See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.

net/publication/357210898

Evaluation of Slope Stability Analysis using Kinematic and Chart Method: A

Case Study

Article in Journal of the Geological Society of India · November 2021

DOI: 10.1007/s12594-021-1877-x

CITATIONS READS

6 537

4 authors:

Rahul Kumar Verma Prateek Sharma

University of Lucknow University of Lucknow
5 PUBLICATIONS 7 CITATIONS 5 PUBLICATIONS 7 CITATIONS

SEE PROFILE SEE PROFILE

Rajesh Singh Trilok Singh

University of Lucknow Indian Institute of Technology Bombay
62 PUBLICATIONS 2,039 CITATIONS 126 PUBLICATIONS 2,672 CITATIONS

SEE PROFILE SEE PROFILE

All content following this page was uploaded by Rahul Kumar Verma on 04 January 2022.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

JOURNAL GEOLOGICAL SOCIETY OF INDIA
Vol.97, November 2021, pp.1387-1395
Evaluation of Slope Stability Analysis using Kinematic and Chart
Method: A Case Study
Rahul Kumar Verma1, Prateek Sharma1, Rajesh Singh1,* and T. N. Singh2,3
1
Rock Science and Rock Engineering Laboratory, Department of Geology, University of Lucknow, Lucknow - 226 007, India
2
Rock Science and Rock Engineering Laboratory, Department of Earth Sciences, Indian Institute of Technology, Bombay - 400 076, India
3
Mahatma Gandhi Kashi Vidyapith, Varanasi - 221 002, India.
E-mail: getrahul9@gmail.com; prateeksharmarishi@gmail.com; georajeshsingh@lkouinv.ac.in*, georajeshsingh@gmail.com;
tnsingh@iitb.ac.in, tnsiitb@gmail.com
ABSTRACT
The variability and unpredictability of climatic conditions
are adding to the complexity in the prediction of the natural
hazards. The Himalayan region is having a very complex geological
and tectonic setting. Besides, climatic conditions and geological
setting of the area, human encroachment is adding to the
vulnerability of mountain slopes. The landslide, particularly
rockfall, became a big problem for commuters and inhabitants in
the hilly region. The landslides are mostly occurring either in the
summer season or in the rainy season due to the percolation of
water along the jointed weathered rock mass slopes. The
researchers/scientists have investigated various reasons for the
slope failure using conventional methods like kinematic and limit
equilibrium method or using numerical methods like finite
difference method (FDM), finite element method (FEM), discrete
element method (DEM). The numerical methods FEM, FDM, and
DEM has wide application but these are very costly and requires
high end computation system. On the other hand, the conventional
methods, which were used in the present study, is economical and
requires geological experiences only. In the present study, slope
stability analysis was performed for roadcut slopes of National
Highway -109 (NH-109) from Bhowali to Almora (53 km) in the
district of Nainital and Almora, Uttarakhand, India. A total of
fourteen vulnerable locations were identified and their instability
was evaluated. The types of failure were determined using the
kinematic method, stability and classification of the slope were
examined using slope mass rating (SMR). In addition, the chart
method was used to calculate the factor of safety (FoS) for only
wedge type of failure. A new graph has been proposed to find out
vulnerability of slope considering only field-based approach.
INTRODUCTION
The Himalayan trend is NE-SW and its length 2400km and width
varying from 230-320 km. Earth scientists are fascinated by its complex
geological setting, mass movement, erosion, landslide, etc. due to its
complex lithology and tectonic setting (Agarwal, 1994). Landslides
are a recurrent problem throughout most of the Himalaya, where they
cause damage to property, and occasionally result in loss of life. The
region of the Nainital district is full of mountains; the topography
along with the anthropogenic activity has made it susceptible to natural
hazards. The nature of the terrain, rainfall condition, highly weathered
formation, rugged topography, etc. have been combined to produce
extensive landslide and erosion in the area. Rock deformation is very
pronounced phenomenon in all formations which play a very important
role in mass movements (Pande and Pande, 2008; Umrao et al. 2011;
Singh et al. 2014).
Stability is measured on the basis of the balance of shear stress
0016-7622/2021-97-11-1387/$ 1.00 © GEOL. SOC. INDIA | DOI: 10.1007/s12594-021-1877-x
and shear strength. If the resistance force greater than the driving force,
the slope is considered as stable. A factor of safety is calculated by
dividing the resisting force movement by the driving force movement
(Hoek and Bray 1977; Umrao et al. 2011; Singh et al. 2014; Umrao et
al. 2015; Singh et al. 2017). A previously stable slope may be initiated
by preparatory factors, making the slope unstable. The researchers
have investigated various reasons for the slope failure using
conventional methods like kinematic and limit equilibrium method or
using numerical methods like finite difference method (FDM), finite
element method (FEM), discrete element method (DEM). The
numerical methods FEM, FDM, and DEM has wide application but
these are very costly and requires high end computation system. This
study aims to determine the slope instability along National Highway-
109 (NH109) from Bhowali to Almora. The slope instability was
investigated by (1) Kinematic analysis to find out discontinuities
responsible for slope failure and mode of failures, (2) SMR to evaluate
the overall slope characteristics (3) chart method to find out the FoS.
Slopes either natural or excavated by mechanical excavation for
highway construction were studied and analyzed for their potential
instability.
STUDY AREA
The present study area is located in the Nainital and Almora
districts of Uttrakhand state along the Bhowali to Almora road section
(NH-109). The Bhowali is a town in the Nainital district. It lies close
to Ghorakhal, known for Golu Devta temple and Sainik School,
Ghorakhal. Almora is located on a ridge at the southern edge of the
Kumaon hills, at a distance of 363 km (via NH-9) from the national
capital New Delhi. The study area lies between Latitude 29°22'17"
to N 29°30'57" N and Longitude 79°30'39" to E79°31'7" E (Fig.1).
METHODOLOGY
There are several methods to determine slope instability. Few
methods are directly based on the field data and a few require
laboratory and computational facility. The present study was based on
kinematics analysis, slope mass rating (SMR) and chart method.
Kinematic analysis is not only providing the information about the
mode of failure but also considering the friction and cohesion, one
gets the factor of safety as well (Hoek and Bray, 1977).
Kinematic analysis is based on discontinuity attitude, slope attitude
and friction of discontinuity plane. But it only gives the clue about the
mode of failure. The chart method is one step ahead and provides the
FoS for a given mode.
Kinematic Analysis (Markland Test, 1972)
Kinematic analysis is basically based on the geometrical
relationship of the discontinuities present in slope mass. The

