Computers and Geotechnics 38 (2011) 846–860

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Computers and Geotechnics

journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/compgeo

Evaluation of rock slope stability for Yujian River dam site by kinematic
and block theory analyses
P.H.S.W. Kulatilake a,⇑, Liangqing Wang b,c, Huiming Tang d, Ye Liang b,c
a
Geological Engineering Program, Department of Materials Science & Engineering, University of Arizona, Tucson, Arizona, 85721, USA
b
Faculty of Engineering, China University of Geosciences, Wuhan, 430074, China
c
Visiting Research Scholar, Department of Materials Science & Engineering, University of Arizona, Tucson, AZ 85721, USA
d
China University of Geosciences, Wuhan, 430074, China

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

Article history: Lithological information, rock mass fracture data and discontinuity shear strength obtained through field
Received 6 February 2011 investigations have been used to conduct kinematic and block theory analyses for the rock slopes that
Received in revised form 16 May 2011 exist in the dam site to evaluate the stability of the slopes. The analyses were performed using mean dis-
Accepted 18 May 2011
continuity set orientations for each rock mass region under gravitational loading to calculate the maxi-
Available online 17 June 2011
mum safe slope angles (MSSA) for different cut slope directions. Results show that final MSSAs
obtained from kinematic analysis are less than or equal to that obtained from block theory analysis.
Keywords:
The following conclusions have been made based on the block theory analysis results, which are closer
Yujian River
Dam site
to the reality: (1) The final MSSA range between 30° and 47°, 44° and 70°, 47° and 69° for cut slope
Rock discontinuities dip directions of 20–30°, 105–210°, and 270–355°, respectively; (2) For cut slope dip directions of
Discontinuity shear strength 20–30°, 200–210° and 275–315°, wide ranges of values have been obtained for the final MSSA reflecting
Rock slope stability the influence of variability of fracture orientations on MSSA; (3) Apart from the region R-d-1 for slope dip
Kinematic analysis directions in the range 20–30°, rest of the regions at the dam site seem to be stable for slope angles less
Block theory analysis than 40°. Detailed comparisons are given between the kinematic and block theory analyses covering
both the theoretical concepts and application results. Also a brief comparison is included between the
laboratory and in situ discontinuity shear strength results.
Ó 2011 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

1. Introduction compressive strength of intact rock were performed on samples

Yujian River Reservoir is located in north–northeast of Guiyang
City, Guizhou Province, China. The dam project is composed of roller
concrete double curvature arch dam, flood discharging facilities and
irrigation facilities. Yujian River dam is about 81 m high with
elevations of 981 m and 1062 m at the bottom and top of the dam,
respectively. Designed reservoir storage is about 1.05  107 m3
corresponding to a water level of 1057 m. The project has tremen-
dous benefits such as flood control, irrigation, water supply for city
and countryside, and ecological construction. The dam site region
includes varying high slopes in different rock types. It is important
to assess the stability of these slopes for the safety of the dam as well
as the region downstream of the dam.
The purpose of this study is to evaluate the stability of slopes in
the dam site based on kinematic and block theory analyses. In order
to accomplish the task, engineering geology surveys, identification
of slope regions and discontinuity surveys were performed for dif-
ferent rock types at the left and right banks of the dam. Laboratory
tests for the determination of density, tensile strength and uniaxial
⇑ Corresponding author. Tel.: +1 520 621 6064; fax: +1 520 621 8059.
E-mail address: kulatila@u.arizona.edu (P.H.S.W. Kulatilake).
collected from the dam site. In situ shear tests were conducted in
test tunnels at the left and right banks to estimate shear strength
of discontinuities. Also laboratory shear tests were performed on
discontinuities to compare with in situ shear test results. After dis-
cussing the aforementioned investigations, the paper then focuses
on calculation of maximum safe slope angles (MSSA) for five slope
regions based on the kinematic and block theory analyses consider-
ing the three basic failure modes: plane sliding, wedge sliding and
toppling under the gravitational loading.
2. Geology
The dam site of Yujian River Project is situated in the south-west
part of the Tuanwangshan syncline, encompassing three different
formations namely, the Triassic Middle Series Shizishan formation
(T2sh) for which the predominant lithology is limestone, the Triassic
Middle Series songzikan formation (T3-22s ) for which the predominant
lithology is argillaceous dolomite and the Triassic Middle Series
songzikan formation (T3-12s ) for which the lithology includes argilla-
ceous dolomite with mudstone interlayer. Fig. 1 shows the rock
mass types and selected slope regions of the dam site. Yujian River

0266-352X/$ - see front matter Ó 2011 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
doi:10.1016/j.compgeo.2011.05.004
 Kulatilake PHSW et al. / Computers and Geotechnics 38 (2011) 846–860 847

85 90 95 71 00 05 10 15 71 20
93
Legend
94

85 Scale 95
Triassic middle series Shizishan formation
T2 sh
0 10 20 30 40 50 (m) (predominant lithology:limestone )
River
T2 sh Triassic middle series Songzikan formation, third
Jian T2S3-2 section, second layer (predominant lithology:
80 80 argillaceous dolomite )
Yu
Triassic middle series Songzikan formation, third
T2S3-1 section, first layer (argillaceous dolomite mudstone
R-b
interlayer)
G R -a
75 75

T2 sh Stratum boundary Arch Dam

A
T2S3-2 River R-e-2
Arc Dam Diversion tunnel A Joint survey scanline code
70 70

3-1
Jian
T2 sh
T2sh
T
2S Yu Jian River
R-e-1 Test tunnel
Yu R-d-1
E
65 R-d-2 65 Region-a (R-a) Region-b (R-b)

Region-c-1 (R-c-1) Region-c-2 (R-c-2)

T2 sh
60
D Diversion tunnel 0+155.5 60
Region-d-1 (R-d-1) Region-d-2 (R-d-2)
B

Region-e-1 (R-e-1) Region-e-2 (R-e-2)

85 90 95 71 00 71 05 10 15 71
Elevations

Fig. 1. Rock mass types and selected slope regions of the dam site.

