Geotech Geol Eng
https://doi.org/10.1007/s10706-021-01993-8 (0123456789().,-volV)
( 01234567
89().,-volV)
ORIGINAL PAPER
Stability Analysis and Optimal Design of Ultimate Slope
of an Open Pit Mine: A Case Study
Ali Naghi Dehghan . Meysam Khodaei
Received: 30 May 2021 / Accepted: 22 August 2021
Ó The Author(s), under exclusive licence to Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2021
Abstract To avoid over-tailing and limit the risk of
failure in open-pit mines, choosing an ideal and
stable slope is critical. The major goal of this study
was to provide a stable and optimal design for the
ultimate slope of the Shadan Open Pit Mine using
numerical modeling to calculate the minimum factor
of safety equal to 1.20 under various situations of the
slope’s geometric specifications. In FLAC3D pro-
gram, the finite difference method (FDM) was used
according to the shear strength reduction (SSR)
approach to determine the factor of safety (FOS) by
reducing the shear strength. As a result, by adjusting
the geometric parameters of the ultimate pit slope, a
set of three-dimensional (3D) numerical models were
examined and evaluated in various scenarios. More-
over, Shear strain and horizontal displacement in the
model are the most affected by changes in the factor of
safety, with the maximum shear strain and horizontal
displacement being associated with Scenario 5 with
the minimum factor of safety. Furthermore, the model
of Scenario 1 with the maximum slope height had the
highest vertical displacement, indicating the least
effect of the factor of safety.
A. N. Dehghan (&)
Department of Mining Engineering, Science and Research
Branch, Islamic Azad University, Tehran, Iran
e-mail: a.dehghan@srbiau.ac.ir
M. Khodaei
Department of Petroleum Engineering, Science and
Research Branch, Islamic Azad University, Tehran, Iran
Keywords Slope stability  Ultimate pit slope  Open
pit  Factor of safety  Finite difference method  Shear
strength reduction technique
1 Introduction
Many engineering activities cut rock masses. In civil
engineering, we can mention projects such as trans-
portation systems including subways and railways,
dams for electricity generation and water and indus-
trial services, and in mining we can mention projects
such as open pit mining which is a major part of
mineral production of the world. Today, with the
growth of global demand for minerals and advances in
technology, the depth of open pit mines has increased
significantly. This has created several design chal-
lenges in slope engineering and increased the likeli-
hood of large slopes breaking (He et al. 2008; Yang
et al. 2012). In an open pit mine, slope fracture not
only delays production but may also damages and
destroys equipment. The overall angle of slope in the
open pit mines also varies from close to vertical for
high quality rock masses up to 30° for moderate rock
masses. The slope of open pit mines is usually
designed based on a factor of safety of 1.2–1.4, and
the possible displacement of slopes and surface
collapse in some regions during extraction is some-
what acceptable (Wyllie and Mah 2004a; Zhang et al.
2016).
123

