plane (ap) daylight on the slope face at an angle
smaller to the slope face angle (af) and greater than the angle of
friction (u) the kinematic condition is satisfied and failure can take
place (Sharma et al., 1995; Kovari and Fritz, 1984; Hoek and Bray,
1981) (Fig. 1). When the shear stress exceeds the shear strength
along the potential failure surface, tension crack (at) develops in
the upper portion of the slope. The rock mass will tend to detach
along this tension crack (Sharma et al., 1995; Hoek and Bray,
1981) or release joint (Sharma et al., 1999) (Fig. 1). On the either
side of the potential sliding mass there must exists lateral release
surfaces which provides least resistance to the sliding mass. These
release surfaces can be convergent, divergent or planer (Sharma
et al., 1995; Hoek and Bray, 1981; Price, 2009) (Fig. 2). Fig. 3. Relation between normal and shear stress along potential failure plane.
104 T.K. Raghuvanshi / Journal of King Saud University – Science 31 (2019) 101–109

Fig. 4. Water force and pressure distribution in slope having potential plane mode of failure.

methods (Karaman et al., 2013; Baba et al., 2012) and probability

methods whereas, (ii) numerical methods; includes continuum
modeling, discontinuum modeling and hybrid modeling (Stead
et al., 2006; Eberhardt, 2003).

3.1. Conventional approach

3.1.1. Kinematic method

Kinematic methods are based on the principle of kinematics
which deals with the geometric condition that is required for the
movement of the rock block over the discontinuity plane, without
considering any forces responsible for the sliding (ZainAlabideen
and Helal, 2016; Karaman et al., 2013; Kulatilake et al., 2011;
Fig. 5. Slope subjected to horizontal acceleration during seismic loading.
Goodman, 1989). The commonly used kinematic method to deter-
mine possible mode of failure was initially proposed by Markland
2.2.2. Seismicity (1972) and later it was redefined by Hocking (1976). For kinematic
The rock slopes under seismic loading are subjected to acceler- check stereographic projections are used (ZainAlabideen and Helal,
ations which induce instability in the rock slope (Ermias et al., 2016). On a stereo-net the representative great circles for all pre-
2017; Bommer and Rodrı’guez, 2002; Keefer, 2000). The slopes ferred discontinuity planes, present on the given slope, are plotted.
which are stable under static conditions may destabilize under Also, great circle for slope face and friction circle, corresponding to
dynamic seismic loading (Hoek and Bray, 1981). Under seismic the friction angle of the discontinuity plane, are plotted. The zone
loading the slope having potential plane mode of failure may easily demarcated by the friction circle and the slope face is designated as
destabilize, as one of the resolved component of the horizontal sliding envelope (Fig. 6). If any great circle of a discontinuity plane,
acceleration acting along the potential failure plane will add to
the driving forces and the other component will be acting against
the resisting forces (Fig. 5).

2.2.3. Manmade activities

Road construction is the major manmade activity on the hill
slopes (Ermias et al., 2017; Wang and Niu, 2009). Very often slopes
are cut in unplanned manner, leaving unsupported overhanging
steep slopes. The natural slope stability is disturbed and instability
in slope is induced (Tang et al., 2016). If kinematic conditions for
plane mode of failure exist, the slope may easily fail. Other aspect
related to manmade activities on slopes is, adding surcharge to the
slope by constructing buildings and other civil engineering struc-
tures on the slopes. Such surcharge will directly add to the weight
of the siding mass and if kinematic conditions exists probability for
slope failure will increase (Shukla et al., 2009).

3. Stability analysis techniques

Stability analysis for a slope, having plane mode of failure, can

be carried out by adopting various techniques. Broadly, these tech-
niques can be classified into; (i) conventional approach; that
includes kinematic methods, empirical methods, limit equilibrium Fig. 6. Kinematic condition for plane mode of failure.
 T.K. Raghuvanshi / Journal of King Saud University – Science 31 (2019) 101–109 105

having strike nearly parallel to the slope face, falls within this slid-
ing envelope, kinematic condition is satisfied (Ali et al., 2015).
Hoek and Bray (1981) further redefined the kinematic condition
for plane mode of failure by introducing two more general condi-
tions; (i) the strike difference between the slope face and the
potential failure surface must be nearly parallel (±20°) and (ii)
there must be lateral release surfaces on either sides of the sliding
block which must not provide any resistance to the sliding. Price
(2009) classified these lateral boundaries as convergent, divergent
and planar (Fig. 2). Further, Yoon et al. (2002) divided lateral
release surfaces into two types; (i) when discontinuity intersect
the potential failure plane and (ii) when free faces intersects the
slope face. The lateral release surfaces may lead to single faced
slope (SFS) sliding or multi faced slope (MFS) sliding. Slopes which
are MFS show varied sliding conditions owing to complex slope
geometric characteristics. Yoon et al. (2002) suggested kinematic
check for such multi faced slopes. Further, Lisle (2004) presented
equations to calculate daylight envelope for plane failure in rock
slopes. Kinematic check is the first step to proceed for other analyt-
ical techniques.

