Engineering Geology 59 (2001) 233±251

www.elsevier.nl/locate/enggeo

Development of a probabilistic approach for rock wedge failure

H. Park a,*, T.R. West b
a
Geotechnical Engineering Division, Korea Institute of Construction Technology, 2311 Taehwa-Dong, Ilsan-gu, Koyang, Kyonggi-do 411-712,
South Korea
b
Department of Earth and Atmospheric Sciences, Purdue University, West Lafayette, IN 47907, USA.
Received 14 March 2000; accepted for publication 13 October 2000

Abstract
For rock slope engineering, uncertainty and variability are inherent in data collected on orientation and strength of disconti-
nuities, yielding a range of results. Unfortunately, conventional deterministic analysis based on the factor of safety concept,
requires a ®xed representative value for each parameter without regard to the degree of uncertainty involved. Therefore, the
deterministic analysis fails to properly represent uncertainty and variability, so common in engineering geology studies. To
overcome this shortcoming, the probabilistic analysis method was proposed and used for more than a decade in rock slope
stability analysis. However, most probabilistic analyses included a deterministic model as part of the analysis procedure causing
subsequent problems, which went uncorrected. The objectives of this paper are to develop a solution for these dif®culties in
probabilistic analyses and to propose an appropriate simulation procedure for the probabilistic analysis of rock wedge failures.
As part of the solution, probability of kinematic instability and probability of kinetic instability are evaluated separately to
provide a proper, combined evaluation for failure probability. To evaluate the feasibility of this new probabilistic approach, the
procedure is applied to a practical example, a major, highway rock cut in North Carolina, USA. Results of the probabilistic
approach are compared to those of the deterministic analysis; ®ndings are signi®cantly different, indicating that the determi-
nistic analysis does not depict rock slope variations, particularly where signi®cant scatter in parameter data occurs. q 2001
Elsevier Science B.V. All rights reserved.
Keywords: Probabilistic analysis; Rock slopes stability; Wedge failure; Simulation