There is a small amount of flexibility in the slope
design to adjust its orientation to the geological
conditions of the region. According to the design of
open pit mines, the location of the pit should be
designed in the body of virgin rock and the design of
the mine should be in a way that is compatible with the
geological conditions prevailing in the region. The
excavation pattern of the mine should also be such as
to provide the maximum safety by excavation at the
maximum height and suitable slope. In general, a good
design is a contrast between sustainability and
economic issues. This is because excavation with
higher slope mines usually costs less than excavation
with lower slope mines because less waste is removed.
However, steep slopes require the installation of more
expensive stabilization equipment, such as rock bolts
and shotcrete, to reduce the risk of overall slope
instability and rock fracture during the project (Hoek
and Bray 1989; Kliche 1999; Wyllie and Mah 2004a;
Zhang et al. 2013; Li et al. 2014; Liu et al. 2017;
Kalehsar et al. 2021; Najafi et al. 2021).
One of the most basic issues in rock engineering is
the analysis and determination of the stability of
sloping surfaces in order to determine the stability or
instability of the slope to strengthen it in order to
increase its factor of safety. The preliminary stability
analysis is often performed to determine critical
parameters affecting stability. The evaluation of
geometric and physical parameters in slope stability
and determining the role of each of them require more
detailed analysis. There are different methods to
investigate the stability of rock slopes, in other words,
the slopes of open pit mines. Among these methods,
we can mention experimental, limit equilibrium and
numerical methods (Jing 2003; Jing and Hudson 2002;
Wyllie and Mah 2004a). In experimental methods
based on the classification system, the stability of
slopes is investigated. The experimental methods are
the easiest and fastest methods for stability analysis.
Limit equilibrium methods are among the most widely
used methods in the analysis of slope stability. These
methods can be used to determine the factor of safety
of different types of possible instabilities in soil and
rock slopes. Numerical analysis methods have been
more advanced than limit equilibrium methods for
evaluating slope stability and calculating the factor of
safety (FOS). So that the numerical methods
123
Geotech Geol Eng
(including continuum, discrete and hybrid methods)
have been widely used in recent years as robust tools
for the simulation and stability analysis of open pit
mines. The issue has led to the presentation of ideal
solutions closer to the real conditions of the project
(Abderrahmane and Abdelmadjid 2016; Azarfar et al.
2019, 2018; You et al. 2017).
The factor of safety (FOS) is a common approach to
evaluating slope stability. Bishop defined the factor of
safety as the ratio of the actual shear strength to the
minimum shear strength required to maintain equilib-
rium (Fig. 1) (Abderrahmane and Abdelmadjid 2016;
Azarfar et al. 2018). Hence, FOS = 1 indicates that
slope fracture is imminent. Mohr–Coulomb strength
reduction (SRM) method for calculating FOS is
widely used in slope stability studies and numerical
modeling. In SRM, the shear strength properties of the
rock mass (cohesion and internal friction angle) are
reduced by a factor of one until a fracture occurs
(Fig. 1). The strength reduction factor (SRF) is defined
by Eq. (1) as follows (Dawson et al. 1999):
C0 tan u0
FOS ¼ SRF ¼ ¼ ð1Þ
Cr tan ur
where C0 and u0 are the initial cohesive strength and
the initial internal friction angle, respectively, and Cr
and ur are the cohesive strength and internal friction
angle, respectively.
The factor of safety in Eq. (1) is equivalent to the
strength reduction factor. In the present study, this
method has been used using the strength reduction
method by FLAC3D program. In order to calculate the
factor of safety for each method, the strength reduction
method is used by FLAC3D program, which uses finite
difference method (FDM) for analysis (Itasca 2017).
The most important objective of this study is to
evaluate the geometric parameters affecting the
determination of the optimal slope of the ultimate
wall of the mine based on the calculation of the factor
of safety (FOS). Hence, three-dimensional analysis of
the slope stability of the ultimate wall of Shadan Mine
was done by finite difference method (FDM) by
considering the geometric parameters of the pit
(including the bench width, height and angle, and
height and overall slope angle), in order to achieve the
slope angle optimally.
Geotech Geol Eng
Fig. 1 Schematic representation of shear strength reduction method (Azarfar et al. 2018)
2 Specifications of Shadan Open Pit Mine
2.1 Introducing the Project
Shadan porphyry deposit is located 65 km southwest
of Birjand (South Khorasan Province, Iran) The range
is located between latitudes 588560 43‘‘–598000 00’’
west and latitudes 328200 50‘‘–328250 4’’ north and
covers an area of about 35 square kilometers. In this
range, four anomalies are identified in the form of
mineral blocks (A to D), which are shown in Fig. 2, an
overview of the region and area of each block. Among
the four blocks identified in the area of the mine,
engineering geotechnical (geomechanical) geological
studies have been conducted only to design
stable slopes of Block D (Fig. 2) (Engineers 2017).
2.2 Geological and Geomechanical Properties
Stratigraphically, the study area has diorite and
granodiorite porphyry intrusive masses into Eocene
andesitic volcanic rocks as guest rocks (Richards et al.
2012). Also, in terms of tectonics, Shadan is located in
an arc-shaped uplift fault block of Eocene volcanic-
polotonic rocks, in the northern border of which there
is an inverted fault with a slope to the north. In exposed
rocks, potassic alteration is observed along with stock
works and quartz-sulfide veins.
In the area of Shadan Open Pit Mine (Block D), a
series of surface and subsurface studies have been
conducted to estimate the geomechanical parameters
of intact rock and rock mass (including 14 exploratory
boreholes with a total length of 1767 m). According to
the studies (field studies and exploratory boreholes), in
general, 8 different types of lithology have been
formed in this area, of which two types of granodiorite
and andesite lithology with a share of 82%, are the
dominant geological units in the region. Next, three
types of lithology of andesitic tuff (with a share of
6%), breccia (with a share of 5%) and lithic tuff (with a
share of 5%) are important types of lithology in the
region and ultimately monzodiorite lithology with a
share of 2% is one of the geological units of the region.
In order to evaluate and estimate the geomechanical
parameters of intact rock and rock mass, a set of
various laboratory and field tests in accordance with
the methods proposed by the International Society of
Rock Mechanics (ISRM) (ISRM 1981) and the
standards of the American America for Test and
Materials (ASTM) (Astm 2001) has been provided.
According to the ISRM classification, the lithological
compressive strength of the region is often in the
‘‘medium’’ range, except for the breccia, which is in
123

Fig. 2 Overview of the region and the area of four mineral blocks (BKM consultant engineers 2017)
the ‘‘moderate’’ range. The reason for the low
compressive strength values compared to the data
reported for igneous rocks in rock mechanics refer-
ences is probably due to the potassic alteration of the
region, which has affected the strength properties of
these rocks.
In order to numerically model the stability evalu-
ation and design the ultimate pit slope, physical and
mechanical parameters related to rock masses in the
eastern slope of the mine were used (Table 1).
3 Stability Analysis and Optimal Slope Design
3.1 Numerical Modeling Process
The geometric parameters affecting the stability of the
ultimate slope of the eastern wall of the mine were
evaluated in order to achieve an optimal design of
123
Geotech Geol Eng
excavation and mineral extraction by numerical
modeling (finite difference method) and FLAC3D
program. For this purpose, during the process of
making numerical models, geomechanical specifica-
tions related to the four main geological layers in the
eastern slope of the mine including andesite, lithic tuff,
andesitic tuff and monzodiorite were used (Table 1).
In numerical modeling, the rock environment was
considered as heterogeneous, anisotropic with elasto-
plastic behavior and Mohr–Coulomb criterion.
The dimensions of the model are considered in such
a way as to prevent the increase in the volume and time
of calculations while preventing the effect of the
model boundaries on the obtained results and creating
errors. The dimensions of the model along x, y and z
axes are determined as a function of the dimensions of
the slope height (H), the horizontal distance between
the toe and the crown (crest) of the slope (W), etc.
according to Fig. 3 (Wyllie and Mah 2004b). The
Geotech Geol Eng

W >W

Internal friction angle

H

31.5
33.5

41.5
α
(°)

34
Cohesion

>H/2
(MPa)

0.210
0.195
0.180

0.410
Fig. 3 Recommendations for far field boundaries in slope
Poisson’s

stability analysis (Wyllie and Mah 2004b)

ratio

0.32
0.34
0.34

0.30

radius of curvature of the slope (the distance between

the axis of rotation and the toe of the slope) is about
100 m based on the geometric shape of the ultimate pit
Shear modulus

of the mine.
In order to create boundary conditions, the nodes
(GPa)

around the model in horizontal directions (X and Y)

