seepage-coupled finite element analysis of stress driven

61
University of South Florida University of South Florida Scholar Commons Scholar Commons Graduate Theses and Dissertations Graduate School March 2019 Seepage-Coupled Finite Element Analysis of Stress Driven Rock Seepage-Coupled Finite Element Analysis of Stress Driven Rock Slope Failures for BothNatural and Induced Failures Slope Failures for BothNatural and Induced Failures Thomas Becket Anyintuo University of South Florida, [email protected] Follow this and additional works at: https://scholarcommons.usf.edu/etd Part of the Civil Engineering Commons Scholar Commons Citation Scholar Commons Citation Anyintuo, Thomas Becket, "Seepage-Coupled Finite Element Analysis of Stress Driven Rock Slope Failures for BothNatural and Induced Failures" (2019). Graduate Theses and Dissertations. https://scholarcommons.usf.edu/etd/7731 This Thesis is brought to you for free and open access by the Graduate School at Scholar Commons. It has been accepted for inclusion in Graduate Theses and Dissertations by an authorized administrator of Scholar Commons. For more information, please contact [email protected].

Upload: others

Post on 27-Nov-2021

6 views

Category:

Documents


0 download

TRANSCRIPT

Page 1: Seepage-Coupled Finite Element Analysis of Stress Driven

University of South Florida University of South Florida

Scholar Commons Scholar Commons

Graduate Theses and Dissertations Graduate School

March 2019

Seepage-Coupled Finite Element Analysis of Stress Driven Rock Seepage-Coupled Finite Element Analysis of Stress Driven Rock

Slope Failures for BothNatural and Induced Failures Slope Failures for BothNatural and Induced Failures

Thomas Becket Anyintuo University of South Florida, [email protected]

Follow this and additional works at: https://scholarcommons.usf.edu/etd

Part of the Civil Engineering Commons

Scholar Commons Citation Scholar Commons Citation Anyintuo, Thomas Becket, "Seepage-Coupled Finite Element Analysis of Stress Driven Rock Slope Failures for BothNatural and Induced Failures" (2019). Graduate Theses and Dissertations. https://scholarcommons.usf.edu/etd/7731

This Thesis is brought to you for free and open access by the Graduate School at Scholar Commons. It has been accepted for inclusion in Graduate Theses and Dissertations by an authorized administrator of Scholar Commons. For more information, please contact [email protected].

Page 2: Seepage-Coupled Finite Element Analysis of Stress Driven

Seepage-Coupled Finite Element Analysis of Stress Driven Rock Slope Failures for Both Natural

and Induced Failures

by

Thomas Becket Anyintuo

A thesis submitted in partial fulfillment

of the requirements for the degree of

Master of Science in Civil Engineering

Department of Civil and Environmental Engineering

College of Engineering

University of South Florida

Major Professor: Manjriker Gunaratne, Ph.D.

Andres E. Tejada-Martinez, Ph.D.

Sarah Kruse, Ph.D.

Date of Approval:

March 26, 2019

Keywords: Stress Wave, Blasting, Crack Propagation, Remote Sensing

Copyright © 2019, Thomas Becket Anyintuo

Page 3: Seepage-Coupled Finite Element Analysis of Stress Driven

DEDICATION

I dedicate this work to my mum, Madam Lucy Zinale Anyintuo

Page 4: Seepage-Coupled Finite Element Analysis of Stress Driven

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

I am grateful to my major professor, Dr. M. Gunaratne, for giving me the opportunity to

work with him on this project. I am very appreciative of his support throughout this journey. I also

appreciate the numerous support and encouragement I received from the members of my thesis

committee, Dr. Tejada-Martinez and Dr. Kruse. I am also thankful to all my colleagues at the

Department of Civil Engineering for all their support

Page 5: Seepage-Coupled Finite Element Analysis of Stress Driven

i

TABLE OF CONTENTS

LIST OF TABLES .......................................................................................................................... ii

LIST OF FIGURES ....................................................................................................................... iii

ABSTRACT .................................................................................................................................... v

CHAPTER 1: INTRODUCTION ................................................................................................... 1

CHAPTER 2: LITERATURE REVIEW ........................................................................................ 6

2.1 Crack Propagation ......................................................................................................... 6

2.2 Seepage of Water ........................................................................................................ 10

2.3 The Case Study ........................................................................................................... 11

2.4 Remote Sensing .......................................................................................................... 13

CHAPTER 3: METHODOLOGY ................................................................................................ 16

3.1 Finite Element Modeling ............................................................................................ 16

3.1.1 Model Geometry and Properties. ................................................................. 16

3.1.2 Crack Propagation ........................................................................................ 20

3.1.3 Mesh Sensitivity Analysis............................................................................ 23

3.1.4 Seepage of Water Through Existing Cracks ................................................ 26

3.1.5 Stability Analysis. ........................................................................................ 31

3.2 Evidence from Remote Sensing .................................................................................. 32

3.2.1 Data .............................................................................................................. 32

3.2.2 Data Processing ............................................................................................ 33

CHAPTER 4: RESULTS AND DISCUSSION ............................................................................ 34

CHAPTER 5: CONCLUSION ..................................................................................................... 41

REFERENCES ............................................................................................................................. 42

APPENDIX A: STRESSES FOR STABILITY ANALYSIS ....................................................... 47

Page 6: Seepage-Coupled Finite Element Analysis of Stress Driven

ii

LIST OF TABLES

Table 1: Model properties for FE analysis (adopted from Styles et al, 2011)……………………………….20

Table 2: Local safety factors after stage 1 cracking……………………………………………….………….……………35

Table 3: Local safety factors after stage 2 cracking………………………………………………..………………………37

Table 4: Local safety factors after stage 3 cracking……………………………………….…..…………..………………39

Table 5: Global factor of safety for each stage of crack extension……………………………..……..………….39

Table A: Stresses for stability analysis………………………………………………………………………………..……………47

Page 7: Seepage-Coupled Finite Element Analysis of Stress Driven

iii

LIST OF FIGURES

Figure 1: Illustration of step-path failure mechanism (Camones et al, 2013) ................................ 7

Figure 2: Aerial photo of the pit showing the rock slide (downloaded from SkyTruth.com) ...... 17

Figure 3: NAIP Images of the site, before (left) and after (right) the slide, with slide location ... 17

Figure 4: ASTER digital elevation data in black and white with NAIP image overlain .............. 18

Figure 5: Sample 3-D display of scene before failure .................................................................. 19

Figure 6: Pit geometry used for Finite Element Modeling ........................................................... 19

Figure 7: Graphs showing time of stabilization of gravity loads and start point of detonation .... 21

Figure 8: Applied loads ................................................................................................................. 22

Figure 9: Crack extension path as dictated by stress concentrations ............................................ 23

Figure 10: Coarse mesh (a) and refined mesh (b) for sensitivity analysis .................................... 24

Figure 11: Refinement for single crack location........................................................................... 24

Figure 12: Results with coarse mesh ............................................................................................ 25

Figure 13: Results from refined mesh ........................................................................................... 26

Figure 14: Fracture tooth angle in Patton's model (from Patton, 1966) ....................................... 27

Figure 15: Reduction of tooth angle, i, over time with erosion .................................................... 28

Figure 16: Sample rough pipe used to model crack (a) and mesh used for flow analysis (b). ..... 29

Figure 17: Normal force on crack wall for flow velocity of 0.5m/s ............................................. 30

Figure 18: Normal force on crack wall for flow velocity of 10m/s .............................................. 30

Figure 19: Sliding surface used for stability analysis ................................................................... 32

Figure 20: Images of the slope before (left) and after (right) the failure ...................................... 33

Page 8: Seepage-Coupled Finite Element Analysis of Stress Driven

iv

Figure 21: Stage 1 crack extension ............................................................................................... 34

Figure 22: Normal (a) and shear (b) stresses at sample observation points used for stability

analysis for stage 1 cracking ....................................................................................... 35

Figure 23: Stage 2 crack extensions.............................................................................................. 36

Figure 24: Normal (a) and shear (b) stresses at sample observation points used for stability

analysis for stage 2 cracking ....................................................................................... 37

Figure 25: Stage 3 cracking .......................................................................................................... 38

Figure 26: Normal (a) and shear (b) stresses at sample observation points used for stability

analysis for stage 3 cracking ....................................................................................... 39

Page 9: Seepage-Coupled Finite Element Analysis of Stress Driven

v

ABSTRACT

Rock slope failures leading to rock falls and rock slides are caused by a multitude of factors,

including seismic activity, weathering, frost wedging, groundwater and thermal stressing.

Although these causes are generally attributed as separate causes, some of them will often act

together to cause rock slope failures. In this work, two of the above factors, seepage of water

through cracks and crack propagation due to the after effects of blasting are considered. Their

combined impact on the development of rock falls and rock slides is modeled on ANSYS

workbench using the Bingham Canyon mine slope failure of 2013 as a case study. Crack path

modeling and slope stability analysis are used to show how a combination of crack propagation

and seepage of water can lead to weakening of rock slopes and ultimate failure. Based on the work

presented here, a simple approach for modeling the development of rock falls and rock slides due

to crack propagation and seepage forces is proposed. It is shown how the information from remote

sensing images can be used to develop crack propagation paths. The complete scope of this method

involves demonstrating the combination of basic remote sensing techniques combined with

numerical modeling on ANSYS workbench.

