Modeling Earth Systems and Environment

https://doi.org/10.1007/s40808-022-01563-8

ORIGINAL ARTICLE

Modeling rock slope stability using kinematic, limit equilibrium

and finite‑element methods along Mertule Maryam–Mekane Selam
road, central Ethiopia
Addisu Bekele1,2 · Metabie Meten1,3

Received: 17 August 2022 / Accepted: 3 October 2022

© The Author(s), under exclusive licence to Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2022

Abstract
Slope failures are among the most common natural geohazards in the world’s hilly and mountainous terrains causing loss
of life and damage to infrastructures. The road connecting Mertule Maryam and Mekane Selam towns in central Ethiopia
passes through extremely rugged terrain with steep hills and deep valleys/gorges. The purpose of this study is to identify and
model the stability of selected rock slope sections along the road. For this, a detailed field investigation, including discon-
tinuity survey, in situ rock testing, rock sampling, measuring slope geometry, and orientation, were carried out. From field
observations, eight critical rock slope sections were identified for stability modeling using kinematic, limit equilibrium and
finite-element methods. Kinematic modeling, which was performed with dips software, showed wedge and toppling modes
of failures at slope sections RSS1 and RSS4, respectively, while planar mode of failure for RSS5 and RSS7. Moreover, limit
equilibrium method (LEM) and finite-element method (FEM) models were used to determine the factor of safety (FoS) and
the stress reduction factor (SRF), respectively, using Swedge, Rocplane, and Roctopple softwares for wedge, planar, and
toppling failures, respectively. These modeling approaches were conducted for static dry, static saturated, dynamic dry, and
dynamic saturated conditions. The modeling results at these critical rock slope sections showed that these slopes are stable if
FoS/SRF > 1 and unstable if FoS/SRF < 1. The performance of remedial measures at different slope profiles based on LEM
modeling showed that reducing the slope angle, slope height, and benching a slope have improved the overall stability of
rock slopes. Moreover, this study also recommends the application of shotcrete, rock bolts, anchors, and retaining walls to
prevent the failure of the critical rock slope sections along the road.

Keywords Slope stability modeling · Factor of safety · Stress reduction factor · Kinematic method · Limit equilibrium
method · Finite-element method

Introduction

Slope stability modeling is an important tool for design-

ing and constructing steep slopes (Kabeta et al. 2020).
* Metabie Meten There are many geological and geotechnical problems
matebe21@gmail.com throughout the world that caused damages on engineer-
Addisu Bekele ing structures, such as dams, irrigation canals, highways,
addisgeolbhu@gmail.com Ansari et al. (2019) and railroads due to slope failures
(Khandker and Jeffrey 2013). Slope failures commonly
1
Department of Geology, College of Applied Sciences, Addis occur along cut slopes of roads built in the hilly areas
Ababa Science and Technology University, P.O. Box: 16417,
Addis Ababa, Ethiopia of the world causing the loss of life, injury, and signifi-
2
cant property damage each year (Aleotti and Chowdhury
Department of Geology, College of Natural
and Computational Science, Bule Hora University, P.O. Box: 1999). Slope instability issues arise due to man-made and
144, Bule Hora, Ethiopia natural disturbances to the delicate nature of the soil and
3
Mineral Exploration and Exploitation Center of Excellence, rock slopes (Abramson et al. 2002; Tsige et al. 2017).
Addis Ababa Science and Technology University, P.O. Box: This is also caused by a combination of internal and
16417, Addis Ababa, Ethiopia

13
Vol.:(0123456789)

external factors that lower the shear strength or increase
the shear stress of a slope material (Searom 2017; Raghu-
vanshi 2017). Rock slopes in hilly terrain are prone to
instability due to variations in the rock mass condition as
well as a combination of external forces such as rainfall
and seismic events which act as triggering factors (Raghu-
vanshi 2017; Khanna and Dubey 2020). In Ethiopia, slope
instability problems are widespread along roads that pass
through mountainous regions/valleys/gorges. Most of the
Ethiopian plateau in the north, south, and western parts of
the country has a history of slope instability both at super-
ficial materials and bedrock levels due to steep mountains
and road cuts (Ayalew 1999). The current study area in
the Abay/Blue Nile basin is part of the northwestern Ethi-
opian plateau where slope instability is a major prob-
lem due to its deep gorge and rugged valley (Ayalew and
Yamagishi 2004). The properties of a discontinuity are
the most important factors in rock slope stability (Vatan-
pour et al. 2014). The slopes along the road cut may fail
due to the presence of irregularly oriented discontinui-
ties in the rock mass. The mode of slope failures may
be planar, wedge, and toppling based on the orientation
of discontinuities (Hoek and Bray 1981; Godman 1989;
Wyille and Mah 2004). The rock mass classification sys-
tem is one of the widely used methods in geotechnical
engineering to evaluate the stability of the rock slope and
its design (Park et al. 2016). Several researchers (Baker
et al. 2006; Binesh 2014; Khanna and Dubey 2020) used
various analytical and numeral models to analyze slope
stability using kinematic analysis, limit equilibrium and
finite-element methods. Slope stability evaluations using
limit equilibrium or the finite-element approach apply the
shear strength reduction (SSR) technique to analyze the
factor of safety (Dawson et al.1999; Griffith and Lane
1999; Kumar et al.2020). The factor of safety (FoS) is
the ratio of resisting forces to driving forces which deter-
mines the slope stability (Bushira et al. 2018; Raghuvan-
shi 2019; Renani and Martin 2020). Furthermore, slope
stability analysis was performed using limit equilibrium
method (LEM) and finite-element method (FEM) based
on the Rocscience Slide v6.0 and Phase2 v7.0 software
(Komadja et al. 2021). For slope stability analysis, there
are several LEMs that can be divided into rigorous and
non-rigorous techniques. Since Morgenstern and Price
(1965) is a rigorous method that satisfies any slip surface
and the complete equilibrium criteria which appeared to
be accurate (Zhang et al. 2013) was adopted in this study.
The kinematic analysis was done to show the geometrical
relationship between various joint sets and the slope face
to determine their failure mechanisms (Singh et al. 2016;
Khanna and Dubey 2020). FEM may be used to solve
complex problems with stress and movement data which
is not possible with the limit equilibrium method (Cheng
13
Modeling Earth Systems and Environment
et al. 2007). Furthermore, Griffiths and Lane (1999)
showed that the FEM–SRF is capable of simulating a
slope in a more accurate and automatic manner which
provides the FoS for the critical slip surface. The engi-
neering solutions to slope instability problems require a
good understanding of analytical methods, investigative
tools, and stabilization measures (Abramson et al. 2002).
Ansari et al. (2019) also applied the continuum (FEM
and LEM) and discontinuum (Discrete Element Method/
DEM) modeling approaches to analyze the slope instabil-
ity in phyllitic rocks in the Lesser Himalaya. Among the
three models, they recommended the DEM approach for
providing economic remedial measures in Uttarakhand,
India. According to Lui (2020), FEM, based on strength
reduction factor, has a good accuracy and high analy-
sis efficiency in slope stability analysis. As compared to
LEM, the analysis accuracy is greatly improved with a
shorter analysis time. Therefore, FEM is recommended
for stability analysis. Singh et al. (2020) conducted the
analytical and numerical stability analysis of road cut
slopes in Garhwal Himalaya of India using slope mass
rating (SMR) and numerical models (LEM and FEM).
The FoS results of different slopes from LEM and
FEM models help to identify their stability conditions.
The collective effort of slope stability analysis through
analytical and numerical methods will provide the best
remedial measures and an optimum slope design. Sari
(2021) applied FEM models which correctly captured
the prevailing toppling failure mechanisms in Ihlara Val-
ley (Cappadocia, Turkey) to identify a suitable remedial
measure. In his study, the effect of columnar structure
on the cliff stability was mimicked as a jointed medium
in 2D numerical models. The results revealed that the
SRF decreased from 2.05 to 0.45 as failure progresses
in the slope. Hence, depending upon the size of the rock
blocks in the FEM analysis, an effective support sys-
tem was proposed. Mebrahtu et al. (2022) studied the
stability of deep-seated landslides in Debre Sina area,
Ethiopia using LEM and FEM models which showed that
slope stability in this area is strongly dependent on the
saturation and seismic conditions. FEM overcomes the
limitations of LEM as it calculates the maximum shear
strain, total displacement, and yield elements of the slope
instead of just the FoS only. Hence, they found it more
applicable in slope stability modeling particularly for
complex geometry, heterogeneous material, and faulted
areas. Ankah and Kinca (2022) studied the stability of
rock slopes along the Foça–Bağarası (FB) Highway in
Turkey using kinematic analysis and FEM (stress reduc-
tion factor) modeling. Their modeling results were con-
sistent with that of the kinematic analysis as well as field
observations and showed that the highway slopes have
a great risk of failure during heavy rainfall or seismic
Modeling Earth Systems and Environment
activity. The current study was conducted to model the
stability of rock slopes along Mertule Maryam—Mekane
Selam road using kinematic, LEM and FEM methods. For
this purpose, determining the engineering properties of
rocks through extensive field survey, discontinuity meas-
urements, in situ tests, and laboratory experiments was
performed. Finally, appropriate remedial measures were
recommended based on the analysis results.
Description of the study area
The study area is located in the East Gojam and South
Wollo Zones of Amhara Regional State in Central Ethio-
pia. Geographically, the study area is located between 10º
38′ N to 10º 45′ N latitude and 38º 25′ E to 38º 45′ E lon-
gitude (Fig. 1). The area can be accessed through Addis
Ababa—Bichena—Debere Werk–Gunde Weyn—Mertule
Maryam–Mekane Selam asphalt road which is 469 km
Fig. 1  Location map of the study area
northwest of Addis Ababa. The study area was conducted
on the steep natural slope at the gorge of the upper Blue
Nile basin along Mertule Maryam—Mekane Selam Road.
Regional geology
The Abay (Blue Nile) Basin, in the northwestern parts of
the Ethiopian Highland, consists of Precambrian basement
rock, Paleozoic and Mesozoic sedimentary rocks, Tertiary-
to-Quaternary volcanic rocks, and Quaternary deposits
(Mogessie et al. 2002; Gani et al. 2008). According to Tam-
rat and Tibebe (1997), the Precambrian crystalline base-
ment rocks consist mostly of quartz and alkali feldspars with
varying textures, faults, and numerous veins. The Paleozoic
and Mesozoic sediments of the Blue Nile Basin are buried
under the 1100 m of Cenozoic volcanic rocks (Wolela 2009).
According to Assefa 1991, the Adigrat Sandstone, Gohat-
sion Formation (mudstone, limestone, dolomite, shale, and
gypsum alternating with layers of siltstone and sandstone),
13