0.93
0.81
0.87

1.87

were fixed on X-Z and Y-Z planes, while the nodes of

the model bottom, in addition to the horizontal
direction, were fixed in the vertical direction (Z) and
modulus
(GPa)

on X-Z and Y-Z planes. Therefore, there is no

Bulk

2.28
2.28
2.43

4.05
Table 1 Geomechanical properties of the rock masses (BKM consultant engineers 2017)

horizontal displacement in X-Z and Y-Z planes and

no vertical displacement in X-Y plane at the model
Deformation

boundaries.
modulus

According to the subsurface studies, groundwater

(GPa)

in the study area (eastern slope of the mine) behind the

2.47
2.19
2.34

4.87

slope (at a distance of about more than 150 m) is at a

height of about 80 to 85 m from the bottom of the pit
strength
Tensile

that reduced with a gentle slope of about 58 and at a

(MPa)

0.041
0.063
0.048

0.138

height of about 60 m from the mine bottom, it hits the

slope surface and causes an exposure in the pit slope.
Hence, in numerical modeling and using Fish codes in
Compressive

FLAC3D program, the groundwater level was modeled

strength

under existing conditions and without considering

(MPa)

1.59
1.51
1.41

3.73

water drainage status. Since there is no study (includ-

ing hydraulic fracture tests, flat jacks, over-core
extraction method, etc.) at the mine site to estimate
(gr/cm3)
Density

the level and direction of local stresses, including

2.59
2.45
2.58

2.57

minimum horizontal stresses, in the present study, the

value of horizontal stress coefficient (k) is considered
Monzodiorite

as a unit based on the assumption of hydrostatic

Lithic tuff
Rock type

Andesitic
Andesite

stresses in the study area.

tuff
No

1
2
3

123
 Geotech Geol Eng

Table 2 Geometric specifications of the pit slope and numerical model dimensions for different scenarios
Scenario Model Bench height Bench width Bench angle Overall slope angle Slope curvature Pit height
dimensions (m) (m) (°) (°) (m) (m)
x y z

1 570 570 334 10 6.8 70 43 100 219

2 510 510 319 10 5 70 48 100 209
3 510 510 314 12 6.8 73 48 100 204
4 430 430 314 12 5 73 52 100 204
5 430 430 321 12 5 73 52 100 211

3.2 Evaluation of Geometric Parameters of Slope 3.2.1 Scenario 1

In this section, the effect of geometric specifications of
the pit bench such as height, width and slope on the
stability of the ultimate slope of the mine was
investigated. In order to achieve the optimal slope of
the ultimate wall of the mine, a factor of safety of 1.20
was considered as the minimum basis for the slope
stability of the mine. Hence, in order to achieve this,
five scenarios (Table 2) of different geometric spec-
ifications of the pit bench were analyzed and
evaluated:
This scenario is based on the initial design provided by
consulting engineers for mineral extraction in the
eastern slope of the mine.. The geometric specifica-
tions of the initial design of the eastern slope of the
mine are presented in Fig. 4. The eastern slope of the
mine in the initial design has about 20 benches and 2
ramps. The height and angle of the ultimate slope are
about 219 m and 438, respectively. The height and
width of ramps 1 and 2 are different from each other.
So that the height and width of ramp 1 is about 5 and

Pit crest
5m

67°

10.5 m
219 m

70°
Ramp 1
10 m

6.8 m

Bench
70°
10 m

Ramp 2

Toe of slope 43°

12 m

Fig. 4 Details of the geometric dimensions of different parts of the slope

123
Geotech Geol Eng
Fig. 5 Simulation of the geometric dimensions of the slope
with bedding planes
10.50 m, respectively, and also the height and width of
ramp 2 are about 10 and 12 m, respectively (ramp
height 2 is equal to the height of the bench). Also, the
slope angle of ramp numbers 1 and 2 is 67 and 708,
respectively. The geometric specifications of the
benches designed for the entire pit slope are the same.
So that the height, width and angle of the benches are
equal to 10, 6.8 and 708m, respectively (Fig. 4).
In the present study, considering the number of
benches and their importance in determining the slope
of the ultimate wall of the mine, hence, an attempt was
made to evaluate the pit slope stability only by
changing the geometry specifications of the existing
benches. The geometric specifications related to the
design of the ultimate slope of the pit as well as the
geometric dimensions of the numerical model are
presented in Table 2.
Fig. 6 Geometric dimensions of the three-dimensional model in Scenario 1
The construction of the geometric dimensions of
the slope of the eastern wall of the mine in Scenario 1
along with its bedding planes in order to estimate the
factor of safety of the slope is presented in Fig. 5. As
shown in Fig. 5, the three-dimensional geometric
dimensions of the eastern slope of the mine are exactly
the same as the geometric specifications of the initial
design of the pit (Fig. 4). The geometric dimensions of
the numerical model are also considered according to
the boundary conditions and in accordance with what
was stated in Sect. 3.1. So that the dimensions of the
model in the horizontal direction of x and y axes are
equal to 570 m and in the vertical direction of z axis
are equal to 334 m (Fig. 6). The horizontal distance
above the slope of the pit (crest of the pit) in the
direction of x axis from the crest of the slope to the
model boundary is 240 m, the height of the slope toe in
the direction of z axis is 115 m and the radius of
curvature is 100 m (Fig. 6). The three-dimensional
geometric model of Scenario 1, in addition to the
meshing conditions, shows bedding planes of all four
types of rock masses in the eastern slope of the mine
with different physical and mechanical properties
(Fig. 6). Also in the numerical model, the state of
groundwater flow and through it the pore pressure
created in the rock mass of the eastern slope of the pit
is simulated (Fig. 7). As shown in Fig. 7, groundwater
level behind the pit slope (according to Fig. 4) is
applied in the numerical model and its effect on the
slope stability of the ultimate wall of the mine is
investigated.
123
 Geotech Geol Eng