3.1.2. Empirical methods

In past several empirical methods based on rock mass classifica-
tion systems have been developed. The important slope classifica-
tion systems are; classification proposed by Selby (1980), Slope
Mass Rating (SMR) (Romana, 1985), Modified Slope Mass Rating
(MSMR) (Anbalagan et al., 1992), Slope Stability Probability Classi-
fication (SSPC) (Hack, 1998) and rock mass classification system for
slopes proposed by Liu and Chen (2007).
SMR classification, proposed by Romana (1985) can be used to
assess the stability condition of a rock slope (Alzo’ubi, 2016).
SMR utilizes Bieniawski’s (1979) rock mass rating (RMR), the rela-
tionship between parallelism of slope and discontinuities, dip
amount of the discontinuity and relation between the slope incli-
nation and dip of the discontinuity. Also, mode of excavation is
considered in SMR. Anbalagan et al. (1992) modified SMR by con-
sidering wedge mode of failure as a separate case. For stability
analysis of slope, having plane mode of failure, both SMR and
MSMR classifications can be utilized. Hack (1998) proposed SSPC
to classify the rock mass and to define its in situ stability condition
with probability of failure to occur. The SSCP accounts for discon-
tinuity relations with the slope, degree of weathering and the shear
strength of the slope material (Singh and Goel, 2002). In SSPC the
exposed rock mass is characterized to represent in its imaginary
un-weathered and undisturbed state for which suitable corrections
for weathering and excavation disturbance are made (Karaman
et al., 2013; Hack, 1998). Further, Liu and Chen (2007) proposed
a classification system for the assessment of rock slope stability.
In this classification geological, geometric and environmental fac-
Fig. 7. Geometry of slope and various force vectors used in (a) Hoek and Bray
tors were considered. By combining Fuzzy Delphi method and Ana- (1981) analytical technique (b) Sharma et al. (1995) modified technique.
lytic Hierarchy Process a model to estimate the rock mass quality
was developed.
value is more than ‘1’ it suggest stable slope, if less than ‘1’ unsta-
3.1.3. Limit equilibrium methods ble and if FOS is equal to ‘1’ the slope is in a critical state of equi-
Limit equilibrium methods are relatively simple in its applica- librium (Hossain, 2011). The FOS will be affected by various
tion, as compared to the numerical methods (Tang et al., 2016; governing factors such as; geometry of the slope, failure plane
Yang and Zou, 2006; Eberhardt et al., 2004). For plane mode of fail- characteristics, water forces and external triggering factors. The
ure analysis, the limit equilibrium methods were proposed by FOS is inversely proportional to the height of the slope. Increase
many researchers, such as; Tang et al. (2016), Ahmadi and Eslami in height (h) of the slope will increase the shear stresses, thus
(2011), Shukla et al. (2009), Price (2009), Hoek (2007), Zheng FOS will decrease (Raghuvanshi et al., 2014; Anbalagan, 1992;
et al. (2005), Sharma et al. (1999), Ling and Cheng (1997), Hoek and Bray, 1981; Hack, 2002; Raghuvanshi and Solomon,
Sharma et al. (1995), Hoek and Bray (1981) etc. In limit equilibrium 2005). Steeper slope angle will directly affect the FOS. The main
method various forces responsible for driving of the rock mass and driving force acting on the slope is the gravitational force which
the resisting forces are evaluated and the ratio of resisting forces to is directly proportional to the slope inclination (Hamza and
driving forces at equilibrium, defines the factor of safety (FOS) Raghuvanshi, 2017; Raghuvanshi et al., 2014). Similarly, increase
(Price, 2009; Sharma et al., 1995; Hoek and Bray, 1981). If FOS in upper slope inclination will increase FOS (Sharma et al., 1995).
106 T.K. Raghuvanshi / Journal of King Saud University – Science 31 (2019) 101–109