Fig.1. Showing Study Locations
information required for the kinematic analysis can be measured and
estimated easily through field investigations. This method is basically
a geometrical relationship of three parameters namely (1) Slope angle
(SLA) and direction (SLD), (2) Dip amount (DDA) and dip direction
of discontinuity (DDD) or plunge amount (WPA) and plunging
direction (WPD) of the line of intersection in case of wedge (3)friction
angle (φ) along gentler discontinuity (Umrao et al. 2011; Umrao et al.
2015).
For the planar and wedge case, it should be daylight condition
means SLA > DDA/WPA but DDA/WPA > φ. Planar failure was
restricted to 15°deviations of parallelism in the strike directions
(|DDD-SLD| ≤ 15°) in Markland’s test whereas SMR allowed it to
30°. In the present study, criteria |DDD-SLD| ≤ 30° for discontinuity
was considered during the planar failure determination in
Markland’s test.
RMR (Bieniawski, 1989) and SMR (Romana, 1985)
The rock mass rating (RMR) and slope mass rating (SMR) provides
a quite easy and legible standard rating system in which values can be
used either for comparing the slopes characterizes or to design the
support system. Rock mass rating (RMR) is basically the sum of
the rating of six parameters namely rock quality designation (RQD),
intact rock strength (UCS or PLI), discontinuity spacing, conditions,
groundwater condition, and discontinuity orientation (Bieniawski,
1989; Umrao et al. 2015). The first five parameters are common and
the same in the case of the slope, tunnels, and dam but the sixth
parameter discontinuity orientation is differently evaluated in the case
of slope, tunnel, and dam. The sum of rating of the first five rock
quality designation (RQD), intact rock strength (UCS or PLI),
discontinuity spacing, conditions, groundwater condition is termed as
Basic RMR.
Another rating system slope mass rating was proposed by Romana
(1985). The proposed addition of four-parameter F1, F2, F3, and F4
1388