1. Introduction and geotechnical parameters, are distinctive charac-

In rock slope engineering, an important aspect of
engineering geology studies, the natural materials
comprising most slopes posses an innate variability
that is dif®cult to predict or calculate. Uncertainty
also arises from insuf®cient information concerning
the site conditions and incomplete understanding or
simpli®cation of a failure mechanism. Therefore,
uncertainty and variability in geologic conditions
* Corresponding author. Fax: 182-31-910-0211.
E-mail address: hjpark@kict.re.kr (H. Park).
0013-7952/01/$ - see front matter q 2001 Elsevier Science B.V. All rights reserved.
PII: S 0013-795 2(00)00076-4
teristics of engineering geology Ð geotechnical engi-
neering studies dealing with natural materials Einstein
and Baecher, 1982). In rock slope stability analysis,
the uncertainty and variability may be in the form of a
large scatter in discontinuity attitude data, the geome-
try of jointing or laboratory test results, the latter
performed to characterize discontinuity parameters
and properties. Consequently, one of the most impor-
tant and dif®cult challenges in rock slope engineering
is the selection of a representative value for stability
analysis from an array of widely scattered data.
Therefore, many engineers and researchers,
234 H. Park, T.R. West / Engineering Geology 59 (2001) 233±251
attempting to limit and quantify variation and uncer-
tainty in their data, have adopted various methods to
select appropriate, representative values for disconti-
nuity parameters. In an attempt to overcome uncer-
tainty and variability, the probability theory and
statistical techniques have been applied to slope stabi-
lity analysis. Its application has provided an important
tool for quantifying and modeling variability and
uncertainty. However, since most probabilistic
analyses include a deterministic model within their
probabilistic procedure, subsequent complications
develop. This is because the deterministic model for
wedge failure, which is commonly adopted as the
basis of the probabilistic solution, is not really appro-
priate in the probabilistic approach. Another possible
problem arises because kinematic instability and
kinetic instability are not clearly distinguished in
most probabilistic methods. Apparently, this occurs
because many researchers failed to understand the
relationship between kinematic and kinetic analysis
and consequently did not consider probability of
instability in the kinematic analysis.
Therefore, this paper proposes answers and
improvements to the problems mentioned above and
described later in detail when considering wedge fail-
ure. Finally, the proposed probabilistic approach is
applied to a practical example, stability analysis of a
highway rock cut in North Carolina, USA. The
purpose is to evaluate the validity of the probabilistic
approach and to compare results between probabilistic
and deterministic methods.
2. Deterministic analysis method
A deterministic analysis, because of its simple
calculation, is commonly used to evaluate the stability
of a slope system, based on ®xed values of dis-
continuity parameters. In practice, the values for
discontinuity parameters are determined from a repre-
sentative array of a large number of scattered data,
obtained from site investigation and laboratory, or in
situ testing. Traditionally, assessments of the risk of
failure are made on the basis of allowable factors of
safety, obtained through previous experience for the
system considered, under the existing environment. In
slope stability analysis, the factor of safety (FS),
which is used to ensure stability, is based on limit
equilibrium analysis. The deterministic method of
limit equilibrium analysis for rock slope stability
was introduced by Jaeger (1971) and Kutter (1974),
and recent techniques, which are commonly used,
were established by Hoek and Bray (1981) and Good-
man (1976). Numerous applications of this analysis
and useful ®eld adaptations have been accomplished
in the past 20 years (Kovari and Fritz, 1984; Watts and
West, 1985; Sakurai and Shimizu, 1987).
A slope stability analysis consists of a two step
process. The ®rst is to determine if the orientation
of the discontinuities could result in instability for a
rock slope de®ned by those discontinuities. This
determination is usually accomplished by means of
stereographic analysis of the structural fabric and is
commonly referred to as kinematic analysis (Piteau
and Peckover, 1978). If the kinematic analysis indi-
cates that the structural condition is potentially
unstable, the kinetic stability of the body is assessed
using the limit equilibrium method; this provides the
second step.
In the deterministic analysis, a representative orien-
tation (the mean value in many cases) for a particular
joint set is determined and kinematic tests are carried
out using a stereographic projection involving a single
representative value for each discontinuity set. Then a
single representative strength parameter for each
discontinuity set is determined and this value is used
to calculate the FS in a deterministic analysis. The
result of the deterministic analysis for limit equili-
brium is a single FS, based on the representative
values of discontinuity parameters, which are typi-
cally taken as the mean values.
However, most input parameters (e.g. material
strength, joint geometry and pore water pressures) in
the FS calculation are not precisely known because of
uncertainty and variations in testing, modeling, and
spatial variation. Thus, each of these parameters
is a random variable and the analysis using
different values for each of these parameters can
result in a different FS value. Thus, safety factor
itself is a random variable, depending on many
input parameters.
However, the traditional concept of FS does not
re¯ect the degree of uncertainty of these parameters.
In most cases, the mean value of each parameter is
assigned as a ®xed value for calculation of FS.
However, some engineers tend to select values higher
 H. Park, T.R. West / Engineering Geology 59 (2001) 233±251
or lower than the mean, due to uncertainty and varia-
tion in input parameters. This can yield completely
different FS values for the same project. The National
Research Council (1995) and Harr (1987) pointed out
that the conventional factors of safety commonly used
by engineers are based on nominal values of resis-
tance and load. In addition, although the conventional
FS depends on the physical model, the method of
calculation, and mostly on the choice of parameters,
there is usually a lack of consensus for these choices.
Consequently, inconsistency is likely to exist among
engineers and between applications by the same engi-
neer. Also, the same FS can be associated with a large
range in reliability. For example, according to Tabba
(1984), when FS ˆ 1.5, the probability of failure can
increase from 10 25 to 10 22 when the standard devia-
tion increases from 0.15 to 0.25. Thus FS is not a
consistent measure of safety or risk.
Another disadvantage in the deterministic analysis
is that FS values cannot be compared for different
modes of failure. According to Einstein and Baecher
(1982), the mechanically equivalent de®nitions of
failure have different FS values. In Low's (1997)
analysis of rock wedges, the same safety factors for
different sliding modes with the same slope geometry
and same joint sets have very different probabilities of
failure. Consequently, as Tabba (1984) pointed out,
the following shortcomings occur in deterministic
analyses: (1) inability to account for variations in
properties and conditions; (2) dif®culty in portraying
the relative importance of various sets of data in the
overall stability condition.
3. Probabilistic analysis method
In the deterministic approach of slope stability, the
FS and all input parameters take on ®xed values in
spite of the fact that these parameters and even the FS
shows a degree of uncertainty. Therefore, despite the
simplicity of the traditional deterministic approach, it
does not properly represent the uncertainty and varia-
bility in parameters and in the analytical or empirical
models.
As an alternative to the deterministic approach, the
probabilistic analysis has been introduced to quantify
the uncertainty and variability in parameters and in
the analytical model. In the analysis, FS is considered
235
as a random variable and can be replaced by the prob-
ability of failure to measure the level of slope stability.
The probability of failure is simply de®ned as the
probability of having FS # 1 given as a percentage
that is equal to the area that FS # 1 under the prob-
ability density function (PDF) for FS.
In general, probabilistic analysis is performed by
two procedures (Tabba, 1984): the ®rst step consists
of analysis of available geotechnical data to determine
the basic statistical parameters (that is, mean and
variance) and PDF in order to represent and predict
the random property of these geotechnical parameters.
The PDF is used to model the relative likelihood of a
random variable. In cases where it is believed that a
given set of measured data represents a set of repre-
sentative sample values of the variable, and no other
information is available, a probability density distri-
bution is representative of the random variable. The
mean value of the PDF represents the best estimate of
the random variable, and the standard deviation or
coef®cient of variance (c.o.v.) of the PDF represents
an assessment of the uncertainty.
In the second step, risk analysis of slope stability is
accomplished using the basic statistical parameters
and the probability density distribution developed
from the previous step. That is, once the probabilistic
properties of input parameters are assumed, the prob-
ability of failure can be evaluated by many different
risk analysis procedures. The Monte Carlo simulation
method is commonly used to evaluate reliability of the
slope system when direct integration of the system
function is not practical, but the PDF of each compo-
nent variable is completely prescribed. In this proce-
dure, values of each component are generated
randomly by its respective PDFs and then these values
are used to evaluate the factors of safety. By repeating
this calculation, the probability of failure can be esti-
mated by the proportion of results in which the safety
factor is less than one. This estimation is reasonably
accurate only if the number of simulations is very
large. The advantage of this method is that the
complete probability distribution for the FS is
obtained if the PDF of input parameters is assessed
precisely and correlation between the input para-
meters is estimated. The disadvantage is that large
numbers of simulations are required when the failure
probability is relatively small. In addition, this simu-
lation may cause errors if the probability of failure is
236 H. Park, T.R. West / Engineering Geology 59 (2001) 233±251