Antalo Limestone (Limestone unit), and Debre Libanos
Sandstone (Upper Sandstone) are Mesozoic succession of
rocks from bottom to top of the Blue Nile Basin. Tertiary-
to-Quaternary volcanic rocks, such as basaltic to felsic flows,
tuffs, ignimbrites, rhyolites, and scoria as well as intervol-
canic clastic and evaporitic sedimentary rocks (Mogessie
et al. 2002), are also found in which the Quaternary deposits
are the youngest sediments composed of alluvial, colluvial,
and lacustrine deposits. In the study area, the basaltic rock
units along the road sections are characterized by slightly-to-
moderately weathered, inclined columnar fractures, highly
fractured rocks with close to moderate spacing, small, non-
permanent, open and partially filled, steep to gently sloping
fracture sets are found along the rock slope sections of the
road. The Blue Nile Basin structures developed N-, ESE-,
and NW-extending stress regimes during the Quaternary
(Gani et al. 2008). The Blue Nile flows southeast from Lake
Tana, then south and southwest before turning northwest
as it approaches the Sudanese lowlands (Gani and Abdel-
salam 2006). According to Gani et al. (2008), the Blue Nile
Basin has an NW-trending rift where many Mesozoic sedi-
ments were deposited. This was followed by a Late Miocene
NW–SE trending extension associated with the Main Ethi-
opian Rift, which formed NE trending faults that affected
Fig. 2  Regional geologic map of the area
13
Modeling Earth Systems and Environment
the lower volcanic rocks and the upper Mesozoic rocks.
The geology of the study area consists of Mesozoic Gyp-
sum and Mudstone, Mesozoic Limestone, Mesozoic Upper
Sandstone, Lower Basalt, Middle Basalt, and Quaternary
Eluvium (Fig. 2).
Methods
Field survey and laboratory tests
A detailed field investigation was conducted and data were
collected to identify the slope instability problems and ana-
lyze its stability. Primary data were collected on geological
structures, rock mass and discontinuity characteristics, and
drainage conditions. The potential slope instabilities were
classified into structurally controlled or non-structurally con-
trolled failures. The discontinuity conditions, such as joint
orientation, spacing, filling, opening, roughness, ground-
water and weathering conditions of the rocks, were evalu-
ated and measured. The spacing, aperture, and persistence
of discontinuities and slope height were also measured.
The remaining discontinuity parameters, such as surface
Modeling Earth Systems and Environment

roughness, infill material, weathering, and groundwater Laboratory tests

conditions, were visually estimated in the field.
To characterize the engineering properties of rocks, rep-
resentative samples were collected from each rock unit along
the road sections for laboratory tests. In this study, eight
critical rock slope sections were selected to determine the
engineering properties of rocks for slope stability analysis.
The degree of weathering for exposed rock sections along
the road was determined using geological hammer blows
based on ISRM (1978). Furthermore, the uniaxial compres-
sive strength (UCS) of the intact rock at critical slope sec-
tions is determined from Schmidt hammer strength test in
the field (Barton and Choubey 1977). The Schmidt hammer
test determines the surface rebound hardness which is related
to the compressive strength. Tests were performed according
to ASTM D5873 (2001) test procedure. A Schmidt hammer
was applied perpendicular to the test surface and gradually
pressed to hit the surface. A total of two trials were con-
ducted (each trial had ten readings) at each sample location.
For each trial test, readings were taken with a 20 mm gap
between two impact test points for all trials. The rebound
values were listed in ascending sequence and the average
of the rebound value (R) was used for UCS determination.
Finally, the uniaxial compressive strength of rocks along
the road’s critical slope sections was determined using the
empirical equation (Barton and Chouby 1977) as follows
(Eq. 1):
Log10 (UCS) = 0.00088 ∗ 𝛾 ∗ R + 1.01,
where UCS is the uniaxial compressive strength of rocks in
MPa, γ is the dry rock density in kN/m3, and R is the average
Schmidt hammer rebound value.
The point load strength test was conducted to determine
the UCS of an intact rock according to ASTM D5731-16
(1995) standards to determine the strength of irregular rock
samples at Addis Ababa Science and Technology University
Rock Mechanics Laboratory. The test was carried out under
natural moisture content conditions on a minimum of two or
three irregular rock samples taken at each critical slope sec-
tion. Later, the average of the corrected point load strength
was converted to the uniaxial compressive strength of the
rock using the empirical equation proposed by Broch and
Franklin (1972) which provide the relationship between the
corrected point load strength and the UCS of the rock (Eq. 2)
UCS = 24 ∗ IS (50), (2)
where UCS is uniaxial compressive strength of intact rocks
and Is (50) is the size corrected point load strength.
The unit weight of the rock was one of the input param-
eters used in calculating the safety factor for rock slope
stability analysis. The test was performed on at least three
irregular rock samples taken from critical rock slope sec-
tions using buoyancy techniques according to the standard
proposed by ISRM (1978). Finally, the dry density (γd) and
unit weight (γ) of each rock sample were determined using
the following equations (Eq. 3):
M2
(1) 𝜌d =
ΔV (3)
𝛾 = 𝜌d × g,
where ρd is the dry density of a rock sample in g/cm3, M2
is the mass of a rock sample after being oven-dried (g), ∆V
is the difference between the volume before and after a rock
sample is added into the cylinder, γ is the unit weight of a

Table 1  Summary of representative discontinuity parameters at critical rock slope sections

Discontinuity param- RSS1 RSS2 RSS3 RSS4 RSS5 RSS6 RSS7 RSS8
eter

Joint spacing (cm) 20–65 15–50 20–45 10–115 20–110 25–75 25–150 20–90
Condition of discontinuity
Persistence (m) 5–20 3–7 4–15 8–25 3–10 4.5–20 2.5–10 6–10
Joint aperture (cm) 2–5 0.3–8 3–6 5–10 0.15–38 3–8 2–6 0.4–10
Filling materials Open Open Fine material Open (none) Soft gouges Soft gouges Fine material Soft gouge
CCC​
Roughness Slightly Slightly Slightly M. Rough Slightly Slightly Slightly M. Rough
Degree of weather- S. weathered M. weathered H. weathered H. weathered M. weathered S. weathered M.weathered M. weathered
ing
Groundwater condi- Dry Dry Dry Dry Dry Dry Dry Dry
tion

S slightly weathered, M moderately weathered, H highly weathered and RSS rock slope sections

13
 Modeling Earth Systems and Environment

Fig. 3  General methodological

flowchart of the research

Table 2  Schmidt hammer rebound and UCS values at different critical rock slope sections
Slope sections Schmidt hammer rebound value from each trial Average rebound Ave (R) UCS (MPa) Classification (ISRM 1979)
value for each trial

RSS1 40, 42, 42.5, 46, 47, 48, 48, 50, 52, 52, 46.75 45.63 121.94 High strength
39, 42, 42.5, 43, 44, 44, 45.5, 46, 49, 50 44.5
RSS2 30, 37, 38, 38, 40, 40, 47, 48, 50, 52 42 41.3 83.12 Medium strength
32, 33, 38, 39, 40, 42, 42, 45, 46, 49 40.6
RSS3 22, 27, 28, 28, 28.5, 29, 30, 34, 36, 38 32.85 30.98 47.85 Moderate strength
22, 24, 26, 28, 28, 29, 30, 30, 34, 40 29.1
RSS4 22, 29, 36, 36, 38, 38, 38, 38.5, 42, 44 36.15 37.9 67.84 Medium strength
26, 36, 36.5, 37, 38, 40, 46, 48, 49 39.65
RSS5 32, 32.5, 30, 33, 34, 36, 38, 40, 42, 48 36.55 39.85 77.29 Medium strength
26, 27, 28, 40, 40, 42, 44, 44.5, 48,48 43.15
RSS6 30. 31, 36, 42, 44, 46, 46, 48, 48, 50 42.1 42.25 84.07 Medium strength
28, 34, 40, 42, 40, 44, 47, 49, 50, 50 42.4
RSS7 38, 38, 39, 40, 42.5, 45, 48, 49, 50, 52 44.15 43.2 96.0 Medium strength
33, 34, 38, 42, 44, 44.5, 43, 46, 48, 50 42.25
RSS8 28, 34, 40, 42, 40, 44, 47,49, 50, 50 25.6 27.5 45.0 Moderate strength
19, 22, 26, 28, 28, 30, 32, 32, 38, 38 29.3