instead of discontinuity orientation of RMR. The parameters F1, F2
F3, and F4 can be evaluated by Eq.1.
SMR = RMRBasic + (F1. F2. F3) + F4 Eq.1
Where RMRBasic encompasses the sum of the rating of the first
five parameters of RMR, F1 depends on the parallelism of the
strike of joints and slope, F2 incorporates inclination of joints,
F3 incorporates the daylight condition (difference in dip amount of
joint and slope) and F4 refers the adjustment factor for the method
of excavation. Its value was fixed for different method as natural
slopes: F4 = +15, presplitting: F4 = +10, smooth blasting: F4 = +8,
deficient blasting: F4 = –8, normal blasting: F4 =0, and mechanical
excavation: F4 = 0. These values are calculated based on Table 1
proposed by Romana (1985) and modified by Anbalagan et al.
(1992).
Tilt meter (Alejano et al. 2018): Square Slab Samples
Tiltmeter was used to determine the friction angle along
the discontinuity plane using the blocks of the rocks. The block
type samples having natural surface has been used for the
determination of friction angle. The average value of friction angle φ
was considered after performing 3 tests for the same plane. Tiltmeter
instrument (Fig. 2) is self-designed but similar to Alejano et al.
(2018)’s Figure 1a.
φ = (1/3) Σ3i βi Eq.2
where, φ is the friction angle and β is the tilt angle.
Chart Method
The earlier two methods stated are basically empirical methods
and cannot provides information about the factor of safety. The chart
method, again a simple and low-cost method, has the capability of
JOUR.GEOL.SOC.INDIA, VOL.97, NOV. 2021
 

Fig.3. Sketch of Wedge failure

rock and water respectively. H is the total height of the wedge. X, Y, A

 that slope is dry and discontinuity planes non-cohesive i.e cA= cB=0
Fig.2. Tiltmeter: instrument used in measurement of the friction angle
calculating the factor of safety of the wedge type failure. Hoek and
Bray (1977) has explained the chart method in detail and illustrated
the ready to use charts. Figure 3 is showing common wedge type failure.
Key geotechnical parameters affect the movement of potential wedge
are friction angle and plunge amount of line of intersection of wedge
forming joints.
Hoek and Bray (1977) derived an equation (3) which is based on
cohesion and the angle of friction along the discontinuity plane,
discontinuity plane’s attitude, and unit weight of material and water,
to calculate the factor of safety of wedge.
3 γ γ comprising different lithological as well as geotechnical characteristics.
FoS = (c X + cBY) + A – w X tanφA + B – w Y tanφB
γrH A 2γr 2γr
Eq.3
where cA, φA and cB, φB are the cohesive strengths, angles of friction
of planes A and B respectively, γr and γw are the unit weight of the
and B are dimensionless factors and depend upon the geometry of the
wedge. The rapid calculation of the FOS can be checked considering
and γw =0.
Thus, equation 3 simplified as:
FoS = A tanφA + B tanφB Eq.4
The factor A and B depends on the dip and dip directions of wedge
forming discontinuities. The value of factors A and B can be estimated
using simple charts or rigorous mathematical calculations (Hoek and
Bray, 1977). FoS has been calculated using equation considering joints
non-cohesive and dry.
RESULTS AND DISCUSSION
The study comprised of investigations of fourteen slopes
The slopes were nearly steep (75°-90°) and very close to the highway.
During the field investigation, it was observed that joint planes
were the dominating discontinuity planes. However, the lithological
changes were there but planes were mostly coinciding with the
joint set. i.e. joint along the bedding planes but vice-versa is not
true. It was found that joints are a major type of discontinuity. The

Table 1. Values of Adjustment Factors for different Joint Orientations Romana (1985) and modified by Anbalagan et al. (1992)