Fig. 1. Stereoplot of data required for wedge stability analysis (after Hoek and Bray, 1981).

very low. When the PDFs of the component variables
are not available, but their mean and c.o.v. are known,
the ®rst-order second-moment method (FOSM) can
be used to calculate approximately the probability of
failure. This method is based on the truncated Taylor
series expansion of the FS beyond the ®rst-order term.
It yields a good approximation if the uncertainties of
the variables are small. Inputs and outputs are
expressed as expected values and standard deviations.
Advantages of this method are: the calculation is
simple and only information of moments (that is,
mean and variance as ®rst moment and second
moment) are needed rather than a complete distribu-
tion function. The disadvantage is that mathematical
calculations are dif®cult when the number of compo-
nent variables is large.
An alternative method for calculating the moments
for the FS is to use the point estimate method (PEM).
The FS is determined for all possible combinations of
one low and one high value (point estimate) of each
component variable and then the combinations are
weighted by the product of their associated probabil-
ities (Harr, 1987; Wolff, 1996). This method also
requires only moment information for the variables.
An advantage of this approach is that correlation of
random variables can be easily considered in the
 H. Park, T.R. West / Engineering Geology 59 (2001) 233±251 237

calculation of moments for FS. However, both FOSM and Bray (1981) (Fig. 1).
and PEM provide only estimates of mean and standard  
3 g
deviation for the FS and these methods do not provide FS ˆ …cA X 1 cB Y† 1 A 2 w tan fA
gH 2g
information regarding the distribution of FS.
 
g
1 B 2 w Y tan fB …1†
2g
4. Conditions for wedge failure
sin u24
Xˆ …2†
In the present paper, only the standard case of a sin u45 cos u2;na
wedge failure in a rock mass, de®ned by four planes
(slope face, top slope and two discontinuities) will be sin u13
Yˆ …3†
considered. As indicated previously, two conditions sin u35 cos u1;nb
should be satis®ed for rock slope failure: kinematic
and kinetic. cos c a 2 cos c b cos una;nb
Aˆ …4†
sin c 5 sin2 una;nb