The results of numerical analysis of the slope

Fig. 7 a. groundwater level and b. water pore pressure contour
in the ultimate slope of the pit
stability of the ultimate wall of the mine based on the
evaluation of factor of safety values, shear strain and
horizontal and vertical displacements in different parts
of the pit slope including the upper, middle and lower
parts were investigated. The results of numerical
modeling of Scenario 1 are presented in Figs. 8, 9, 10.
As shown in the above figures, the factor of safety
obtained from the ultimate slope stability analysis is
1.39. The shear strain created in the model increases
by increasing the horizontal and vertical stresses
(Fig. 11a, b), from the crest of the slope to the bottom
of the pit, and its maximum value is equal to 1.02 e-2.
As the maximum shear strain increased in the lower
part and in the toe of the pit slope, the values of
horizontal and vertical displacements also increased
subsequently (Figs. 9 and 10). As shown in Fig. 9, the
values of maximum horizontal displacement along x
and y axes are equal to - 22.2 cm (displacement to
the inside of the mine slope). The vertical displace-
ments created in the model are observed as both
settlement and uplift (Fig. 10). So that in the upper
part and behind the pit slope, the displacements are in
the form of settlement and gradually by increasing the
depth, these displacements are manifested in the form
of uplift which their values increase by increasing the
pit depth and due to increasing the vertical stress at the
toe the slope has reached its maximum value of

Fig. 8 Contour of the maximum shear strain in the model of Scenario 1

123
Geotech Geol Eng
Fig. 9 Horizontal displacement contours; a. along x axis, and b. along y axis
29.60 cm (Fig. 10). The contour (parallel lines) of the
horizontal stresses (along x-z axis) and the vertical
stresses in the model of Scenario 1 are shown in
Fig. 11a, b. As expected, near the pit slope, horizontal
or vertical stresses (as the maximum main stresses) are
less than the level of intact stresses due to low normal
stress, the possibility of joint opening and shear failure
along discontinuities in the rock mass can increase.
Figures 12 and 13 show the horizontal and vertical
displacements (on x-z plane) for the upper, middle,
and lower parts of the ultimate pit slope, respectively
(according to the model symmetry along x and y axes,
only displacement values are shown on x-z plane). So
that the values of horizontal and vertical displacement
have increased by increasing the pit depth (due to
increasing horizontal and vertical stresses and shear
strain) (Figs. 12 and 13). As shown in Fig. 12a, the
horizontal displacement in the upper part of the mine
slope is positive (3.7 mm) and indicates the wall
moving outwards or behind the pit slope. As men-
tioned earlier, due to the settlement created in the
upper part of the pit and behind the slope, the
horizontal displacement created tends to move in the
direction of settlement (the vertical displacement) in
the pit crest. The horizontal displacement in the
middle and lower part of the pit tends to move
negatively inward toward the pit slope (Fig. 12b, c).
The values of horizontal displacement recorded in the
middle and lower part of the pit are - 6.9 and - 22
cm, respectively. The values of vertical displacement
also increased significantly by increasing the depth of
the pit from the crest to the bottom of the pit,
depending on the increase in vertical stress. So that the
vertical displacement in the upper part of the slope in
123
 Geotech Geol Eng

Fig. 10 Vertical displacement contour created in the model of Scenario 1

the form of settlement is - 2.5 cm (due to the

settlement created behind the pit slope) and in the
middle and lower parts of the pit in the form of uplift
increased by 10 and 23 cm, respectively (Fig. 13).

3.2.2 Scenario 2

In this scenario, only the width of the slope bench of

Fig. 11 Contour of a. horizontal and b. vertical stresses in the
model of Scenario 1
the pit was reduced from 6.8 to 5 m. Due to the
reduction in the width of the benches, the slope angle
of the pit has also increased from 43 to 478. By
increasing the ultimate slope angle of the pit and due to
the uneven topography on the upper surface of the
slope (pit crest), the height of the slope has reduced
from 219 m to about 209 m. The slope angle of the
surface of the benches also remains constant in this
scenario because the slope angle of the benches is
determined based on the height of the benches and the
degree of deviation of the slope of the surface of the
benches from the vertical state. The geometric spec-
ifications related to the design of the ultimate slope of
the pit along with the geometric dimensions of the
numerical model are presented in Table 2.
The geometry of the numerical model made for
Scenario 2 is shown in Fig. 14a. Due to the change in
the height of the pit slope (H) as well as the horizontal
distance between the toe and the crest of the ultimate
pit slope (W), the dimensions of the numerical model
made for Scenario 2 are different from Scenario 1

123
Geotech Geol Eng

Fig. 12 Horizontal displacement (on x–z plane); a. in the upper, b. middle and c. lower parts of the pit slope

Fig. 13 Vertical displacement (on x–z plane); a. in the upper, b. middle and c. lower parts of the pit slope

(Fig. 14a). Hence, the dimensions of the model in the
direction of the horizontal axes x and y are equal to
510 m and in the vertical direction are equal to 319 m.
The results of the ultimate slope stability analysis
designed for the pit are presented in Fig. 14b–f. The
factor of safety obtained from this scenario has
reduced from 1.39 in Scenario 1 to 1.28 due to the
reduction in the width of the benches and the increase
in the overall slope angle. Also, due to the reduction in
the factor of safety of the ultimate slope, the maximum
shear strain values increased slightly and is equal to
1.08 e-2 (Fig. 14b). The maximum horizontal
displacement (on x–z plane) has not changed and is
equal to - 22.2 cm (Fig. 14c). The maximum vertical
displacement in the model was reduced to 27.3 cm
(Fig. 14d). It seems that despite the reduction in the
factor of safety of slope stability, with a reduction of
about 10 m in the height of the open pit and
consequently the reduction in horizontal and vertical
stresses in the slope, the horizontal deformations were
relatively constant and vertical deformations also
reduced. The measured values of horizontal and
vertical displacements (on x–z plane) in the upper,
middle and lower parts of the pit slope are also