UCS uniaxial compressive strength, RSS rock slope sections, Av average of rebound values, R rebound value

13
Modeling Earth Systems and Environment

Table 3  Point load and uniaxial Slope sections Sample ID IS (50) (Mpa) Ave IS (50) UCS (Mpa) Classification
compressive strength results of (MPa) (Deree and Miller
intact rocks 1966)

RSS-1 RSS1-01 3.71 6.36 152.6 High strength

RSS1-02 6.52
RSS1-03 7.9
RSS1-04 7.3
RSS-2 RSS2-10 2.94 4.9 117.6 High strength
RSS2-02 7.02
RSS-3 RSS3-01 2.66 3.5 84 Medium strength
RSS3-02 4.35
RSS-4 RSS4-01 4.7 4.2 100.8 High strength
RSS4-02 3.18
RSS4-03 4.69
RSS-5 RSS5-01 3.74 3.6 86.4 Medium strength
RSS5-02 4.35
RSS5-03 2.65
RSS-6 RSS6-01 6.87 7.4 177.6 High strength
RSS6-02 6.24
RSS6-03 9.2
RSS-7 RSS7-01 6.87 7 168 High strength
RSS7-02 6.45
RSS7-03 7.6
RSS-8 RSS8-01 8.36 7.8 187.2 High strength
RSS8-02 7.24

RSS rock slope section, Ave average, IS (50) corrected point load test, ucs uniaxial compressive strength of
intact rocks

Table 4  Dry and saturated unit weights of rocks from laboratory tests evaluated for the stability of rock slopes (Laloui and Rotta
Sample ID Rock units Dry unit Saturated unit
2020). For this study, shear strength parameters like cohe-
weight γd weight γsat (KN/ sion (C) and angle of internal friction (ϕ) of the rock mass
(KN/m3) m3) were estimated using the generalized Hoek–Brown failure
criteria according to Hoek et al. (2002) on Rocdata soft-
RSS1 SW. lower basalt 26.8 26.94
ware. This software allows users to easily obtain reliable
RSS2 MW. lower basalt 25.03 26.08
estimates of rock mass properties and shear strength param-
RSS3 HW. lower basalt 24.57 25.01
eters (Hoek 2006). The Geological Strength Index (GSI),
RSS4 HW. lower basalt 24.63 24.91
uniaxial compressive strength of intact rocks (UCS), mate-
RSS5 SW. limestone 24.6 25.08
rial constant of intact rock (mi), and disturbance factor (D)
RSS6 SW. lower basalt 25.04 25.97
were the input parameters for the Rocdata software. Fur-
RSS7 MW. lower basalt 25.57 25.96
thermore, the Rocdata software requires the unit weight of
RSS8 MW. middle basalt 26.58 27.21
a rock and the slope height (H) for slope stability modeling
RSS rock slope section, SW slightly weathered, MW moderately (Rocsciences 2004a, b, c, d, e, f). For this study, the uniaxial
weathered and HW highly weathered compressive strength of an intact rock was determined from
the point load strength index in the laboratory using ASTM
rock in KN/m3, and g is the gravitational accelerations (m/ D5631-16 (1995). GSI was estimated in the field according
s2). to Hoek (2002) by considering the weathering condition of
the discontinuity surface, rock mass structure, and interlock-
ing of rock blocks. The material constant of intact rock (mi)
Shear strength parameters of the rock mass was taken from the standard table of the Rocdata software
(Hoek et al. 2002). The disturbance factor was obtained
The shear strength characteristics of the rock mass, includ- from the guideline of Wyllie and Mah (2004) based on the
ing the cohesion and angle of internal friction, must be degree of disturbance of the rock mass which is subjected

13

Table 5  Input parameters used Slope sections Slope face orientation
in Dips 7 software for kinematic
modeling
Slope D/DD (º)
RSS-1 62/075
RSS-4 73/040
RSS-5 72/066
RSS-7 67/035
to mechanical excavation. In addition, the rock’s unit weight
was determined from the laboratory test using buoyancy
techniques (ISRM 1978) and slope height was measured in
the field using a tap meter. Moreover, deformation modulus
and strength of the rock mass are the required inputs for
numerical modeling to evaluate the rock slope stability. The
modulus of deformation of a rock was determined from Roc-
data software (Rocscience 2004a, b, c, d, e, f).
Slope stability modeling
Kinematic modeling
Kinematic modeling was performed using dips software to
evaluate the different failure mechanisms, such as planar,
wedge, and toppling failures (Khanna and Dubey 2020; Sid-
dique and Pradhan 2020). This study used Dips 7.0 software
of Rocsciences (2004a, b, c, d, e, f) to perform the kinematic
analysis of a rock slope for structurally controlled failures
using the plotted structural data and daylight envelopes for
determining its stability. Plotted data can be used to deter-
mine the mechanism of an active failure on the potential
failure zone of a slope (Seyed et al. 2011). The input param-
eters for Dips Software require slope orientations, dip and
dip directions of major joint sets, as well as friction angle
(Raghuvanshi 2017; Khanna and Dubey 2020). The orien-
tation of slopes and structural discontinuities (dip and dip
direction) Hudson and Harrison (1997) were measured at
critical rock slope sections in the field. The angle of fric-
tion along on the failure plane was determined by Rocdata
software using non-linear failure criteria (Barton and Bandis
1990).
The slope stability analysis requires calculating the fac-
tor of safety and evaluating the stability analysis for differ-
ent modes of rock slope failures (Park and West 2001). The
stability analysis was performed using Rocplane, Swedge,
and Roctopple software (Rocscience 2004a, b, c, d, e, f). A
planar rock slope failure analysis was carried out using the
Rocplane software (Rocscience 2004a, b, c, d, e, f) which
was developed based on stability evaluation of the planar rock
slope failure (Sharma et al.1995; Park and West 2001). The
rock slope stability analysis with wedge mode of failure can
13
Modeling Earth Systems and Environment
Joint set orientations (dip and dip direction) Friction
angle
(º)
JS1 (º) JS2 (º) JS3 (º) JS4 (º)
55/035 50/110 20/060 – 38
76/138 75/120 80/295 – 35
48/032 44/146 49/082 37/240 35
36/170 48/050 66/105 – 42
be evaluated using Swedge 4.0 software (Rocscience 2004a,
b, c, d, e, f) which was developed based on Hoek and Bray
(1981) and Park and West (2001) stability analysis of wedge
mode of rock slope failure. In addition, the rock slope stabil-
ity analysis with toppling failure was performed using the
Roctopple 2.0 software (Rocscience 2004a, b, c, d, e, f) which
was developed based on rock toppling failure (Hoek and Bray
1981). The input parameters for the three modes of rock slope
failures were slope geometry and orientation of discontinui-
ties, shear strength parameter (cohesion and angle of internal
friction), and unit weight of the rock. The slope geometry
and the discontinuity set orientation were obtained from field
measurements, whereas the shear strength parameters of the
discontinuity (cohesion and angle of internal friction) were
obtained from Rocdata 3 software (Rocscience 2004a, b, c, d,
e, f) according to Barton and Bandis (1990) non-linear failure
criteria, while the unit weight of a rock was obtained from
laboratory test results.
Limit equilibrium method (LEM)
LEM was used to analyze the stability of rock slope failures
using Rocscience slide software (Pant and Acharya 2021).
Morgenstern–Price method considers force and moment
equilibrium which makes it suitable for analyzing the
potential failure surfaces on both circular and non-circular
surfaces (Koca 2020). For this study, the LEM of the slide
software was used to model and compute the factor safety
using Slide 6 software (Rocscience 2004a, b, c, d, e, f) for
selected rock slope sections. The input parameters for this
software include the shear strength parameters of a rock and
soil (cohesion and angle of internal friction), unit weight
of rocks, slope geometry, and external force (seismic load-
ing). In this study, the shear strength of the rock mass for
selected slope section was determined from Hoek–Brown
failure criteria using Rocdata3 software (Rocscience 2004a,
b, c, d, e, f). The unit weight of the rock was obtained from
laboratory tests using buoyancy techniques (ISRM 1978),
the slope geometry was measured in the field using a tap
meter, and the horizontal seismic acceleration was obtained
from a seismic risk map of Ethiopia (Asfaw 1986).
Modeling Earth Systems and Environment

Fig. 4  Kinematic modeling for

different modes of rock slope
failures: a wedge, b direct top-
pling, and c and d planar failure