4.1. Kinematic conditions for wedge failure
The orientation of the line of intersection mainly
controls the kinematic analysis of wedge failures. The
kinematic instability is based on the following three
conditions (Norrish and Wyllie, 1996).
1. The trend of the line of intersection must be similar
to the dip direction of the slope face.
2. The plunge of the line of intersection must be less
than the dip of the slope face.
3. The plunge of the line of intersection must be
greater than the angle of friction of the discontinu-
ity surface.
In most cases, stereographic analysis is a simple and
effective way to analyze kinematic stability.
4.2. Kinetic conditions for wedge failure
After kinematic analysis of wedge stability indi-
cates the possibility of a wedge failure, a kinetic
analysis must be performed. Analysis of wedge stabi-
lity requires details of the wedge geometry as de®ned
by the location and orientation of the bounding
surfaces. Wedge stability can be evaluated using the
FS concept by resolving the forces acting normal to
the discontinuities and in the direction parallel to the
line of intersection. The most common procedure used
widely is the stereographic projection method of Hoek
cos c b 2 cos c a cos una;nb
Bˆ …5†
sin c 5 sin2 una;nb
where cA and cB are the cohesive strengths of planes A
and B; f A and f B the angles of friction on planes A
and B; g the unit weight of the rock; g w the unit
weight of water; H the total height of the wedge.
5. Development of probabilistic approach
Several authors (Carter and Lajtai, 1992; Muralha
and Trunk, 1993; Trunk, 1993; Leung and Quek,
1995; Feng and Lajtai, 1998) have developed different
probabilistic analysis methods for rock slope stability.
Basically these approaches used two different reliabil-
ity analysis methods, such as Monte Carlo simulation
and FOSM, but these approaches were based on a
similar system failure function.
However, those probabilistic analysis methods
(that is, Monte Carlo and FOSM) used by previous
researchers are not entirely probabilistic procedures.
This is because the system failure function, which
Hoek and Bray (1981) established and other authors
have commonly used, is based on a deterministic
model and only some of the input parameters are
treated as random variables. For complete probabil-
istic analysis, jointing should be described as a
random variable and the stochastic model for
discontinuities has to be considered for rock slope
stability based on a random process. This is because
stochastic models present a unifying theory that
238 H. Park, T.R. West / Engineering Geology 59 (2001) 233±251
accounts for discontinuity properties observed in the
®eld (Glynn, 1979). Therefore, some researchers
(Call and Nicholas, 1978; Glynn, 1979) tried to
develop the stochastic model for discontinuity and
rock slope stability. However, an appropriate
stochastic model for rock slope stability has yet to
be proposed. This is due to a limitation of under-
standing for the random joint generation process and
a lack and dif®culty of observation for discontinuity
parameters.
Therefore, in the current research, the deterministic
model for rock slope stability analysis, established by
Hoek and Bray (1981), is used. In addition, the Monte
Carlo simulation method is utilized for reliability
analysis to evaluate the probability of failure. This is
because the deterministic model for wedge failure of
rock slopes is not easily solved by analytical means.
The Monte Carlo technique is a numerical simulation
method that solves mathematical problems through
random sampling and repeated calculation. It is the
most complete method for risk analysis since all the
random variables are represented by their joint PDF
and the probability of failure as the result of risk
analysis is represented by its PDF (Mostyn and Li,
1993).
However, when the deterministic failure model is
adopted into a probabilistic analysis approach, several
problems require consideration and a solution. The
®rst is which deterministic failure model should be
used? The deterministic model is one of the important
factors affecting the probability of failure in a prob-
abilistic analysis. Therefore, depending upon which
model is selected, the probability of failure can be
different for a wide range of values.
The second problem is how to evaluate the prob-
ability of failure. In previous probabilistic analyses,
the concept of probability of failure was quite confus-
ing. The procedures for evaluating probability of fail-
ure differ signi®cantly from one researcher to another,
because kinematic instability and kinetic instability
were not clearly distinguished in most previous proce-
dures. This problem is also related to the dif®culty
involving kinematic analysis. Because kinematic
analyses are commonly performed on stereographic
projections, it is not easy to evaluate kinematic
instability using the probabilistic approach and
therefore to calculate the probability of kinematic
instability.
The third problem is related to the probability of
system failure. Actually, the probability of failure,
evaluated by multiplication of the probability of
kinematic instability and the probability of kinetic
instability, is a conditional probability that two and
only two joints intersect to form a wedge and the
wedge fails. Therefore, in order to analyze the stabi-
lity of rock slopes, the probability of failure for the
entire slope should be evaluated. In all, these
problems must be solved to properly apply the prob-
abilistic approach to a deterministic analysis model.
5.1. Problems related to deterministic model
5.1.1. Importance of deterministic analysis model
In most cases for the probabilistic approach, a
deterministic failure model is adopted as the basis of
the probabilistic solution. This is one of the important
factors affecting the probability of failure in a prob-
abilistic analysis. According to Mostyn and Li (1993),
a change in the deterministic model producing a 30%
reduction in the FS has led to a 300% increase in the
estimated probability of failure. However, the varia-
tion in the FS in slope stability analysis is not really a
problem because the acceptable FS can be condi-
tioned to a large extent by the choice of the determi-
nistic model. Yet, there is no similar method to
accomplish this for the probability of failure (Mostyn
and Li, 1993). Another case showing the impact of the
deterministic model is provided in the paper by Li and