123
 Geotech Geol Eng

(a) (b)

(c) (d)

(e) (f)
Upper part Lower part

Middle part

Middle part

Lower part Upper part

Fig. 14 Model geometry and results of numerical modeling in d. Vertical displacement contour, e. Horizontal displacement,
Scenario 2; a. Dimensions of the geometric model, b. Maximum and f. Vertical displacement in the upper, middle and lower parts
shear strain contour, c. Horizontal displacement contour, of the pit

indicative of the same problem in comparison with due to the increase in the horizontal and vertical
Scenario 1 (Fig. 14e, f). As shown in Fig. 14b–e, by stresses. The process of deformation and horizontal
increasing the pit depth, the shear stress values and and vertical displacements created in the slope of the
horizontal and vertical displacements also increased ultimate pit in Scenario 2 is in accordance with the

123
Geotech Geol Eng

(a) (b)

(c) (d)

(e) (f)
Upper part Lower part

Middle part

Middle part

Lower part Upper part

Fig. 15 Model geometry and results of numerical modeling in d. Vertical displacement contour, e. Horizontal displacement,
Scenario 3; a. Dimensions of the geometric model, b. Maximum and f. Vertical displacement in the upper, middle and lower parts
shear strain contour, c. Horizontal displacement contour, of the pit

process of deformations created in Scenario 1. Since displacement contour of the model (Fig. 14d) is
the maximum deformation (vertical displacement) in greater than the maximum vertical displacement
the pit bottom is higher than other parts such as the pit (Fig. 14f) related to the lower part of the pit slope.
slope, so the maximum deformation/vertical

123

3.2.3 Scenario 3
In this scenario, unlike Scenario 2, only the height of
the benches has increased from 10 to 12 m. Subse-
quently, by increasing the height of the benches, in
addition to increasing the bench angle from 70 to 738,
the overall slope angle of the pit has increased from
438 compared to the initial design to 488 (equal to the
angle of the ultimate slope in Scenario 2). In fact, in
order to investigate the effect of slope height on the
factor of safety and the stability of the ultimate pit
slope, the pit height in this scenario is 5 m higher than
Scenario 2 (with maintaining the same conditions to
the ultimate slope angle). The geometric specifications
related to the design of the ultimate slope of the pit as
well as the geometric dimensions of the numerical
model are presented in Table 2. The results of
numerical modeling of Scenario 3 are shown in
Fig. 15. The factor of safety obtained from this
scenario is higher and is 1.32 according to the ultimate
slope angle which is equal to Scenario 2 (488). At this
stage of the study, it seems that the role of increasing
the height of the benches from 10 to 12 m (which has
increased the angle of the benches by about 38)
compared to reducing the width of the benches (from
6.8 to 5 m in Scenario 2 and without changing the
angle of the benches) in determining the factor of
safety was less so that the stability of the ultimate pit
slope in Scenario 3 (FOS = 1.32) compared to
Scenario 2 (FOS = 1.28) the overall slope angle
(48°) is greater by maintaining the same conditions.
However, the effect of reducing the height of the
ultimate pit slope by about 5 m cannot be ignored in
reducing the factor of safety for Scenario 3 less than
Scenario 2 (this issue was investigated more closely in
Scenario 5 to achieve a minimum factor of safety of
1.2).
The values of the maximum shear strain and
horizontal and vertical displacements in the whole
model as well as in different parts of the ultimate pit
slope are shown in Fig. 15b-f. The values of shear
strain and displacements (horizontal and vertical)
obtained from this scenario are also a function of the
values of horizontal and vertical stresses created along
the slope of the pit, which increased from the surface
to the bottom of the pit. Considering the increase in
factor of safety from 1.28 in Scenario 2 to 1.32 in
Scenario 3, the values of the maximum shear strain
(9.77 e-3, Fig. 15b), and maximum horizontal
123
Geotech Geol Eng
(- 21.1 cm, Fig. 15c) and vertical (26 cm, Fig. 15d)
displacements in the model also reduced. The values
of the horizontal and vertical deformations of the
different sections of the ultimate slope of the pit are
shown in Fig. 15e–f, respectively.
3.2.4 Scenario 4
This scenario is a combination of Scenario 2 (reducing
the width of the benches) and Scenario 3 (increasing
the height and slope of the benches). As the width of
the benches reduces and the height of the benches
increases along with the slope angle of their surface,
the angle of the ultimate pit slope increases by about
528. According to the prevailing conditions, the height
of the pit slope is considered 204 m (Fig. 16a). The
geometric specifications related to the design of the
ultimate slope of the pit as well as the geometric
dimensions of the numerical model are presented in
Table 2. The results of the ultimate slope stability
analysis of the mine are presented in Fig. 15b-f. Due to
the combination of models of Scenario 2 and 3, the
factor of safety of the pit slope was reduced by 1.23.
The maximum shear strain values in this model are
equal to 1.04 e-2 (Fig. 16b). Also, the maximum
horizontal and vertical displacement values in the
model are -24 and 25.8 cm, respectively (Fig. 16c and
d, respectively). The values of the horizontal displace-
ments (on x–z plane) and the vertical displacements
created in the upper, middle, and lower parts of the pit
slope are given in Fig. 16e, f, respectively. As shown
in Fig. 16b-f, by increasing the values of horizontal
and vertical stresses from the surface to the bottom of
the pit, the values of shear strain and horizontal and
vertical displacements also increase. As mentioned
earlier, the maximum vertical displacement in the
model is related to the pit bottom, which is observed as
uplift (Fig. 16d). Due to the reduction in the factor of
safety in the model of Scenario 4 compared to
Scenarios 2 and 3, the values of horizontal displace-
ment (which has the greatest effect on shear strain and
vertical displacement, respectively, against the change
in factor of safety) reached the maximum approxi-
mately - 24 cm at the bottom of the pit slope
(Fig. 16c, e). Due to the constant height of the pit
slope compared to the model of Scenario 3, the values
of maximum vertical displacement in the model as
well as in different parts of the slope of the pit, has
changed slightly (Fig. 15d, f).
Geotech Geol Eng