13
 Modeling Earth Systems and Environment

Fig. 4  (continued)

Table 6  Input parameters used in Rocplane software for planar mode of failure
Slope section Input parameters to Rocplane software to determine factor of safety for planar failure
Slope geometry Failure plane Shear strength Forces
3
Joint set Dip (º) H (m) Dip (º) Wv γr (KN/m ) USA (º) ɸ (º) C (KPa) γw (KN/m3) α

RSS5 JS1 72 25 48 8 2.51 16 30.4 2.14 1 0.08

JS3 72 50 8 2.51 16 34.69 1.43 1 0.08
RSS7 JS2 67 22 48 14 2.6 13 39.27 5.6 1 0.08

γ is the unit weight of the rock, USA is the upper slope angle, ɸ is friction angle, c is cohesion, γr is unit weight of a rock, γw is unit weight of
water, α is the seismic coefficient, H is the slope height and JS1is joint set one, JS3 is joint set three, and WV is the waviness of a plane

Finite‑element method (FEM)
FEM slope stability modeling uses a shear strength reduc-
tion technique (Griffith and Lane 1999). This study uses
the Phase2 software (Rocscience 2004a, b, c, d, e, f) to
determine the slope stability conditions for selected critical
slope sections. Phase2 software is a strong finite-element
tool that can be used to model the slope stability at dif-
ferent conditions (You et al. 2018). The data preparation
in phase2 software includes the determination of UCS of
intact rocks and the unit weight of rocks which are obtained
from laboratory tests. The geological strength index (GSI)
and slope height were determined in the field. The mate-
rial constant of an intact rock (mi) was taken from standard
table of the Rocdata software (Hoek et al. 2002). The shear
strength parameters (cohesion and angle of friction) along
the failure plane of rocks were determined using Rocdata 3
software (Rocscience 2004a, b, c, d, e, f). The Hoek–Brown
parameters were also obtained from Rocdata 3 software. The
disturbance factor was obtained from the guideline of Wyl-
lie and Mah (2004) based on the degree of disturbance of
the rock mass. For this study, the Poisson’s ratio of the rock
mass can be calculated using the relationship between the
material constant (mi) and GSI proposed by Balazs (2009)
as can be seen in Eq. 4
Vrm = − 0.002GSI − 0.003mi + 0.457, (4)
where Vrm is the Poisson’s ratio of the rock mass, mi is the
material constant of an intact rock which was taken from the
Rocdata software, and GSI is the Geological strength index
of rocks estimated in the field.
Results
To perform slope stability modeling, a detailed field inves-
tigation was conducted to evaluate the slope stability condi-
tions at eight critical rock slope sections of the road. For
this, the type of rocks, degree of weathering and fracturing
were evaluated at different parts of the study area through
visual observation. The discontinuity survey was carried out
according to the International Society of Rock Mechanics
(ISRM 1978) standard along the critical rock slope sections
of the road to obtain the discontinuity parameters (Table 1),

13
Modeling Earth Systems and Environment

Fig. 5  Kinematic slope stability modeling using RocPlane software for planar failures at rock slope sections: a RSS5 and b RSS7 in different
conditions

13
 Modeling Earth Systems and Environment

Table 7  Factor of safety and Slope sections Joint sets Factor of safety for planar failures of rock slope sections RSS5 and
slope stability at different RSS7
conditions for planar rock
failure Static dry (FoS) Static Dynamic dry (FoS) Dynamic
saturated saturated
(FoS) (FoS)

RSS-5 JS1 0.87 0.31 0.76 0.24

JS3 0.85 0.23 0.73 0.18
Stability condition Unstable Unstable Unstable Unstable
RSS-7 JS2 1.71 0.9 1.51 0.76
Stability condition Stable Unstable Stable Unstable

Table 8  Input parameters used in Swedge software for wedge mode of failure
Slope section Input parameters of Swedge software to determine the factor of safety for wedge failure
Joint sets orientation Shear strength of Slope geometry γw (KN/m3) γ (KN/m3) α (g)
joint sets
Joint sets Dip (º) D/D (º) C (t/m2) ɸ (º) D (º) D/D (º) USA (º) H (m)

RSS1 JS1 55 035 6.02 39.21 62 075 15/135 27 1 2.73 0.08

JS2 50 110 4.9 35.90 62 075 27 1 2.73 0.08

D/D dip direction, C cohesion, ɸ friction angle, D dip, USA the upper slope angle, γw the unit weight of water, γ the unit weight of rocks, H
height of slope, α the seismic coefficients, JS1 joint set one and JS2 joint set two

Table 9  The factor of safety and the slope stability at different condi-
tions for wedge rock failure
Slope section Factor of safety wedge formed in rock slope section
RSS1 at different conditions
Loading condi- Factor of safety Stability
tion description

RSS1 Static dry 1.808 Stable

Static saturated 1.06 Stable
Dynamic dry 1.626 Stable
Dynamic satu- 0.953 Unstable
rated

such as joint orientation, joint spacing, joint filling, aperture,

joint roughness, and groundwater and weathering conditions
of rocks (Fig. 3).
In the present study, the uniaxial compressive strength
(UCS) of intact rocks at critical slope sections was deter-
mined from Schmidt hammer strength test in the field (Bar-
ton and Choubey 1977). This test was conducted based on
ASTM D5873 (2001) for the acquisition of rebound value.
The representative average rebound value was converted into
UCS of rocks (Table 2) using empirical equation of Barton
and Choubey (1977), as shown in Eq. 1.
The point load strength test was performed to deter-
mine the uniaxial compressive strength of an intact rock.
The average corrected point load strength was converted
Fig. 6  Wedge failure at critical rock slope section RSS1
to the appropriate uniaxial compressive strength (UCS)
using Eq. 2. The corrected point load strength test results
from each critical rock slope section (Table 3) showed
that the point load strength index of rocks ranges from 3.5
to 7.8 MPa with the corresponding uniaxial compressive
strength ranges of 84–187.2 MPa. The overall point load
strength tests on the rock samples indicated that the rock in
the critical slope sections of the study area had a strength
ranging from medium to high strength (Deere and Miller
1966).

13
Modeling Earth Systems and Environment

Fig. 7  Kinematic slope stability modeling using Roctopple software for toppling failure at rock slope section RSS4

Table 10  Input parameters used in Roctopple software for toppling mode of failure
Slope section Input parameters in Roctopple software for determining the factor of safety for toppling failure
Joint set orientation Shear strength of joint sets Slope geometry γ (KN/m3) α (g)
Joint sets Dip (º) Spacing (m) BAI (º) C (KPa) ɸ (º) D (º) USA (º) Height (m)

RSS4 JS1 76 1.6 42 49 35.84 73 10 35 24.63 0.08

JS3 80 42 31 33.29 73 10 35 24.63 0.08

RSS rock slope section, BAI base angle inclination, C cohesion, ɸ friction angle, D dip, USA upper slope angle, γ unit weight of rocks and α seis-
mic coefficient

Table 11  Factor of safety and slope stability for rock toppling failure samples according to ISRM (1978) standard using Eq. 3.
using Roctopple software at different conditions Hence, the unit weights of representative rock samples col-
Slope section Factor of safety toppling formed in rock slope section lected from eight critical rock slope sections of the study
RSS4 at different conditions were estimated. The test results showed that the dry and
Loading condition Factor Stability description saturated unit weights range from 24.57 to 26.8 KN/m3 and
of safety from 24.91 to 27.21 KN/m3 respectively (Table 4).
(FOS)

RSS4 Static dry 1.54 Stable

Rock slope stability modeling
Static saturated 0.908 Unstable
Dynamic dry 1.007 Stable
Kinematic slope stability modeling
Dynamic saturated 0.7 Unstable
Based on the input parameters (Table 5), the kinematic
analysis was performed using Dips 7 software (Rocscience
2004a, b, c, d, e, f) to evaluate the slope failure mechanisms,
Unweight of a rock is one of the input parameters used in such as planar, wedge, and toppling modes of failures.
slope stability modeling. In this study, the density of rocks The orientations of various joint sets from field survey
was determined by a buoyancy technique for irregular rock were plotted on a lower hemisphere stereographic projection

13
 Modeling Earth Systems and Environment

Table 12  Input parameters for LEM slope stability modeling of rocks

Slope sections Materials Strength model Input parameter Seismic horizontal
acceleration (α) g
Cohesion (MPa) Friction angle (º) Unit weight (KN/
m3)
γdry γsat

RSS2 MW. lower basalt Mohr–Coulomb 0.963 42.70 25.03 26.08 0.08
RSS3 HW. lower basalt 0.536 44.11 24.57 25.01 0.08
RSS6 SW. lower basalt 0.793 46.55 25.04 25.97 0.08
RSS8 MW. middle basalt 3.707 46.27 26.58 27.21 0.08

RSS rock slope sections, MW moderately weathered basalt, SW slightly weathered basalt and HW highly weathered basalt