runs across the dam site from Southern-west to Northern-east. The
lowest and highest altitudes in the dam site are about 870 m and
1293 m, respectively. The maximum elevation difference of the
landform is about 423 m. In the study area, the elevation difference
is about 100–200 m. According to the degree of weathering, the rock
mass in the dam site can be classified into four types: (a) strongly
weathered; (b) weakly weathered; (c) slightly weathered and (d)
fresh rock. The degree of rock mass weathering is different for differ-
ent rock types. No major fault or fold was observed at the dam site
during the site exploration, except for small scale tension faults.
According to the location and possible slope dip directions, dam
site slopes are divided into five regions: Regions-a–e (Fig. 1). Re-
gion-a and Region-b are located in the left bank in T2sh type rock
mass. Regions a and b are subdivided into several sub-regions
based on different slope orientations. According to different rock
types, Region-c is subdivided into two sub-regions: Region-c-1
located in the right bank in T3-2
2s type rock mass and Region-c-2
located in the right bank in T2sh type rock mass. Similarly,
Region-d is also subdivided into two sub-regions: Region-d-1 with
rock type similar to Region-c-1 and Region-d-2 with rock type
similar to Region-c-2. Region-e which is located in the right bank
in T2sh type rock mass is also subdivided into two sub-regions:
Region-e-1 and Region-e-2, based on different discontinuity
orientations and slope orientations.
3. Dominant discontinuity orientations at the dam site
Discontinuity scanline sampling surveys were performed in test
tunnels, a diversion tunnel and on a natural slope in the dam site.
Table 1 gives the properties of selected scanlines. Fig. 1 shows the
locations at which the scanline surveys were performed. A total of
six scanlines were completed. Out of these, four scanlines were
performed in the T2sh rock mass and the rest in the T3-22s rock mass.
The dip direction and dip of the exposure face, trend and plunge of
the scanline, location of the exposure, the rock type and exposure
condition of rock mass were recorded. For discontinuities that inter-
sect each scanline, the intersection distance, strike, dip, semi trace
lengths on each side of the scanline, termination type (terminate
on rock, terminate on another joint and joint intersect other joints)
for each joint, aperture, roughness, filled materials (mudstone fill-
ing, Ca filling and no filling) and groundwater condition (dry, with
no evidence of water flow; dry, but evidence of water flow; damp,
but no free water; occasional drop of water; continuous flow of
water) were also recorded. Seven hundred and sixty-two disconti-
nuities (426 from T2sh and 336 from T3-2 2s ) were mapped in the T2sh
and T3-22s rock types. Figs. 2 and 3 show contours of dominant
discontinuity sets obtained on a lower hemispherical equal area
projections for different scanline data. The orientation plots show
existence of four sub-vertical joint sets and a sub-horizontal bedding
plane in both rock types. The plots also show existence of high orien-
tation variability for the sub-vertical joint sets. Predominant dip
directions of the sub-vertical discontinuities seem to be along
SWW, NNW, SSW and NW. Average dip angle of these joints vary
between 50° and 90°. The bedding plane has an average dip direction
of NEE and dips in the range 25–34°. The dip angle of bedding planes
of T2sh rock mass seems slightly steeper than that of T3-2 2s rock mass.
Horizontal scanlines marked on very steep rock exposures (80–90°)
were used in mapping discontinuity orientations. No horizontal dis-
continuity planes exist in the dam site. A few vertical fracture planes
exist in the orientation data belonging to scanlines A, D, E, F and G
(see Figs. 2 and 3). However, the angle between the mean strike of
these fracture sets and the corresponding scanline trend ranges
between 32° and 91° depending on the scanline number (These were
calculated using the scanline trends given in Table 1 and fracture set
orientations given in Figs. 2 and 3). Based on the last three sentences,
it is possible to say that fractures in the dam site intersect horizontal
scanlines well. Therefore, chances to have blind zone joints would be
very minimal. This greatly reduces the effect of sampling bias on
orientation distribution of fracture sets. To take into account the
discontinuity orientations on rock slope stability analysis, five most
dominant discontinuity sets were selected from each equal area plot
(i.e. from each scanline) in conducting kinematic and block theory
analyses. These values are given in Table 2. It is important to note
that these dominant discontinuity sets include relatively large ex-
tent joints and faults. Note that only the mean orientation is used
848 Kulatilake PHSW et al. / Computers and Geotechnics 38 (2011) 846–860
Table 1
Properties of selected scanlines at the dam site.
Scanline number Location Rock face dip dir./dip angle (°)
A Diversion tunnel 145/90
D Diversion tunnel 153/90
F Tunnel at right bank 160/90
G Tunnel at left bank 242/80
B Diversion tunnel 153/90
E Slope at right bank 280/90
from each fracture set in performing both the kinematic and block
theory analyses. To express orientation of a fracture plane, two cor-
related parameters are needed. In addition, for many fracture sets, it
is difficult to find mathematical equations to determine the statisti-
cal distributions of the orientation parameters. In such cases, if one
wants to study the effect of orientation variability of a fracture set on
kinematic analysis or block theory analysis results, a significant
number of values should be generated based on the empirical statis-
tical distribution of orientation to express the variability of orienta-
tion of a fracture set. For example, if one generates 10 orientation
values based on Monte-Carlo simulation to express the variability
of each of the aforementioned five fracture sets, it leads to a mini-
mum of 105 combinations of discontinuity orientations in perform-
ing block theory analysis for one rock face having a certain strike
direction. In this paper, eight regions have been considered. For each
region, both kinematic and block theory calculations have been per-
formed for several cut slope dip directions. This clearly shows one
needs to make a large number of calculations to study the effect of
variability of fracture set orientations. Because in this paper, alto-
gether about 75 cut slope dip directions are considered, kinematic
and block theory analyses are made only using the mean orienta-
tions. However, it is important to note that to a certain extent the ef-
fect of orientation variability on rock slope stability results emerge
by applying both kinematic and block theory analysis to orientation
data from different scanlines for the same cut slope directions. Such
results are summarized in this paper in Sections 5 and 6. Because
only the mean orientations were used and also chance of having
blind zone fractures is very minimal, even though one of the authors
of this paper has his own sampling bias correction procedures for
orientation [1,2], they were not applied in this paper in representing
the orientation distribution of fracture sets. According to the first
author’s experience, the effect of orientation bias correction on the
estimation of mean orientation for the fracture sets dealt with in this
paper would be negligible.
4. Intact rock and discontinuity physical and mechanical
properties
Intact rock and discontinuity mechanical property testing were
performed on T2sh and T3-2
2s rock types gathered from the dam site,
via the China University of Geosciences, Wuhan and Survey-Design
Research Institute for Water Resources and Hydropower Guizhou
Province, China. A total of 15 density tests, six Brazilian disk ten-
sion tests, 16 uniaxial compressive strength tests and eight
in situ direct shear tests on bedding planes were performed for
two rock types to obtain intact rock and discontinuity physical
and mechanical properties.
4.1. Intact rock test results
4.1.1. Density
Density test for intact material of different rock types was per-
formed in the laboratory following SL264-2001 specifications [3]
for rock tests in water conservancy and hydroelectric engineering
in China. The mean dry density for limestone was found to be
2.68 g/cm3 with a 0.01 coefficient of variation. The average dry
Scanline trend/plunge (°) Rock mass type Excavation method
46/0 T2sh Blasting
72/0 T2sh Blasting
70/0 T2sh Blasting
152/0 T2sh Blasting
72/0 T3-2 Blasting
2s
190/0 T3-2
2s
Natural surface
density of 2.60 g/cm3 was obtained for argillaceous dolomite with
a 0.06 coefficient of variation.
4.1.2. Tensile strength from Brazilian disk tension test
The Brazilian disk tension test was performed on the different
rock types to obtain the tensile strength of the intact rock. Brazilian
disk sample testing consisted of cutting 50 mm diameter core with
a length/diameter (l/d) ratio of 0.5, and then loading the disk across
its diameter until tensile failure occurred. The sample preparation
and loading were performed according to SL264-2001 testing stan-
dards [3]. The average saturation tensile strength for limestone
was determined to be 7.60 MPa with a 0.24 coefficient of variation.
The mean saturation tensile strength obtained for argillaceous
dolomite was 5.82 MPa with a 0.20 coefficient of variation.
4.1.3. Uniaxial compressive strength
All uniaxial compressive strength testing was performed with
axial strain measurement following SL264-2001 testing standards
[3]. Samples were tested in a servo-controlled load frame, using
50 mm diameter core with a length/diameter (l/d) ratio of 2.0
and applying a vertical load at a constant rate of 0.5–1.0 MPa/s, un-
til failure occurred. The average saturation compressive strengths
of 58.4 MPa and 152.0 MPa with 0.19 and 0.07 coefficient of
variations were obtained for limestone in the vertical and horizon-
tal directions, respectively. The mean saturation compressive
strengths of 51.0 MPa and 87.8 MPa with 0.50 and 1.03 coefficient
of variations were obtained for argillaceous dolomite in the vertical
and horizontal directions, respectively. The average Poisson’s ratios
of 0.27 with a 0.04 coefficient of variation and 0.29 with a 0.33
coefficient of variation were obtained for limestone and argilla-
ceous dolomite, respectively. The compressive strengths of the
two rock types reveal that the intact material of limestone is stron-
ger than argillaceous dolomite and both rock types are affected by
the bedding planes.
4.2. Shear strength of discontinuities
Although determining the discontinuity shear strength using
in situ test method is time consuming and expensive, the reliability
of the results of these tests is high and can reflect real geological
characteristics of discontinuities. Therefore, eight in situ shear
tests were conducted on the natural bedding planes at test tunnels
at the right and left abutments of the dam. The sample preparation
and testing were performed according to SL264-2001 testing stan-
dards [3]. The selected sample size was around 50  50 cm with a
height of 20–35 cm above the shear plane. Samples were then con-
creted by high-grade cement mortar. Curing time applied for the
cement mortar was approximately 14 days, and after which the
normal load was applied and increased to the value chosen for
the test. Fig. 4 shows a photograph of the performed in situ shear
tests. The tests were performed for natural bedding of limestone
by applying five normal stresses (Fig. 5), namely, 0.4 MPa,
0.63 MPa, 1.01 MPa, 1.30 MPa and 1.82 MPa in the test tunnel of
the left bank and 0.31 MPa, 0.56 MPa, 0.64 MPa, 0.94 MPa and
1.20 MPa in the test tunnel of the right bank, respectively. The tests
were also performed for natural bedding of argillaceous dolomite
 Kulatilake PHSW et al. / Computers and Geotechnics 38 (2011) 846–860 849