Page 10: Seepage-Coupled Finite Element Analysis of Stress Driven

1

CHAPTER 1: INTRODUCTION

Landslides have various slightly different definitions in different fields such as Geology,

Engineering, Environmental Science, etc. For most common usage, a landslide is simply the

movement of earth material downslope under the action of gravity. Regardless of how they are

defined, landslides are always the result of failure of an existing slope. Therefore, they can be

always related to the shear strength (or tensile strength in some cases) of the material of the failing

slope.

The most commonly used classification of landslides combines the mechanism of the

failure and the properties of the earth material involved in the slide. In terms of mechanism of

failure, landslides may be falls, flows, topples, avalanches etc. The material of the slope may be

rock, debris, mud, etc. Landslides can thus be classified based on the above to result in terms such

as rock falls, mudflows, debris avalanches, etc.

Weerasinghe et al (2011) and Dahigamuwa et al (2017) cite two attributions of the factors

that control the occurrence of landslides. (1) Location based attributes such as geology, slope,

hydrologic factors and surface deposits. (2) Triggering factors such as rainfall, seismic activity,

human activity and volcanic activity. Researchers seem to agree on water and seismicity being the

two most important triggers of landslides, especially rock falls, as an example, N. H. Maerz (2014),

Y. Yin et al (2016) and A. Contino (2017) all cite one or both of these as triggers of the investigated

rock falls. Rock falls are one group of landslides in which dislodged rock moves downslope by

bouncing, rolling, sliding or free-fall under gravity, (J. J. Castleton, 2009). Depending on the

factors such as height of fall, mass of falling blocks and slope of the cliff face, rock falls may attain

Page 11: Seepage-Coupled Finite Element Analysis of Stress Driven

2

velocities and reach distances that are threatening to life and property in the vicinity, (J. J.

Castleton, 2009).

Therefore, the ability to locate potentially unstable rock slopes can be a very valuable asset

in investigating rock fall and rock slide risks. A method is presented here where the effect of

seeping water and human activity (mining in this case) as driving forces in developing a step-path

failure are modeled in ANSYS Explicit Dynamics module with supporting evidence obtained from

remote sensing data.

Step-path failure is a common mode of instability in rock slopes with intermittent joints

(Huang et al, 2014). When such slopes are loaded, by self-weight or external loads, the tips of

existing cracks become highly stressed and if the loading is sufficient to create stresses higher than

the strength of the rock material, the cracks will extend into previously intact rock zones. This

could cause a single crack to propagate through intact rock bridges and cause instability or multiple

pre-existing cracks to extend and connect, creating a potential shear failure path. This mechanism

is referred to as the step-path failure mechanism (Huang et al, 2014).

The development of step-path failure in jointed rocks has been extensively studied and

presented in literature. Bonilla et al (2015) combined ground based photogrammetry and numerical

modeling to investigate stability of a hanging rock block under gravity loading. Their work

confirmed possible instability mechanisms such as including both sliding along existing

discontinuities and possible cracking of intact rock bridges. Spreafico et al (2017) investigated the

development of toppling failure at the edge of a fractured rock slope in which slope undercutting

resulting in loss of support was the driving force in the propagation of existing cracks.

In the above cited works, the propagation and coalescence of pre-existing cracks were

considered to be driven only by gravity loading. This is sufficient for the specific cases considered

Page 12: Seepage-Coupled Finite Element Analysis of Stress Driven

3

since they were all natural slopes exposed only to self-weight loads. In considering instabilities

involving human activity such as mining as is the case in this research, very complex loading

scenarios can arise which cannot be modeled with the same approach as used for simple gravity

loading.

A mine slope failure which resulted in a rock avalanche is used in this work as a case study

to demonstrate the ability of the proposed method for dealing with complex loading in the

development of step-path failure. According to Hibert et al (2014), the Bingham Canyon Mine

(Copper Mine) is the largest man-made excavation in the world measuring about 4km wide and

1km deep. It is operated by Kennecott Utah Copper but owned by Rio Tinto. In April 2013 one of

the mine’s slopes failed causing a rock avalanche described as being the largest non-volcanic rock

avalanche recorded. Geotechnical personnel had been monitoring the movement along the slope

so that by the time the failure occurred appropriate precautions had been put in place ensuring no

injuries were sustained (Carter, 2014).

The slow movement of a failing slope is a common observation for slopes in which either

a failure path is slowly developing or slopes in which residual strength along a fully formed failure

path is slowly being reduced. These two cases correspond to a developing step-path failure mode

or an eroding fracture surface and thus both scenarios are considered in the following sections.

Since the slope is a man-made excavation, there is the possibility of having loading

conditions more complex than simple self-weight of the slope material. In open cast mining

excavation is commonly done by setting charges to break down rock into rubble which is then

shoveled off to expose more rock for further blasting. A stress wave is generated each time a charge

is set off and this wave travels through the rock at the bottom of the pit as well as on the pit walls.

Page 13: Seepage-Coupled Finite Element Analysis of Stress Driven

4

Unfortunately slope pits are usually designed based only on the geological and geotechnical

properties of the wall rock without considering the future load from the mining activity.

By taking advantage of the capabilities of ANSYS Explicit Dynamics module, it is possible

to simulate the blasting process and track the stresses induced in upper parts of a pit wall from the

traveling stress wave at different observation times. Depending on the location of the blast, the

size of the charge and the observation time, stresses in the upper slope can be seen to reach levels

that are higher than the rock strength. In the work presented here, this load is considered as one of

the driving forces that create a step-path failure mode.

In addition to the stresses from the mining operation, water flow through existing cracks

was also investigated. Two particular aspects of seepage were considered, vis, the seepage forces

acting normal and outward to the crack walls and the shear on the wall surfaces which tend to

erode the crack surfaces and reduce the residual shear strength that can be mobilized on these

surfaces.

Remote sensing techniques have found application in many fields of study and research

including study of natural hazards such as landslides. Remote sensing techniques have two

important advantages; (1) is the ability to obtain data for locations that may otherwise be

inaccessible and (2) the method can often reveal details that can be missed in field investigations.

The biggest challenge of remote sensing techniques is the availability of data of the quality

required for the intended study. For this reason, a lot of remote sensing research often includes

some level of field investigation and in most such cases, remote sensing is only applied for

locations that are inaccessible. El Haddad et al (2017) used a combination of field investigations

and satellite images to locate potentially unstable boulders on a rock face along a road cut.

Page 14: Seepage-Coupled Finite Element Analysis of Stress Driven

5

M Sečanj et al (2017) used a combination of field investigations and ground based laser scanning

to obtain rock discontinuity data which was used for kinematic analysis.

For the purposes of the current project, the level of remote sensing application required is

basic. Remotely sensed data was used as a source of supporting evidence for constructing the slope

geometry, including both rock material and joint locations. The data was obtained from the vast

database of remotely sensed data provided by the United States Geological Survey (USGS) on its

‘EarthExplorer’ website ( https://earthexplorer.usgs.gov/). Specifically, images obtained as part of

the National Agriculture Imagery Program were used since they provide high levels of visual detail

as required for this project.

The National Agriculture Imagery Program (NAIP) acquires aerial imagery during

agricultural seasons and makes this photographic data available to governmental agencies and the

public within a year of acquisition. The images are acquired at a one-meter ground sample distance

(GSD) with a horizontal accuracy of about six meters of photo-identifiable ground control points.

The default spectral bands was natural color (Red, Green and Blue, or RGB) until 2007 when some

states started being delivered with four bands of data: RGB and Near Infrared

(https://www.fsa.usda.gov)

NAIP imagery products are available in two formats, either as digital ortho quarter quad

tiles (DOQQs) or as compressed county mosaics (CCM). Of the above, DOQQs were used for this

project. They are geotiffs with coverage areas corresponding to the USGS topographic quadrangles

(https://www.fsa.usda.gov). Data processing was limited to visual rendering on two separate image

processing environments, ENVI and ArcGIS Pro. To further enhance visual detail, the 2D image

data was converted into 3D scenes using elevation information from an Aster DEM (Digital

Elevation Model) of the area also downloaded from USGS site.

Page 15: Seepage-Coupled Finite Element Analysis of Stress Driven

6

CHAPTER 2: LITERATURE REVIEW

2.1 Crack Propagation

Cracks affect the strength and integrity of rocks and present challenges in designing

structures in, on or even with the rock. Cracks reduce the shear resistance provided by rock

significantly by reducing the area where cohesion and friction are developed. For this reason,

fractured rock slopes can normally become very unstable depending on the interaction between

cracked and intact rock zones. A single crack, favorably oriented may result in enough strength

reduction to lead to failure (Spreafico et al, 2017). Even in situations where there is adequate

strength mobilized from intact rock bridges to hold slope material up, there will still be the

possibility of existing cracks extending into intact zones (Bonilla et al, 2015). Each time a crack

extends into intact rock, the available traction holding up slope material is reduced until a time

when it is not enough to support the weight component of the slope material, at which point failure

will occur. The propagation and coalescence of existing cracks leads to the development of a

preferred failure path known as the step-path failure mechanism as depicted in Figure 1.