(a) (b)

(c) (d)

(e) (f)
Upper part Lower part

Middle part

Middle part

Lower part Upper part

Fig. 16 Model geometry and results of numerical modeling in d. Vertical displacement contour, e. Horizontal displacement,
Scenario 4; a. Dimensions of the geometric model, b. Maximum and f. Vertical displacement in the upper, middle and lower parts
shear strain contour, c. Horizontal displacement contour, of the pit

3.2.5 Scenario 5 mine based on the minimum factor of safety of slope

stability (1.2). The geometric specifications related to
The purpose of implementing this scenario is to the design of the ultimate slope of the pit as well as the
achieve the optimal slope of the ultimate wall of the geometric dimensions of the numerical model are

123
 Geotech Geol Eng

(a) (b)

(c) (d)

(e) (f)

Upper part Lower part

Middle part

Middle part

Lower part Upper part

Fig. 17 Model geometry and results of numerical modeling in Vertical displacement contour, e. Horizontal displacement, and
Scenario 5; a. Dimensions of the geometric model, b. Maximum f. Vertical displacement in the upper, middle and lower parts of
shear strain contour, c. Horizontal displacement contour, d. the pit

presented in Table 2. According to various studies and geometric specifications of this scenario were consid-
analyzes associated with trial and error, the most ered exactly the same as Scenario 4, which is a
suitable geometric specifications of the pit to achieve combination of Scenarios 2 and 3. Since the minimum
factor of safety of 1.2 were obtained. In fact, the factor of safety obtained from numerical models is the

123
Geotech Geol Eng

result of Scenario 4 and is equal to 1.23, in this (a) 1.4

scenario, an attempt was made to minimize factor of

Factor of safety (FOS)

1.35
safety by 1.2 to achieve the most technically appro-
priate design providing stability to the ultimate slope 1.3

of the eastern wall of the pit.

1.25
In other words, since during the analyzes performed
in the previous scenarios, the importance of the pit 1.2

slope height on factor of safety was determined to

1.15
some extent, hence, an attempt was made to keep the 9.50E-03 1.00E-02 1.05E-02 1.10E-02 1.15E-02

slope geometric specifications of the pit slope similar Maximum shear strain (m)
to that in Scenario 4. With changing the slope height, (b) 1.4

the minimum factor of safety of the ultimate pit slope

Factor of safety (FOS)

1.35
is obtained. The numerical modeling conditions for
Scenario 5 as well as the results are presented in 1.3

Fig. 17. 1.25

According to analyzes performed, by increasing the
height of the pit slope from 204 m in Scenario 4 with a 1.2

factor of safety of 1.23 (Fig. 15), to 211 m (Fig. 17a), 1.15

the factor of safety reached the minimum value 1.2 -27 -26 -25 -24 -23 -22 -21 -20
Maximum horizontal displacement (m)
(Fig. 17b–f). As the factor of safety reduced, the
(c) 1.4
maximum shear strain in the model (Fig. 17b) as well
Factor of safety (FOS)

as the horizontal displacements in the model 1.35

(Fig. 17c) and the pit slope (Fig. 17e) increased by
1.3
increasing the horizontal stresses. So that the maxi-
mum shear strain and the maximum displacement 1.25
created in the model are equal to 1.12 e-2 and - 25.7
1.2
cm, respectively, and are related to the lower part of
the pit slope. As mentioned earlier, by increasing the 1.15
25 26 27 28 29 30
depth and vertical stress, the value of vertical
Maximum vertical displacement (m)
displacement in the slope increases. Moreover, the
factor of safety of the ultimate slope stability has a Fig. 18 Changes a. in maximum shear strain, b. maximum
little effect on the value of vertical displacement horizontal displacement, and c. maximum vertical displacement
(Fig. 17d, f). relative to factor of safety values in different scenarios

Table 3 Summary of the results of numerical modeling for different scenarios

Scenario Maximum Maximum horizontal Maximum vertical Pit slope displacement (cm) FOS
shear strain displacement (cm) displacement (cm)
Upper part Middle part Lower part
x z x z x z

1 1.02 e-2 - 22.24 29.63 0.37 - 3.50 - 6.90 10.45 - 22.20 23.29 1.39
2 1.00 e-2 - 22.22 27.30 0.50 - 3.30 - 6.40 8.18 - 22.11 20.49 1.28
3 9.77 e-3 - 21.16 26.00 0.25 - 1.92 - 5.10 7.72 - 21.10 17.97 1.32
4 1.04 e-2 - 24.00 25.82 0.48 - 2.00 - 5.00 6.89 - 23.98 17.42 1.23
5 1.12 e-2 - 25.75 27.16 0.52 - 2.50 - 5.70 7.16 - 25.68 18.25 1.20