(a) Scanline A (T2sh)

(b) Scanline D (T2sh)

Fig. 2. Contour plots of dominant discontinuity sets on a lower hemispherical equal area projection for different scanline data in T2sh rock mass: (a) scanline A, (b) scanline D,
(c) scanline F, and (d) scanline G.

by applying four normal stresses (Fig. 6). The normal load was
maintained constant while increasing the shear load. During test-
ing, normal load, shear load and shear displacement were re-
corded. Once each test was completed, shear plane area, shear
direction, bedding plane waviness and properties of discontinuity
were measured and recorded.
Figs. 5 and 6 show the results of discontinuity shear tests
conducted for natural bedding planes of two different rock types
at the left and right banks, respectively. The same figures also show
fittings obtained by applying Jaeger’s equation [4], Barton’s
equation [5] and Ladanyi and Archambault’s equation [6] for the
in situ shear test data. Based on the field survey results, JRC values
of 8 and 11 were estimated for bedding planes of the limestone at
the left and right abutments, respectively to apply Barton’s
equation. For bedding planes of argillaceous dolomite at the right
abutment, JRC of 10 was estimated to apply Barton’s equation. Joint
compressive strengths of 46.7 MPa for limestone and 40.8 MPa for
argillaceous dolomite were estimated for bedding planes to apply
850 Kulatilake PHSW et al. / Computers and Geotechnics 38 (2011) 846–860

(c) Scanline F (T2sh)

(d) Scanline G (T2sh)

Fig. 2 (continued)

Barton’s and Ladanyi and Archambault’s equations. Roughness an-
gles of 15° and 12° were estimated for the bedding planes of lime-
stone and argillaceous dolomite, respectively to apply Ladanyi and
Archambault’s equation. For natural bedding planes of limestone
and argillaceous dolomite, Jaeger’s equation provided the best fits
for all in situ shear test results. The laboratory test results obtained
for the natural bedding planes of limestone and argillaceous dolo-
mite on 10  10 cm samples are also shown in Figs. 5 and 6. Each
plot shows that the laboratory shear strength of natural bedding
planes is higher than that of the in situ discontinuity shear
strength. This observation clearly confirms the well known scale
effect associated with shear strength of rough discontinuities. Basic
friction angles of 27° on the right bank and 28° on the left bank
were obtained for limestone by fitting Mohr–Coulomb criterion
for shear test results of saw cut samples conducted in the labora-
tory. For argillaceous dolomite, the same procedure led to a basic
friction angle of 23°. To be on the conservative side, friction angles
of 25° and 20° were used for discontinuities of T2sh (limestone) and
T3-2
2s (argillaceous dolomite) rock types, respectively, to evaluate the
rock slope stability in the dam site region.
 Kulatilake PHSW et al. / Computers and Geotechnics 38 (2011) 846–860 851

(a) Scanline B (T2s3-2)

(b) Scanline E (T2s3-2)

Fig. 3. Contour plots of dominant discontinuity sets on a lower hemispherical equal area projection for different scanline data in T3-2
2s rock mass: (a) scanline B and
(b) scanline E.

5. Kinematic analyses
5.1. Introduction
‘‘Kinematic’’ refers to the motion of bodies without reference
to the forces that cause them to move [7]. Kinematic analyses
are very useful to investigate possible failure modes of rock
masses and to determine maximum safe slope angle (MSSA).
Numerous studies have been performed to determine slope fail-
ure modes [8–12] and to evaluate slope stability [13–22] utilizing
stereographic projection technique. For the area investigated in
this study, kinematic analysis was performed to estimate the
MSSA with respect to the three basic failure modes: plane sliding,
wedge sliding and toppling, under only gravitational loading for
different slope dip directions by selecting five dominant disconti-
nuity sets for each region. The concepts related to estimation
of MSSA for the three basic failure modes are discussed by
Goodman [7].
852 Kulatilake PHSW et al. / Computers and Geotechnics 38 (2011) 846–860

Table 2
Selected five mean discontinuity orientations for each scanline orientation data.

Scanline A D F G B E
Rock mass type T2sh T2sh T2sh T2sh T3-2
2s T3-2
2s
Total number of 157 180 47 42 273 63
discontinuities
Discontinuity set Mean dip angle/dip Mean dip angle/dip Mean dip angle/dip Mean dip angle/dip Mean dip angle/dip Mean dip angle/dip
dir. (°) dir. (°) dir. (°) dir. (°) dir. (°) dir. (°)
J1 30/70 34/76 32/69 34/61 25/73 28/70
J2 69/294 72/310 71/358 74/302 77/306 85/346
J3 51/266 60/280 75/300 53/204 54/256 82/329
J4 50/232 76/256 49/266 75/316 57/236 64/232
J5 35/170 79/216 52/210 78/83 64/212 80/180

2.4
Ladanyi and Archambault's equation
Barton's equation
2.2 Jaeger's equation
Mohr-Coulomb's equation based on saw cut samples
Friction angle used for analysis
Raw data from field tests
2.0
O Raw data from lab tests

1.8

Shear Stress (MPa)

1.6

1.4

1.2

1.0

0.8

0.6

0.4

0.2
Fig. 4. A photograph of the performed in situ shear tests.
0.0
0.0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1.0 1.2 1.4 1.6 1.8 2.0 2.2 2.4
Normal Stress (MPa)
5.2. Results
(a) Limestone-1 (left bank)
The aforementioned kinematic analyses were performed for
slopes of five regions in the dam site using the dominant disconti- 2.4
Ladanyi and Archambault's equation
nuity sets and applying the computer program KINEM developed Barton's equation
by Um et al. [21] in 1996 to estimate the MSSA with respect to pos- 2.2 Jaeger's equation
Mohr-Coulomb's equation based on saw cut samples
Friction angle used for analysis
sible plane sliding, wedge sliding and toppling for each of the dif- 2.0 Raw data from field tests

ferent regions in the dam site. Note that the discontinuity friction O Raw data from lab tests

angles used for T2sh and T3-22s were 25° and 20°, respectively. Each
1.8
dominant discontinuity set was represented by the mean orienta-
Shear Stress (MPa)

1.6
tion value (Table 2). Different cut slope dip directions were deter-
mined according to the possible slope strikes of the dam site. The 1.4
MSSA determined from kinematic analyses depend on the follow-
1.2
ing factors: (1) dip direction and dip angle of each discontinuity,
(2) cut slope dip direction, (3) discontinuity shear strength, and 1.0
(4) rock type. The effect of most these factors on MSSA is discussed
0.8
in this paper.
As an example, Table 3 shows the MSSA resulting from kine- 0.6
matic analyses, using scanline G discontinuity orientation data gi-
ven in Table 2, for three different failure modes for region R-a of 0.4
the dam site. The results show that final MSSA including and 0.2
excluding topping failure range between 40° and 53° and between
44° and 53°, respectively for cut slope dip directions in the range of 0.0
0.0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1.0 1.2 1.4 1.6 1.8 2.0 2.2 2.4
130–210°.
Similarly, the MSSA for plane sliding, wedge sliding and top- Normal Stress (MPa)
pling failure and the final MSSA for the other four regions were cal- (b) Limestone-1 (right bank)
culated under the gravitational loading, including and excluding
Fig. 5. Raw laboratory and field direct shear test results and fitting of different
toppling failure, selecting appropriate scanline orientation data shear strength criteria for discontinuity shear test results conducted in limestone at
from Table 2 and using the kinematic analysis. Figs. 7 and 8 show the left and right banks: (a) limestone-1 (left bank) and (b) limestone-1 (right
relations between final MSSA and possible cut slope dip direction bank).
 Kulatilake PHSW et al. / Computers and Geotechnics 38 (2011) 846–860 853

Note that the MSSA values given for toppling are based on the
2.4
Ladanyi and Archambault's equation assumption that thin layers exist in the rock mass resulting from
Barton's equation
2.2 Jaeger's equation discontinuities. However, note that only a few thin layers exist in
Mohr-Coulomb's equation based on saw cut samples
Friction angle used for analysis the rock masses of the dam site. Therefore, final MSSA given under
2.0 Raw data from field tests
including toppling in Fig. 8 can be considered to be lower than the
O Raw data from lab tests
1.8 reality. Infinite discontinuity persistence has been considered in
computing MSSA under all three failure modes. Existence of lateral
Shear Stress (MPa)