Also, the FOS is directly proportional to the shear strength of the can be estimated at the mean values of the variables
potential failure plane (Hoek and Bray, 1981). The shear strength (Chowdhury, 2010). Through PEA, mean and standard deviation
of the potential failure plane is defined by parameters; cohesion of FOS can be computed when input parameters show random
(c) and angle of friction (u). As the shear strength increases, FOS behavior (Hoek, 2007). In MSA method from the probability distri-
will increase. bution of each variable, discrete values are randomly selected.
Hoek and Bray (1981) provided a 2D analytical solution for Later, FOS is evaluated by utilizing a set of different discrete values
plane mode of failure. For this method the required general condi- of various parameters. Multiple simulations are made by repeating
tions are; (i) the dip of the potential failure plane should be less the process by taking different set of the discrete values of various
than the slope inclination (ii) the dip of the potential failure plane variables (Zhao et al., 2016; Chowdhury, 2010).
must be greater than the angle of friction, (iii) the strike of the
potential failure plane must be nearly parallel (±20°) to the slope 3.2. Numerical methods
and (iv) there must be lateral boundaries on either side of the slid-
ing block which place negligible resistance to the sliding mass. The rock slopes in general, demonstrates variability in its geom-
Besides, few assumptions were also made by Hoek and Bray etry, heterogeneity in geological formation, non-linearity in the
(1981). The geometry of the slope used in this analytical solution potential failure plane, uneven distribution of the water forces in
is presented in Fig. 7. In Hoek and Bray (1981) technique it was the slope with induced surcharge and the seismic loading condi-
assumed that tension crack is vertical and the upper slope is hori- tions (Alzo’ubi, 2016). Stability condition of such complex slopes
zontal. Later, Sharma et al. (1995) explained that upper slope is sel- cannot be evaluated by following conventional techniques
dom horizontal for natural slopes and in most of the cases it is (Karaman et al., 2013; Eberhardt, 2003). In order to simulate such
inclined. They also showed that the value of FOS decreases consid- complexities, numerical methods are required. In general, numer-
erably when the upper slope surface angle is increased. Similarly, ical methods; include continuum, discontinuum and hybrid meth-
the tension crack may not always be vertical. Thus, Sharma et al. ods (Tang et al., 2016; Stead et al., 2006; Eberhardt, 2003).
(1995) modified the Hoek and Bray’s (1981) analytical solution
by considering the actual upper slope inclination and non vertical 3.2.1. Continuum modeling
tension crack (Fig. 7). Further, Ling and Cheng (1997) proposed an The continuum modeling approach can be applied to those rock
analytical method for the slope stability assessment. The rock mass slopes where the rock mass is relatively uniform such as; heavily
was assumed to be a rigid body having plain strain condition. For disintegrated rock mass which can be considered as continuous
this analytical formulation, forces due to the weight of the sliding all over the slope. The variability of various governing parameters
mass, water forces and the seismic coefficients were considered. can be simulated in the stability analysis for the static and dynamic
Later, Sharma et al. (1999) proposed analytical solution for plane conditions. The continuum modeling is based on finite element,
mode of failure in which they redefined the tension crack as a finite difference and boundary element methods. The basic input
release-joint which may be a pre-existing discontinuity. Shukla data that is required for continuum modeling approach are; consti-
et al. (2009) also presented an analytical solution for the plane fail- tutive model, in-situ stress, shear strength parameters for surfaces,
ure analysis by considering factors such as; the weight of the slid- groundwater etc. For the slope stability analysis through contin-
ing mass, water forces in the tension crack and along the potential uum modeling finite difference and finite element models are com-
failure plane, shear strength parameters of the potential failure monly used. These methods can suitably be applied for weak rock
plane, slope inclination, surcharge load and the seismic factors. masses in which failure results due to intact rock deformation or
Further, Ahmadi and Eslami (2011) proposed an analytical solution through the discrete stratified discontinuities (Stead et al., 2006).
in which the effect of water forces was studied. The major limitation with continuum techniques is in defining rock
mass as continuum, for which simplifications are needed. Thus, the
3.1.4. Probabilistic methods final results are highly influenced by such simplifications (Hack,
The probabilistic methods facilitate to incorporate parameters, 2002).
which show uncertainty, in a systematic way and define the stabil-
ity condition of the slope in probabilistic terms (Alzo’ubi, 2016; 3.2.2. Discontinuum modeling
Chowdhury, 2010). For probabilistic analysis of a slope, having The discontinuum modeling is suitable for discontinuous rock
plane mode of failure, the parameters to be used are first defined mass which contains discontinuities and the failure mechanism
as fixed dimension parameters and as random variables (Hoek, is controlled by pre-existing discontinuities. In discontinuum anal-
2007). Fixed dimension parameters are mainly the geometric ysis movement of intact rock blocks bounded within discontinu-
parameters which can be obtained directly from the geometry of ities and the deformation of intact rock can be addressed for
the slope such as; slope height, slope inclination, upper slope incli- both, static and the dynamic conditions (Stead et al., 2006). The
nation and dip of the potential failure plane. The random variables input data required for modeling includes data on slope geometry,
are those which show uncertainty in their values and may vary discontinuity characteristic, discontinuity shear strength and stiff-
considerably such as; cohesion (c) and angle of friction (u), ratio ness, in-situ stress and groundwater data. For discontinuum mod-
of depth of water in tension crack to the depth of the tension crack eling, distinct element method and discontinuous deformation
etc. (Hoek, 2007). FOS is the ratio between the resisting forces and analysis are widely used. For plane failure mechanism distinct ele-
the driving forces. As earlier stated, since some of the parameters ment method can be used (Stead et al., 2006). The discontinuum
used in resisting and driving forces are random variables therefore, method is quite effective to simulate the discontinuity behavior
such parameters will have probability distribution over certain and to assess the rock slope stability for given conditions.
range, rather than a fixed absolute value. Thus, the probabilistic
analysis will also provide FOS as random variables with probability 3.2.3. Hybrid modeling
distribution (Chowdhury, 2010). Hybrid modeling approaches utilizes the combined capabilities
In probabilistic framework for plane failure analysis, three of both continuum and discontinuum methods. The strength of the
methods are followed (i) First Order Second Moment approach rock mass is a combined effect of strength along the rock joints and
(FOSA), (ii) Point estimate approach (PEA) and (iii) Monte Carlo the strength of the intact rock between the joints (Alzo’ubi, 2016).
Simulation approach (MSA). The FOSA provide expected value of Complex slope and discontinuity geometry can be considered in
FOS and its variance. In PEA method the discrete values of FOS hybrid modeling approach. Step-path geometries can be simulated
 T.K. Raghuvanshi / Journal of King Saud University – Science 31 (2019) 101–109 107