Case of slope failure Very Favorable Fair Unfavorable Very

favorable unfavorable

P |aj - as|

T |a j - as - 180 | >30° 30°–20° 20°–10° 10°–5° <5°

W | ai - as|

P/W/T F1 0.15 0.4 0.7 0.85 1

P |bj| <20° 20°–30° 30°–35° 35°–45° >45°

W |bi|

P/W F2 0.15 0.4 0.7 0.85 1

T F2 1 1 1 1 1

P |bj - bs| >10° 10°–0° 0° 0° - (-10°) <-10°

W |b i - bs|

T |bj+bs| <110° 110°–120° >120° — —

P/W/T F3 0 -6 -25 -50 -60

P, planar failure; T, toppling failure; W, wedge failure; as, slope strike; aj, joint strike; ai, plunge direction
ofline of intersection; bs, slope dip; bj, joint dip; bi, plunge of line of intersection.

JOUR.GEOL.SOC.INDIA, VOL.97, NOV. 2021 1389

  

 

 

Fig.4. (a-h). Field photographs showing discontinuities present in slope mass (D21-D28) and showing retaining wall failure.

1390 JOUR.GEOL.SOC.INDIA, VOL.97, NOV. 2021

   

 


o 

Fig.4(i-p). Field photographs showing discontinuities present in slope

p 
mass (D29-D35) and showing retaining wall failure.

JOUR.GEOL.SOC.INDIA, VOL.97, NOV. 2021 1391

 




(A) D22 (B) D23  (C) D24

(D) (E) D27 (F) D28

 D26 


(G) D29 (H) D31 (I) D33

Fig.5. Showing the geometrical Relationship

of joints, slope and fiction angle using
(J) D34 (K) D35 Stereographic Projection

1392 JOUR.GEOL.SOC.INDIA, VOL.97, NOV. 2021

 Table 2. Field measured parameters and calculated Rock Mass Rating (RMR) at different Locations
Locations D21 D22 D23 D24 D25 D26 D27 D28 D29 D31 D32 D33 D34 D35

Rock Types Quart- Quart- Phyllite Quart- Quart- Phyllite Phyllite Phyllite Phyllite Quart- Quart- Quart- Quar- Phyllite
zite zite zite zite zite zite zite zite

Value 42.32 50.82 51.39 73.01 120.49 23.49 41.07 23.27 36.94 105.75 60.31 62.37 51.39 37.09
UCS Rating
Rating 4 7 7 7 12 2 4 2 4 12 7 7 7 4

Value 36.75 78.70 75.71 97.46 58.90 18.08 66.6 68.73 100 85.58 27 81.14 16 100
RQD Rating
Rating 8 17 17 20 13 3 13 13 20 17 8 17 3 20

Joint Spacing J1 22cm/15 23cm/15 17cm/8 80cm/15 47cm/10 4cm/5 15cm/8 18cm/8 1m/15 65cm/15 10cm/8 18cm/8 10cm/8 1m/15
Rating (Value in J2 13cm/8 3cm/5 29cm/10 40cm/10 8cm/8 10cm/8 25cm/10 27cm/10 1m/15 18cm/8 15cm/8 27cm/10 10cm/8 1m/15
centimeter and J3 6-8cm/8 4-6cm/5 60cm/10 64cm/15 53cm/5 37cm/5 25cm/10 21cm/10 1m/15 55cm/10 10cm/8 1m/15 10cm/8 1m/15
meter/Rating) J4 60cm/10

J1 25 28 27 22 24 25 25 28 22 28 22 27 25 19
Joint condition J2 28 27 24 24 24 25 25 22 25 23 22 25 22 19
rating J3 23 28 18 22 24 27 22 24 25 27 24 28 25 19
J4 24

GW Rating 15 15 15 15 15 15 15 15 15 15 15 15 15 15

J1 67 82 74 79 74 50 65 66 76 87 60 74 58 73
RMR basic J2 59 71 73 76 72 53 67 62 79 75 60 74 55 73
J3 58 72 67 79 69 52 64 64 79 81 62 82 58 73
J4 73

Good Good Good Good Good Fair Good Good Good Very Fair Good Fair Good
Description rock rock rock rock rock rock rock rock rock Good rock rock rock rock
rock