Fig. 8  Slope stability modeling results using LEM for rock slope section RSS2 under a static dry, b dynamic dry, c static saturated, and d
dynamic saturated conditions

which is contoured to determine the various pole concentra- intersection of two joints (Fig. 4a). This wedge failure occurs
tions (Fig. 4). According to this analysis, a wedge mode of at RSS1 where the slope face has 075º and the intersec-
failure was identified at the rock slope section RSS1 by the tion of discontinuity sets JS1 and JS2 is falling within the

13
Modeling Earth Systems and Environment
Fig. 9  Slope stability modeling results using LEM for rock slope section RSS3 at a static dry, b dynamic dry, c static saturated, and d dynamic
saturated conditions
critical zone. The critical rock slopes RSS5 and RSS7 were
subjected to planar mode of failure (Fig. 4c, d). According
to the analysis result, the critical slope section RSS5 showed
planar failure due to the intersection of discontinuity set JS1
and JS3. Similar to this, at slope section RSS7, the pole of
the joint set two (PJS2) was plotted within the critical zone
of the planar mode of failure (Fig. 4d). This showed that
joint set JS2 was the cause of the planar failure at slope
section RSS7. However, the slope section RSS4 was prone
to toppling failure where the dip vector plot is located very
close to the critical zone for toppling. The analysis results
indicated that the two joint sets (JS2 and JS3) that cross the
critical zone of the direct toppling mode of failure which is
highlighted in red color represent a direct toppling mode of
failure (Fig. 4b).
Kinematic modeling of planar failure
The kinematic analysis results in (Tables 6; Fig. 5a, b)
revealed that the rock slope sections RSS5 and RSS7 showed
planar modes of failures due to joint sets JS1, JS3, and JS2.
Accordingly, the factor of safety (FoS) for planar mode of
failure (Table 7) was determined using RocPlane2 software
(Rocscience 2004a, b, c, d, e, f).
Kinematic modeling of wedge failure
For the kinematic modeling, the input data in Table 8 were
used in Swedge 4 software (Rocscience 2004a, b, c, d, e, f)
to evaluate the stability of rock slopes with wedge modes of
failure which uses deterministic stability analysis (Shariati
and Fereidooni 2021) in which the factor of safety (FoS) for
13

Fig. 10  Slope stability modeling results using LEM for rock slope section RSS6 at a static dry, b dynamic dry, c static saturated, and d dynamic
saturated conditions
wedge failure has been computed at the critical rock slope
section RSS1 (Table 9).
In this study, the stability of rock slope RSS1 was
analyzed using kinematic analysis in Swedge4 software
(Rocscience 2004a, b, c, d, e, f) to determine the factor
of safety at (Fig. 6) different conditions as shown in the
following table.
13
Modeling Earth Systems and Environment
Kinematic modeling of toppling failure
Toppling failure occurred at rock slope section RSS4 as
can be seen from field observation and kinematic analysis
(Fig. 4b). The factor of safety (FOS) from toppling mode
of failure in this rock slope section has been analyzed using
the Roctopple 2 software (Rocscience 2004a, b, c, d, e, f;
Amini et al.2012).
Modeling Earth Systems and Environment

Fig. 11  Slope stability modeling using LEM for rock slope section RSS8 under a static dry, b dynamic dry, c static saturated, and d dynamic
saturated conditions

Table 13  Input parameters for FEM stability modeling to compute the critical strength reduction factor
Slope section Materials Strength model C (MPa) ɸ (º) Erm (MPa) Ψ (º) Unit weight (KN/ V α (g)
m3)
γdry γsat

RSS2 MW. lower basalt Mohr–Coulomb 0.963 42.70 3257.7 12.70 25.03 26.08 0.3 0.08
RSS3 HW. lower basalt 0.536 44.11 2661.1 14.11 24.57 25.01 0.3 0.08
RSS6 SW. lower basalt 0.783 46.55 9575.7 16.35 25.04 25.97 0.27 0.08
RSS8 MW. middle basalt 3.707 46.27 9725.5 16.27 26.58 27.21 0.29 0.08

RSS rock slope section, C cohesion, ɸ angle of internal friction, Erm deformation modulus, γ unit weight of rocks, V Poisson ratio and α seismic
horizontal acceleration, MW moderately weathered, SW slightly weathered and Hw highly weathered

13

Fig. 12  Slope stability modeling using FEM for rock slope section RSS2 under a static dry, b dynamic dry, c static saturated, and d dynamic
saturated conditions
The Kinematic analyses (Fig. 4b) indicated that joint sets
JS1 and JS3 were the two joints that (Fig. 7) are most likely
causing the direct toppling mode of rock slope failure at
this slope section. The stability analysis of the two joint sets
(JS1 and JS3) was conducted with the Roctopple2 software
(Rocscience 2004a, b, c, d, e, f) for determining the factor
safety at different conditions (Tables 10 and 11).
Rock slope stability modeling using LEM
For this study, the slope stability at four critical slope sec-
tions was modeled using the limit equilibrium approach in
terms of factor of safety (FoS) by employing the General
Limit Equilibrium (GLEM) or Morgenstern–Price method.
The stability modeling of these four critical slope sections
was evaluated by determining the FoS under various condi-
tions (Table 12; Fig. 8a–d) using Slide 6 software (Rocsci-
ence 2004a, b, c, d, e, f) within the Mohr–Coulomb model.
The minimum factor of safety and critical slip surface of
a rock at critical slope section RSS2 was determined using
13
Modeling Earth Systems and Environment
GLEM by considering various conditions as indicated in
Fig. 8. At this slope section, the factors of safety under
static dry and dynamic dry conditions are 0.744 and 0.650,
as shown in (Fig. 8a, b), respectively. Similarly, under static
saturated and dynamic saturated conditions, the factors of
safety are 0.418 and 0.374, respectively (Fig. 8c, d). This
indicates that the rock at RSS2 was unstable in all antici-
pated conditions. In addition, a factor of safety analyzed
under saturated slope conditions is relatively smaller as
compared to a slope with a static dry condition. This clearly
showed the impact of groundwater on slope stability (Kabeta
et al. 2020).
Based on the above modeling results, an FoS of a rock at
slope section RSS3 under static dry and dynamic dry condi-
tions is 1.183 and 1.029, respectively (Fig. 9a, b) showing
a stable slope in both conditions. However, this slope sec-
tion has an FoS of 0.586 and 0.521 under static saturated
and dynamic saturated conditions, respectively (Fig. 9c, d),
Modeling Earth Systems and Environment
Fig. 13  Slope stability modeling using FEM for rock slope section RSS3 under a static dry, b dynamic dry, c static saturated, and d dynamic
saturated conditions
indicating that the critical slope section RSS3 is unstable
in both static saturated and dynamic saturated conditions
as FoS < 1.
According to the above modeling results for the criti-
cal rock slope section RSS6, the FoS for rock slope sec-
tion RSS6 using LEM is 1.988 and 1.709 at static dry and
dynamic dry conditions, respectively (Fig. 10a, b), showing
that the rock slope section is stable in both conditions as
FoS > 1 (Christian 2004; Shariati 2021). Furthermore, the
FoS in this slope section under saturated conditions is 1.510
(Fig. 10c), indicating that the slope is stable, but the FoS
in the same slope section under dynamic saturated condi-
tion is 0.91 (Fig. 10d), implying that the slope section RSS6
is unstable under dynamic saturated conditions. When we
move from dynamic dry to dynamic saturated conditions, the
effect of seismicity on slope stability showed a significant
variation in terms of FoS.
Based on the slope stability modeling results, the FoS of
a rock at slope section RSS8 is 1.783 and 1.560 under static
dry and dynamic dry conditions, respectively (Fig. 11a, b).
Moreover, the FoS under static saturated and dynamic satu-
rated conditions for the same rock slope section is 1.318 and
1.062, respectively (Fig. 11c, d). This demonstrates that the
rock at critical slope section RSS8 is stable under static dry,
dynamic dry, static saturated, and dynamic saturated condi-
tions as FoS is > 1 (Christian 2004; Shariati 2021).
Rock slope stability modeling using FEM
For this study, the rock slope stability modeling at criti-
cal slope sections was performed using the finite-element
Phase2 software (Rocscience 2004a, b, c, d, e, f) which can
be expressed in term of strength reduction factor (SRF)
value. The critical shear strength reduction factor (SRF)
which is equivalent to the FoS was calculated using a finite-
element-based numerical simulation in Phase2 software
program (Bushira et al.2018; Charles et al.2020). At critical
rock slope sections RSS2, RSS3, RSS6, and RSS8, the SRF
were estimated by FEM using the same material properties,
13