White (1987). They indicated that a variation of two
orders of magnitude in the estimated probability of
failure developed, entirely from the choice of which
deterministic model to use.
5.1.2. Selection of failure model in wedge failure
As discussed previously, in a wedge failure, the
method of Hoek and Bray (1981) has been used
to analyze the stability of wedges, based on Eqs.
(1)±(5) above. However, this method requires a
complicated calculation procedure. In addition, the
angles (c5, u na;nb; u24 , u 45, u2;na; u13, u35, and u1;nb ) in
Eq. (1)±(5) are needed to calculate the coef®cients
X, Y, A and B, and the angles can only be measured
from a stereoplot. That means that if this equation is
adopted in probabilistic analysis and is used in Monte
Carlo simulation, a stereograph is needed for each set
of many parameter combinations and then the angles
 H. Park, T.R. West / Engineering Geology 59 (2001) 233±251
Fig. 2. Slope geometry in wedge failure (after Low and Einstein, 1991).
must be measured from the stereoplot. Also, as the
Monte Carlo simulation requires more and more calcu-
lations, more stereoplots are required. Consequently,
these equations are not appropriate for use in a prob-
abilistic approach.
As alternative method, Hoek and Bray (1981)
presented the equations for computing the FS by a
systematic procedure in the appendix of their text-
book. This solution can be easily adopted to the prob-
abilistic analysis because of its simple and systematic
procedure. The other advantage of this procedure is
that factors of safety for four different failure modes in
wedge failure can be calculated. The four different
sliding modes are: (1) wedge sliding in contact with
both joint planes; (2) sliding in contact with plane 1
only; (3) sliding in contact with plane 2 only; (4)
contact is lost on both planes. Therefore, the probabil-
ities of failure for these four different sliding modes
can be evaluated individually by using this procedure.
It also includes the in¯uence of a tension crack, but in
the current research, a tension crack for simplicity, is
not considered. In this method, based on attitude (dip
and dip direction) and mechanical (friction angle and
cohesion) values of discontinuity planes, unit vectors
of each plane and vectors of the lines of intersection of
various planes are evaluated. Using these values, atti-
tude of line of intersection of two discontinuities is
calculated, and areas of the faces and wedge volumes
are evaluated based on the geometry of the slope and
discontinuities. Finally, the forces acting normal to
239
the discontinuities and in the direction parallel to the
line of intersection are calculated and after examining
the sliding modes, the FS is determined.
5.2. Problems related to kinematic analysis
In order to check the stability of rock slope systems,
both kinematic and kinetic analyses are required
based on the geometry and strength of discontinuities.
This is accomplished for both the probabilistic as well
as for the deterministic analysis. The procedures
required for kinematic stability and kinetic stability
for the probabilistic analysis methods have been
proposed by McMahon (1971). Later Glynn (1979)
also advocated this method. McMahon estimated the
probability of failure from the stereoplot by establish-
ing two regions of kinematic and kinetic stability on
the equal-area projection. After that, using the concept
of the composite model, Glynn considered the prob-
ability of failure as the multiplication of probability of
kinematic instability and probability of kinetic
instability. However, most researchers who performed
probabilistic analysis, calculated only probability of
kinetic instability and then considered this to be the
probability of failure in rock slope analysis. The major
reason why these researchers failed to perform the
kinematic analysis seems to be that they did not
understand the relationship between the kinematic
and kinetic analyses. That is, even if a rigid block in
a rock mass has an FS less than 1, the block will not
240 H. Park, T.R. West / Engineering Geology 59 (2001) 233±251
αapparent
αi
Plane A
Direction of sliding
Plane B
Dip direction of slope
Slope face face
Fig. 3. Sliding along the line of intersection of plane A and B (after
Hoek and Bray, 1981).
undergo failure if the block is kinematically stable. In
addition, the dif®culty in performing kinematic analy-
sis is another reason. Because many kinematic
analyses are performed based on stereographic
projection, a calculation of probability of kinematic
instability is not easy to accomplish, as mentioned
previously. The stereographic projection method is
not suited as input for the computational, repeated
calculations in the Monte Carlo simulation which is
commonly adopted in a probability analysis.
Therefore, Low and Einstein (1991) suggested a
simple equation for checking a kinematic instability
for the formation of a wedge (Fig. 2). When e is the
dip angle of the line of intersection which can be
evaluated from the geometry of slope face and discon-
tinuities, they considered that the condition of kine-
matic instability was
V,e,a …6†
where V and a are given dip angles of the upper
ground surface and slope face, respectively. If Eq. (6)
is not satis®ed, a wedge is not possible and a wedge
failure does not occur. This equation is simple and can
be easily used in repeated calculations of probabilistic
analysis, especially, for the Monte Carlo simulation.
However, the authors found that this equation had a
problem. As can be observed in Fig. 3, the true dip of
the line of intersection should be compared with the
apparent dip of the slope face in the dip direction of
the intersection line. In some cases where Eq. (6) is
used and the angle between dip direction of the inter-
section line and the dip direction of the slope face is
very large, it is possible that a stable rock block is
interpreted as being an unstable block. This develops
because the true dip of the intersection line is less than
the true dip of slope face, indicating that the block is
unstable. However, in reality, the true dip of the inter-
section line is greater than the apparent dip of slope
face and the block is actually stable kinematically.
Therefore, in order to prevent this problem, the appar-
ent dip of the slope face should be evaluated and
Eq. (6) should be corrected accordingly.
The apparent dip can be determined using the
following equation:
 