Table 3. SMR Calculation

Locations Joints RMR Slope Friction Dip/ F1 F2 F3 F4 SMR Class / Stability

Orientation Angle Direction

J1 36° 33°/340°

D21 J2 58 68°/296° 78°/140° Stable

J3 74°/040°

D22 P(J2) 12°/284° 0.85 0.15 -60 0 63.35 II/Stable

71 70°/290° 38°
Wedge(J1&J3) 53°/267° 0.40 1.00 -60 0 47 III/Partial Stable

D23 Wedge(J1&J4) 67 70°/290° 40° 43°/284° 0.85 0.85 -60 0 23.65 IV/ Unstable

D24 Wedge(J2&J3) 76 85°/215° 34° 37°/236° 0.40 0.85 -60 +15 70.6 II/Stable

J1 38° 82°/015°

D25 J2 72°/270° 87°/125° Stable

J3 69 24°/210°

T(J3) 29°/010° 1.00 1.0 -25 0 25

D26 50 71°/186° 34° IV/Unstable
Wedge(J1&J2) 36°/172° 0.70 0.40 -60 0 33.2

D27 Wedge(J1&J2) 64 70°/175° 33° 53°/176° 1.00 1.0 -60 0 4 V/Completely Unstable

P(J1) 54°/255° 0.40 1.00 -60 +15 53 III/Partially Stable

D28 62 80°/235° 34°
Wedge(J1&J2) 54°/249° 0.70 1.00 -60 +15 35 IV/Unstable

D29 Wedge(J1&J2) 76 77°/230° 33° 60°/252° 0.40 1.00 -60 0 52 III/Partially Stable

