Strength-Reduction Stability Analysis of Rock Slopes Using the Hoek-Brown Failure Criterion

Dawson, Ethan; You, Kwang Ho; Park, Yeon-Jun

doi:10.1061/40514(290)4

Cited by 21 publications

(11 citation statements)

References 18 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…We obtain admissible ranges of rock‐mass properties for both sets of Martian slopes by defining cohesion and friction pairs for representative rock masses using the Rock Mass Rating (RMR) system [e.g., Bieniawski , 1993] with the nonlinear Hoek‐Brown strength criterion [e.g., Schultz , 1996; Hoek , 1998; Dawson et al , 2000]. We represent intact crystalline rock with RMR = 100, unconfined compressive strength σ c = 300 MPa, and Hoek‐Brown parameter m i = 33; bedded lava flows, RMR = 75, σ c = 200 MPa, and m i = 22; sedimentary rock, RMR = 50, σ c = 100 MPa, and m i = 8; and soft rock/strong soil, RMR = 25, σ c = 50 MPa, and m i = 2.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Stability of rock slopes in Valles Marineris, Mars

Schultz

2002

Geophysical Research Letters

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

[1] New slope measurements from the Mars Orbiter Laser Altimeter (MOLA), in conjunction with the Rock Mass Rating system (RMR), permit inversions of slope height and angle from wallrock and interior deposits within Valles Marineris troughs for strength and lithology. Wallrock (50 < RMR < 65) is stronger than interior deposits (30 < RMR < 55). These values are consistent with layered igneous rock beneath wallrock slopes, with interior deposits consistent with partially indurated sedimentary or volcaniclastic rocks. Larger volumes of landslide debris relative to terrestrial slides are related to the reduced Martian gravity. Seismicity along trough-bounding normal faults likely triggered the landslides in the adjacent wallrock. The weaker interior deposits are located sufficiently far from a border fault (and on its hangingwall) to have remained stable during the seismogenic faulting in Valles Marineris.

show abstract

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Stability of rock slopes in Valles Marineris, Mars

Schultz

2002

Geophysical Research Letters

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Dawson et al 2000;Shukha and Baker 2003;Hammah et al 2005;Benz et al 2008;Walter and Konietzky 2008;Li et al 2008). • Procedure II Determination of local c and u values according to the local stress state and subsequent local c -u-reduction (Fu and Liao 2010;Detournay et al 2011).…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 94%

“…Only a few references are available that extend shear strength reduction approach to non-linear failure criteria in general, and to the Hoek-Brown materials in particular (Dawson et al 2000;Shukha and Baker 2003;Hammah et al 2005;Benz et al 2008;Walter and Konietzky 2008;Li et al 2008;Fu and Liao 2010;Detournay et al 2011).…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 97%

A Comparative Study of Different Approaches for Factor of Safety Calculations by Shear Strength Reduction Technique for Non-linear Hoek–Brown Failure Criterion

Chakraborti¹,

Konietzky

Walter

2012

Geotech Geol Eng

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The shear strength reduction technique is becoming more and more popular to determine the factor-of-safety for geotechnical constructions, especially for slopes. At present, two in principal different procedures are used to apply the numerical shear strength reduction technique for materials characterised by non-linear failure envelopes, like the HoekBrown criterion. One procedure is based on the determination on local stress and strength values, whereas the other is based on a global linearization of the non-linear failure envelope. This article shortly describes and discusses these two different procedures and compares results for a broad spectrum of parameter constellations based on slope stability calculations. The local approach is physically more correct. The global approach can be considered as a first approximation. A comparison of both methods reveal that the global approach in comparison to the local approach, can leads to a deviation of up to 15 % in both directions. If one considers the local approach as the 'correct' one, depending on the parameters the results of the global approach can lie on the safe or unsafe site. The practical conclusion is that evaluation of slope stability using the global approach can result in uneconomic slope design or overestimation of safety margin. The use of the local approach instead of the global should be preferred. In case of small safety margins (e.g. 20 % or less) the use of the local approach is strictly recommended.

show abstract

“…Sometimes the HB criterion is locally fitted using a MC criterion (e.g. [23]). In reducing the locally fitted MC criteria, a reduced HB criterion can be computed.…”

Section: Ultimate Limit State Design With the Hb Criterionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…et al[23] for example explicitly calculate tangentially fitted MC parameters for each single finite element in their numerical calculation. However, the load steps applied in calculations with suchARTICLE IN PRESS…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%