Fig. 14  Slope stability modeling using FEM for rock slope section RSS6 under a static dry, b dynamic dry, c static saturated, and d dynamic
saturated conditions
slope angle, slope geometry, and boundary condition like
LEM (Table 13).
According to the modeling results, the critical strength
reduction factor (SRF) of the rock slope section RSS2 is 0.69
and 0.58 at static dry and dynamic dry conditions, respec-
tively (Fig. 12a, b). In addition, the critical strength reduc-
tion factor (SRF) at static saturated and dynamic saturated
conditions for this slope section is 0.39 and 0.32, respec-
tively (Fig. 12c, d). The slope at static dry, static saturated,
dynamic dry, and dynamic saturated conditions, the critical
SRF or FoS < 1, indicating that the slope is unstable (Chris-
tianww98 and Shariati 2021). This implies that the rock at
critical slope section RSS2 was unstable in all anticipated
conditions. When we compare the results of SRF under
13
Modeling Earth Systems and Environment
different conditions, these are reduced by 15.94, 43.48,
and 44.83% when we move from static dry to dynamic dry,
from static dry to static saturated, and from dynamic dry
to dynamic saturated conditions, respectively. This dem-
onstrated that slope stability is strongly affected by ground
water condition as it increases the pore water pressure and
weight on the slope, thereby decreasing the shear strength
of rocks (Kabeta et al. 2020).
According to the modeling results, the SRF of a rock
slope section RSS3 is 1.13 and 1.01 under static dry and
dynamic dry conditions, respectively (Fig. 13a, b), indi-
cating that the slope is stable. However, the SRF that was
determined under static saturated and dynamic saturated
conditions for the rock slope section RSS3 is 0.51 and 0.48,
Modeling Earth Systems and Environment
Fig. 15  Slope stability modeling using FEM for rock slope section RSS8 under a static dry, b dynamic dry, c static saturated, and d dynamic
saturated conditions
respectively (Fig. 13c, d), showing that the slope is unstable
(Chirstian 2004; Shariati 2021) as the critical SRF is less
than one. This proves that the pore water pressure plays a
significant role in destabilizing these slope sections rather
than the horizontal seismic acceleration. Furthermore, when
we compare the SRF results under different anticipated con-
ditions, these are reduced by 12.32, 63.39, and 64.49% when
we move from static dry to dynamic dry, from static dry to
static saturated, and from static dry to dynamic saturated
conditions, respectively.
The critical SRF determined from FEM modeling for
the rock slope section RSS6 is 1.95 and 1.61 under static
dry and dynamic dry conditions, respectively (Fig. 14a, b),
indicating that the slope is stable as the critical SRF is > 1.
In addition, the modeling results for the same slope section
showed that the critical SRF is 1.28 and 0.84 during static
saturated and dynamic saturated conditions, respectively
(Fig. 14c, d), indicating that this slope section is margin-
ally stable in both conditions. When we compare the SRF
results under different conditions, these are decreased by
17.4, 34.37, and 47.83% when we move from static dry to
dynamic dry, from static dry to static saturated, and from
dynamic dry to dynamic saturated conditions, respectively.
This demonstrates that pore water pressure has a greater
degree of influence in destabilizing a certain slope section
than the seismic activity (Kabeta et al. 2020).
According to the modeling results, the critical SRF
of the rock slope section RSS8 is 1.68 and 1.38 at static
dry and dynamic dry conditions, respectively (Fig. 15a,
b), showing that the slope is stable as SRF is > 1. Simi-
larly, the SRF that was determined under static saturated
and dynamic saturated conditions of the rock slope sec-
tion RSS8 is 1.26 and 1.10, respectively (Fig. 15c, d),
indicating that the slope section is stable as SRF is > 1
13

Fig. 16  Comparison between LEM-FoS and FEM-SRF at different conditions
(Christian 2004; Shariati 2021). When we compare
the SRF results under different conditions, these are
decreased by 17.86, 25%, and 20.29% when we move
from static dry to dynamic dry, from static dry to static
saturated, and from dynamic dry to dynamic saturated
conditions, respectively. This indicated that the effect of
pore water pressure plays a greater role in destabilizing
this particular slope section as compared to the horizontal
seismic acceleration.
Discussion
In this study, comparisons were made between the FEM-SRF
and the LEM-FoS techniques. Accordingly, the FoS results
computed by FEM was quite closer to those computed using
LEM modeling. However, the FoS obtained from LEM is
slightly higher than FEM unlike Ansari et al. (2019), Lui
(2020) and Mebrahatu et al. (2022). A comparison of the
results obtained from FEM and LEM modeling showed that
the estimated probable failure surface is similar. Further-
more, the FoS values in both LEM and FEM decrease as
the slope angle increases. Cheng et al. (2006) did a slope
stability analysis on homogeneous and non-homogeneous
material properties and they found that the results of FEM
13
Modeling Earth Systems and Environment
and LEM are generally in good agreement for homogene-
ous slopes. For study, the modeling results of both FEM and
LEM approaches are in good agreement under various con-
ditions when simple slope geometry, material parameters,
and external loads are taken into account (Fig. 16).
In this study, appropriate remedial measures were recom-
mended based on the actual stability conditions of the slope
which is determined from field investigation and numerical
modeling. According to Popescu (2001), the slope stabi-
lization remedial measures are generally divided into four
groups, including modification of slope geometry, provid-
ing drainage, retaining structure, and internal soil reinforce-
ment. In this study, modification of slope geometry, pro-
viding drainage and retaining structures, and internal soil
reinforcements are recommended to maintain the stability
of the critical slope sections.
The slope in the study area varies from moderately steep
to very steep ones which cause an increase in tangential
gravity force due to maximum value of shear stress, thereby
favoring slope instability. The geometry of the slope is one
of the most important parameter which affects its stability
(Popescu 2001). The slope geometry can be changed by
reducing a slope angle, slope height, and removing mate-
rial from the landslide site in the study area (Anbalagan
1992; Raghuvanshi et al.2014; Shiferaw 2021). According
Modeling Earth Systems and Environment

(a) (b)

Slope angle Vs FoS

(c) Slope FoS (d) 2
angle(º)

Factor of safety
1.5

0.744 1
72º
0.5
50º 0.934
0
36º 1.480 0 20 40 60 80
Slope angle (degree)

Fig. 17  Slope stability analysis using slide 6 software at a 72º, b 50º, c 36º, and d slope angle versus FoS

(a) V/H FoS

Height of slope Vs FoS
ratio
0.6 0.744 3
0.5 1.088
2
FoS

0.4 1.482
0.3 2.461 1

0
0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8
(b) V/H (Ratio)

Fig. 18  Effect of slope height on FoS using Slide 6 software: a FoS and b height ratio Vs. FoS

to the modeling results, the slope height and slope angle are
important factors influencing the stability condition of the
critical slope sections in the study area. Considering these
factors, mitigation measures to reduce their instability were
suggested based on LEM modeling results by applying slide
6 software (Rocscience 2004a, b, c, d, e, f).
The stability of slopes is affected by slope angle and
height as increasing these parameters increases shear stress
while decreasing shear strength on the potential failure plane
(Shiferaw 2021). The effect of slope angle was evaluated
using the most unstable rock slope section RSS2 under
different conditions. The critical slope section RSS2 was

13
 Modeling Earth Systems and Environment

(a) (b)

(c) (d) Number of benches Vs FoS

2
1.5
1
FoS

0.5
0
0 2 4
Number of benches

Fig. 19  Effect of benching a slope on FoS for slope stabilization by Slide 6 software using a one bench, b two benches, c three benches, and d
FoS vs. number of benches

modeled at 72º, 50º, and 36º to evaluate the effect of slope
angle on the FoS. The FoS values were calculated in slide 6
software (Rocscience 2004a, b, c, d, e, f) using the general
limit equilibrium method to show the effect of slope angle on
slope stability. According to the modeling results in Fig. 17,
in the graph, the factor safety increases as the slope angle
decreases (Kale et al. 2021). This confirms the inverse rela-
tionship between slope angle and the FoS.
According to the analysis results, the decrease in slope
height at the initial stage tends to increase the factor of safety
at a lower rate (Anbalagan 1992; Raghuvanshi et al. 2014;
Shiferaw 2021). It is well known that an increase in slope
height and slope angle reduces the factor of safety. The eval-
uation result using Slide 6 software (Rocscience 2004a, b, c,
d, e, f) was plotted and is presented in Fig. 18.
Benching is used to change the stability of a single steep
slope into multiple lower ones (Abramson 2002). This
method is used to change a very steep slope into gentle
slopes on a single slope profile. For this study, the unsta-
ble rock slope section RSS2 was selected to investigate the
influence of benching on slope cut with respect to the factor
of safety using Slide 6 software (Rocscience 2004a, b, c, d,