D31 Wedge(J1&J2) 75 85°/350° 33° 61°/013° 0.40 1.00 -60 0 51 III/Partial Stable

J1 33° 80°/176°

D32 J2 60°/50° 68°/072° Stable

J3 60 16°/252°

D33 P(J1) 34° 58°/325° 0.85 1.00 -60 0 23 IV/Unstable

80°/320°
Wedge(J1&J3) 74 33°/031° 0.15 0.70 -60 0 67.7 II/stable

D34 Wedge(J1&J2) 55 75°/75° 34° 56°/77° 1.00 1.0 -60 0 0 V/Completely Unstable

P(J1) 33° 65°/310° 1.0 1.00 -50 0 23 IV/Unstable

D35 T(J3) 70°/310° 13°/115° 0.15 1.00 0 0 73 II/Stable

Wedge(J1&J2) 73 64°/294° 0.70 1.00 -50 0 38 IV/Unstable

JOUR.GEOL.SOC.INDIA, VOL.97, NOV. 2021 1393



Fig.6. Estimation of Factor A and B using chart (A) Dip amount
difference of planes =10, Location D23, D29, D35, D34. (B) Dip
amount difference of planes =20, Location D22, D26, D27, D31 (B)
Dip amount difference of planes =30, Location D28.
foliation or bedding planes rarely make discontinuity within the slope
mass. The friction angle of the discontinuity was estimated using the
tilt-meter (Fig.2). Most of the rocks are jointed and three to four sets
of joints are noticed intersecting at different angles. Figure 4 is field
photographs showing vulnerable locations. At some locations, surfaces
of the failed wedges were easily recognizable (Figs. 4 c, j, l, m). It was
observed that the retaining wall has failed due to continuous chipping
of the rock fragments from the slope (Figs. 4 o, p). Kinematic analysis,
which is purely geometric, examines which modes of slope failure are
possible in a jointed rock mass. Angular relationships between
discontinuities and slope surfaces are applied to determine the potential
modes of failures. During the field visit, maximum field information
has been recorded. The collected field data discontinuity plane: spacing,
persistence, aperture, roughness, filling, weathering condition; slope;
angle, direction, height, width; Schmidt Rebound Hammer values,
rock types, traffic on the road, etc have been measured/observed for
every vulnerable slope. Firstly RMRbasic was estimated for all fourteen
slopes and Schmidt Rebound Hammer values were considered in the
estimation of the strength rating of slope material. The field measured
1394
Fig.7. Estimation of slope condition using FoS and SMR.
value of each parameter with the corresponding rating used in the
calculation of basic RMR is tabulated in Table 2. The plot of
discontinuities, slope and friction angle in stereographic projection
at different locations of area are shown in Fig.5 with their conditions.
Based on the SMR and kinematic, out of fourteen locations, four
locations were found stable and ten locations were unstable. Two
locations were found completely unstable. Markland’s test, RMRBasic
and SMR is summarized in Table 3.
From Markland’s Test and as well as field scenario, it was observed
that wedge was formed at eleven locations out of fourteen. The FOS
was calculated for all eleven locations using the chart method (Table
4). Charts are given on the basis of the difference in the dip amount of
joints forming a wedge and can be kept in three group i.e.10 difference
(#D23, #D24, #D33, #D29, #D34, #D35), 20 difference (#D22, #D26,
#D27, #D31), 30 difference (#D28). Figure 6 shows the estimation of
factor A and B using the respective charts. Since the wedge is formed
in the same type of rock, the friction angle was considered for the
same for both planes as estimated from the tilt meter (Fig.2). Hoek
and Bray (1977) stated that FoS calculated using equation 3 is just
half of the FoS calculated using equation 4 for same slope. So, slope
will only be stable when FoS>2 using equation 4. However, Kliche
(2018) is silent regarding criteria for stable and unstable based on
computed FoS. Wyllie and Mah (2004) used the term partial stable if
1>FoS ≤ 2 and need detailed study. Therefore, as stated that present
study is a field-based approach only and proposing a new graph based
on the relation between SMR (Least values out of wedge, planner
and toppling) and FoS (Fig.7). The slopes were categorized into three
class (1) stable, (2) partially stable and (3) unstable. The slopes under
the unstable category need attention for the support system. The partial
stable slope needs further numerical method either of two methods
showing the vulnerability. The slope under the stable category require
no further study.
The present study scenario has been plotted in the proposed graph
and found that D24 is stable even having FoS less than 2. So, such
kind of slope required a little attention or care during the protection
measures. slope D33 is very interesting in which FoS is nearly 1.5 but
SMR is very low. This is a vulnerable slope and also the same is shown
by the proposed graph. Slope D23, D26, D27, D28, D29, D31, D32,
D33 and D35 were found vulnerable and immediate action is required
for stabilization.
CONCLUSIONS
The slope stability analysis along the national highway from the
JOUR.GEOL.SOC.INDIA, VOL.97, NOV. 2021
 Table 4. Factor of safety at various location using chart method 4. The relationship between SMR values and chart’s FoS has been
