Advertisement

Landslides

, Volume 5, Issue 2, pp 161–176 | Cite as

Alternative approaches for analyses of a 100,000 m3 rock slide based on Barton–Bandis shear strength criterion

  • Vidar Kveldsvik
  • Bjørn Nilsen
  • Herbert H. Einstein
  • Farrokh Nadim
Original Article

Abstract

A data set was derived for the Åknes rock slope, Norway, with the main focus on deriving input parameters for the Barton–Bandis shear strength criterion. Back-calculations of a 100,000 m3 rock slide were performed for evaluation of the data set. The limit equilibrium analysis showed that the joint roughness coefficient (JRC) has the greatest effect on the calculated safety factor of the slide. Probabilistic computations showed that the JRC stands out as the most important contributor to the total uncertainty over the whole set of variables and that the computed failure probability of the 1960 slide was very high, which may be interpreted that the input variables and the Barton–Bandis shear strength criterion are reasonable for the slide. JRC was measured on 0.25 m scale and on 1 m scale. The results from the two scales were different.

Keywords

Rock slide Western Norway Barton–Bandis shear strength criterion Limit equilibrium analyses Probabilistic analyses Numerical modelling 

Notes

Acknowledgements

The work presented here is part of ongoing projects funded by the Research Council of Norway through the Centre of Excellence–International Centre for Geohazards (ICG), the Geological Survey of Norway (NGU), Norwegian Geotechnical Institute (NGI), Norwegian University of Science and Technology (NTNU), National Fund for Natural Damage Assistance and Møre and Romsdal County, and the Aaknes/Tafjord project. The authors want to thank Nicole Ragvin (NTNU) for assistance in field investigations, data analysis and laboratory work and Dr Lars Harald Blikra for reviewing the paper.

References

  1. Barton NR (1995) The influence of joint properties in modelling rock masses. Keynote lecture proc. 8th ISRM congress, vol. 3. Rotterdam, Balkema, Tokyo, pp 1023–1032Google Scholar
  2. Barton N (1981) Shear strength investigations for surface mining. 3rd Int. Conf. on stability in surface mining. Vancouver, Ch. 7, pp 171–192, AIMEGoogle Scholar
  3. Barton N, Choubey V (1977) The shear strength of rock joints in theory and practice. Rock Mech 10:1–54CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Barton N, Bakhtar K (1987) Description and modelling of rock joints for the hydrothermalmechanical design of nuclear waste vaults, vols. I and II. Atomic Energy of Canada Limited. TR-418Google Scholar
  5. Barton N, Bandis S (1990) Review of predictive capabilities of JRC-JCS model in engineering practice. Proc. Int. Conf. Rock Joints, Balkema, pp 603–610Google Scholar
  6. Barton N, Lien R, Lunde J (1974) Engineering classification of rock masses for the design of tunnel support. Rock Mech 6(4):189–236CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Braathen A, Blikra LH, Berg SS, Karlsen F (2004) Rock-slope failures of Norway; type, geometry, deformation mechanisms and stability. Norw J Geol (NGT) 84:67–88Google Scholar
  8. Derron M-H, Blikra LH, Jaboyedoff M (2005) High resolution digital elevation model analysis for landslide hazard assessment (Åkerneset, Norway). In: Senneset K, Flaate K, Larsen JO (eds) Landslide and avalanches ICFL 2005 Norway. Taylor & Francis Group, LondonGoogle Scholar
  9. Duncan JM (2000) Factors of safety and reliability in geotechnical engineering. J Geotech Geoenviron Eng 126(4):307–316Google Scholar
  10. Einstein HH, Baecher GB, Veneziano D (1980) Risk analysis for rock slopes in open pit mines, Series of Reports USBM J 027 5015, 1980Google Scholar
  11. Hendron AJ (1968) Rock mechanics in engineering practice, Ch. 2. In: Stagg KG, Zienkiewicz OC (eds) Wiley, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  12. Hoek E (2000) Practical rock engineering. http://www.rocscience.com/hoek/PracticalRockEngineering.asp. Ch. 4. Shear strength of discontinuities
  13. Katz O, Raches Z, Roegiers J-C (2000) Evaluation of mechanical rock properties using a Schmidt Hammer. Int J Rock Mech Min Sci 37:723–728CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Kveldsvik V, Eiken T, Ganerød GV, Grøneng G, Ragvin N (2006) Evaluation of movement data and ground conditions for the Åknes rock slide. In: Proceedings of International Symposium on Stability of Rock Slopes in Open Pit Mine and Civil Engineering, p.279–299. The South African Institute of Mining and Metallurgy (SAIMM)Google Scholar
  15. Mogilevskaya SE (2004) Methods in the study of rock jointing parameters and properties of hydraulic structure foundation. Power Technol Eng 38(4/202–207):1570–1468Google Scholar
  16. Nadim F, Einstein HH, Roberds W (2005) Probabilistic stability analysis for individual slopes in soil and rock. In: Hungr O et al. (eds) Proceedings of International Conference on Landslide Risk Management, Vancouver. Balkema, LeidenGoogle Scholar
  17. Priest SD, Brown ET (1983) Probabilistic stability analyses of variable rock slopes. Trans Inst Min Metall A 92:1–12Google Scholar
  18. Ragvin SN (2005) Geological data from Åknes landslide area. Project work TGB4710 Technical Geology. Norwegian University of Science and TechnologyGoogle Scholar
  19. Seidel JP, Haberfield CM (1995) Towards an understanding of joint roughness. Rock Mech Rock Eng 28(2):69–92CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Stead D, Eberhardt E, Coggan JS (2006) Developments in the characterization of complex rock slope deformation and failure using numerical techniques. Eng Geol 83:217–235CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Zhao J (1997a) Joint surface matching and shear strength. Part A: Joint matching coefficient (JMC). Int J Rock Mech Min Sci 34(2):173–178CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Zhao J (1997b) Joint surface matching and shear strength. Part B: JRC-JMC shear strength criterion. Int J Rock Mech Min Sci 34(2):179–185CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag 2007

Authors and Affiliations

  • Vidar Kveldsvik
    • 1
    • 2
  • Bjørn Nilsen
    • 2
  • Herbert H. Einstein
    • 3
  • Farrokh Nadim
    • 1
  1. 1.Norwegian Geotechical Institute/International Centre for GeohazardsOsloNorway
  2. 2.Norwegian University of Science and TechnologyTrondheimNorway
  3. 3.Department of Civil and Environmental EngineeringMassachusetts Institute of TechnologyCambridgeUSA

Personalised recommendations