a apparent ˆ tan21 tan a cos…bi 2 bs † …7†
where b i and b s are the dip directions of the lines of
intersection and slope face, respectively. Therefore,
Eq. (6) should be corrected as follows
V , e , a apparent …8†
In the current study, the probability of kinematic
instability was evaluated using this apparent dip of
the slope face.
After the probability of kinematic instability is
evaluated, the probability of kinetic instability is eval-
uated separately. This is the solution to the problem
noted above in previous research reports, where
analysis procedures for the two conditions were not
clearly divided. Therefore, in the current research, the
probability of kinematic instability and kinetic
instability were evaluated separately and later multi-
plied to determine the probability of failure.
5.3. Problem related to probability of slope system
failure
The probability of failure, Pf, is the probability that
any two intersecting joints will form an unstable wedge
and the wedge will fail. It can be computed as the multi-
plication of the probability of kinematic instability and
the probability of kinetic instability presented in the
previous section. However, Pf is actually a conditional
probability based on the premise that two and only two
joints intersect to form a wedge (Glynn, 1979). In a real
situation, two or more wedges can form and fail at the
same time. This is because there is a possibility that
 H. Park, T.R. West / Engineering Geology 59 (2001) 233±251 241

several joints intersect each other and produce several Table 1

wedges. Therefore, P 0f ; the probability of failure for the Relation between types of system and correlation of failure surfaces
entire slope system, can be either less than, or larger than Type of Correlation of system
Pf. If the rock mass has widely spaced joints relative to system
the dimensions of the slope, the probability of failure of Independent system Perfectly correlated
the entire slope system will be lower than the probability system
of failure of the rock mass with closely spaced joints. Q
Series 12
Q (12Pfi) Max Pfi
Therefore, P 0f should be evaluated to analyze the stabi- Parallel Pfi Max Pfi
lity of the slope system because the design engineer is
concerned more about stability of the entire slope
system. This problem has been discussed by several mately equal, we will have
authors, but many probabilistic analyses consider only
Pf as the probability of rock slope system failure. P 0f ˆ 1 2 …1 2 Pf †N for independent wedges …11†
The probability of failure for the entire slope system,
P 0f ; is a function of Pf and the number of wedges formed P 0f ˆ Pf for perfectly correlated wedges …12†
in the slope. In addition, P 0f is in¯uenced by the correla- By contrast, if the system is parallel, the probability of
tion between possible failure surfaces. system failure is
In order to determine the relationship among the
Y
N
number of wedges, the probability of a wedge failure P 0f ˆ Pfi for independent wedges …13†
(Pf) and the correlation between failure surfaces, we iˆ1
need to understand system reliability theory. Accord-
ing to the theory of system reliability, if a system P 0f ˆ Max Pfi for perfectly correlated wedges
consists of several different components, the probabil- …14†
ity of system failure depends on the relationship
between the components composing the system. Again, if all Pfi are approximately equal,
Systems that consist of components connected in paral- P 0f ˆ PNf for independent wedges …15†
lel are such that the total failure of the system requires
failures of all the components. By contrast, systems P 0f ˆ Pfi for perfectly correlated wedges …16†
that are composed of components connected in series
are such that the failure of any one or more of these These relationships are summarized in Table 1.
components constitutes the failure of the system. In Therefore, if we consider that the rock slope
other words, if one component fails, the system is system, which is a type of series system, involves n
unable to complete the operation. A rock slope system wedges, the probability of slope system failure would
is a type of series system. When evaluating system be
reliability, probabilities of system failure are evaluated P 0f ˆ 1 2 …1 2 Pf †n
in a totally different way based on the relationship …17†
between components. That is, if the system is a series, in the case of independent wedges
the probability of system failure is
Pf ˆ Pf in the case of perfect correlation …18†
Y
N
P 0f ˆ12 …1 2 Pfi † if wedges are independent However, at the present time, there is no rational
iˆ1 method for assessing the correlation between possible
…9† failure surfaces. Therefore, the best we can do
currently is to recognize that the probability of system
failure is approximated using two extreme cases,
P 0f ˆ Max Pfi if wedges are perfectly correlated
which are the perfectly correlated and the independent
…10† cases:
If the probabilities of failure Pf1 to PfN are approxi- Pf , P 0f , 1 2 …1 2 Pf †n …19†
242 H. Park, T.R. West / Engineering Geology 59 (2001) 233±251