by hybrid finite-discrete element method with fracture propaga- responsible for the driving of rock mass are considered (Goodman,
tion approach (Stead et al., 2006). 1989). In general, these methods can only suggest about potential
for failure occurrence (Alzo’ubi, 2016). Kinematic check is the first
4. Effectiveness of stability analysis techniques step to proceed for other analytical approaches. Further, empirical
methods which are based on rock mass classification systems are
Each of the methods available for plane failure analysis has cer- relatively simple in their application (Alzo’ubi, 2016). With these
tain advantage and limitations (Salunkhe et al., 2017; techniques relatively large area can be investigated in compara-
Abderrahmane and Abdelmadjid, 2016; Stead et al., 2006). Thus, tively less time. Particularly for road projects on hilly sections
selection of these methods will depend on governing parameters where many slope sections have to be investigated, these methods
involved in the analysis, complexity of the geological conditions, are useful. SMR (Romana, 1985) and MSMR (Anbalagan et al.,
hydrologic and geometric parameters, purpose for which the slope 1992) are particularly useful methods to analyze the stability con-
stability has to be assessed, computational capacity and the capa- dition of a slope having plane mode of failure. These methods also
bility of an evaluator. suggest initial design for the slope stabilization. These methods are
Kinematic methods have a merit that they are simple in their effective for simple cases such as plane mode of failure with uni-
application. These methods will only suggest the potential for fail- form planer surfaces, however for complex geological and geomet-
ure and do not provide slope stability condition in quantitative ric conditions with substantial risk component these methods
terms (Alzo’ubi, 2016). However, these methods are essential should not be applied for the design purpose (Alzo’ubi, 2016).
before application of other quantitative methods. Further, empiri- Limit equilibrium methods are more commonly adopted for
cal methods can be applied over large area to investigate slope sta- plane failure analysis, perhaps for two reasons; (i) application of
bility condition, in general. For simple cases such as uniform planar these methods is easy because of their simplicity (Tang et al.,
discontinuities these methods can be applied directly. However, for 2016; Baba et al., 2012; Stead et al., 2006) and (ii) the governing
complex cases, involving variable slope geometric and geologic parameter data required for the analysis can easily be collected
conditions, these empirical methods cannot be applied. Application from the field. Different approaches have considered different
of limit equilibrium methods is simple and the data required for forces for their analytical formulations and each method has made
analysis can easily be collected from the field (Tang et al., 2016; varied assumptions to evaluate the stability condition of the slope
Baba et al., 2012; Stead et al., 2006). Assumptions made in limit having plane mode of failure (Alzo’ubi, 2016; Chowdhury, 2010).
equilibrium methods may possibly lead to over simplification These assumptions are necessary, so that each parameter to be
and thus, the results may not be realistic. However, over the years used in the analysis can be acquired in the form that can directly
these methods have provided satisfactory results for engineering be used in the analytical equations. In 2D analysis a slice of unit
applications (Chowdhury, 2010). To have more realistic results thickness is considered which is assumed to represent a typical
on slope stability condition this method can further be integrated section of the slope. However, there may be lateral variation in
with probabilistic methods that can help to recognize and assess the slope geometry and the geological conditions. The stability
uncertainties among the governing parameters in a systematic condition thus assessed is presumed to be representative for the