1.6 release planes has been assumed in the computation of MSSA for
1.4 plane sliding. Therefore, for all three basic failure modes, the re-
sults given in Figs. 7 and 8 can be considered to be on the conser-
1.2 vative side (lower side) due to the aforementioned conservative
assumptions used in the computations.
1.0
Table 4 gives percentage number of discontinuities contributing
0.8 to possible failure under each mode of instability for different slope
regions based on kinematic analysis. Out of the three basic failure
0.6
modes, wedge sliding seems to be the most likely one to occur. The
0.4 second possible mode of instability seems to be plane sliding. Irre-
spective of the slope region, slope dip direction range 270–315°
0.2 seems to provide the worst slope directions for possible instability
0.0 of slopes in the dam site. Highest instability can be expected in the
0.0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1.0 1.2 1.4 1.6 1.8 2.0 2.2 2.4 regions R-c-1 and R-e-2.
Normal Stress (MPa)
(a) Argillaceous dolomite-1
6. Block theory analysis

2.4
6.1. Introduction
Ladanyi and Archambault's equation
2.2 Barton's equation
Jaeger's equation
Mohr-Coulomb's equation based on saw cut samples
Friction angle used for analysis
Block theory analysis is also very useful to investigate possible
2.0 Raw data from field tests failure modes of rock blocks and to determine MSSA for single
O Raw data from field tests and double plane sliding. One of the first tasks in block theory is
1.8
the formation of polyhedral blocks resulting from intersections be-
Shear Stress (MPa)

1.6
1.4
1.2
1.0
0.8
0.6
0.4
0.2
0.0
0.0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1.0 1.2 1.4 1.6 1.8 2.0 2.2 2.4
Normal Stress (MPa)
(b) Argillaceous dolomite-2
Fig. 6. Raw laboratory and field direct shear test results and fitting of different
shear strength criteria for discontinuity shear test results conducted in argillaceous
dolomite at two locations at the right bank: (a) argillaceous dolomite-1 and (b)
argillaceous dolomite-2.
for different slope regions, for the cases including and excluding
toppling failure, respectively. The results given in Figs. 7 and 8
show clearly that: (1) in the case of the same region, the final MSSA
excluding toppling failure is quite similar to that of including top-
pling failure, (2) ignoring the slope region, rock mass type and with
or without toppling failure, the final MSSA range between 30° and
44°, 43° and 49°, 26–63°, and 26–64° for cut slope dip directions of
20–30°, 105–170°, 180–210° and 270–355°, respectively, and (3)
for cut slope dip directions of 20–30°, 200–210° and 275–315°
wide ranges of values have been obtained for the final MSSA and
they reflect the influence of the variability of fracture orientations
arising from different rock mass regions of the dam site on MSSA.
tween rock discontinuities. Shi [23] and Warburton [24] have per-
formed pioneering research on this subject assuming rock
discontinuities to be infinite. Usually, the discontinuities in actual
rock masses are finite. Several researchers later on developed com-
puter algorithms to form polyhedral rock blocks resulting from
intersection of finite size discontinuities [25–29]. Even though
these improved theoretical procedures are available, to make them
practicable for actual rock masses, it is necessary to have a reliable
estimate of discontinuity shape and size in three dimensions.
Unfortunately, because the discontinuities are hidden in the actual
rock masses, it is an extremely difficult task, if not impossible, to
find discontinuity shapes and estimate their three-dimensional
size distributions. Therefore, the block theory used in current prac-
tice is based on infinite size discontinuity assumption. Some stud-
ies have been performed to determine slope failure modes,
calculate MSSA and evaluate slope stability utilizing block theory
with stereographic projection technique [7,9,14,17,20,30–33]. The
main idea behind block theory analysis [9] is that it allows many
different combinations of discontinuities to be passed over and
to directly identify and consider critical bocks known as ‘‘key
blocks’’. Fig. 9 shows five types of blocks in a surface excavation
formed by discontinuities. According to the block theory, first the
block types can be divided into infinite and finite blocks. By the
theorem of finiteness [7], an infinite block must have a non-empty
block pyramid (BP), namely BP = JP \ EP – empty. The excavation
pyramid (EP) means the rock mass side from an excavation surface
on the stereo-plot and it occupies the outside region of the great
circle corresponding to the excavation surface. The space pyramid
(SP), which is the opposite of EP, occupies the inside region of the
great circle corresponding to the excavation surface. The spherical
regions formed on the stereo-plot through the intersection of dis-
continuities are known as joint pyramids (JP). On the contrary,
BP = empty for a finite block. This means there is no common re-
gion for JP and EP and JP is fully within SP. Therefore, by plotting
discontinuity planes and the excavation surface on a stereo-plot
854 Kulatilake PHSW et al. / Computers and Geotechnics 38 (2011) 846–860

Table 3
Maximum safe slope angles for three basic failure modes based on kinematic analysis under different possible cut slope dip directions at R-a region resulting from the mean
Discontinuity set orientations of scanline G data.

Cut dip MSSA for plane sliding MSSA for wedge sliding MSSA for toppling Dominant Mode Final MSSA
dir. (°)
D1 D2 D3 D4 D5 I12 I13 I14 I15 I23 I24 I25 I34 I35 I45 T1 T2 T3 T4 T5 Including Excluding Including Excluding
toppling toppling toppling toppling
130 62 90 78 90 82 90 90 90 90 90 90 90 90 49 90 90 41 90 40 90 T4 I35 40 49
135 68 90 75 90 83 90 90 90 90 90 90 90 90 47 90 90 41 90 40 90 T4 I35 40 47
140 74 90 72 90 83 90 90 90 90 90 90 90 90 46 90 90 42 90 40 90 T4 I35 40 46
145 81 90 69 90 84 90 90 90 90 87 90 90 90 45 90 90 42 90 40 90 T4 I35 40 45
150 89 90 66 90 85 90 90 90 90 83 90 90 90 45 90 90 43 90 40 90 T4 I35 40 45
155 90 90 63 90 86 90 90 90 90 79 90 90 87 44 90 90 90 90 41 90 T4 I35 41 44
160 90 90 62 90 87 90 90 90 90 75 90 90 83 44 90 90 90 90 41 90 T4 I35 41 44
165 90 90 60 90 88 90 90 90 90 71 90 90 78 44 90 90 90 90 42 90 T4 I35 42 44
170 90 90 58 90 89 90 90 90 90 68 90 90 73 45 90 90 90 90 90 90 I35 I35 45 45
200 90 90 53 90 90 90 45 90 90 54 90 90 55 51 90 90 90 90 90 90 I13 I13 45 45
205 90 90 53 90 90 90 55 90 90 53 90 90 53 53 90 90 90 90 90 90 I23/I34/I35/D3 I23/I34/I35/D3 53 53
210 90 90 53 90 90 90 69 90 90 52 88 90 51 56 90 90 90 90 90 90 I34 I34 51 51

Note: Di: For plane sliding along discontinuity i; Iij: For wedge sliding on discontinuities i and j along Iij; Ti: For toppling on discontinuity i.
MSSA: Maximum safe slope angle (°).

65
R-a
60 R-b
R-c-1
R-c-2
55 R-d-1
R-d-2
R-e-1
50
Final MSSA (deg.)

R-e-2

45

40

35

30

25

20
0 40 80 120 160 200 240 280 320 360
Slope dip direction (deg.)