Page 16: Seepage-Coupled Finite Element Analysis of Stress Driven

7

Figure 1: Illustration of step-path failure mechanism (Camones et al, 2013)

Griffith’s theory of brittle fracture which was proposed in the 1920’s to explain initiation

of fracture in materials such as steel and glass has remained a valid theoretical basis for studying

brittle fracture mechanisms. Griffith (1920) postulated that fracturing of materials initiates at the

tips of micro-fractures under tensile loading, and later extended it to also explain initiation of

cracks under high compressive load. The above theory was based on energy balance approach with

an underlying assumption that crack propagation would only occur if the potential strain energy

released in the process is sufficient to compensate the energy required for the formation of new

surfaces (Irwin 1968, Yarema 1995). Yarema (1995) also discussed in detail the contributions of

Irwin to the topic of brittle fracture and crack propagation. Irwin (1968) showed in his work that

the energy approach could be replaced by an equivalent strength approach which required less

involving computations but produced the same results regarding loads required for crack

propagation. Irwin (1968) further identified three classes of crack propagation based on directions

Page 17: Seepage-Coupled Finite Element Analysis of Stress Driven

8

of loads and crack extensions. He also introduced the concept of stress intensity factors which

accounts for the observation that cracks will often withstand loads greater than the strength and

exist in a meta-stable state and then at a certain load intensity, sudden failure at crack tips would

cause propagation of these cracks (Yarema, 1995).

Other research in developing the theoretical bases of crack initiation and propagation

include the work of Hoek (1965) who based on Griffith’s theory and Irwin’s modifications with

little additions, developed an extension of this theory to explain fracture mechanism in closed

cracks under compressive loads. These changes and the subsequent extension allowed the theory

to be adopted in the field of rock mechanics to explain crack initiation and propagation in rocks

(Hoek, 1965).

More recent work on the topic of crack propagation has been focused on numerical

techniques and some experimental work to develop approaches to modeling crack propagation and

the application of this knowledge in design of slopes, excavations and tunnels in rock. Huang et al

(2015) used a Particle Flow Code (PFC) to model crack propagation in different model slopes with

the aim of gaining insight into crack propagation and also testing the suitability of particle based

methods for modeling the phenomenon. According to Huang et al (2015), the use of particle based

methods requires extensive data collection in order to obtain grain-level engineering properties of

the rocks involved. They also used the gravity increase method to drive the propagation and

ultimate failure of rock slopes. The principle of this method is to slowly increase the magnitude of

gravitational acceleration until failure is obtained. The above theory has been shown to provide a

good approximation of the final failure surface but it does not represent realistic loading in rock

slopes (Li et al, 2009). In the author’s opinion, the apparent increase in gravitational acceleration

that will result in closely approximating a real failure surface is rather the result of a reduction in

Page 18: Seepage-Coupled Finite Element Analysis of Stress Driven

9

shear strength of the slope which could arise from any number of factors including erosion, creep,

internal deformation, and other external load sources.

Paluszny et al (2017) used a finite element approach to model upward crack propagation

as it is applicable in the block cave mining method. In the block caving method, an excavation is

made through a side pit under the block of rock that is to be mined. This leaves a block of rock

above the cave roof with no support, causing it to collapse. This significantly reduces the amount

of blasting that would otherwise be required. Paluszny et al (2017) found that by relying on crack

propagation, it is possible to further reduce the amount of excavation needed for the initial cave

and hence reduce the production cost. Camones et al (2012) conducted a study to test the

applicability of the discrete element method as a tool for understanding the step-path failure

mechanism in fractured rock masses by simulating triaxial tests performed on cracked rock

samples. They found that the results from the DEM simulation closely matched the test results for

the failure modes tested.

Both Bonilla et al (2015) and Spreafico et al (2017) investigated crack propagation in

natural rock slopes where loss of support lead to gravity driven cracking. Bonilla et al studied a

slope where a previous failure had created a hanging block within which multiple existing cracks

could propagate to cause failure. Spreafico et al (2017) investigated a similar loading condition

created by slope undercutting from erosion, with a single near vertical crack propagating through

the intact rock bridge to cause failure.

In the above cited works, the propagation and coalescence of pre-existing cracks were

considered to be driven only by gravity loading. This is sufficient for the specific cases considered

since they were all natural slopes exposed only to self-weight loads. However, in developing an

approach to modeling crack propagation leading to slope instability, it is necessary to consider

Page 19: Seepage-Coupled Finite Element Analysis of Stress Driven

10

other loading possibilities. One such alternative load is caused by blasting in mines. The 2013

Bingham Canyon Mine slope failure (Carter, 2014), which resulted in a rock avalanche is used in

this work as a case study to demonstrate the ability of a proposed approach for modeling complex

loading in the development of step-path failure.

2.2 Seepage of Water

In addition to complex stress regimes resulting from mining, the influence of water on the

development and evolution of the slope failure in question is also considered. Two important

influences of water can be recognized as evident in results of various works presented in literature.

Firstly, water trapped in a close-ended crack introduces a destabilizing force due to the static water

pressure (Denby et al, 1985, 2012, Hoek and Bray 1981, Rutqvist et al 2001).

Secondly, when a crack surface is immersed in water, whether by the presence of a high

water table or very slow moving pore water, the water film on the crack surface reduces the contact

between the two walls of the crack and thus reduces the amount of shear strength that can be

mobilized on the surface (Denby et al 1985, 2012, Hopkins et al 1975, Hoek et al 1981, Zare and

Torabi 2008, Rutqvist et al, 2001).

A third and less studied influence arises when water flows through an open-ended crack.

Much like the flow of surface water over rock, seepage forces from the flow can introduce

destabilizing forces while contact shear stresses at the water-rock interface act to erode the surface

of the crack and reduce its residual shear strength (Barton 1973, Hoek and Bray 1981, Barton and

Choubey 1976). Since the cracks in the slope considered in this work were open cracks, priority is

given to the second and third possibilities. The modeling approach and further details are presented

in later sections of this report.

Page 20: Seepage-Coupled Finite Element Analysis of Stress Driven

11

2.3 The Case Study

The Bingham Canyon Mine has been described as the largest man-made excavation in the

world (Hibert et al, 2014). The mine is owned by Rio Tinto and operated by Kennecott Utah

Copper (KUCC) (Carter, 2014). It is located about 30km south west of Salt Lake City in Utah. As

of 2011, the mine was approximately 3.6km wide and about 900m deep (Styles et al, 2011). The

mine mainly produces copper but also mines significant amounts of gold, molybdenum and silver

(Krahulec, 1997).

On April 10th 2013, a section of the mine slope failed causing a rock avalanche that has

been described as the biggest non-volcanic rock avalanche ever recorded. The failure initiated at

the northern slope area of the pit known as the Manefey area (Cater, 2014). Field observations and

seismic records led to the conclusion that the slope failed in two stages. The first slide occurred at

about 03:31 UT and the second slide occurred approximately 1.5 hours later at about 5:06 UT

(Hibert et al, 2014). According to Septian et al, 2017, the evidence of the first slide suggested it

was a planar type failure while the second was a rotational type failure.

The massive combined rock avalanche displaced about 150 million tons of slope material

downslope into the pit. Early estimates of recovery operations suggested that it could take up to a

year or more to clean up the debris and for operations to resume. This would cost the mine an

estimated $5 million per day for each day that new ore was not delivered. However, as a result of

a very well-coordinated and time-conscious effort, it only took 17 days after the slide for the mine

to resume sending new ore to the concentrator (Carter, 2014).

The size of the slide was so massive that it has been reported to have caused up to 16 small

earthquakes. The individual slides themselves were recorded on nearby seismographs as reaching

Page 21: Seepage-Coupled Finite Element Analysis of Stress Driven

12

magnitudes of 5.1 for the first and 4.9 for the second event making it the first recorded landslide

to have triggered earthquakes (Carter, 2014).

The slide was not unexpected. Geotechnical engineering personnel at the mine had been

monitoring movement on the slope months prior to the failure. Although there was no recognizable

trigger for the movement (Moore et al, 2017), geotechnical personnel relied on heavy slope

instrumentation to monitor the progression of the failure which had been classified as being

inevitable. Some of the monitoring equipment included, a 220-prism network, extensometers, time

domain reflectometers, and ground probe stability radars (Carter, 2014). Based on data obtained

from these instruments, an imminent slope failure was declared in February of 2013, about 2

months before the slide, giving ample time for preparations to be made for the eventual slide

(Carter 2014). For this reason, no casualties were recorded when the slide finally occurred and

damage to equipment was also limited (Hinert et al 2014, and Moore et al 2017).

Geotechnical data for the failed slope has been limited as seen in literature. The mine owner

released some data such as oblique aerial photographs but which were largely insufficient for

geotechnical analysis. This led researchers to resort to various sources of data; Moore et al (2017)

used a combination of the limited data released by the mine owner and press coverage information.

Septian et al (2017) had to simplify their runout model by reducing degrees of freedom and

performing sensitivity analysis to compensate for the lack of sufficient data. Hibert et al (2014)

relied on seismic data to perform runout analysis.