123

3.3 Results and Discussions
The results of modeling and stability analysis of the
ultimate slope of the pit from Scenario 1 based on the
initial design to achieve an optimal excavation and
mineral extraction design in Scenario 5 are summa-
rized in Table 3. Figure 18 shows changes in maxi-
mum shear strain and maximum horizontal and
vertical displacements relative to the values of the
factor of safety in different models.
In general, the values of maximum shear strain and
maximum horizontal displacement in Scenarios 2–5
(with factor of safety of 1.32 to 1.20), by reducing the
factor of safety, show a relatively specific increasing
trend (Fig. 18a, b), while the values of maximum shear
strain and maximum horizontal displacement in Sce-
nario 1 (FOS = 1.39) did not follow this general trend
and the values are higher than the values of Scenarios 2
and 3. In other words, in Scenario 1, considering the
estimation of the highest factor of safety (1.39) and
despite expecting less deformation in the model than
other models, it is observed that the values of shear
strain and horizontal displacement created in this
model not only have been less, but they are also higher
than Scenarios 2 and 3 (with the factor of safety of 1.32
and 1.28, respectively). It seems that due to the higher
height of the pit slope in this model (219 m), and
consequently the increase in maximum horizontal
stress compared to other models (especially Scenarios
2 and 3), the maximum shear strain and maximum
horizontal displacement in this model had less impact
than factor of safety of slope stability, which is based
on strength reduction method (dependent on factors c
and phi). It is also observed (Table 3 and Fig. 18c) that
Maximum vertical displacement (m)
30
29.5
29
28.5
28
27.5
27
26.5
26
25.5
200 205
Slope height (m)
Fig. 19 Changes in the maximum values of vertical displace-
ment with respect to the height of the pit slope
123
Geotech Geol Eng
changes in the values of the maximum vertical
displacement (as uplift in the pit bottom) with the
values of the factor of safety, do not have a clear trend
and in fact changes in the maximum values of vertical
displacement in different scenarios based the maxi-
mum height of the pit slope has a well-defined trend
(Fig. 19). So that Scenario 1 with a height of about
219 m has the highest vertical displacement and
Scenarios 3 and 4 with a height of about 204 m have
the lowest vertical displacement. In other words, by
increasing the height of the ultimate pit slope and also
increasing the vertical stress (from the surface to the
bottom of the pit), vertical deformation increases in
the form of settlement or uplift in the slope and bottom
of the pit.
Due to the relatively small changes in factor of
safety from Scenario 1 (1.39) to Scenario 5 (1.20), the
maximum values of shear strain and horizontal and
vertical deformations in the ultimate pit slope do not
have many changes and are in a relatively close range.
According to the studies and evaluations at this
stage of the study, the model of Scenario 5 with a
minimum factor of safety of 1.20 is introduced as an
optimal and proposed design for implementation at
Shadan Open Pit Mine site. As shown in Table 3, the
maximum values of horizontal and vertical deforma-
tions that occur in the lower part and bottom of the
open pit slope due to the implementation of the model
of Scenario 5 (about - 25 and 27 cm, respectively)
are less than 30 cm.
4 Conclusions
The most important results of the present study are as
follows:
1. The process of numerical modeling to achieve an
y = 0.2425x - 23.604
optimal design for the slope of the ultimate wall of
R² = 0.9732
Shadan Open Pit Mine was conducted in five scenarios
with different geometric specifications of the slope.
Ultimately, Scenario 5 (Table 2) according to the
minimum factor of safety of 1.20 was proposed as the
most suitable executive plan for the mine.
2. The initial design of the ultimate slope of the
eastern wall of the mine (Scenario 1) with an overall
210 215 220
slope angle of 438 and a height of 219 m had the factor
of safety of 1.39, which with changing the geometric
specifications of the benches and the pit slope (height,
width and angle), the factor of safety was reduced to
Geotech Geol Eng
the minimum and desired value (1.20) in Scenario 5. In
other words, in Scenario 5 (which is a combination of
Scenarios 2, 3 and 4), by reducing the width of the
benches from 6.8 to 5 m and increasing the height of
the benches (from 10 to 12 m) and the angle of its
surface (from 70 to 738) the factor of safety of the
ultimate slope of the mine was reduced from 1.39 in
the initial design to 1.20.
3. According to the results obtained from Scenarios
2 and 3 and similar geometric specifications of
benches, ramps and overall slope of the pit, the effect
of reducing the width of the benches to increase the
height and angle of the surface was clear on the factor
of safety reduction. In Scenario 2, only by reducing the
width of the benches from 6.8 to 5 m, and in Scenario
3, only by increasing the height and angle of the
benches to 12 m and 738, respectively, the factor of
safety was reduced from 1.39 in Scenario 1 to 1.28 in
Scenario 2 and 1.32 in Scenario 3.
4. According to the results obtained from Scenarios
4 and 5 under similar geometric specifications, a slight
increase in the height of the ultimate pit slope (about
7 m) can also be effective on adjusting and reducing
the factor of safety. So that in Scenario 5, without
changing the geometric specifications of the ultimate
slope (angle, width and height of benches, overall
slope angle of the pit, etc.), by increasing the height of
the pit slope from 204 to 211 m, the factor of safety
was reduced from 1.23 in Scenario 4 to 1.20 in
Scenario 5.
5. In different scenarios, by increasing the horizon-
tal and vertical stresses from the pit surface to bottom,
the values of shear strain and horizontal and vertical
displacements were also increased in the model. So
that the highest values of shear strain and horizontal
displacement (in the direction of slope) were related to
the lower part of the pit slope and the highest vertical
displacement (in the form of uplift) was related to the
pit bottom.
6. By reducing the factor of safety, the value of
displacement in the model was increased so that the
maximum displacement created in the models was
related to horizontal displacement in the lower part of
the slope and vertical displacement in the pit bottom.
In other words, by reducing the factor of safety, shear
strain and horizontal displacement in the model
(especially the lower part of the pit slope) were
increased, while the maximum vertical displacement
in the model was related to the pit bottom.
7. The greatest effect due to changes (reduction
and/or increase) in the factor of safety was related to
shear strain and horizontal displacement in the model,
so that in Scenario 5 (proposed model) by reducing the
factor of safety to 1.20, shear strain reached its
maximum value equivalent to 1.12 e-2 and conse-
quently the horizontal displacement in the model was
increased to a maximum value of - 25.75 cm. The
highest vertical displacement (29.63 cm) recorded in
the models was related to the model of Scenario 1 with
the highest slope height of about 219 m, which
showed the least effect of the factor of safety.
8. The maximum horizontal and vertical displace-
ment in the model of Scenario 5 (proposed model) (in
terms of hydrostatic stress and horizontal stress
coefficient) was related to the lower part of the slope
and bottom of the pit, respectively, which was less
than 30 mm and within the acceptable limit.
Acknowledgements The authors of this article would like to
thank Behinegostar Kavoshgaran Maaden (BKM) Consultant
Engineers for its cooperation in providing the required data and
information.
References
Abderrahmane TH, Abdelmadjid B (2016) Assessment of slope
stability by continuum and discontinuum methods. Int J
Civil Environ, Struct, Constr Archit Eng 10(4):543–548
ASTM E Standard test methods for tension testing of metallic
materials, Annual book of ASTM standards. In, 2001.
ASTM
Azarfar B, Ahmadvand S, Sattarvand J, Abbasi B (2019) Sta-
bility analysis of rock structure in large slopes and open-pit
mine: Numerical and experimental fault modeling. Rock
Mech Rock Eng 52:4889–4905. https://doi.org/10.1007/
s00603-019-01915-4
Azarfar B, Peik B, Abbasi B, Roghanchi P A discussion on
numerical modeling of fault for large open pit mines. In:
52nd US Rock Mechanics/Geomechanics Symposium,
2018. American Rock Mechanics Association
Dawson E, Roth W, Drescher A (1999) Slope stability analysis
by strength reduction. Geotech 49:835–840. https://doi.
org/10.1680/geot.1999.49.6.835
Behinegostar Kavoshgaran Maaden (BKM) Consultant Engi-
neers (2017). Final report of rock mechanics studies in
Shadan gold-copper open pit mine.
He M, Feng J, Sun X (2008) Stability evaluation and optimal
excavated design of rock slope at Antaibao open pit coal
mine. China Int J Rock Mech Min Sci 45:289–302. https://
doi.org/10.1016/j.ijrmms.2007.05.007
Hoek E, Bray J (1989) Rock Slopes Design, Excavation,
Stabilization
123