Fig. 7. Relation between maximum safe slope angle (excluding the toppling failure mode) and possible slope dip direction for different slope regions resulted from the
kinematic analyses.

and using the criterion that JP is fully within SP for the finite
blocks, the JPs corresponding to infinite blocks (type V, Fig. 9a)
can be separated from the finite blocks. The finite blocks then
can be categorized into non-removable and removable blocks.
The block belongs to the finite non-removable (tapered) block cat-
egory (type IV, Fig. 9b) if both BP and JP are empty. This means JPs
corresponding to tapered blocks do not show up on the stereo-plot.
Types IV and V block types are stable and they cannot come out
from the rock mass on a surface excavation. The condition for
the finite removable blocks (types I, II and III) is that JP is non-
empty and BP is empty. A type III block, shown in Fig. 9c, is stable
without friction under gravitational loading. A type II block, shown
in Fig. 9d, can remain stable as long as the sliding force on the block
is less than its frictional resistance. Under only gravitation loading,
the type II blocks are stable. However, both types II and III blocks
can come out of the surface excavation if there is an external force
such as water or earthquake force that makes the total sliding force
to be greater than the frictional resistance. Type II blocks have
higher chance of satisfying this instability situation compared to
that of type III blocks. Therefore, type II blocks are called potential
key blocks. Finally, a key block, that is denoted by type I and shown
in Fig. 9e, can slide into free space under gravitational loading
without any external force unless a proper support system is pro-
vided. Therefore, first the identification of key blocks and then the
identification of types II and III blocks are the most important parts
in a block theory analysis. Procedures are given in the literature
along with the assumptions used in block theory to separate these
different block types [9]. Mode analysis allows separation of type
III blocks from types I and II. Under the gravitational loading, all
the JPs corresponding to type III blocks appear inside the reference
circle. Type I blocks can be separated from type II blocks by
performing sliding force analysis. The same analysis can be
used to find the factor of safety. A positive net sliding force or fac-
tor of safety less than one leads to a type I block. A negative net
sliding force or a factor of safety greater than one leads to a type
II block.
 Kulatilake PHSW et al. / Computers and Geotechnics 38 (2011) 846–860 855

65
R-a
R-b
60 R-c-1
R-c-2
55 R-d-1
R-d-2
R-e-1
50
Final MSSA (deg.)
R-e-2

45

40

35

30

25

20
0 40 80 120 160 200 240 280 320 360
Slope dip direction (deg.)

Fig. 8. Relation between maximum safe slope angle (including the toppling failure mode) and possible slope dip direction for different slope regions resulted from the
kinematic analyses.

Table 4
Percentage number of discontinuities contributing to possible failure under each mode of instability for different slope regions based on kinematic analysis.

Region Possible cut slope Scanline data Slope ratio Plane sliding Wedge sliding Topplingl
dip direction range (°) base (vert./hor.)
1:0.84 1:0.58 1:0.36 1:0.84 1:0.58 1:0.36 1:0.84 1:0.58 1:0.36
Slope angle (°) 50° 60° 70° 50° 60° 70° 50° 60° 70°
R-a 130–170a G 0 0–10% 0–10% 10% 10% 10–20% 0–40% 0–40% 0–40%
R-a 200–210b G 0 20% 20% 0–10% 30–40% 40% 0 0 0
R-b 105–115c G 20% 20% 20% 0 10% 10% 20–40% 20–40% 20–40%
R-b 200–210d G 0 20% 20% 0–10% 30–40% 40% 0 0 0
R-b 180–195e G 0 20% 20% 10–20% 20–40% 40% 0 0 0
R-b 285–295f G 0 0 0 10% 10–20% 30% 0–10% 0–10% 0–10%
R-c-1 275–315 B 0 0–20% 20–40% 0 0–40% 30–60% 0 0 0
R-c-2 275–315 D 0 0–20% 0–20% 0–10% 10–40% 20–50% 0 0 0
R-d-1 20–30g E 20% 20% 20% 20–30% 20–30% 20–30% 20–40% 20–40% 20–40%
R-d-1 200–210h E 0 0 20% 0 0–10% 20–40% 0 0 0
R-d-1 285–295i E 0 0 0 10% 10% 40–50% 0 0 0
R-d-2 20–30g F 20% 20% 20% 10% 10% 10% 0% 0% 20%
R-d-2 200–210h F 0 20% 20% 10–20% 40–50% 40–50% 0–20% 0–20% 20%
R-d-2 285–295i F 0 20% 20% 20% 20–30% 30–50% 0 0 0
R-e-1 315–355j F 0 0 0–20% 10–20% 20–30% 30% 0 0 0
R-e-2 270–310k A 0 0–40% 20–60% 0–10% 10–50% 20–50% 0 0 0
a
NW slope of dam downstream in Region a.
b
NNE slope of dam downstream in Region a.
c
West slope of dam abutment in Region b.
d
North slope of dam abutment in Region b.
e
North slope of dam upstream in Region b.
f
East slope of dam abutment in Region b.
g
South-west slopes of dam abutment in Regions d-1 and d-2.
h
North-east slopes of dam abutment in Regions d-1 and d-2.
i
South-east slopes of dam abutment in Regions d-1 and d-2.
j
SSE slope of dam downstream in Region e-1.
k
E-SE slope of dam downstream in Region a.
l
The values given for toppling are based on the assumption that thin layers exist on the rock mass resulting from discontinuities. However, please note that only a few thin
layers exist for steep discontinuities in the considered rock masses.

6.2. Results
Block theory analysis were conducted for slopes of five regions
in the dam site using five mean discontinuity orientations for each
site (Table 2) and applying the computer programs developed by
Kulatilake and Um [20,33]. The aim of analyses was to determine
failure modes, calculate factor of safety and to calculate MSSA cor-
responding to types I and II blocks with respect to possible single
plane sliding and double plane sliding for each of the different re-
gions in the dam site. Each mean discontinuity orientation was
treated as a single feature. Different cut slope dip directions were
determined according to possible slope strikes of the dam site.
856 Kulatilake PHSW et al. / Computers and Geotechnics 38 (2011) 846–860

Fig. 9. Types of blocks in a surface cut (a) infinite (type V block), (b) tapered (type IV block), (c) stable (type III block), (d) potential key block (type II block), and (e) key block
(type I block).

Table 5
Final failure modes and corresponding MSSA for different slope dip directions at R-a region for single and double plane sliding in the dam site resulted from block theory analysis.

Cut slope dip Discontinuity Key block JP code (sliding Potential key block JP code Type III block Case Final Key block JP code (sliding
dir. (°) combination mode, MSSA) (sliding mode) JP code MSSA MSSA mode, safety factor)
130 J1, J2, J3, J4 0101 (S13) 0001, 0100 90 49
J1, J2, J3, J5 1100 (S35, 49) 0100 (S13) 0101, 0000 49 1100 (S35, 0.75)
(m)
J1, J3, J4, J5 1010 (S35, 49) 0010 (S13) 0011, 0000 49 1010 (S35, 0.75)
(m)
J2, J3, J4, J5 1010 (S35, 49) 0010, 1000, 49 1010 (S35, 0.75)
0000 (m)
J1, J2, J4, J5 0011, 0010, 90
0111
135 J1, J2, J3, J4 0101 (S13) 0001, 0100 90 47
J1, J2, J3, J5 1100 (S35, 47) 0100 (S13) 0101, 0000 47 1100 (S35, 0.75)
(m)
J1, J3, J4, J5 1010 (S35, 47) 0010 (S13) 0011, 0000 47 1010 (S35, 0.75)
(m)
J2, J3, J4, J5 1010 (S35, 47) 0010, 1000, 47 1010 (S35, 0.75)
0000 (m)
J1, J2, J4, J5 0011, 0010, 90
0111
140 J1, J2, J3, J4 0101 (S13) 0001, 0100 90 46
J1, J2, J3, J5 1100 (S35, 46) 0100 (S13) 0101, 0000 46 1100 (S35, 0.75)
(m)
J1, J3, J4, J5 1010 (S35, 46) 0010 (S13) 0011, 0000 46 1010 (S35, 0.75)
(m)
J2, J3, J4, J5 1010 (S35, 46) 0010, 1000, 46 1010 (S35, 0.75)
0000 (m)
J1, J2, J4, J5 0011, 0010, 90
0111
145 J1, J2, J3, J4 1101 (S3, 87) 0101 (S13) 0001, 0100 87 45 1101 (S3, 0.35)
J1, J2, J3, J5 1101 (S3, 87), 1100 (S35, 0101, 0000 45 1101 (S3, 0.35), 1100 (S35, 0.75)
45) (m)
J1, J3, J4, J5 1010 (S35, 45) 0010 (S13) 0011, 0000 45 1010 (S35, 0.75)
(m)
J2, J3, J4, J5 1011 (S3, 87), 1010 (S35, 0010, 1000, 45 1011 (S3, 0.35), 1010 (S35, 0.75)
45) 0000 (m)
J1, J2, J4, J5 0011, 0010, 90
0111
150 J1, J2, J3, J4 1101 (S3, 83) 0101 (S13) 0001, 0100 83 45 1101 (S3, 0.35)
J1, J2, J3, J5 1101 (S3, 83), 1100 (S35, 0101, 0000 45 1101 (S3, 0.35), 1100 (S35, 0.75)
45) (m)
J1, J3, J4, J5 1010 (S35, 45) 0010 (S13) 0011, 0000 45 1010 (S35, 0.75)
(m)
J2, J3, J4, J5 1011 (S3, 83), 1010 (S35, 0010, 1000, 45 1011 (S3, 0.35), 1010 (S35, 0.75)
45) 0000 (m)
J1, J2, J4, J5 0011, 0010, 90
0111
 Kulatilake PHSW et al. / Computers and Geotechnics 38 (2011) 846–860 857