In 2011, Styles et al performed a combined numerical modeling and Insar satellite

monitoring of another slope of the same mine where there was movement. Their work presents an

array of useful geotechnical information about the slope that was investigated. Due to the

proximity of the two slopes, the rock type and properties from this previous work has been adopted

Page 22: Seepage-Coupled Finite Element Analysis of Stress Driven

13

for the analysis in this work. From their work two rock types, quartzite and monzonite were seen

as the dominant rock types of the area. Of the two, quartzite is the stronger one with a tensile

strength of 0.27MPa compared to 0.2MPa for monzonite (Styles et al, 2011). The author’s model

used in ANSYS considers the rock as a uniform block of material which makes it difficult to mimic

the aggregate nature of rocks such as monzonite. Quartzite on the other hand is almost entirely

composed of metamorphosed quarts sand grains, making it more uniform and more closely

represented by the model used by the author. For these reasons, quartzite was used in this work as

the slope material. The overall model is stronger than what may have been the real world scenario

due to the use of stronger quartzite and also the lack of contact zones between multiple rock types

which are usually weaker than any one rock material. Other information about the slope, such as

geometry, location of existing cracks and the final slide surface were obtained from the remote

sensing data downloaded from https://www.fsa.usda.gov.

2.4 Remote Sensing

The use of remote sensing techniques in the study and monitoring of landslides has seen

much success in recent times due to advances in both instrumentation and technology in the field

of remote sensing. One common application of remote sensing in monitoring development of

landslides is the use of data collected over a period of time to determine changes in the developing

slide. Changes could be in terms of land cover (Dahigamuwa et al, 2017), slope material volume

changes and groundwater level changes (Maerz, 2014), and slope material movement (Frodella et

al 2015, Styles et al 2011, Crosta et al 2015). Other researchers have focused on using remote

sensing techniques to identify potentially unstable slopes based on existence and orientation of

discontinuities, hanging blocks, erosion undercuts, etc. Jean et al (2015) employed terrestrial

LiDAR scanning to investigate failure potential of an actively moving slope where they estimated

Page 23: Seepage-Coupled Finite Element Analysis of Stress Driven

14

deformation rates, direction and volumes of moving material. They also found that remote sensing

was able to locate moving volumes much smaller than field observations could identify. Dunham

et al (2015) applied Static Terrestrial Laser Scanning techniques in developing a rockfall activity

index (RAI) for assessing rockfall hazards. Other research on the application of remote sensing

techniques in landslide hazard identification and/or monitoring can be found in the works of

Youssef et al (2015) and Molina et al (2015).

For the purposes of the current project, the level of remote sensing application required is

basic. Remotely sensed data was used as a source of supporting evidence for constructing the slope

geometry, including both rock material and joint locations. The data was obtained from the vast

database of remotely sensed data provided by the United States Geological Survey (USGS) on its

‘EarthExplorer’ website (https://earthexplorer.usgs.gov/). Specifically, images obtained as part of

the National Agriculture Imagery Program were used since they provide high levels of visual detail

as required for this project.

The National Agriculture Imagery Program (NAIP) acquires aerial imagery during

agricultural seasons and makes this photographic data available to governmental agencies and the

public within a year of acquisition. The images are acquired at a one-meter ground sample distance

(GSD) with a horizontal accuracy of about six meters of photo-identifiable ground control points.

The default spectral resolution was natural color (Red, Green and Blue, or RGB) until 2007 when

some states started being delivered with four bands of data: RGB and Near Infrared

(https://www.fsa.usda.gov)

NAIP imagery products are available in two formats, either as digital ortho quarter quad

tiles (DOQQs) or as compressed county mosaics (CCM). CCMs are generated by compressing

digital ortho quarter quadrangle image tiles into a single mosaic. The mosaic may cover all or

Page 24: Seepage-Coupled Finite Element Analysis of Stress Driven

15

portions of an individual final product. All individual tile images and the resulting mosaic are

rectified in the UTM coordinate system, NAD 83, and cast into a single predetermined UTM zone.

CCMs from 2003 - 2007 are all in a .sid format. Beginning in 2008, CCMs with four bands were

compressed into a .jp2 format. Beginning in 2009, all NAIP CCMs were delivered with a

"seamline" shapefile showing which image swath made up each part of a given image. Of the

above, DOQQs were used for this project. They are geotiffs with coverage areas corresponding to

the USGS topographic quadrangles (https://www.fsa.usda.gov). Data processing was limited to

visual rendering on two separate image processing environments, ENVI and ArcGIS Pro. To

further enhance visual detail, the 2D image data was converted into 3D scenes using elevation

information from an Aster DEM (Digital Elevation Model) of the area also downloaded from

USGS site.

Page 25: Seepage-Coupled Finite Element Analysis of Stress Driven

16

CHAPTER 3: METHODOLOGY

3.1 Finite Element Modeling

Finite Element Analysis was carried out with three main targets; (a) to model the

propagation of existing cracks as a result of the combined stresses from gravity and blasting loads,

(b) to determine stresses generated by self-weight for stability analysis, and (c) to model the flow

of water through cracks and how that affects the global stability of the slope.

3.1.1 Model Geometry and Properties

The geometry for the model was constructed based on information from the remote sensing

data. The location of the pit wall of interest, the locations of cracks and their relative positions with

respect to adjacent cracks and the slope face were all collected from the remote sensing images

through visual inspection. Two images, one taken before and the other after the slide were used in

this research. The first image taken before the slide in 2011 formed the basis for constructing the

geometry, particularly the locations of existing cracks while the second image was used to define

the final failure surface which was used for stability analysis.

Page 26: Seepage-Coupled Finite Element Analysis of Stress Driven

17

Figure 2: Aerial photo of the pit showing the rock slide (downloaded from SkyTruth.com)

Figure 3: NAIP Images of the site, before (left) and after (right) the slide, with slide location

The images were imported into two separate image processing environments, ArcGIS Pro

and ENVI for analysis. ArcGIS Pro has a measuring tool which is able to measure distances, areas

and even vertical measurements if the right elevation data is available. On the other hand, ENVI

Page 27: Seepage-Coupled Finite Element Analysis of Stress Driven

18

produces the better visual rendering of the images. By combining these two, it was possible to

locate existing cracks and make measurements for detailing the geometry. In order to permit 3-D

inspection and measurements, it was necessary to include elevation data in the analysis. Elevation

data was obtained from ASTER Digital Elevation Model (DEM). The Advanced Spaceborne

Thermal Emission and Reflection Radiometer (ASTER) onboard Terra, a multi-national NASA

scientific research satellite, provides high-resolution images of the Earth in 14 different bands,

ranging from visible to thermal infrared light. ASTER data are used to create maps of surface

temperature of land, emissivity, reflectance, and elevation.

Figure 4: ASTER digital elevation data in black and white with NAIP image overlain

A sample 3-D display of the site before the failure is shown in Figure 6. The final geometry

is as shown in Fig. 7, with dimensions of 1.3km width and 900m height with an extension of an

extra 200m at the bottom used to represent a current mining bench. The engineering properties for

the model are summarized in Table 1. These were adopted from the work of Styles et al (2011).

Page 28: Seepage-Coupled Finite Element Analysis of Stress Driven

19

Figure 5: Sample 3-D display of scene before failure

Figure 6: Pit geometry used for Finite Element Modeling

Existing cracks

1.5 km

900 m

Page 29: Seepage-Coupled Finite Element Analysis of Stress Driven

20

Table 1: Model properties for FE analysis (adopted from Styles et al, 2011).

Parameter Rock

Type

Elastic

Modulus,

E, (GPa)

Poisson’s

Ratio, ν

Density,

ρ, (t/m3)

Bulk

Modulus,

K, (GPa)

Cohesion,

c, (MPa)

Friction

Angle,

φ, (⁰)

Tensile

Strength,

(MPa)

Description Quartzite 23.5 0.27 2.6 17 0.65 35 0.27

3.1.2 Crack Propagation

The extension of existing cracks into intact rock bridges was considered to occur due to

tension, driven by the combined stresses from gravity and blasting. Gravity loading was first

applied to the model and allowed to stabilize. Then a detonation was then set off at the bottom of

the model to mimic the blasting during mining. This sequential application of loads was found to

be necessary due to the fact the two load types depend to different extents on the analysis time

used. While the solution for the gravity loads required at least 2.5 seconds to converge and

stabilize, (as shown in Figure 5), the stresses from the blast needed to be tracked at time steps as

small as 0.1 seconds. Hence if both loads were started at an initial time of zero, then any attempt

to track stress changes resulting from the blast would be futile since the gravity load itself will be

fluctuating for times under 2.5 seconds.

Page 30: Seepage-Coupled Finite Element Analysis of Stress Driven

21

Figure 7: Graphs showing time of stabilization of gravity loads and start point of detonation

Ammonium Nitrate Fuel Oxide (ANFO) was used as the explosive material since it is a

common explosive used in mining. A hole is created in the active bench at the bottom of the pit to

hold the explosive material. In the absence of details of the actual mining practices of the mine in

question, a generalized approach was taken where the amount of explosive material was

determined based on the level of stresses it produces upon detonation. The amount of explosive

was decided such that upon detonation, the tensile stresses in the active bench were sufficient to

break the rock within an area of about 50m x 50m.