Table 2
Comparison with probability of failure and distribution for parameters (after Kulatilake et al., 1985)

Used distribution for probabilistic parameters Best distribution For FS with Probability of failure
(mean and c.o.v)
Orientation of plane A Orientation of plane B fA fB

Mean Mean Mean Mean FS ˆ 0.86 ±

Mean Mean Uniform Uniform Normal, lognormal (0.86, 0.10) 0.96
Mean Mean Normal Normal Normal (0.86, 0.10) 0.96
Mean Mean Lognormal Lognormal Normal, lognormal (0.86, 0.10) 0.95
Bivariate normal Bivariate normal Mean Mean Lognormal (0.88, 0.33) 0.72
Bivariate normal Bivariate normal Uniform Uniform Gamma, lognormal (0.88, 0.35) 0.70
Bivariate normal Bivariate normal Normal Normal Normal, gamma (0.89, 0.33) 0.68
Bivariate normal Bivariate normal Lognormal Lognormal Normal, gamma (0.89, 0.33) 0.68
Fisher Fisher Mean Mean Lognormal (0.94, 0.53) 0.67
Fisher Fisher Uniform Uniform Lognormal (0.94, 0.54) 0.64
Fisher Fisher Normal Normal Lognormal, gamma (0.94, 0.54) 0.62
Fisher Fisher lognormal lognormal lognormal (0.94, 0.54) 0.62

6. Statistical considerations for discontinuity and
slope parameters
In the process of developing the probabilistic
approach, one of the important considerations is a
statistical model of the geometrical and mechanical
parameters of discontinuities. The stability of a rock
slope is in¯uenced by different parameters of which
the most important are:
² orientation of discontinuities;
² geometrical parameters of discontinuities such as
length, spacing and persistence;
² shear strength of discontinuities.
of experience and good engineering judgement are
always needed (Muralha and Trunk, 1993).
The parameters used for probabilistic analysis can
be subdivided into two groups by their scatter and
randomness: deterministic parameters and probabilis-
tic parameters. However, various researchers have
designated different parameters as random variables,
leaving the remainder to be treated deterministically.
Thus some have adopted the geometric parameters of
discontinuity and groundwater conditions as random
variables only, others also treat the strength para-
meters as random variables. Therefore, a clear expla-
nation of the parameters and their properties used in
the current research is required before providing a
description of the simulation procedures.

Most of these parameters should be considered as 6.1. Deterministic parameters

random variables and types of distribution functions
for each random variable should be selected carefully
in a probabilistic analysis. However, there is a lack of
consensus on these choices, which could lead to very
different analysis results. As Kulatilake et al. (1985)
pointed out, a different choice of density distribution
affects signi®cantly the probability of rock slope fail-
ure (Table 2). The distribution functions are chosen
according to physical reasons and values of their para-
meters based upon research results and evaluation of
the data. In addition, since the number of tests
performed and data measured are generally insuf®-
cient for a sound statistical analysis, a certain amount
Deterministic parameters are considered as known
quantities (hence, deterministic) and have the same
values for all sliding blocks. Therefore, a ®xed single
value is chosen for this type of parameter and used in
probabilistic analysis. Slope orientation, slope dimen-
sion and material properties belong to this class of
parameter.
The slope is assumed to be straight and consisting
of two planes, the upper and lower slope. Slope dip
direction and dip angle of the lower plane and the
upper plane are required for stability analysis and
considered to be deterministic. Slope dimensions are
 H. Park, T.R. West / Engineering Geology 59 (2001) 233±251
also assumed to be deterministic parameters. In plan
view, the slope is taken as a rectangular, so the hori-
zontal length and height of the slope are considered as
deterministic parameters. Rock density or unit weight
is assumed as a ®xed value in this study. However, in
some papers such as that by Feng and Lajtai (1998),
density is considered as a random variable, but in
current study the number of data was too small to
analyze or consider density to be a random property.
6.2. Probabilistic parameters
Water pressure, joint orientation, joint dimension,
and joint shear strength are considered as probabilistic
parameters because the tested and measured values of
these parameters are widely scattered and therefore
true values of these parameters cannot be evaluated
precisely.
Water pressure is a signi®cant parameter in slope
stability analysis, especially, in kinetic analysis
because water ®lls the sliding surface and affects the
driving and the resisting forces. Since the water level
¯uctuates according to weather, precipitation and
season, it is not easily measured or predicted. There-
fore, the water level is considered as a random vari-
able. In wedge failure analysis, the water pressure
distribution is considered to be a pyramid shape and
the average water pressure on a discontinuity surface
acting on the discontinuity surfaces can be evaluated
by
gw hw
uˆ …20†
6
where g w is the unit weight of water and hw the height
of groundwater surface. In order to consider the water
pressure parameter as a probabilistic parameter, the
height of groundwater surface is considered to be a
random variable. The PDF of groundwater height is
considered to have a uniform distribution in this
study.
Joint orientation, joint dimension, and joint shear
strength are the most important parameters regarding
slope stability. They are de®ned separately for each
joint set and may be correlated among different joint
parameters within the set and between sets. However,
in this study, it is assumed that the different para-
meters are independent among joint sets.
Joint orientation is expressed by the dip and dip
243
direction of the joint plane. A Fisher distribution is
considered as the appropriate PDF to represent the
distribution of joint orientation. Among joint dimen-
sion parameters, spacing, length and persistence are
major factors that control slope stability and these are
considered as random parameters. Spacing of discon-
tinuities controls the number of sliding blocks in the
slope system. Therefore, it affects the probability of
overall system failure. A lognormal distribution is
selected as the PDF of this parameter based on
measurements by the authors and the Chi-square
goodness-of-®t tests (Park, 1999). It is widely
accepted that trace lengths of discontinuities follow
an exponential distribution because strong physical
and logical reasons support this concept. In addition,
joint length is a major parameter used for evaluating
joint persistence and it should be considered as a
random variable. In the current study, persistence is
considered as a function of the length of a disconti-
nuity and the dimensions of the sliding block.
A bilinear strength envelope is used to approximate
the true, non-linear behavior of discontinuity shear
strength. The distribution of friction angles is assumed
to be a normal distribution based on the experimental
test data on the study areas and their distributions
(Park, 1999). Hoek (1997) suggested a truncated
normal distribution for this variable because in some
cases, the complete normal distribution provides
unreasonably low or high values for the friction angle.
7. Proposed probabilistic stability analysis
7.1. Simulation procedure
The Monte Carlo simulation is frequently used to
evaluate the failure probability of a mechanical
system, in particular, when direct integration is not
practical or when the equation is dif®cult to integrate.
In this research, the Monte Carlo method was
employed because the deterministic model for rock
slope failure is not easy to solve by analytical
means. The simplest Monte Carlo simulation
approach is to assume that for a given stability analy-
sis, each variable takes a single value selected
randomly from its measured distribution, independent
of the other variables. The group of randomly selected
parameters is combined with ®xed input data to
244 H. Park, T.R. West / Engineering Geology 59 (2001) 233±251