155 J1, J2, J3, J4 1001 (S23, 87), 1101 (S3, 0001, 0100 79 44 1001 (S23, 0.51), 1101 (S3, 0.35)
79)
J1, J2, J3, J5 1101 (S3, 79), 1100 (S35, 0101, 0000 44 1101 (S3, 0.35), 1100 (S35, 0.75)
44) (m)
J1, J3, J4, J5 1011 (S3, 87), 1010 (S35, 0011, 0000 44 1011 (S3, 0.35), 1010 (S35, 0.75)
44) (m)
J2, J3, J4, J5 0011 (S23, 87), 1011 (S3, 0010, 1000, 79 0011 (S23, 0.51), 1011 (S3, 0.35)
79) 0000 (m)
J1, J2, J4, J5 0011, 0010, 90
0111
160 J1, J2, J3, J4 1001 (S23, 83), 1101 (S3, 0001, 0100 75 44 1001 (S23, 0.51), 1101 (S3, 0.35)
75)
J1, J2, J3, J5 1101 (S3, 75), 1100 (S35, 0101, 0000 44 1101 (S3, 0.35), 1100 (S35, 0.75)
44) (46.5) (m)
J1, J3, J4, J5 1011 (S3, 83), 1010 (S35, 0011, 0000 44 1011 (S3, 0.35), 1010 (S35, 0.75)
44) (m)
J2, J3, J4, J5 0011 (S23, 83), 1011 (S3, 0010, 1000, 75 0011 (S23, 0.51), 1011 (S3, 0.35)
75) 0000 (m)
J1, J2, J4, J5 0011, 0010, 90
0111
165 J1, J2, J3, J4 1001 (S23, 78), 1101 (S3, 0001, 0100 71 44 1001 (S23, 0.51), 1101 (S3, 0.35)
71)
J1, J2, J3, J5 1101 (S3, 71), 1100 (S35, 0101, 0000 44 1101 (S3, 0.35), 1100 (S35, 0.75)
44) (m)
J1, J3, J4, J5 1011 (S3, 78), 1010 (S35, 0011, 0000 44 1011 (S3, 0.35), 1010 (S35, 0.75)
44) (m)
J2, J3, J4, J5 0011 (S23, 78), 1011 (S3, 0010, 1000, 71 0011 (S23, 0.51), 1011 (S3, 0.35)
71) 0000 (m)
J1, J2, J4, J5 0011, 0010, 90
0111
170 J1, J2, J3, J4 1001 (S23, 73), 1101 (S3, 0001, 0100 68 45 1001 (S23, 0.51), 1101 (S3, 0.35)
68)
J1, J2, J3, J5 1101 (S3, 68), 1100 (S35, 0101, 0000 45 1101 (S3, 0.35), 1100 (S35, 0.75)
45) (m)
J1, J3, J4, J5 1011 (S3, 73), 1010 (S35, 0011, 0000 45 1011 (S3, 0.35), 1010 (S35, 0.75)
45) (m)
J2, J3, J4, J5 0011 (S23, 73), 1011 (S3, 0010, 1000, 68 0011 (S23, 0.51), 1011 (S3, 0.35)
68) 0000 (m)
J1, J2, J4, J5 0011, 0010, 90
0111
200 J1, J2, J3, J4 1001 (S23, 55), 1101 (S3, 0001, 0100 54 51 1001 (S23, 0.51), 1101 (S3, 0.35)
54)
J1, J2, J3, J5 1101 (S3, 54), 1100 (S35, 0101, 0000 51 1101 (S3, 0.35), 1100 (S35, 0.75)
51) (m)
J1, J3, J4, J5 1011 (S3, 55), 1010 (S35, 0011, 0000 51 1011 (S3, 0.35), 1010 (S35, 0.75)
51) (m)
J2, J3, J4, J5 0011 (S23, 55), 1011 (S3, 0010, 1000, 54 0011 (S23, 0.51), 1011 (S3, 0.35)
54) 0000 (m)
J1, J2, J4, J5 0011, 0010, 90
0111
205 J1, J2, J3, J4 1001 (S23, 53), 1101 (S3, 0001, 0100 53 53 1001 (S23, 0.51), 1101 (S3, 0.35)
55)
J1, J2, J3, J5 1101 (S3, 53), 1100 (S35, 0101, 0000 53 1101 (S3, 0.35), 1100 (S35, 0.75)
53) (m)
J1, J3, J4, J5 1011 (S3, 53), 1010 (S35, 0011, 0000 53 1011 (S3, 0.35), 1010 (S35, 0.75)
53) (m)
J2, J3, J4, J5 0011 (S23, 53), 1011 (S3, 0010, 1000, 53 0011 (S23, 0.51), 1011 (S3, 0.35)
53) 0000 (m)
J1, J2, J4, J5 0011, 0010, 90
0111
210 J1, J2, J3, J4 1001 (S23, 52), 1101 (S3, 0001, 0100 52 52 1001 (S23, 0.51), 1101 (S3, 0.35)
69)
J1, J2, J3, J5 1101 (S3, 56), 1100 (S35, 0101, 0000 56 1101 (S3, 0.35), 1100 (S35, 0.75)
56) (m)
J1, J3, J4, J5 1011 (S3, 56), 1010 (S35, 0011, 0000 56 1011 (S3, 0.35), 1010 (S35, 0.75)
56) (m)
J2, J3, J4, J5 0011 (S23, 52), 1011 (S3, 0010, 1000, 52 0011 (S23, 0.51), 1011 (S3, 0.35)
56) 0000 (m)
J1, J2, J4, J5 1011 (S24, 88) 0011, 0010, 88 1011 (S24, 0.29)
0111

MSSA: maximum safe slope angle (°); Si: sliding on joint plane I; Sij: sliding on joint planes i and j; For J1, J2, J3, J4 and J5, see Table 2; (m): stands for marginal.
858 Kulatilake PHSW et al. / Computers and Geotechnics 38 (2011) 846–860

Fig. 10. Identification of removable blocks and estimation of MSSA for cut slope dip direction 170° of R-a region of the dam site using the stereographic projection technique
on the discontinuity combination J1–J4.

75
R-a
R-b
70
R-c-1
R-c-2
65 R-d-1
R-d-2
60 R-e-1
R-e-2
Final MSSA (deg.)

55

50

45

40

35

30

25
0 40 80 120 160 200 240 280 320 360
Slope dip direction (deg.)

Fig. 11. Relation between maximum safe slope angle and possible slope direction for different slope regions of the dam site resulted from the block theory analysis.