3.40E+06

5.40E+06

7.40E+06

9.40E+06

1.14E+07

1.34E+07

0 0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5 3 3.5 4 4.5

Stre

ss, P

a

Time (s)

Max Shear

0.00E+00

5.00E+06

1.00E+07

1.50E+07

2.00E+07

2.50E+07

3.00E+07

3.50E+07

0 0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5 3 3.5 4 4.5

Stre

ss, P

a

Time (s)

Max Normal

Page 31: Seepage-Coupled Finite Element Analysis of Stress Driven

22

Figure 8: Applied loads

Upon detonating the explosive, the stresses in the slope are checked at various observation

times until the point where the tensile stresses in the upper slope are sufficient to cause local failure

at crack tips and cause the extension of existing cracks. It is possible to run the analysis over a few

seconds at a time and then plot only the maximum stresses reached at each point which provides

an easier way of tracking the developing stresses. However, this would consider stresses within

the time periods less than 2.5 seconds and may thus produce results that are not reliable.

Once the above time of interest is located, the tips of the various cracks are examined and

the one with the highest stress is taken as the most likely point of local failure. The path of

extension of the next crack is decided based on the concentration of stresses around this tip, with

the likely path being taken as the shortest line between the crack tip and the local maximum stress

in its vicinity. This is shown in Fig 6.

Page 32: Seepage-Coupled Finite Element Analysis of Stress Driven

23

Figure 9: Crack extension path as dictated by stress concentrations

After selecting an appropriate crack path, the crack is extended manually in the geometry

and the entire slope re-meshed for further analysis. The next steps include a stability check

performed after each crack extension stage as discussed below.

3.1.3 Mesh Sensitivity Analysis

The influence of mesh properties on the results was checked by performing a simple

sensitivity analysis with a refined mesh. Generally, in finite element analysis, using a finer mesh

results in closer approximation of true results. However, a finer mesh is computationally more

expensive since it requires more time to solve. The purpose of the sensitivity analysis was to check

how much the crack propagation direction is impacted by refining the mesh. The results are

presented in the following figures and seem to suggest that effects are not drastic.

Page 33: Seepage-Coupled Finite Element Analysis of Stress Driven

24

Figure 10: Coarse mesh (a) and refined mesh (b) for sensitivity analysis

To put a measure on the computational cost of mesh refinement, the coarse mesh in Figure

10 (a) requires about half hour to reach a solution while the mesh in Figure 10 (b) requires over 70

hours to resolve. Since this was only a comparative study, the 70 hours was too much and so

refinement was only done for one crack location which reduced the time to about 2.5 hours. The

mesh shown in Figure 11 below was thus used to investigate the impact of mesh refinement.

Figure 11: Refinement for single crack location

a b

Page 34: Seepage-Coupled Finite Element Analysis of Stress Driven

25

The results from the coarse mesh and the projected cracking path are shown in Figure 12.

In Figure 13, the results of the refined mesh and its projected path (yellow) are shown, with the

projected path from the coarse mesh (red) drawn in for comparison. It is observed that with the

finer mesh, it is possible to follow small scale undulations in the crack path whereas with the coarse

mesh, the path could only be projected along an approximate straight line. However, the deviation

in overall direction of the crack extension was not sufficient to warrant the use of such a fine mesh

with the excessive time requirements. It would however be useful to find an optimal mesh that

allows the user to follow the undulations in the crack path since they may be useful in re-defining

the global slope failure path. The rest of the analysis was done using the coarse mesh.

Figure 12: Results with coarse mesh

Page 35: Seepage-Coupled Finite Element Analysis of Stress Driven

26

Figure 13: Results from refined mesh

3.1.4 Seepage of Water Through Existing Cracks

In addition to the propagation of cracks discussed above, flow of water through the open

cracks was considered as another factor that contributes to reduction of global stability of the slope.

Open cracks provide entry and an exit points through which water can flow. Once a crack develops

in a rock, the amount of shear strength that can be mobilized on its surface reduces to a residual

strength value. The magnitude of this residual strength, which itself is the result of the contact and

interlocking of asperities or roughness teeth on the joint surface has been shown by both Patton

(1966) and Barton (1973) to depend on the size of the asperities as well as the normal stress on the

plane of the joint (Hoek, 2007)

𝜏 = 𝜎𝑛 tan(ɸ𝑏 + 𝑖) 𝑃𝑎𝑡𝑡𝑜𝑛′𝑠 𝑚𝑜𝑑𝑒𝑙 (1)

where i is the roughness tooth angle, 𝜎𝑛 is the normal stress and ɸ𝑏 is the basic friction angle.

𝜏 = 𝜎𝑛 tan (ɸ𝑟 + 𝐽𝑅𝐶𝑙𝑜𝑔10𝐽𝐶𝑆

𝜎𝑛) 𝐵𝑎𝑟𝑡𝑜𝑛′𝑠 𝑚𝑜𝑑𝑒𝑙 (2)

Page 36: Seepage-Coupled Finite Element Analysis of Stress Driven

27

where JRC and JCS are Joint Roughness Coefficient and Joint surface Compressive Strength

respectively.

Figure 14: Fracture tooth angle in Patton's model (from Patton, 1966)

As water flows through joints, it has the tendency to erode the surface of the joint, thus

reducing the size and also smoothening the asperities. These effects reduce the residual shear

strength on the joint surface. In addition, the flow pressure of the water produces forces normal to

the adjacent joint walls which tends to reduce the normal stress due to the weight of the riding

block. The pressure also causes separation of the adjacent walls, reducing contact. All of these

reduce the magnitude of shear strength that can be mobilized on the joint plane. Over time, erosion

can lead to sufficient strength reduction to cause rock slides.

To model this phenomenon in ANSYS, sections of the joint plane were taken as individual

pipes through which water flow can be simulated. Each pipe is taken as a rough pipe with surface

roughness height equal to the size of asperities used in rating the roughness parameter in the shear

strength model. In the Patton’s model outlined above, a reduction in the value of i results in a

reduction of shear strength. A reduction in the amplitude of asperities results in a reduction in the

magnitude of i as shown by the simple diagram in Figure 7.

Page 37: Seepage-Coupled Finite Element Analysis of Stress Driven

28

Figure 15: Reduction of tooth angle, i, over time with erosion

The force driving the erosion process is the wall shear caused by the water flow. As

mentioned earlier in the section, normal forces from the flow also act as destabilizing forces in the

global stability considerations. Figures 8a and 8b below show some results of the flow analysis.

Page 38: Seepage-Coupled Finite Element Analysis of Stress Driven

29

Figure 16: Sample rough pipe used to model crack (a) and mesh used for flow analysis (b).

In figure 8a it is seen that the asperities on crack surfaces are drawn as part of the geometry

and the mesh, Figure 8b, shows how the elements near the walls of the pipe are controlled to be

much smaller than that in the middle of the flow, in an attempt to refine the results obtained for

flow near the wall which is the area of interest.

It was realized that in order to produce significant forces for both the wall shear and the

normal forces, unrealistically high inflow velocities are needed. For this reason, it was concluded

that the flow effects were not significant for this case study. The information about the modeling

approach is, however, presented here to complete the proposed method of analysis as it may be

important for other cases such as the ones where flow occurs over much longer periods. Figures 9

a b

Page 39: Seepage-Coupled Finite Element Analysis of Stress Driven

30

and 10 show the normal forces on the crack wall corresponding to inflow velocities of 0.5 m/s and

10 m/s respectively. The horizontal axes in both graphs were taken as the length of the flow or

crack with program-controlled divisions which are made to match the scale of the values on the

vertical axes.

Figure 17: Normal force on crack wall for flow velocity of 0.5m/s

Figure 18: Normal force on crack wall for flow velocity of 10m/s

Page 40: Seepage-Coupled Finite Element Analysis of Stress Driven

31

3.1.5 Stability Analysis

Every time a crack was extended, global stability of the mine slope was checked using the

limit equilibrium method. Local failure leading to crack propagation was considered to be in

tension while global failure was investigated as a shear failure since this was a slide type failure.

Only gravity loads were considered in assessing global stability for obvious reasons. The failure

path as seen from the remote sensing images was selected and multiple observation points along

this path were considered. At each point, both the normal and shear stresses were recorded from

the FEM output. Stability of the slope was checked by a safety factor against sliding which is

calculated as the ratio of the shear strength along the potential failure surface to the mobilized

shear stress on the surface. The mobilized shear is calculated as

𝜏𝑚𝑎𝑥 = 𝑐 + 𝜎𝑡𝑎𝑛𝜑 (3)

where 𝜏𝑚𝑎𝑥 is the shear strength, c is the cohesion, σ is the normal stress, φ is the angle of friction.