13
Modeling Earth Systems and Environment
e, f) at static saturated condition. As a result, the effect of
slope benching on FOS was investigated by analyzing the
available data on rock slope section RSS2 for one, two, and
three benches (Fig. 19).
The modeling results in Fig. 19 indicate that the FoS
increases as the number of benches increases. This demon-
strated that the relation between the number of benches in
a slope and the FoS is strong and direct. This showed that
increasing the number of benches in a slope increases the
FoS which is important for slope stabilization. The slope is
stabilized when the number of benches is 3 as compared to 2
and 1 (Fig. 19).Therefore, increasing the number of benches
increases the performance of the slope stabilization. Provid-
ing engineering structures like gabion and retaining walls
is important along Mertule Maryam—Mekane Selam road
for rock slope stabilization. Furthermore, gravity retaining
walls, earth retaining structures with strip metal reinforce-
ments, rock slope face retention nets, rockfall stopping sys-
tems, and protection of rocks against erosion and landslide
as remedial measures.
Conclusion
In the present study, rock slope stability modeling was con-
ducted to locate and evaluate the critical slope sections along
Mertule Maryam–Mekane Selam road in East Gojam and
South Wollo Zones of Amhara Region in Ethiopia. This was
performed through extensive field surveys, laboratory analy-
sis, kinematic, limit equilibrium, and finite-element mod-
eling approaches. During the field survey, identifying modes
of failures and critical slope sections, in situ measurements
such as slope dip and dip direction, discontinuity orientation,
Schmidt hammer tests on exposed rock surface, and collect-
ing representative rock samples were carried out. Moreover,
rock samples collected from the study area were tested in
the laboratory for their strength values. Slope stability mod-
eling was conducted using kinematic, limit equilibrium, and
finite-element methods. The kinematic, limit equilibrium
and finite-element modeling were performed under static
dry, dynamic dry, static saturated, and dynamic saturated
conditions for the critical slope sections in the study area. In
general, from the three modeling results in the present study,
the following conclusions were drawn.
o Engineering geological evaluations in the area indicated
that the rock masses in the eight critical rock slope sec-
tions are slightly to highly weathered and heavily frac-
tured.
p In situ Schmidt hammer and laboratory point load tests
on representative rock samples showed that most of
the rocks along the road have medium-to-high-strength
basalt units but one of the critical rock slope sections
(RSS5) falls under a medium-strength limestone unit.
q Kinematic modeling was performed on the rock slope
sections RSS1, RSS4, RSS5, and RSS7 which showed
wedge and toppling failures for RSS1 and RSS4, respec-
tively, while RSS5 and RSS7 showed planar mode of
failure. RSS4 and RSS7 are stable, unstable, stable, and
unstable under static dry, static saturated, dynamic dry,
and dynamic saturated conditions, respectively. Moreo-
ver, RSS1is stable under the first three conditions but
unstable under dynamic saturated condition. However,
RSS5 is unstable in all four conditions. The results from
kinematic modeling confirmed that the mode of rock
slope failures is similar to those observed in the field.
r LEM and FEM modeling were performed on four rock
slope sections RSS2, RSS3, RSS6, and RSS8. This mod-
eling showed that RSS2 is stable, unstable, stable, and
unstable under static dry, static saturated, dynamic dry,
and dynamic saturated conditions, respectively, in both
models. Besides, RSS6 is stable in the first three condi-
tions but unstable under dynamic saturated condition for
both modeling approaches. However, RSS2 is unstable,
but RSS8 is stable in all four conditions for both models.
The stability condition in the three modeling approaches
is determined by the FoS for kinematic and LEM mod-
eling (stable if FoS > 1 and unstable if FoS < 1), but
for FEM modeling, SRF is used in which it is table if
SRF > 1 and unstable if SRF < 1.
s When FEM and LEM modeling results are compared, a
slightly higher FoS was obtained from LEM, although
FEM provides more useful information about the defor-
mation, displacement, and stress at any point of a slope
section.
t As remedial measures for slope instability in the study
area, LEM modeling revealed that flattening of a slope
angle, lowering the height, and benching a slope are
recommended. The calculated factor of safety results
showed that the stability of the slope was increased
when the slope geometry is modified.
Data availability All materials used for this article compilation are
properly cited and acknowledged.
13