Similar to kinematic analysis, the effect of these factors, orientation
of discontinuities, cut slope dip direction and rock type on MSSA is
discussed in the paper.
Note that block theory analysis results for each slope region are
based on selected five mean discontinuity orientations (Table 2)
and are performed by making five calculations taking four discon-
tinuities at a time (Table 5). Fig. 10 shows identification of remov-
able blocks for the cut slope dip direction 170° for R-a region of the
dam site under the gravitational loading using the stereographic
projection technique on the discontinuity combination J1, J2, J3,
J4. If the dip angle of the cut slope is steeper than 73°, the JPs
1001, 1101 and 0001 correspond to removable blocks. Out of these
three JPs, 1001 and 1101 correspond to key blocks. JP 0001 corre-
sponds to a type III block. If the cut slope is reduced to at an angle
less than 73°, JP 1001 no longer leads to a key block and corre-
sponds to an infinite block. If the cut slope is reduced further to
an angle less than 68°, similarly, JP 1101 corresponds to an infinite
block. Therefore, the MSSA of JPs 1001 and 1101 are 73° and 68°,
respectively. Their corresponding sliding modes are S23 and S3,
respectively. Therefore, the governing sliding mode and MSSA are
S3 and 68°, respectively for the discontinuity combination J1, J2,
J3, J4 when the cut slope dip direction is 170°. Similar results for
the other four discontinuity combinations under the cut slope
dip direction of 170° are given in Table 5. Thus, the final MSSA
for cut slope dip direction of 170° can be given as the minimum va-
lue resulting from the MSSA obtained for all the five discontinuity
combinations. The same final result could have been obtained for
cut slope dip direction of 170° either by considering 10 combina-
tions of three discontinuities or just one combination of all five dis-
continuities. The number of regions or JPs appearing on the
stereographic projection, NR, is linked to the number of discontinu-
ity planes, n, through the equation NR = n(n  1) + 2. This means NR
becomes 8, 14 and 22 corresponding to n values of 3, 4 and 5,
respectively. As n increases, the clarity of the stereographic plot
 Kulatilake PHSW et al. / Computers and Geotechnics 38 (2011) 846–860
reduces and the analysis becomes tedious. When n = 3, the block is
a tetrahedron formed by three discontinuity planes and one exca-
vation plane. As the number of planes increases, the block becomes
more complicated with a higher number of planes and the required
computations become lengthy and need careful tracking. There-
fore, n = 4 was used to have a compromise between the number
of calculations and the complexity of each calculation. Table 5
shows the final failure modes and corresponding final MSSA ob-
tained for different slope dip directions of the R-a region of the
dam site. The results show clearly that the final MSSA for R-a re-
gion is equal to or greater than 44°.
Similarly, the final MSSA for the other regions of the dam site
were calculated using the block theory analysis. Fig. 11 shows
the relation between MSSA and possible slope direction for differ-
ent slope regions of the dam site resulted from the block theory
analyses. The results given in Fig. 11 shows that (1) ignoring the
slope region and rock mass type, the final MSSA range between
30° and 47°, 44° and 70°, 47° and 69° for cut slope dip directions
of 20–30°, 105–210°, and 270–355°, respectively, (2) for cut slope
dip directions of 20–30°, 200–210° and 275–315° wide ranges of
values have been obtained for the final MSSA and they reflect the
influence of the variability of fracture orientations arising from dif-
ferent rock mass regions of the dam site on MSSA, and (3) apart
from the region R-d-1 for slope dip directions in the range
20–30°, rest of the rock mass regions at the dam site seem to be
stable for slope angles less than 40°.
7. Comparison between the results of kinematic and block
theory analyses
The following two requirements need to be satisfied to have
plane failure in the kinematic analysis under gravitational loading:
(a) discontinuity plane should daylight on the excavation plane,
and (b) dip angle of the discontinuity plane should be higher than
the friction angle of the discontinuity. In the kinematic analysis, for
wedge failure to occur under gravitational loading, the following
two requirements should be satisfied: (a) the line of intersection
of the two discontinuity planes should daylight on the excavation
plane and (b) the plunge angle of the line of intersection should be
greater than the friction angle of the discontinuity plane. In the
block theory, for plane and wedge failures to occur, in addition to
satisfying the aforementioned requirements, it is necessary to have
finite removable blocks formed from the discontinuity planes. In
the kinematic analysis, presence of lateral release planes is as-
sumed in considering possible plane sliding. However, under the
block theory, for plane failure to happen under the gravitational
loading, the lateral release planes should exist in the rock mass
for block formation and the block needs to be of type I category.
Due to the aforementioned reasons, even though the plane and
wedge failures cannot take place with types IV and V blocks under
block theory, they can occur under the kinematic analysis. There-
fore, the number of plane and wedge sliding situations given by
kinematic analysis would be always higher than that given by
block theory. It is important to note that MSSA corresponding to
types IV and V blocks under the block theory can be considered
as 90° because they cannot provide removable blocks leading to
failure. On the other hand, under the kinematic analysis, the same
two block types can give rise to MSSA less than 90°. Therefore, sin-
gle and double plane sliding situations given by block theory
would be much closer to the reality than that resulting from kine-
matic analysis. According to the aforementioned discussion, intui-
tively, it is possible to say that when the same discontinuity
combinations and same slope dip direction are used, final MSSA
obtained from block theory should be always either equal or higher
than that obtained from kinematic analysis. The following compar-
859
isons made from the values appearing in Figs. 7 and 11 show evi-
dence or strong support for the aforementioned intuitive
statement: (a) For region R-a, for slope dip direction 200°, MSSA
resulting from block theory is 6° higher than that obtained from
kinematic analysis; (b) For region R-b, for slope dip directions
105–115°, ranges for MSSA are 53–59° and 43–49°, respectively
from block theory and kinematic analyses; (c) For region R-c-1,
for slope dip direction 315°, MSSA resulting from block theory is
9° higher than that obtained from kinematic analysis; (d) For
region R-c-2, for slope dip directions 275–315°, ranges for MSSA
are 60–63° and 29–60°, respectively from block theory and kine-
matic analyses; (e) For region R-d-1, for slope dip directions
200–210°, ranges for MSSA are 66–70° and 56–62°, respectively
from block theory and kinematic analyses; (f) For region R-d-1,
for slope dip directions 285–295°, ranges for MSSA are 61–63°
and 45–48°, respectively from block theory and kinematic analy-
ses; (g) For region R-d-2, for slope dip directions 20–30°, ranges
for MSSA are 41–47° and 39–44°, respectively from block theory
and kinematic analyses; (h) For region R-d-2, for slope dip direc-
tions 200–210°, ranges for MSSA are 52–54° and 36–42°, respec-
tively from block theory and kinematic analyses; (i) For region R-
d-2, for slope dip directions 285–295°, MSSA resulting from block
theory is 21–22° higher than that obtained from kinematic analy-
sis; (j) For region R-e-1, for slope dip directions 315–355°, ranges
for MSSA are 50–69° and 26–36°, respectively from block theory
and kinematic analyses; (k) For region R-e-2, for slope dip direc-
tions 270–310°, ranges for MSSA are 50–69° and 35–56°, respec-
tively from block theory and kinematic analyses.
8. Conclusions
In this study, the lithological information and rock mass frac-
ture data were obtained through field investigations. For both rock
formations T2sh and T3-2
2s , the obtained orientation plots show exis-
tence of four sub-vertical joint sets and a sub-horizontal bedding
plane. Predominant dip directions of the sub-vertical discontinu-
ities seem to be along SWW, NNW, SSW and NW. Average dip an-
gle of these joints vary between 50° and 90°. Sub-vertical joint sets
exhibit high orientation variability. The bedding plane has an aver-
age dip direction of NEE and dips in the range 25–34°. The dip an-
gle of bedding planes of T2sh rock mass seems slightly steeper than
that of T3-2
2s rock mass. To take into account the discontinuity
orientations on rock slope stability analysis, five most dominant
discontinuity sets were selected from each equal area plot (i.e.
from each scanline) in conducting kinematic and block theory