If L is the length of influence, the shear force on the entire surface was calculated as τL where τ is

the shear stress. Since the stresses where taken at the same points along the failure surface, the

influence lengths of corresponding stresses were the same and canceled out. The safety is thus

given as

𝐹 = 𝛴(𝑐+𝜎𝑖𝑡𝑎𝑛𝜑)

𝛴𝜏𝑖 (4)

A factor of safety of 1 means that the slope is at equilibrium where the strength is exactly

enough to balance the stress. When the safety factor falls below a value of 1, the slope is no longer

able to mobilize enough strength to support the stresses induced due to gravity and thus fails.

Page 41: Seepage-Coupled Finite Element Analysis of Stress Driven

32

Figure 19: Sliding surface used for stability analysis

The spreadsheet used for the stability analysis is provided in appendix A at the end of the thesis.

3.2 Evidence from Remote Sensing

3.2.1 Data

Images obtained by aircraft scanners as part of the National Agricultural Imagery Program

(NAIP) were downloaded from the USGS website ( https://earthexplorer.usgs.gov/) and used as

the source of information for constructing the slope geometry. These images have high resolutions

of about 60 cm pixel size which permits adequate visual detail for the analysis done for this

research. The images contain four data bands each; the first three being the R-G-B bands of the

visual range and a fourth band of near infrared data.

To further enhance visualization in ENVI, the 2D image data was converted into 3D scenes

using elevation information from an Aster DEM (Digital Elevation Model) of the area also

downloaded from the USGS site ( https://earthexplorer.usgs.gov/). Unfortunately, the DEM was

only valid for 2011, and hence it could only be used accurately for rendering the image taken in

2011prior to the failure. The two images are shown in Figure 12 with the approximate location of

Page 42: Seepage-Coupled Finite Element Analysis of Stress Driven

33

the failure line shown on both. It is clearly seen that the failure line is more easily depicted in the

scene prior to the failure due to the 3D display.

Figure 20: Images of the slope before (left) and after (right) the failure

3.2.2 Data Processing

Two software programs, ENVI and ArcGIS Pro were used for the image processing. While

ENVI is primarily an image processing software, ArcGIS Pro boasts of a host of capabilities

including GIS and image processing applications. ENVI software allows higher resolutions to be

used when the data is converted to 3D whereas ArcGIS Pro provides a wider range of measuring

capabilities. Hence by using the above software, it was possible to display the images in high

resolution for visual analysis and at the same time make necessary measurements of relevant

distances in constructing the slope geometry.

Page 43: Seepage-Coupled Finite Element Analysis of Stress Driven

34

CHAPTER 4: RESULTS AND DISCUSSION

Three stages of crack propagation were attained before slope failure. A stage of cracking

is complete when a probable crack extension path has been identified and the new crack surface

created. Stability analysis was performed at the end of each stage and the procedure was repeated

until the safety factor of the slope was below 1. At the end of the first simulation, two crack tips

were seen to be highly stressed with similar maximum stresses. Since these stressed tips are for

different cracks, the possibility exists for both to extend at the same time. The extended cracks are

as shown in Figure 13.

Figure 21: Stage 1 crack extension

Stability analysis confirmed that the slope was stable at this stage with a factor of safety of

1.6. Multiple observation points were selected along the failure line and at each point the normal

Page 44: Seepage-Coupled Finite Element Analysis of Stress Driven

35

and shear stresses were determined in order to calculate the global safety factor of the slope. Figure

18 shows the required stresses at 5 sample observation points. Table 2 summarizes the calculation

of local safety factors at each of these points.

Figure 22: Normal (a) and shear (b) stresses at sample observation points used for stability

analysis for stage 1 cracking

Table 2: Local safety factors after stage 1 cracking

Point Normal Stress, MPa Strength (𝑐 + 𝜎𝑡𝑎𝑛𝜑), MPa Shear Stress, MPa F.O.S

A -5.707 4.647 1.954 2.4

B -6.644 5.304 2.262 2.3

C -5.564 4.547 2.586 1.8

D -5.216 4.303 3.529 1.2

E -3.571 3.151 3.757 0.84

a b

Page 45: Seepage-Coupled Finite Element Analysis of Stress Driven

36

For the second stage of cracking, 3 crack tips were identified as being stressed enough to cause

further cracking. The 3 cracks were thus extended as shown below in Figure 19

Figure 23: Stage 2 crack extensions

At this stage the slope was still stable with stability analysis yielding a safety factor of 1.2,

less than the value at the previous stage but still satisfactory. The stresses and corresponding local

safety factors at 5 sample observation points are summarized in Figure 20 and Table 3.

Page 46: Seepage-Coupled Finite Element Analysis of Stress Driven

37

Figure 24: Normal (a) and shear (b) stresses at sample observation points used for stability

analysis for stage 2 cracking

Table 3: Local safety factors after stage 2 cracking

Point Normal Stress, MPa Strength (𝑐 + 𝜎𝑡𝑎𝑛𝜑),

MPa

Shear Stress,

MPa

F.O.S

A -6.783 5.401 3.038 1.8

B -10.841 8.243 4.777 1.7

C -4.862 4.055 3.348 1.2

D -5.346 4.394 3.811 1.2

E -5.166 4.268 3.833 1.1

a b

Page 47: Seepage-Coupled Finite Element Analysis of Stress Driven

38

Stage three of cracking is shown in Figure 15 with the failure surface inserted to show the

interaction of the extended cracks and the final failure line.

Figure 25: Stage 3 cracking

Stability analysis at this stage showed that the slope was no longer able to mobilize enough

resistance along the failure line to remain stable. The safety factor dropped to 0.53 at this stage.

Sample calculations for the 5 observation points are summarized in Figure 22 and Table 4.

Page 48: Seepage-Coupled Finite Element Analysis of Stress Driven

39

Figure 26: Normal (a) and shear (b) stresses at sample observation points used for stability

analysis for stage 3 cracking

Table 4: Local safety factors after stage 3 cracking

Point Normal Stress, MPa Strength (𝑐 + 𝜎𝑡𝑎𝑛𝜑), MPa Shear Stress, MPa F.O.S

A -5.815 4.723 2.211 2.1

B -10.494 8.000 4.189 1.9

C -5.541 4.531 2.873 1.6

D -7.730 6.064 4.028 1.5

E -6.167 4.969 5.503 0.9

Table 5 summarizes the safety factors for the cracking stages.

Table 5: Global factor of safety for each stage of crack extension

Stage of cracking Stage 1 Stage 2 Stage 3

Safety Factor 1.68 1.30 0.57

a b

Page 49: Seepage-Coupled Finite Element Analysis of Stress Driven

40

Besides using the stability analysis to confirm the possibility of failure arising from the

crack extensions, an interesting observation can also be made of how the crack extension paths

interact with the final failure line. First, it is seen that all through the analysis until failure, the

cracks that are presently on the failure line do not show any sign of extension. Secondly, the cracks

that have showed signs of extension have extended in paths directed towards the failure line. And

finally, the only crack that continued to extend after getting to the failure line did so along the line

instead of continuing beyond it.

Page 50: Seepage-Coupled Finite Element Analysis of Stress Driven

41

CHAPTER 5: CONCLUSION

Based on the work and results presented in the foregoing sections, it is seen that crack

propagation driven by blasting induced stresses could be the cause of the 2013 rock avalanche

described in the case study presented. The crack propagation has been shown to cause enough

reduction in strength to cause failure along the suspected failure line to cause failure. Also, the

direction of propagation of cracks supports the above conclusion since it follows the final failure

line determined from remote sensing images.

The basis of modeling the flow of water through cracks and how it affects global slope

stability was demonstrated here although it was found to not be a significant contributing factor to

the slope failure considered in this research.

The use of remotely sensed data has been shown to be a useful asset in analyses such as

the one presented here. The use of remote sensing made the work possible without the need for

actual field visits to the site. It should also be noted that even if field visits were made, it may have

been impossible to reconstruct the geometry of the slope prior to failure for back analysis.

Finally, the results of this research show that the modeling capabilities of ANSYS can be

employed to study crack propagation for complex loading scenarios such as those present in

mining settings. There is also a potential for extending this work to be useful for studying stability

concerns resulting from other seismic loading conditions such as earthquakes.

Page 51: Seepage-Coupled Finite Element Analysis of Stress Driven

42

REFERENCES

A.A.Griffith. (1921). “The Phenomena of Rupture and Flow in Solids.” Philosophical

Transactions of the Royal Society, 221(582–593), 163–198.

Alejano, L. R., & Alonso, E. (2005). Considerations of the dilatancy angle in rocks and rock

masses. International Journal of Rock Mechanics and Mining Sciences, 42(4), 481–507.

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijrmms.2005.01.003

Atkinson, B. K. (1982). Subcritical crack propagation in rocks: theory, experimental results and

applications. Journal of Structural Geology, 4(1), 41–56. https://doi.org/10.1016/0191-

8141(82)90005-0

Babiker, A. F. A., Smith, C. C., Gilbert, M., & Ashby, J. P. (2014). Non-associative limit

analysis of the toppling-sliding failure of rock slopes. International Journal of Rock

Mechanics and Mining Sciences, 71, 1–11. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijrmms.2014.06.008

Barton, N. (2013). Shear strength criteria for rock, rock joints, rockfill and rock masses:

Problems and some solutions. Journal of Rock Mechanics and Geotechnical Engineering,

5(4), 249–261. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jrmge.2013.05.008

Barton, N., & Choubey, V. (1977). The shear strength of rock joints in theory and practice. Rock

Mechanics Felsmechanik Mécanique Des Roches, 10(1–2), 1–54.

https://doi.org/10.1007/BF01261801

Barton1973.Anewshearstrengthcriterionforrockjoints.Eng.Geol..pdf. (n.d.).

