2.

6Identification of modes of slope instability

Different types of slope failure are associated with different geological structures and
it is important that the slope designer be able to recognize potential stability
problems during the early stages of a project. Some of the structural patterns that
should be identified when examining pole plots are outlined on the following pages.
Figure 2.16 shows the four types of failure considered in this book, and typical pole
plots of geological conditions likely to lead to such failures. Note that in assessing
stability, the cut face of the slope must be included in the stereo plot since sliding can
only occur as the result of movement towards the free face created by the cut. The
importance of distinguishing between these four types of slope failure is that there is
a specific type of stability analysis for each as shown
in Chapters 6-9, and it is essential that the correct analysis method be used in design.
The diagrams given in Figure 2.16 have been simplified for the sake of clarity. In an
actual rock slope, several types of geological structures may be present, and this may
give rise to additional types of failure. For example, in Figure 2.11, a plane failure
could occur on joint set A, while the bedding could form a toppling failure on the
same slope.
In a typical field study in which structural data have been plotted on stereonets, a
number of significant pole concentrations may be present. It is useful to be able to
identify those that represent potential failure planes, and to eliminate those that
represent structures that are unlikely to be involved in slope failures. Tests for
identifying important pole concentrations have been developed by Markland (1972)
and Hocking (1976). These tests establish the possibility of a wedge failure in which
sliding takes place along the line of intersection of two planar discontinuities as
illustrated in Figure 2.16(b). Plane failure shown in Figure 2.16(a) is also covered by
this test since it is a special case of wedge failure. For a wedge failure, contact is
maintained on both planes and sliding occurs along the line of intersection between
the two planes. For either plane or wedge failure to take place, it is fundamental that
the dip of the sliding plane in the case of plane failure, or the plunge of the line of
intersection in the case of wedge failure, be less than the dip of the slope face (i.e. f
< ff) (Figure 2.17(a)). That is, the sliding surface daylights in the slope face.
The test can also differentiate between sliding of a wedge on two planes along the
line of intersection, or along only one of the planes such that a plane failure occurs. If
the dip directions of the two planes lie outside the included angle between ai (trend
of intersection line) and af (dip direction of face), the wedge will slide on both planes
(Figure 2.17(b)). If the dip direction of one plane (A) lies within the included angle
between ai and af, the wedge will slide on only that plane (Figure 2.17(c)).
2.6.1

Kinematic analysis

Once the type of block failure has been identified on the stereonet, the same diagram
can also be used to examine the direction in which a block will slide and give an
indication of stability conditions. This procedure is known as kinematic analysis. An

application of kinematic analysis is the rock face shown in Figure 2.1(b) where two
joint planes form a wedge which has slid out of the face and towards the
photographer. If the slope face had been less steep than the line of intersection
between the two planes, or had a strike at 90 to the actual strike, then although the
two planes form a wedge, it would not have been able to slide from the face. This
relationship between the direction in which the block of rock will slide and the
orientation of the face is readily apparent on the stereonet. However, while analysis
of the stereonet gives a good indication of stability conditions, it does not account for
external forces such as water pressures or reinforcement comprising tensioned rock
bolts, which can have a significant effect on stability. The usual design procedure is to
use kinematic analysis to identify potentially unstable blocks, followed by detailed
stability analysis of these blocks using the procedures described in Chapters 6-9.
An example of kinematic analysis is shown in Figure 2.18 where a rock slope
contains three sets of discontinuities. The potential for these discontinuities to result
in slope failures depends on their dip and dip direction relative to the face; stability
conditions can be studied on the stereonet as described in the next section.
2.6.2

Plane failure

In Figure 2.18(a), a potentially unstable planar block is formed by plane AA, which
dips at a flatter angle than the face (^A < f and is said to daylight on the face.
However, sliding is not possible on plane BB which dips steeper than the face (^B > f
and does not daylight. Similarly, discontinuity set CC dips into the face and sliding
cannot occur on these planes, although toppling is possible. The poles of the slope
face and the discontinuity sets (symbol P) are plotted on the stereonet in Figure
2.18(b), assuming that all the discontinuities strike parallel to the face. The position
of these poles in relation to the slope face shows that the poles of all planes that daylight and are potentially unstable, lie inside the pole of the slope face. This area is
termed the daylight envelope and can be used to identify quickly potentially unstable
blocks.
The dip direction of the discontinuity sets will also influence stability. Plane sliding is
not possible if the dip direction of the discontinuity differs from the dip direction of
the face by more than about 20. That is, the block will be stable if |A af | > 20,
because under these conditions there will be an increasing thickness of intact rock at
one end of the block which will have sufficient strength to resist failure. On the
stereonet this restriction on the dip direction of the planes is shown by two lines
defining dip directions of (af + 20) and (af 20). These two lines designate the
lateral limits of the daylight envelope on Figure 2.18(b).