Location Joint Joint Wedge Stability estimated in the form of graph to find out slope stability condition
Orientation under quickly.
(in degree) investigation 5. Based on field observations and Analysis, Fine wire meshing
D22 J1 56°/241° Wedge Unstable
with rock bolting will be helpful to mitigate the rockfall occurring
J2 12°/284° (J1&J3) at the vulnerable locations.
J3 70°/328° FS=0.741
Acknowledgements: The authors are thankful to Head, Department
D23 J1 56°/232° Wedge Critical
of Geology for valuable suggestions and encouragements. The authors
J2 55°/165° (J1&J4) or unstable
J3 60°/063° FS=1.12 condition
are also thankful Expert Committee’s members of DST-NRDMS for
J4 54°/332° their suggestions. This research is supported by DST NRDMS under
the Grant No. NRDMS/02/64/017.
D24 J1 40°/010° Wedge Critical
J2 70°/310° (J2&J3) or unstable
J3 62°/170° FS=1.675 condition References
D26 J1 62°/105° Wedge Critical Agarwal, K.K. (1994) Tectonic Evolution of The Almora Crystalline Zone,
J2 50°/225° (J1&J2) or unstable Kumaun Lesser Himalaya-A Reinterpretation. Jour. Geol. Soc. India, v.43,
J3 29°/010° FS=1.30 condition pp.5-14.
Alejano, L.R., Muralha, J. and Ulusay, R. et al. (2018) ISRM Suggested Method
D27 J1 55°/200° Wedge Unstable for Determining the Basic Friction Angle of Planar Rock Surfaces by
J2 68°/118° (J1&J2) condition Means of Tilt Tests. Rock Mech. Rock Eng., v.51, pp.3853–3859.
J3 31°/032° FS=0.55 doi:10.1007/s00603-018-1627-6
D28 J1 54°/255° Wedge Unstable Anbalagan, R., Sharma, Sanjeev and Raghuvanshi, T. K. (1992) Rock Mass
J2 82°/170° (J1&J2) Stability Evaluation Using Modified SMR Approach. Proc. 6th Nat. Sym.
J3 52°/095° FS=0.54 on Rock Mech., Bangalore, India, pp.258-268.
Bieniawski, Z.T. (1989) Engineering Rock Mass Classification. Chichester,
D29 J1 60°/263° Wedge Unstable Wiley, London.
J2 68°/205° (J1&J2) Hoek, E. and Bray, J.W. (1977) Rock Slope Engineering. The Institution of
J3 65°/010° FS=0.388 Mining and Metallurgy.
D31 J1 71°/065° Wedge Unstable Kliche, C.A. (2018) Rock slope stability. Society for Mining, Metallurgy &
J2 88°/287° (J1&J2) Exploration.
J3 16°/250° FS=0.875 Markland, J.T. (1972) A Useful Technique for Estimating the Stability of Rock
Slopes when the Rigid Wedge Slide Type of Failure is Expected. Imperial
D33 J1 58°/325° Wedge Critical or College Rock Mechanics Research reprint, no.19.
J2 64°/180° (J1&J3) unstable Pande, R. K. and Pande, N. (2008) Nainital: A landslide town of Uttarakhand
J3 50°/088° FS=1.474 condition (India). Disaster Prevention and Management, v.17(4), pp.478-487. DOI:
D34 J1 65°/030° Wedge Unstable 10.1108/09653560810901728
J2 70°/135° (J1&J2) condition Romana, M. (1985) New Adjustment Ratings for Application of Bieniawski
J3 43°/217° FS=0.703 Classification to Slopes. Proceedings of International Symposium on
the Role of Rock Mechanics. Internat. Soc. Rock Mech., Salzburg,
D35 J1 65°/310° Wedge Unstable pp.49-53.
J2 74°/240° (J1&J2) condition Singh, R., Umrao, R.K. and Singh, T.N. (2014) Stability evaluation of road-
J3 49°/312° FS=0.35 cut slopes in the Lesser Himalaya of Uttarakhand, India: conventional
and numerical approaches. Bulletin of Engineering Geology and the
Environment, v.73, pp.845-857. DOI:10.1007/s10064-013-0532-1.
Bhowali to Almora has been conducted using the basic method and Singh, R., Umrao, R. K., and Singh, T. N. (2017) Hill Slope Stability Analysis
field data. The outcome of the present study is listed below: using Two- and Three-Dimensions Analysis: A Comparative Study. Journal
of the Geological Society of India, v.89(3), pp.229-356. DOI: 10.1007/
1. Three to four set of joints were recognized as the major type of s12594-017-0602-2.
discontinuity and its geotechnical parameters were measured. It Umrao, R. K., Singh, R., Ahmad, M. and Singh, T. N. (2011) Stability Analysis
was found that slopes were vulnerable due to the formation of of Cut Slopes Using Continuous Slope Mass Rating and Kinematic
the wedge. Analysis in Rudraprayag District, Uttarakhand. Geomaterials, v.1,
pp.79-87. DOI: 10.4236/gm.2011.13012
2. The RMRBasic is ranging from 50 to 87 and the estimated value
Umrao, R. K., Singh, R. and Singh, T. N. (2015) Stability evaluation of hill
was least and most at location D26 and location D24, D29 cut slopes along national highway-13 near Hospet, Karnataka, India.
whereas the least value of SMR was found at location D34. Georisk: Assessment and Management of Risk for Engineered Systems
3. Ten out of fourteen locations along the highway is found unstable. and Geohazards, v.9(3), pp.158-170. DOI: 10.1080/17499518.2015.
The location D23, D26, D27, D28, D33, D34, and D35 were 1053494
very vulnerable, and active rockfall is occurring due to the Wyllie, D.C. and Mah, C.W. (2004) Rock Slope Engineering. 4th edition (Hoek
formation of wedges as well as toppling. and Bray), Spon Press.

(Received: 23 May 2020; Revised form accepted: 3 April 2021)

JOUR.GEOL.SOC.INDIA, VOL.97, NOV. 2021 1395

View publication stats