Bineshian, H., Ghazvinian, A., & Bineshian, Z. (2012). Comprehensive compressive-tensile

strength criterion for intact rock. Journal of Rock Mechanics and Geotechnical Engineering,

4(2), 140–148. https://doi.org/10.3724/sp.j.1235.2012.00140

Bonilla-Sierra, V., Scholtès, L., Donzé, F. V., & Elmouttie, M. K. (2015). Rock slope stability

analysis using photogrammetric data and DFN–DEM modelling. Acta Geotechnica, 10(4),

497–511. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11440-015-0374-z

Camones, L. A. M., Vargas, E. do A., de Figueiredo, R. P., & Velloso, R. Q. (2013). Application

of the discrete element method for modeling of rock crack propagation and coalescence in

the step-path failure mechanism. Engineering Geology, 153, 80–94.

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.enggeo.2012.11.013

Castleton, J. J. (n.d.). Rock-Fall Hazards in Utah, (January 2009).

Page 52: Seepage-Coupled Finite Element Analysis of Stress Driven

43

Chen, H. M., Zhao, Z. Y., Choo, L. Q., & Sun, J. P. (2016). Rock Cavern Stability Analysis

Under Different Hydro-Geological Conditions Using the Coupled Hydro-Mechanical

Model. Rock Mechanics and Rock Engineering, 49(2), 555–572.

https://doi.org/10.1007/s00603-015-0748-4

Crosta, G. B., Agliardi, F., Frattini, P., & Lari, S. (2014). Engineering Geology for Society and

Territory - Volume 8. Engineering Geology for Society and Territory - Volume 8, 2, 43–58.

https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-09408-3

Cruden, D. M. (2008). Rock slope stability analysis. Canadian Geotechnical Journal, 31(2),

319–319. https://doi.org/10.1139/t94-039

Dahigamuwa, T., & Gunaratne, M. (2017). Stochastic Investigation of the Feasibility of Using

Remotely Sensed Moisture Data for Rainfall Induced Landslide Hazard Assessment.

Advancing Culture of Living with Landslides, 679–688. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-

53498-5_78

Dahigamuwa, T., Yu, Q., & Gunaratne, M. (2016). Feasibility Study of Land Cover

Classification Based on Normalized Difference Vegetation Index for Landslide Risk

Assessment. Geosciences, 6(4), 45. https://doi.org/10.3390/geosciences6040045

Dunham, L., Wartman, J., Olsen, M. J., O’Banion, M., & Cunningham, K. (2017). Rockfall

Activity Index (RAI)A lidar-derived, morphology-based method for hazard assessment.

Engineering Geology, 221, 184–192. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.enggeo.2017.03.009

Eberhardt, E. (2013). Rock Slope Stability Analysis-Utilization of Advanced Numerical

Techniques Rock Slope Stability Analysis – Utilization of Advanced Numerical

Techniques, (December).

Frodella, W., Nocentini, M., Scardigli, C., Gigli, G., Lombardi, L., Casagli, N., … Ciampalini,

A. (2016). Synergic use of satellite and ground based remote sensing methods for

monitoring the San Leo rock cliff (Northern Italy). Geomorphology, 264, 80–94.

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.geomorph.2016.04.008

Haeri, H., Shahriar, K., Marji, M. F., & Moarefvand, P. (2014). Experimental and numerical

study of crack propagation and coalescence in pre-cracked rock-like disks. International

Journal of Rock Mechanics and Mining Sciences, 67, 20–28.

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijrmms.2014.01.008

Henry, J. P., Paquet, J., & Tancrez, J. P. (1977). Experimental study of crack propagation in

calcite rocks. International Journal of Rock Mechanics and Mining Sciences And, 14(2),

85–91. https://doi.org/10.1016/0148-9062(77)90200-5

Hibert, C., Ekström, G., & Stark, C. P. (2014). Dynamics of the Bingham Canyon Mine

landslides from seismic signal analysis. Geophysical Research Letters, 41(13), 4535–4541.

https://doi.org/10.1002/2014GL060592

Page 53: Seepage-Coupled Finite Element Analysis of Stress Driven

44

Highland, L. M., & Bobrowsky, P. (2008). Basic Information About Landslides. The Landslide

HanHighland, L. M., & Bobrowsky, P. (2008). Basic Information About Landslides. The

Landslide Handbook — A Guide to Understanding Landslides, 129.Dbook — A Guide to

Understanding Landslides, 129.

Hoek, E., & Martin, C. D. (2014). Fracture initiation and propagation in intact rock - A review.

Journal of Rock Mechanics and Geotechnical Engineering, 6(4), 287–300.

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jrmge.2014.06.001

Hopkins, T. C., Allen, D. L., & Deen, R. C. (1975). Effect of water on slope stability, 44.

Huang, D., Cen, D., Ma, G., & Huang, R. (2015). Step-path failure of rock slopes with

intermittent joints. Landslides, 12(5), 911–926. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10346-014-0517-6

Irwin, G. R. Linear fracture mechanics, fracture transition, and fracture control, Engineering

Fracture Mechanics, (August 1968).

Kemeny, J. (2003). The time-dependent reduction of sliding cohesion due to rock bridges along

discontinuities: A fracture mechanics approach. Rock Mechanics and Rock Engineering,

36(1), 27–38. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00603-002-0032-2

Krahulec, K. (1997). History and production of the West Mountain Bingham mining district,

Utah. Geology and Ore Deposits of the Oquirrh and Wasatch Mountains, Utah. Guidebook

Series of the Society of Economic Geologists, 29(January 1997), 189−217.

Krautblatter, M., & Moser, M. (2009). A nonlinear model coupling rockfall and rainfall intensity

based on a four year measurement in a high Alpine rock wall (Reintal, German Alps).

Natural Hazards and Earth System Science, 9(4), 1425–1432.

https://doi.org/10.5194/nhess-9-1425-2009

Maerz, N. H. (2014). An Investigation of Rock Fall and Pore Water Pressure using LiDAR in

Highway 63 Rock Cuts An Investigation of Rock Fall and Pore Water Pressure.

Monteleone, S., Contino, A., Bova, P., Esposito, G., & Giuffré, I. (2017). Historical analysis of

rainfall-triggered rockfalls: the case study of the disaster of the ancient hydrothermal

Sclafani Spa (Madonie Mts, northern-central Sicily, Italy) in 1851. Natural Hazards and

Earth System Sciences, 17(12), 2229–2243. https://doi.org/10.5194/nhess-17-2229-2017

Moore, J. R., Pankow, K. L., Ford, S. R., Koper, K. D., Hale, J. M., Aaron, J., & Larsen, C. F.

(2017). Dynamics of the Bingham Canyon rock avalanches (Utah, USA) resolved from

topographic, seismic, and infrasound data. Journal of Geophysical Research: Earth Surface,

122(3), 615–640. https://doi.org/10.1002/2016JF004036

Oppikofer, T., Böhme, M., Saintot, A., & Hermanns, R. (2014). Engineering Geology for

Society and Territory - Volume 8. Engineering Geology for Society and Territory - Volume

8, 2, 243–248. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-09408-3

Page 54: Seepage-Coupled Finite Element Analysis of Stress Driven

45

Paluszny, A., & Zimmerman, R. W. (2017). Modelling of primary fragmentation in block caving

mines using a finite-element based fracture mechanics approach. Geomechanics and

Geophysics for Geo-Energy and Geo-Resources, 3(2), 121–130.

https://doi.org/10.1007/s40948-016-0048-9

Paronuzzi, P., & Bolla, A. (2014). Engineering Geology for Society and Territory - Volume 8.

Engineering Geology for Society and Territory - Volume 8, 2, 213–216.

https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-09408-3

Regmi, A. D., Yoshida, K., Nagata, H., & Pradhan, B. (2014). Rock toppling assessment at

mugling-narayanghat road section: “A case study from mauri khola landslide”, nepal.

Catena, 114, 67–77. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.catena.2013.10.013

Rutqvist, J. & Stephansson, O. (2003). The role of hydrochemical coupling in fractured rock

engineering.Hydrogeology Journal, 11(1) 7–40. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10040-002-0241-5

Sagaseta, C., Sánchez, J. M., & Cañizal, J. (2001). A general analytical solution for the required

anchor force in rock slopes with toppling failure. International Journal of Rock Mechanics

and Mining Sciences, 38(3), 421–435. https://doi.org/10.1016/S1365-1609(01)00011-9

Septian, A., Llano-Serna, M. A., Ruest, M. R., & Williams, D. J. (2017). Three-dimensional

Kinematic Analysis of Bingham Canyon Mine Pit Wall Slides. Procedia Engineering, 175,

86–93. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.proeng.2017.01.030

Spreafico, M. C., Cervi, F., Francioni, M., Stead, D., & Borgatti, L. (2017). An investigation into

the development of toppling at the edge of fractured rock plateaux using a numerical

modelling approach. Geomorphology, 288, 83–98.