Declarations
Conflict of interest The authors declare no conflict of interest with any
individual, group, or organization.
References
Abramson LW (2002) Slope stability and stabilization methods. Pub-
lished by John Wiley & Sons Inc, Hoboken
Abramson LW, Lee TS, Sharma S, Boyce GM (2002) Slope stability
and stabilization methods. John Wiley and Sons Inc, Hoboken,
p 712
Aleotti P, Chowdhury R (1999) Landslide hazard assessment: summary
review and new perspectives. Bull Eng Geol Environ 58(1):21–44.
https://​doi.​org/​10.​1007/​s1006​40050​06
Amini M, Majdi A, Veshadi MA (2012) Stability analysis of rock
slopes against block- flexure toppling failure. Rock Mech Rock
Eng 45(4):519–553
Anbalagan R (1992) Landslide hazard evaluation and zonation map-
ping in mountainous terrain. Eng Geol 32:269–277
Ankah MLY, Kinca C (2022) Stability analysis of rock slopes using
kinematic analysis and numerical modeling: Foça-Bağarası State
Highway, Turkey. Modeling Earth Syst Env. https://​doi.​org/​10.​
1007/​s40808-​022-​01454-y
Ansari TA, Srinivasan V, Singh TN, Das A (2019) Slope instability
analysis in phyllitic rock in the lesser Himalayan using three dif-
ferent modeling approaches. Bullet Eng Geology Env. https://​doi.​
org/​10.​1007/​s10064-​019-​01498-y
Asfaw LM. (1986) Catalogue of Ethiopian earthquakes, earthquake
parameters, strain release, and seismic risk. In Proceedings:
SAREC-ESTC Conference on Research Development and Cur-
rent Research Activities in Ethiopia 252–279
Assefa G (1991) Lithostratigraphy and environment of deposition of
the late jurassic-early cretaceous sequence of the central part of
Northwestern Plateau, Ethiopia. Neues Jahrbuch Für Geological
Und Paläontological-Abhandlungen 182:255–284
ASTM D 5731 (1995) ASTM standard test method for determination
of point load strength index of rocks. American society for test-
ing and materials, vol. 04.08 Conshohocken, PA, pp 142–148
ASTM D5873 (2001) Standard test method for determination of rock
hardness by rebound hammer method
Ayalew L (1999) The effect of seasonal rainfall on landslides in the
highlands of Ethiopia. Bull Eng Geol Env 58(1):9–19
Ayalew L, Yamagishi H (2004) Slope failures in the Blue Nile basin,
as seen from landscape evolution perspective. Geomorphology
57:95–116
Baker R, Shukha R, Operstein V, Frydman S (2006) Stability charts
for pseudo-static slope stability analysis. Soil Dyn Earthq Eng
26(9):813–823
Balazs V (2009) A possible method for estimating the poisson’s
rate values of the rock masses. Acta Geod Geoph Hung
44(3):313–322
Barton N, Bandis S. (1990) Review of predictive capabilities of JRC-
JCS model in engineering practice
Barton N, Choubey V (1977) The shear strength of rock joints in theory
and practice. Rock Mech 10(1):1–54
Binesh SM, Raei S (2014) Upper bound limit analysis of cohe-
sive soils using the mesh-free method. Geomech Geoeng
9(4):265–278
Broch E, Franklin JA (1972) The point-load strength test. Int J Rock
Mech Min Sci 9(6):669–676
13
Modeling Earth Systems and Environment
Bushira KM, Gebregiorgis YB, Verma RK, Sheng Z (2018) Cut soil
slope stability analysis along National Highway at Wozeka-
Gidole Road, Ethiopia. Modeling Earth Syst Env 4:591–600
Charles CJ, Lee P, Li R, Yeung T, Ibraham Mazlan SM, Tay ZW et al
(2020) A porcine model of heart failure with preserved ejection
fraction: magnetic resonance imaging and metabolic energetics.
Esc Heart Fail 7:93–103. https://​doi.​org/​10.​1002/​ehf2.​1253
Cheng Y, Wei W, Lansivaara T. (2006) Factors of safety by limit equi-
librium and strength reduction methods
Cheng YM, Lansivaara T, Wei WB (2007) Two-dimensional slope sta-
bility analysis by limit equilibrium and strength reduction meth-
ods. Comput Geotech 34(3):137–150 https://​doi.​org/​10.​1016/j.​
compg​eo.​2006.​10.​011
Christian JT (2004) Geotechnical engineering reliability: how
well do we know what we are doing. J Geotech Geo Env Eng
130(10):985–1003
Dawson EM, Roth WH, Drescher A (1999) Slope stability analysis by
strength reduction. Geotechnique 49(6):835–840
Deere DU, Miller RP. (1966).Engineering classification and index
properties for intact rocks. Tech Report. Air Force Weapons Lab.,
New Mexico, No. AFNL-TR 65-116. Kirtland
Gani ND, Abdelsalam MG, Gera S, Gani MR (2008) Stratigraphic
and structural evolution of the Blue Nile Basin, Northwestern
Ethiopian Plateau. Geo J 44:30–56
Gani NDS, Abdelsalam MG (2006) Remote sensing analysis of the
Gorge of the Nile, Ethiopia with emphasis on Dejen–Gohatsion
region. J Afr Earth Sci 44 (2):135-15 https://​doi.​org/​10.​1016/j.​
jafre​arsci.​2005.​10.​007
Goodman RE (1989) Introduction to rock mechanics, vol 2. Wiley,
New York
Griffiths DV, Lane PA (1999) Slope stability analysis by finite ele-
ments. Geotechnical 49(3):387–403
Hoek E (2006) Empirical estimation of rock mass modulus. Int J Rock
Mech Min Sci 43(2):203–215
Hoek E, Bray JD (1981) Rock slope engineering. CRC Press, Boca
Raton
Hoek E, Carranza-Torres C, Corkum B (2002) Hoek-Brown failure
criterion 2002 edition. Proceed NARMS-Tac 1(1):267–273
Hudson JA, Harrison JP (1997) Engineering rock mechanics. Perga-
mon, LondonISRM 1979
ISRM (1978) International society of rock mechanics. Suggested meth-
ods for determining tensile strength of rock materials. Int J Rock
Mech Mining Sci Geomech, Abstract 15(3): 99-103. 27
Kabeta WF, Diro GA, Teshager DK (2020) assessments of geotechni-
cal conditions and slope stability analysis. Int J Sci Res 6(3):10
Kale RY, Khan I, Kharbade A, Sakle C. (2021) An analytical study on
slope stability of a highway embankment 08(07) 5
Khandker AA, Anagnostou D, Jeffrey T (2013) Geotechnical chal-
lenges in highway engineering in twenty first century. Wayne State
University, Michigan, USA
Khanna R, Dubey RK (2020) Comparative assessment of slope stabil-
ity along road-cuts through rock slope classification systems in
Kullu Himalayas, Himachal Pradesh, India. Bull Eng Geol Env
80(2):993–1017 https://​doi.​org/​10.​1007/​s10064-​020-​02021-4
Koca TK, Koca MY (2020) Comparative analyses of finite element
and limit equilibrium methods for heavily fractured rock slopes.
J Earth Syst Sci 129:65–76
Komadja GC, Pradhan SP, Oluwasegun AD, Roul AR, Stanislas TT,
Laïb RA, Adebayo B, Onwualu AP (2021) Geotechnical and
geological investigation of slope stability of a section of road
cut debris-slopes along NH-7 Uttarakhand, India. Results Eng
10:100227
Kumar A, Sharma RK, Mehta BS (2020) Slope stability analysis and
mitigation measures for selected landslide sites along NH-205 in
Himachal Pradesh, India. J Earth Syst Sci 129(1):135
Modeling Earth Systems and Environment
Lyesse L, Alessandro F, Rotta L. (2020) Analysis and design of energy
geo structures
Liu F (2020) Stability analysis of geotechnical slope based on strength
reduction method. Geotech Geol Eng. https://​doi.​org/​10.​1007/​
s10706-​020-​01243-3
Mebrahtu TK, Heinze T, Wohnlich S, Alber M (2022) Slope stabil-
ity analysis of deep-seated landslides using limit equilibrium and
finite element methods in Debre Sina area, Ethiopia. Bullet Eng
Geol Env 81:403. https://​doi.​org/​10.​1007/​s10064-​022-​02906-6
Mogessie A, Krenn K, Schaflechner J, Koch U, Egger T, Goritchnig
B, Bauern FD (2002) A geological excursion to the Mesozoic
sediments of the Abay Basin (Blue Nile) recent volcanic of the
Ethiopian Main Rift, and basement rocks of the Adola area, Ethio-
pia. Mitt Österr Miner Ges 147:437
Morgenstern NR, Price VE (1965) The analysis of the stability of
general slip surfaces. Géotechnique 15:79–93
Pant JR, Acharya IP. (2021) Stability analysis of road-cut slope (a
case study of jiling landslide along the Galchi-Trishuli-Mai-
lung-Syaprubeshi Rasuwagadi Road) 7
Park H, West T (2001) Development of a probabilistic approach for
rock wedge failure. Eng Geol 59:233–251
Park HJ, Lee JH, Kim KM, Um JG (2016) Assessment of rock slope
stability using GIS-based probabilistic kinematic analysis. Eng
Geol 203:56–69
Popescu M. (2001) A suggested method for reporting landslide reme-
dial measures international union of geological sciences work-
ing group on landslides, commission on landslide remediation
Pradhan SP, Siddique T (2020) Stability assessment of landslide-
prone road cut rock slopes in Himalayan terrain: a finite element
method based approach. J Rock Mech Geotech Eng 12:59–73
Raghuvanshi TK, Ibrahim J, Ayalew D (2014) Slope stability suscep-
tibility evaluation parameter ( SSEP ) rating scheme–an approach
for landslide hazard zonation. J Africa Earth Sci 99:595–612
Raghuvanshi TK. (2017) Plane failure in rock slopes–a review on sta-
bility analysis techniques. J King Saud Univ-Sci
Raghuvanshi TK (2019) Governing factors influence on rock slope
stability–Statistical analysis for plane mode of failure. J King
Saud Univ Sci 31(4):1254-1263 https://​doi.​org/​10.​1016/j.​jksus.​
2019.​01.​002
Renani HR, Martin CD (2020) Factor of safety of strain-softening
slopes. J Rock Mech Geotech Eng 12 (2020) 473e483 https://​doi.​
org/​10.​1016/j.​jrmge.​2019.​11.​004
Rocscience (2004a) Dips7.0, http://w ​ ww.r​ ocsci​ ence.c​ om/s​ oftwa​ re/d​ ips
Rocscience (2004b) Rocdata3.0, http://​www.​rocsc​ience.​com/​softw​are/​
rocda​ta
Rocscience (2004c) RocPlane2.0, http://​www.​rocsc​ience.​com/​softw​
are/​rocpl​aneRo​cscie​nce
Rocscience (2004d) RocTopple2.0, https://w ​ ww.r​ ocsci​ ence.c​ om/s​ oftw​
are/r
Rocscience (2004e) Slide6.0, http://​www.​rocsc​ience.​com/​softw​are/​
slide
Rocscience (2004f) Swedge4.0, http://​www.​rocsc​ience.​com/​softw​are/​
swede
Sari M (2021) Secondary toppling failure analysis and optimal support
design for ignimbrites in the Ihlara Valley (Cappadocia, Turkey)
by finite element method (FEM). Geotech Geol Eng. https://​doi.​
org/​10.​1007/​s10706-​021-​01819-7
Searom G (2017) Landslide hazard evaluation and zonation in and
around hagere selam town. A Thesis Submitted to School of Earth
sciences Addis Ababa University, Ethiopia
Seyed V, Mphamad E, Jahanmirinezhad H, Haji HM (2011) Zonation
of landslide hazards based on weights of evidence Ica modeling
along tehran-chalos road path, Iran. Electronic J Geotech Eng
16(10):1083–1097
Shariati M, Fereidooni D (2021) Rock slope stability evaluation using
kinematic and kinetic methods along the Kamyaran-Marivan road,
west of Iran. J Mt Sci 18(3):779–793
Shariati M, Ramli-Sulong NH, Arabnejad MM, Shafigh P, Sinae H
(2011) Assessing the strength of reinforced concrete structures
through ultrasonic pulse velocity and schmidt rebound hammer
tests. Sci Res Essays 6:213–220
Sharma S, Raghuvanshi T, Anbalagan R (1995) Plane failure analysis
of rock slopes. Geotech Geol Eng 13:105–111
Shiferaw HM (2021) Study on the influence of slope height and angle
on the factor of safety and shape of failure of slopes based on
strength reduction method of analysis. Beni-Suef Univ J Basic
Appl Sci 10(1):31
Singh TN, Rajbal S, Bhoop S, Sharma LK, Rajesh S, Ansari MK (2016)
Investigations and stability analyses of malin village landslide of
Pune District, Maharashtra, India. Nathazards 81(3):2019–2030
Singh HO, Ansari TA, Singh TN, Singh KH (2020) Analytical
and numerical stability analysis of road cut slopes in Garhwal
Himalaya, India. Geotech Geol Eng. https://​doi.​org/​10.​1007/​
s10706-​020-​01329-y
Tamrat M, Tibebe GS. (1997) The geology of Ginde Mehert-Jeldu and
Amuru-Jarti areas (east Wellega and wetern Shoa), Abay Basin.
Ministry of Mines and Energy, Addis Ababa
Tsige D, Quezon ET, Woldearegay DK. (2017) Geotechnical condi-
tions and stability analysis of landslide prone area: a case study
in Bonga Town, South-Western Ethiopia. 8(4) 11
Vatanpour N, Ghafoori M, Talouki HH (2014) Probabilistic and
sensitivity analyses of effective geotechnical parameters on
rock slope stability: a case study of an urban area in northeast
Iran. Nat Hazards 71(3):1659–1678. https://​doi.​org/​10.​1007/​
s11069-​013-​0982-6
Wyllie D, Mah C (2004) Rock slope engineering civil and mining, 4th
edn. Spon Press, New York
Wolela A (2009) Sedimentation and depositional environments of the
Barremian-Cenomanian Debre Libanose Sandstone, Blue Nile
(Abay) Basin, Ethiopia. Cretac Res 30(5):1133-1145, https://​doi.​
org/​10.​1016/j.​cretr​es.​2009.​04.​002
You G, Mandalawi MA, Soliman A, Dowling K, Dahlhaus P. (2018)
Finite element analysis of rock slope stability using shear strength
reduction method
Zhang Y, Chen G, Zheng LL, Zhuang X (2013) Effects of geome-
tries on three dimensional slope stability. Canadian Geotech J
50(3):233–324
Zheng RH, Renani CD, Martin (2020) A three-dimensional rigorous
method for stability analysis of landslides H factor of the safety of
strain-softening slopes. Strength Reduction Method
Publisher's Note Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to
jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.
Springer Nature or its licensor (e.g. a society or other partner) holds
exclusive rights to this article under a publishing agreement with the
author(s) or other rightsholder(s); author self-archiving of the accepted
manuscript version of this article is solely governed by the terms of
such publishing agreement and applicable law.
13