International Society for Rock Mechanics (1981) Rock char-
acterization testing & [and] monitoring: ISRM suggested
methods. Pergamon Press, Oxford
Itasca FD (2017) Fast Lagrangian analysis of continua in 3
dimensions, Version 6.0 Minneapolis, Minnesota, Itasca
Consulting Group 438
Jing L (2003) A review of techniques, advances and outstanding
issues in numerical modelling for rock mechanics and rock
engineering. Int J Rock Mech Min Sci 40:283–353
Jing L, Hudson J (2002) Numerical methods in rock mechanics.
Int J Rock Mech Min Sci 39:409–427. https://doi.org/10.
1016/S1365-1609(02)00065-5
Kalehsar RI, Khodaei M, Dehghan AN, Najafi N (2021)
Numerical modeling of effect of surcharge load on the
stability of nailed soil slopes. Model Earth Syst Environ.
https://doi.org/10.1007/s40808-021-01087-7
Kliche CA (1999) Rock slope stability. Society for Mining
Metallurgy
Li E, Zhuang X, Zheng W, Cai Y (2014) Effect of graph gen-
eration on slope stability analysis based on graph theory.
J Rock Mech Geotech Eng 6(4):380–386. https://doi.org/
10.1016/j.jrmge.2014.05.003
Liu G, Zhuang X, Cui Z (2017) Three-dimensional slope sta-
bility analysis using independent cover based numerical
manifold and vector method. Eng Geol 225:83–95. https://
doi.org/10.1016/j.enggeo.2017.02.022
Najafi N, Kalehsar RI, Khodaei M, Dehghan AN, Karroubi K
(2021) Effect of installation angle on pull-out resistance of
nails in soil slopes. SN Appl Sci 3(8):1–13
Richards JP, Spell T, Rameh E, Razique A, Fletcher T (2012)
High Sr/Y magmas reflect arc maturity, high magmatic
water content, and porphyry Cu±Mo±Au potential:
123
Geotech Geol Eng
examples from the Tethyan arcs of central and eastern Iran
and western Pakistan. Econ Geol 107:295–332. https://doi.
org/10.2113/econgeo.107.2.295
Wyllie DC, Mah C (2004a) Rock slope engineering. CRC Press,
Florida
Wyllie DC, Mah CW (2004b) Rock slope engineering: civil and
mining. 4th Edition edn. The Institute of Mining and
Metallurgy
Yang J, Tao Z, Li B, Gui Y, Li H (2012) Stability assessment and
feature analysis of slope in Nanfen Open Pit Iron Mine
International Journal of. Min Sci Technol 22:329–333.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijmst.2012.04.008
You G, Al Mandalawi M, Soliman A, Dowling K, Dahlhaus P
Finite element analysis of rock slope stability using shear
strength reduction method. In: International Congress and
Exhibition‘‘ Sustainable Civil Infrastructures: Innovative
Infrastructure Geotechnology’’, 2017. Springer, pp 227-
235.
Zhang K, Cao P, Ma G, Fan W, Meng J, Li K (2016) A new
methodology for open pit slope design in Karst-Prone
ground conditions based on integrated stochastic-limit
equilibrium analysis. Rock Mech Rock Eng 49:2737–2752.
https://doi.org/10.1007/s00603-016-0924-1
Zhang Y, Chen G, Zheng L, Li Y, Zhuang X (2013) Effects of
geometries on three-dimensional slope stability. Can
Geotech J 50(3):233–249. https://doi.org/10.1139/cgj-
2012-0279
Publisher’s Note Springer Nature remains neutral with
regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and
institutional affiliations.