Pag 71..
3.6.1

Core orientation

For conditions where there is insufficient design data on discontinuity orientation from
surface mapping, it may be necessary to obtain this data from drill core. This will
require that the core be oriented.
The first step in orienting core is to determine the plunge and trend of the drill hole
using a down-hole survey tool. One such tool comprises an aluminum (non-magnetic)
drill rod that contains a dip meter and a compass, both of which can be photographed
at specified time intervals. The orientation tool is lowered down the hole on the end
of the drill string, and is held stationary at the times specified for the camera
operation. At each time interval a photograph is taken of the dip meter and compass,
and the depth is recorded. When the tool is recovered from the hole, the film is
developed to show the hole orientation at the recorded depths. Other hole orientation
tools include the Tropari single shot instrument, and gyroscopes for use in magnetic
environments (Australian Drilling Industry, 1996).

Most methods of orienting core involve marking a line down the core representing the
top of the hole. Since the orientation of this line is known from the hole survey, the
orientation of all discontinuities in the core can be measured relative to this line, from
which their dip and strike can be calculated (Figure 3.13). Figure 3.13 shows that a
plane intersected by the core has the shape of an ellipse, and the first step in the
calculation process is to mark the down-hole end major axis of this ellipse. The dip (S)
of this plane is then measured relative to the core axis, and a reference angle (a) is
measured clockwise (looking down-hole) around the circumference of the core from
the top-of-core line to the major axis of the ellipse. The dip and dip direction of the
plane is calculated from the plunge and trend of the hole and the measured angles S
and a. The true dip and dip direction of a discontinuity in the core can be determined
by stereographic methods (Goodman, 1976), or by spherical/analytical geometry
methods (Lau, 1983).
In a few cases, the core may contain a distinct and consistent marker of known
orientation,
such as bedding, which can be used to orient the core and measure the orientation of
the other discontinuities. However, minor, and unknown variations in the orientation
of the marker bed are likely to lead to errors. Therefore, it is usually preferable to use
one of the following three methods to determine the top-of-the-core.
The clay impression method to orient core involves fabricating a wireline core barrel
with one side weighted so that the barrel can rotate and position the weight at the
bottom of the hole (Figure 3.14) (Call et al., 1982). A piece of clay is placed at the
lower end of the barrel such that it protrudes past the drill bit when the core barrel is
lowered down the rods and locked into place. A light pressure is then applied to the
rods so that the clay takes an impression of the rock surface at the end of the hole.
The core barrel is then removed and the clay impression, with top-of-core reference
line, is retrieved. The next drill run proceeds normally. When this length of core is
removed, the top-of-the-core is matched with the clay impression and the top-of-core
line is transferred from the clay to the core run. The discontinuities in the core run are
then oriented relative to the top-of-core line using the method shown in Figure 3.13.
The advantages of the clay impression core orientation method are its simplicity
and low equipment cost. However, the time required to take an impression on each
drill run slows drilling, and the method can only be used in holes inclined at angles
flatter than about 70. Also, the orientation line will be lost at any place where the
core is broken and it is not possible to extend the top-of-the-core line past the break.
A more sophisticated core orientation tool is the Christiensen-Hugel device that
scribes a continuous line down the core during drilling; the orientation of the scribed
line is determined by taking photographs of a compass in the head of the core barrel.
The advantage of this method is that a continuous reference line is scribed so there
is no loss of the line in zones of broken core. However, this is a more expensive and
sophisticated piece of equipment than the clay impression tool.
The most recent advance in core orientation is the use of the scanning borehole
camera. A camera developed by Colog Inc. takes a continuous 360 image of the wall
of the hole as the camera is lowered down the hole. The image can then be
processed to have the appearance of a piece of core that can be rotated and viewed
from any direction, or can be unwrapped (Figure 3.15). In the core view, planes
intersecting the core have an elliptical shape, while in the unwrapped view the trace
of each discontinuity has the form of a sine wave. The dip and dip direction of planes
intersecting the core can be determined from the plunge and trend of the hole, and

the orientation of the image from the compass incorporated in the camera. The dip
direction of the plane is found from the position of the sine wave with respect to the
compass reading, and the dip of the plane with respect to the core axis can be
determined by the amplitude of the sine wave. The software with the camera system
allows orientation data indicated by the sine waves to be plotted directly on a
stereonet.
The significant advantages of Colog camera system are that the camera is run down
the hole at the completion of the hole so there is no interruption to drilling. Also, the
image provides a continuous record of rock conditions, including cavities and zones of
broken rock that may be lost in the recovered core. The disadvantage of the system is
the cost and the need for a stable hole with clean walls, that is either dry or is filled
with clean water.