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.geomorph.2017.03.023

Sternik, K. (2013). Comparison of Slope Stability Predictions By Gravity Increase and Shear

Strength Reduction Methods Metodami Rosnącej Grawitacji I Redukcji.

Styles, T., Stead, D., Eberhardt, E., Rabus, B., Gaida, M., & Bloom, J. (2011). Integrated

Numerical Modelling and Insar Monitoring of a Slow Moving Slope Instability at Bingham

Canyon Mine. Slope Stability 2011: International Symposium on Rock Slope Stability in

Open Pit Mining and Civil Engineering, (October 2015).

Tenggara, N. (2014). Engineering Geology for Society and Territory - Volume 8. Engineering

Geology for Society and Territory - Volume 8, 2(Anonim 2003), 797–800.

https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-09408-3

Walker, L. R., & Shiels, A. B. (2013). Physical causes and consequences for Landslide Ecology.

Landslide Ecology, 46–82.

Yarema, S. Y. (2004). On the contribution of G. R. Irwin to fracture mechanics. Materials

Science, 31(5), 617–623. https://doi.org/10.1007/bf00558797

Page 55: Seepage-Coupled Finite Element Analysis of Stress Driven

46

Youssef, A. M., Pradhan, B., Al-Kathery, M., Bathrellos, G. D., & Skilodimou, H. D. (2015).

Assessment of rockfall hazard at Al-Noor Mountain, Makkah city (Saudi Arabia) using

spatio-temporal remote sensing data and field investigation. Journal of African Earth

Sciences, 101, 309–321. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jafrearsci.2014.09.021

Zare, M., & Torabi, S. R. (2008). The effect of moisture on the stability of rock slopes: An

experimental study on the rock slopes of Khosh Yeylagh Main Road, Iran. 1st International

Conference on Transportation Geotechnics, ICTG-1, (January), 355–359.

Page 56: Seepage-Coupled Finite Element Analysis of Stress Driven

47

APPENDIX A: STRESSES FOR STABILITY ANALYSIS

Table A: Stresses for stability analysis

Stage 1

Normal

Stress

Shear

Stress

Shear

strength

-0.81 0.173 0.632

-0.841 0.224 0.654

-0.881 0.265 0.682

-0.915 0.307 0.706

-0.952 0.352 0.732

-0.983 0.477 0.754

-1 0.561 0.765

-1.03 0.658 0.786

-1.07 0.756 0.814

-1.1 0.856 0.835

-1.17 0.981 0.884

-1.24 1.06 0.934

-1.33 1.18 0.997

-1.4 1.26 1.046

-1.49 1.36 1.109

-1.55 1.44 1.151

-2.17 1.55 1.585

-1.08 1.7 0.821

-1.2 1.67 0.905

-1.3 1.64 0.976

-1.3 1.63 0.976

-1.4 1.61 1.046

-1.55 1.61 1.151

-1.77 1.69 1.305

-2.01 1.74 1.473

-2.21 1.79 1.613

-2.42 1.85 1.760

-2.62 1.92 1.900

-2.83 2.02 2.047

Page 57: Seepage-Coupled Finite Element Analysis of Stress Driven

48

Table A (Continued)

-3.01 2.07 2.173

-3.2 2.14 2.306

-3.26 2.2 2.348

-3.31 2.27 2.383

-3.31 2.29 2.383

-3.36 2.13 2.418

-3.49 2.08 2.509

-3.6 2.02 2.586

-3.74 1.98 2.685

-3.87 1.87 2.776

-4.06 1.77 2.909

-4.17 1.7 2.986

-4.28 1.63 3.063

-4.4 1.56 3.147

-4.75 1.59 3.392

-5.22 1.72 3.721

-5.32 1.79 3.791

-5.12 1.81 3.651

-4.92 1.87 3.511

-4.68 1.93 3.343

-4.24 2.42 3.035

-3.76 2.22 2.699

-2.89 1.99 2.089

-2.08 1.69 1.522

-9.95 1.36 7.034

-1.75 0.387 1.291

-2.14 -0.541 1.564

-2.39 -1.31 1.739

-3.27 -1.44 2.355

-4.59 -1.19 3.280

-5.68 -0.846 4.043

-6.88 -0.536 4.884

-7.68 0.371 5.444

-8.47 1.63 5.997

-9.28 2.96 6.565

-9.33 3.62 6.600

-9.18 4.07 6.495

-8.84 4.35 6.257

Page 58: Seepage-Coupled Finite Element Analysis of Stress Driven

49

Table A (Continued)

-8.64 4.62 6.117

-8.55 4.96 6.053

103.535 174.181

FOS 1.68

Stage 2

Normal

Stress

Shear

Stress

Shear

strength

-0.468 0.58 0.393

-0.508 0.679 0.421

-0.56 0.791 0.457

-0.608 0.898 0.491

-0.619 1.03 0.499

-0.598 1.12 0.484

-0.545 1.22 0.447

-0.479 1.33 0.400

-0.382 1.45 0.333

-0.255 1.66 0.244

-0.081742 1.93 0.122

0.085724 2.12 0.005

0.436 2.59 -0.240

-0.25 2.56 0.240

-0.31 2.47 0.282

-0.386 2.36 0.335

-0.442 2.26 0.375

-0.489 2.15 0.407

-0.522 2.14 0.431

-0.559 2.12 0.457

-0.664 2.11 0.530

-0.77 2.1 0.604

-0.864 2.1 0.670

-1.01 2.09 0.772

-1.1 2.09 0.835

-1.31 2.13 0.983

-1.51 2.17 1.123

-1.78 2.2 1.312

-2.1 2.13 1.536

Page 59: Seepage-Coupled Finite Element Analysis of Stress Driven

50

Table A (Continued)

-2.48 2.41 1.802

-2.82 2.62 2.040

-3.07 2.71 2.215

-2.99 2.78 2.159

-2.96 2.3 2.138

-3.12 2.19 2.250

-3.36 2.07 2.418

-3.61 2.02 2.593

-4.48 2.25 3.203

-4.87 2.26 3.476

-5.31 2.26 3.784

-5.59 2.25 3.980

-5.88 2.21 4.183

-6.16 2.17 4.380

-6.35 2.15 4.513

-6.64 2.14 4.716

-6.93 2.13 4.919

-7.32 2.1 5.192

-7.84 2.4 5.556

-8.56 2.78 6.060

-9.23 3.18 6.530

-11 4.74 7.769

-9.46 4.07 6.691

-7.95 3.5 5.633

-6.37 2.87 4.527

-4.73 2.27 3.378

-4.99 2.5 3.560

-5.22 2.79 3.721

-4.59 2.56 3.280

-3.6 2.59 2.586

-2.71 1.58 1.963

-2.19 0.9 1.599

-3.2 0.348 2.306

-4.62 -0.271 3.301

-5.93 0.198 4.218

-6.71 0.484 4.765

-7.2 0.812 5.108

-7.86 1.38 5.570

Page 60: Seepage-Coupled Finite Element Analysis of Stress Driven

51

Table A (Continued)

-8.04 2.09 5.696

-8.24 2.62 5.836

-8.4 3.17 5.948

-8.58 3.85 6.075

-8.6 4.17 6.089

-8.62 4.59 6.103

-8.62 5.15 6.103

160.919 202.860

FOS 1.261

Stage 3

Normal

Stress

Shear

Stress

Shear

strength

-2.52 -0.216 1.830

-2.79 -0.087722 2.019

-3.19 0.083258 2.299

-3.26 0.299 2.348

-3.36 0.589 2.418

-3.57 0.926 2.565

-3.82 0.134 2.741

-3.59 1.35 2.579

-2.74 0.774 1.984

-2.53 2.21 1.837

-2.31 2.47 1.683

-2.06 2.81 1.508

-1.88 3.18 1.382

-1.73 3.62 1.277

-1.46 3.99 1.088

-1.14 4.36 0.863

-1.09 4.56 0.828

-1.02 4.78 0.779

-4.96 3.45 3.539

-3.05 2.93 2.201

-1.62 3.35 1.200

-1.17 3.37 0.884

-1.49 3.36 1.109

-1.75 3.33 1.291

-2.08 3.26 1.522

Page 61: Seepage-Coupled Finite Element Analysis of Stress Driven

52

Table A (Continued)

-1.68 3.35 1.242

-2.96 4.23 2.138

1.52 5.31 -1.000

-1.1 3.81 0.835

-1.32 3.52 0.990

4.64 3.29 -3.185

8.53 3.87 -5.909

5.37 4.42 -3.696

0.069 5.13 0.016

-3.61 4.15 2.593

-1.17 2.96 0.884

-1.6 1.84 1.186

-1.64 5.47 1.214

-1.76 -0.947 1.298

-1.64 -0.957 1.214

-1.43 -0.82 1.067

-1.32 -0.672 0.990

-1.73 0.387 1.277

-2.08 1.55 1.522

-2.52 2.63 1.830

-3.03 3.61 2.187

-3.44 4.53 2.474

-3.74 5.25 2.685

124.79254 71.416

FOS 0.572