manner (Alzo’ubi, 2016; Chowdhury, 2010). For plane failure anal- entire slope (Hoek and Bray, 1981). The assumptions made in the
ysis probabilistic methods are effective however this method limit equilibrium methods for slopes having complex geometry
requires collection of detailed parameter data well distributed over and geological conditions may possibly leads to over simplification
the slope, this is a major limitation with this method. Further, to of the conditions and thus, the results may not be realistic. Though
assess the stability condition for slopes having potential complex experience has shown that the limit equilibrium method have pro-
non planer failure surface numerical methods can be applied vided satisfactory results for engineering applications (Chowdhury,
(Tang et al., 2016; Stead et al., 2006; Eberhardt, 2003). In case of 2010). Attempts were made by different researchers to minimize
plane failure where failure results due to discrete stratified discon- the assumptions in the limit equilibrium methods so that the
tinuities, the continuum or discontinuum methods can be applied actual conditions can be simulated (Ahmadi and Eslami, 2011;
(Stead et al., 2006). Also, application of hybrid modeling approach Shukla et al., 2009; Sharma et al., 1999; Ling and Cheng, 1997;
is appropriate for complex slope and variable discontinuity geom- Sharma et al., 1995). Further, sensitivity analysis (Hoek, 2007;
etry. The numerical methods are capable of simulating slope com- Stead et al., 2006) and integration with the probabilistic approach
plexities however they require discontinuity characteristic data at (Hoek, 2007) has further strengthened the capabilities of the limit
block level which practically is difficult to collect (Hack, 2002). Fur- equilibrium methods. In limit equilibrium methods each of the
ther, numerical methods require high memory with good compu- governing parameters is defined in absolute terms, so that FOS
tational capacity of the system (Stead et al., 2006). can be computed. However, some of the parameters used in this
analysis have certain degree of uncertainty (Alzo’ubi, 2016). There-
5. Discussion fore, recognition and assessment of such uncertainties among the
parameters and adopting appropriate values for such parameters
Plane failure in rock slopes is relatively a simple mode of failure, in the slope stability analysis is of prime concern in defining appro-
however it may involve complex failure mechanism owing to its priateness of the method and raising confidence in the decision
complex geometry (Yoon et al., 2002), heterogeneity in geology, making process. The uncertainty of the parameters can be
non-planer potential failure plane, variability in shear-strength addressed in a systematic way in the probabilistic methods
along the potential failure plane (Tang et al., 2016), uneven distri- (Alzo’ubi, 2016; Chowdhury, 2010). The probabilistic methods
bution of the water forces (Ahmadi and Eslami, 2011), surcharge are effective in analyzing the plane mode of failure (Hoek, 2007)
(Shukla et al., 2009) and the dynamic loading conditions (Hoek however it requires detailed input parameter data, distributed
and Bray, 1981). These factors in combination will be responsible throughout the slope. Defining the variability of different parame-
in defining the stability condition of the slope. Identification and ters used in the probabilistic method is an important aspect in
assessment of these governing factors is essential for the stability defining the stability condition in realistic terms (Alzo’ubi, 2016).
analysis of the slope. Numerical methods can simulate complexities and progressive
A kinematic method for plane mode of failure utilizes data failure mode involving rock block failures along the potential com-
related to geometry of the slope, orientation of the potential failure plex non planer failure surface (Tang et al., 2016; Stead et al., 2006;
plane and the angle of friction. In these methods no forces that are Eberhardt, 2003). The continuum methods can suitably be applied
108 T.K. Raghuvanshi / Journal of King Saud University – Science 31 (2019) 101–109