analyses.
Intact rock physical and mechanical properties were obtained
from laboratory testing. Both laboratory and in situ testing were
conducted to obtain discontinuity shear strength properties. Rock
types in T2sh formation were found to be stronger than that of
T3-2
2s formation. Due to the presence of roughness, natural bedding
planes of both formations T2sh and T3-2 2s showed higher strengths
than that for saw cut samples. For natural bedding planes, in situ
strengths resulted from larger samples turned out to be lower than
the strengths obtained from laboratory tests conducted on smaller
samples. This finding confirmed the well known scale effects asso-
ciated with the shear strength of natural discontinuities arising
due to roughness. Jaeger’s equation provided the best fits for peak
shear strength of natural bedding planes. Basic friction angles of
28° at the left bank and 27° at the right bank were obtained,
respectively for saw cut samples of limestone. A basic friction angle
of 23° was obtained for saw cut samples of argillaceous dolomite.
To be on the conservative side, friction angles of 25° and 20° were
used for limestone and argillaceous dolomite to perform rock slope
kinematic and block theory analyses.
860 Kulatilake PHSW et al. / Computers and Geotechnics 38 (2011) 846–860
Comparisons between kinematic and block theory analyses re-
sults show that final MSSA coming from kinematic analysis are less
than or equal to that coming from block theory analysis. The results
of kinematic analysis can be considered to be conservative than that
of block theory analysis due to the more conservative assumptions
used in the kinematic analysis. The results coming from the block
theory analysis can be considered to be closer to the reality than
that coming from kinematic analysis. Based on the block theory
analysis results, the following conclusions can be made: (1) The fi-
nal MSSA range between 30° and 47°, 44° and 70°, 47° and 69° for
cut slope dip directions of 20–30°, 105–210°, and 270–355°, respec-
tively; (2) For cut slope dip directions of 20–30°, 200–210° and
275–315° wide ranges of values have been obtained for the final
MSSA and they reflect the influence of the variability of fracture ori-
entations arising from different rock mass regions of the dam site
on MSSA; (3) Apart from the region R-d-1 for slope dip directions
in the range 20–30°, rest of the rock mass regions at the dam site
seem to be stable for slope angles less than 40°. Infinite discontinu-
ity persistence has been assumed in both the kinematic and block
theory analyses. Chance of formation of blocks from the discontinu-
ity intersections is higher with infinite persistence compared to
that of finite persistence. Therefore, even the block theory analysis
results can be considered to be on the conservative side. In order to
eliminate this conservatism, it is necessary to develop new proce-
dures for both kinematic and block theory analyses incorporating
a probability distribution for discontinuity size of each discontinu-
ity set. Unfortunately, because the rock discontinuities are hidden
in the actual rock masses, at present, out of all the discontinuity
geometry parameters, the highest uncertainty exists in the estima-
tion of finite discontinuity size. Therefore, incorporation of realistic
finite discontinuity size in kinematic and block theory analyses can
be considered as a giant step in improving both these analyses in
the future. Note that all the aforementioned conclusions are valid
only under the gravitational loading.
Acknowledgments
The work was funded by the National Basic Research Program of
China (973 Program; No. 2011CB710600), the Special Fund for
Basic Scientific Research of Central Colleges, China University of
Geosciences, Wuhan (CUG090104) and the National Natural Sci-
ence Youth Foundation Project (No. 40702050).
References
[1] Wathugala DN, Kulatilake PHSW, Wathugala GW, Stephansson O. A general
procedure to correct sampling bias on joint orientation using a vector
approach. Comput Geotech 1990;10:1–31.
[2] Kulatilake PHSW, Um J, Wang M, Escandon RF, Narvaiz J. Stochastic fracture
geometry modeling in 3-D including validations for a part of Arrowhead East
Tunnel site, California, USA. Int J Eng Geol 2003;70(1–2):131–55.
[3] SL264-2001. Specifications for rock tests in water conservancy and
hydroelectric engineering. The Ministry of Water Resources of the People’s
Republic of China; 2001.
[4] Jeager JC. Friction of rocks and stability of rock slopes. Geotechnique 1971;21:
97–134.
[5] Barton NR. Review of a new shear strength criterion for rock joints. Eng Geol
1973;7:287–332.
[6] Ladanyi B, Archambault G. Simulation of shear behavior of a jointed rock mass.
In: Proc 11th symposium on rock mechanics, AIME, New York; 1970. p. 105–
25.
[7] Goodman RE. Introduction to rock mechanics. 2nd ed. New York: Wiley; 1989.
[8] Goodman RE. Methods of geological engineering in discontinuous rocks. San
Francisco: West Publishing; 1976.
[9] Goodman RE, Shi GH. Block theory and its application to rock engineering. New
Jersey: Prentice-Hall; 1985.
[10] Hocking GA. Method for distinguishing between single and double plane
sliding of tetrahedral wedges. Int J Rock Mech Min Sci 1976;13:225–6.
[11] Markland JT. A useful technique for estimating the stability of rock slopes
when the rigid wedge sliding type of failure is expected. Imp College Rock
Mech Res Rep 1972;19:10.
[12] Matherson GD. The collection and use of field discontinuity data in rock slope
design. Q J Eng Geol 1988;22:19–30.
[13] Aksoy H, Ercanoglu M. Fuzzified kinematic analysis of discontinuity-controlled
rock slope instabilities. Eng Geol 2007;89:209–19.
[14] Iabichino G, Cravero M, Gardenato M. Monitoring and geomechanical
evaluations at an open pit marble quarry. In: Sri Lankan geotechnical
society’s first international conference on soil and rock engineering,
Colombo, Sri Lanka; 2007. In the CD ROM.
[15] Jeng FS, Chiang KL, Lin ML. Analysis of the kinematic stability of pyramidal
blocks. Int J Rock Mech Min Sci 41(3) [CD-ROM, paper 2A-SINOROCK2004
symposium].
[16] Kenlti B, Topal T. Assessent of rock slope stability for a segment of the Ankara-
Pozanti motoway, Turkey. Eng Geol 2004;74:73–90.
[17] Kulatilake PHSW, Um J, Morin B. Investigation of slope stability for a section of
Phelps Dodge Sierrita Open Pit Mine. Trans Soc Min Metall Explor 2003;314:
177–82.
[18] Leung CF, Kheok SC. Computer aided analysis of rock slope stability. Rock Mech
Rock Eng 1987;20:111–22.
[19] Özsan A, Akin M. Engineering geological assessment of the proposed Urus
Dam, Turkey. Eng Geol 2002;66:271–81.
[20] Um J, Kulatilake PHSW. Maximum safe slope angles for proposed permanent
ship-lock slopes of the Three Gorges Dam Site in China based on application of
block theory to major discontinuities. In: Proc 2nd NARMS, Montreal, Canada;
1996. p. 529–36.
[21] Um J, Kulatilake PHSW, Chen J, Teng T. Maximum safe slope angles for ship-
lock slopes of the Three Gorges Dam Site in China based on kinematic analysis
performed on major discontinuities. In: Proc 13th annual meeting of ASSMR,
Knoxville, Tennessee; 1996. p. 267–81.
[22] Yoon WS, Jeong UT, Kim JH. Kinematic analysis for sliding failure of multi-
faced rock slopes. Eng Geol 2002;67:51–6.
[23] Shi Gen-hua. A geometric method of stability analysis of discontinuous rocks.
Sci Sin 1982;XXV(1):125–43.
[24] Warburton PM. Application of a new computer model for reconstructing
blocky block geometry—analysing single block stability and identifying
keystones. In: Proceedings of fifth international congress on rock mechanics,
Melbourne; 1983. p. F225–30.
[25] Lin D, Fairhurst C, Starfield AM. Geometrical identification of three-
dimensional rock block systems using topological techniques. Int J Rock
Mech Min Sci Geomech Abstr 1987;24(6):331–8.
[26] Wang S, Kulatilake PHSW. Linking between joint geometry models and a
distinct element method in three dimensions to perform stress analyses in
rock masses containing finite size joints. Soils Found 1993;33(4):88–98.
[27] Jing L. Block system construction for three-dimensional discrete element
models of fractured rocks. Int J Rock Mech Min Sci 2000;37:645–59.
[28] Lu J. Systematic identification of polyhedral rock blocks with arbitrary joints
and faults. Comput Geotech 2002;29:49–72.
[29] Elmouttie M, Poropat G, Krahenbuhl G. Polyhedral modeling of rock mass
structure. Int J Rock Mech Min Sci 2010;47:544–52.
[30] Ling HI. Recent applications of sliding block theory to geotechnical design. Soil
Dynam Earthq Eng 2001;2:189–97.
[31] Mito Y, Kikuchi K, Hirano I. Stochastic block theory for initial support decision
of large slope. Int J Rock Mech Min Sci 2007;34(3–4). paper no 202.
[32] Ohnishi Y, Nagano K, Fujikawa T. Evaluation of stability of excavated joint rock
mass by block theory. J Geotech Eng JSCE 1985;364(III):209–18.
[33] Um J, Kulatilake PHSW. Kinematic and block theory analyses for shiplock
slopes of the Three Gorges Dam Site in China. Geotech Geol Eng
2001;19:21–42.