for weak rock masses in which failure results due to intact rock Ahmadi, M., Eslami, M., 2011. A new approach to plane failure of rock slope stability
based on water flow velocity in discontinuities for the Latian dam reservoir
deformation or through the discrete stratified discontinuities. The
landslide. J. Mt. Sci. 8, 124–130. http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s11629-011-2088-5.
discontinuum modeling is suitable for rock mass which contains Ali, D., Majeed, Y., Shahzad, M., Iqbal, M.M., Liaqat, S., Asif Gill, M., Amir Ali, M.,
discontinuities and the failure mechanism is controlled by the 2015. Detailed slope stability analysis of selected slope sites situated along
pre-existing discontinuities. For plane failure mechanism distinct Katas-Choa Saiden Shah road. Int. J. Eng. Invent. 5 (1), 32–43.
Alzo’ubi, A.K., 2016. Rock slopes processes and recommended methods for analysis.
element method can be effectively used (Stead et al., 2006). The Int. J. GEOMATE 11 (25), 2520–2527.
discontinuum method can simulate the discontinuity behavior Anbalagan, R., 1992. Landslide hazard evaluation and zonation mapping in
and can assess the stability for all given conditions. The major lim- mountainous terrain. Eng. Geol. 32, 269–277.
Anbalagan, R., Sharma, S., Raghuvanshi, T.K., 1992. Rock mass stability evaluation
itation with discontinuum method is non-availability of disconti- using modified SMR approach. In: Proc. 6th Nat. Sym. Rock Mech., Bangalore,
nuity data at block level which generally leads to incorporate India, pp. 258–268.
more simplified discontinuity data. Thus, the results may be Ayalew, L., Yamagishi, H., Ugawa, N., 2004. Landslide susceptibility mapping using
GIS-based weighted linear combination, the case in Tsugawa area of Agano
affected with this limitation (Hack, 2002). Complex slope and the River, Niigata Prefecture, Japan. Landslides 1, 73–81.
discontinuity geometry can be considered in hybrid modeling Baba, K., Bahi, L., Ouadif, L., Akhssas, A., 2012. Slope Stability Evaluations by Limit
approach however, it requires high memory and high computa- Equilibrium and Finite Element Methods Applied to a Railway in the Moroccan
Rif. Open J. Civil Eng. 2, 27–32.
tional capacity of the system (Stead et al., 2006). Barton, N., Bandis, S., 1990. Review of predictive capabilities of JRC-JCS model in
Finally, the method to be adopted for the plane failure analysis engineering practice. In: Balkema, A.A. (Ed.), Proceedings of International
will require judgment on several factors such as; complexity in Conference on Rock Joints, Loen, Norway, pp. 603–610. Rotterdam.
Bell, F.G., 2007. Engineering Geology. Butterworth-Heinemann, Great Britain, p.
geological and geometric conditions of the slope to be analyzed,
581.
availability of required parameter data for analysis, purpose for Bieniawski, Z.T., 1989. Engineering Rock Mass Classifications. Wiley, New York, p.
which slope stability analysis has to be made, limitations and 251.
effectiveness of an analytical method, availability of computational Bieniawski, Z.T., 1979. The geomechanics classification in rock engineering
application. Proceedings Fourth Congress of the International Society for Rock
facilities and the capacity and skill of an evaluator. Mechanics 2, 41–48.
Bommer, J.J., Rodrı’guez, C.E., 2002. Earthquake-induced landslides in Central
America. Eng. Geol. 63, 189–220.
6. Conclusion Chowdhury, R., 2010. Geotechnical Slope Analysis. CRC Press/Balkema, The
Netherlands, p. 737.
Plane failure is a simple mode of failure in rock slopes, however Collison, A., Wade, S., Griffiths, J., Dehn, M., 2000. Modelling the impact of predicted
climate change on landslide frequency and magnitude in SE England. Eng. Geol.
due to complexity in geometry, variability in discontinuity charac-
55, 205–218.
teristics, uneven distribution of water forces within the slope, sur- Dahal, R.K., Hasegawa, S., Masuda, T., Yamanaka, M., 2006. Roadside Slope Failures
charge and dynamic loading conditions, the failure mechanism in Nepal during Torrential Rainfall and their Mitigation. Disaster Mitigation of
Debris Flows, Slope Failures and Landslides, pp. 503–514.
may become complex to assess. Over the years several methods
Dai, F.C., Lee, C.F., 2001. Terrain-based mapping of landslide susceptibility using a
have been developed which can broadly be classified into conven- geographical information system: a case study. Can. Geotech. J. 38, 911–923.
tional and numerical methods. The conventional methods such as; Eberhardt, E.D., 2003. Rock slope stability analysis–utilization of advanced
limit equilibrium and probabilistic methods may be applied to numerical techniques. Earth and Ocean sciences at UBC, pp. 41.
Eberhardt, E., Stead, D., Coggan, J.S., 2004. Numerical analysis of initiation and
slopes that shows relatively uniform geometry and homogeneous progressive failure in natural rock slopes—the 1991 Randa rock slide. Int. J. Rock
geologic conditions. Limit equilibrium methods are the most pop- Mech. Min. Sci. 41, 69–87.
ular methods and integration with the probabilistic method has Ermias, B., Raghuvanshi, T.K., Abebe, B., 2017. Landslide Hazard Zonation (LHZ)
around Alemketema Town, North Showa Zone, Central Ethiopia - A GIS based
further strengthened its capabilities in simulating the real slope expert evaluation approach. Int. Jr. Earth Sci. & Engg. 10 (1), 33–44.
conditions. For complex geometry and the geological conditions, Girma, F., Raghuvanshi, T.K., Ayenew, T., Hailemariam, T., 2015. Landslide hazard
numerical methods are more suitable. These methods have capa- zonation in Ada Berga District, Central Ethiopia – a GIS based statistical
approach. J. Geomatics 90 (i), 25–38.
bility to simulate the real slope conditions. However, numerical Goodman, R. E. 1989, Introduction to Rock Mechanics, University of California at
methods are time consuming and require high computational facil- Berkeley, pp. 562.
ities and special skills in its application. For rapid assessment of Gorsevski, P.V., Jankowski, P., Gessler, P.E., 2006. An heuristic approach for mapping
landslide hazard by integrating fuzzy logic with analytic hierarchy process.
slope stability over large areas, empirical techniques such as
Control Cybernet 35 (1), 121–146.
approaches based on rock mass classification are more convenient Hack, R., 2002. An evaluation of slope stability classification. In: C. Dinis da Gama, L.
and generally provide satisfactory results. The method to be Ribeira e Sousa (eds.), Proc. ISRM EUROCK’2002, Portugal, Madeira, Funchal, 25–
28 November 2002, Publ. Sociedade Portuguesa de Geotecnia, Av. do Brasil, 101,
applied for plane failure analysis may depend on several factors
1700–066 Lisboa, Portugal. pp. 3–32.
such as; governing parameters, complexity of geological condi- Hack, H.R.G.K., 1998. Slope Stability Probability Classification, vol. 43. ITC Delft
tions, geometric and hydrologic conditions, purpose for which Publication, Netherlands, Enschede, p. 273.
slope stability has to be assessed, computational capacity and the Hamza, T., Raghuvanshi, T.K., 2017. GIS based landslide hazard evaluation and
zonation – A case from Jeldu District, Central Ethiopia. J. King Saud Univ. Sci. 29
capabilities of an evaluator to apply these techniques. (2), 151–165.
Hocking, G., 1976. A method for distinguishing between single and double plane
Acknowledgement sliding of tetrahedral wedges. Int. J. Rock Mech. Min. Sci. Geomech. Abstr. 13,
225–226.
Hoek, E., Bray, J.W., 1981. Rock Slope Engineering (Revised Third Edition). Institute
The author is thankful to the Head and staff of the School of of Mining and Metallurgy, London, p. 358.
Earth sciences, College of Natural Sciences, Addis Ababa University Hoek, E., Torres, C.C., Corkum, B., 2002. Hoek-Brown failure criterion – 2002 Edition.
In: Proc. NARMS-TAC Conference, Toronto, 2002, 1: 267–273.
for providing all kind of support. The meticulous review and com- Hoek, E., 2007. Practical rock engineering. http://www/rocscience.com/hoek/
ments by the esteemed anonymous reviewers is duly acknowl- PracticalEngineering.asp. Accessed 4 March 2010.
edged, which helped in enhancing overall quality of the present Hossain, M. M., 2011. Stability analysis of anchored rock slopes against plane failure
subjected to surcharge and seismic loads. Retrieved from http://ro.ecu.edu.au/
review paper.
theses/139 on March 18’ 2017.
Johnson, R.B., Degraff, J.V., 1991. Principles of Engineering Geology. John Willy and
Sons, New York, p. 497.
Karaman, K., Ercikdi, B., Kesimal, A., 2013. The assessment of slope stability and rock
References excavatability in a limestone quarry. Earth Sci. Res. SJ. 17 (2), 169–181.
Keefer, D.V., 2000. Statistical analysis of an earthquake-induced landslide
Abderrahmane, T.H., Abdelmadjid, B., 2016. Assessment of slope stability by distribution—the 1989 Loma Prieta, California event. Eng. Geol. 58, 231–249.
continuum and discontinuum methods. Int. J. Civil Environ. Struct. Construct. Kovari, K., Fritz, P., 1984. Recent developments in the analysis and monitoring of
Architect. Eng. 10 (4), 543–548. rock slopes. In: IVth International Symposium on Landslides, Toronto.
 T.K. Raghuvanshi / Journal of King Saud University – Science 31 (2019) 101–109 109

Kulatilake, P.H.S.W., Wang, L., Tang, H., Liang, Y., 2011. Evaluation of rock slope Sharma, S., Raghuvanshi, T., Anbalagan, R., 1995. Plane failure analysis of rock
stability for Yujian River dam site by kinematic and block theory analyses. slopes. Geot. Geol. Eng. 13, 105–111.
Comput. Geotech. 38, 846–860. Sharma, S., Raghuvanshi, T., Sahai, A., 1999. An engineering geological appraisal of
Lee, C.Y., Wang, I.T., 2011. Analysis of highway slope failure by an application of the Lakhwar dam, Garhwal Himalaya India. Eng. Geol. 53, 381–398.
stereographic projection. Int. J. Environ. Chem. Ecol. Geol. Geophys. Eng. 5 (3), Shukla, S.K., Khandelwal, S., Verma, V.N., Sivakugan, N., 2009. Effect of surcharge on
122–129. the stability of anchored rock slope with water filled tension crack under
Lisle, R.J., 2004. Calculation of the daylight envelope for plane failure of rock slopes. seismic loading condition. Geotech. Geol. Eng. 7 (4), 529–538.
Ge’otechnique 54 (4), 279–280. Singh, B., Goel, R.K., 2002. Software for engineering control of landslides and
Ling, H.I., Cheng, A.H.D., 1997. Rock sliding induced by seismic force. Int. J. Rock tunneling hazards. A.A Balkema Publishers, Krips, Mappel, The Netherlands, p.
Mech. Min. Sci. 34 (6), 1021–1029. 344.
Liu, Y.C., Chen, C.S., 2007. A new approach for application of rock mass classification Stead, D., Eberhardt, E., Coggan, J.S., 2006. Developments in the characterization of
on rock slope stability assessment. Eng. Geo. 89, 129–143. complex rock slope deformation and failure using numerical modelling
Markland, J.T., 1972. A useful technique for estimating the stability of rock slopes techniques. Eng. Geo. 83, 217–235.
when the rigid wedge sliding type of failure is expected. Imp. Coll. Rock Mech. Tang, H., Yong, R., Ez Eldin, M.A.M., 2016. Stability analysis of stratified rock slopes
Res. Rep. 19, 10. with spatially variable strength parameters: the case of Qianjiangping landslide.
Malamud, B.D., Turcotte, D.L., Guzzetti, F., Reichenbach, P., 2004. Landslide Bull. Eng. Geol. Environ. http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s10064-016-0876-4.
inventories and their statistical properties. Earth Surf. Process. Landforms 29, Turrini, C.T., Visintainer, P., 1998. Proposal of a method to define areas of landslide
687–711. hazard and application to an area of the Dolomites. Italy. Eng. Geol. 50, 255–
Price, D.G., 2009. Engineering geology principles and practice. Springer-Verlag, 265.
Berlin Heidelberg, p. 450. Wang, X., Niu, R., 2009. Spatial forecast of landslides in three gorges based on spatial
Raghuvanshi, T.K., Ibrahim, J., Ayalew, D., 2014. Slope stability susceptibility data mining. Sensors 9, 2035–2061.
evaluation parameter (SSEP) rating scheme – an approach for landslide hazard Yang, X.L., Zou, J.F., 2006. Stability factors for rock slopes subjected to pore water
zonation. J. Afr. Earth Sci. 99, 595–612. pressure based on the Hoek-Brown failure criterion. Int. J. Rock Mech. Min. Sci.
Raghuvanshi, T.K., Negassa, L., Kala, P.M., 2015. GIS based grid overlay method 43, 1146–1152.
versus modeling approach – a comparative study for Landslide Hazard Zonation Yoon, W.S., Jeong, U.J., Kim, J.H., 2002. Kinematic analysis for sliding failure of multi-
(LHZ) in Meta Robi District of West Showa Zone in Ethiopia. Egypt. J. Remote faced rock slopes. Eng. Geol. 67, 51–61.
Sens. Space Sci. 18, 235–250. ZainAlabideen, K., Helal, M., 2016. Determination of the safe orientation and dip of a
Raghuvanshi, T.K., Solomon, N., 2005. A Sensitivity Analysis of a Natural slope rock slope in an open pit mine in Syria using kinematic analysis. Al-Nahrain
having Planar mode of failure. J. Ethiop. Assoc. Civil Eng. 4 (1), 27–40. Univ. College Eng. J. (NUCEJ) 91 (1), 33–45.
Romana, M., 1985. New adjustment ratings for application of Bieniawski Zhao, H., Li, Z., Kong, C.S., 2016. Probabilistic method to determine the overall rock
classification to slope. In: Int. Sym. Role Rock Mech., Zacatecas, pp. 49–53. block failure based on failure mode. Engng. Trans. 64 (1), 105–113.
Salunkhe, D.P., Ch van, G., Bartakke, R.N., Kothavale, P.R., 2017. An overview on Zheng, H., Liu, D.F., Li, C.G., 2005. Slope stability analysis based on elasto-plastic
methods for slope stability analysis. Int. J. Eng. Res. Technol. 6 (3), 528–535. finite element method. Int. J. Numer. Meth. Eng. 64 (14), 1871–1888.
Selby, M.J., 1980. A rock mass strength classification for geomorphic purposes: with
tests from Antarctica and New Zealand. Zeitschrift für Geomorphologie 23,
31–51.