Start

Enter input data

(Slope and Discontinuity parameters)

Number of simulation, NT

Randomly pick dip and dip direction of discontinuity

Calculate slope geometry dimensions

Generate position of the sliding block and

height of groundwater surface

Kinematic analysis

Yes
Stable?
Increase # of iteration
No

Number of kinetic simulation, NK

Generate shear strength parameters

Calculate factor of safety

Check the number of kinetic iterations, NS

No
NS = NK ?

Yes

Check the number of kinematic iterations, NM

No
NM = NT ?
Increase # of iteration
Yes

Calculate probability of failure

Stop

Fig. 4. Flowchart of simulation procedure in probabilistic analysis.

 H. Park, T.R. West / Engineering Geology 59 (2001) 233±251
generate a single random value for FS. This process is
repeated many times to generate a large number of
different FS values, which can be plotted in histogram
form. The important point in this simulation process is
that the values in the random sequence must re¯ect the
distribution pattern and this indicates that a plot of the
sequence of random values as a histogram, should
provide the same shape as the parent distribution
(Priest, 1993). That is, a single value or a sequence
of values, which re¯ect the properties of the speci®ed
PDF, is generated. The simulation procedure of this
study is discussed below and also expressed as a ¯ow-
chart in Fig. 4.
The ®rst step of the simulation procedure is the
generation of joint orientation. As mentioned
previously, the Fisher distribution is employed to
represent the distribution for the discontinuity orienta-
tion data. Therefore, in order to generate the joint
orientation whose parent distribution is the Fisher
distribution, a variable u , which is an angle between
measured orientation and true orientation, obeys the
Fisher distribution. It has the following density
function.
K sin u eK cos u
f … u† ˆ …21†
eK 2 e2K
where u is the angular deviation from the mean orien-
tation which ranges between 0 and p/2, and K is Fish-
er's constant. However, to simplify Eq. (21), the
following approximate expression for the cumulative
probability distribution is used.
P…u† < 1 2 eK…cos u21† …22†
For the purposes of simulation of the Fisher distribu-
tion, P(u ) in Eq. (22) is replaced by the uniform
random value RiU and the variable u is replaced by
the required random values RiF : Therefore, Eq. (22)
can be rearrange to give the desired form as follows:
! parameter and the PDF of this parameter is assumed
i ln…1 2 RiU †
RF ˆ Arc cos 11 …23†
K
Next, a random number generated from the uniform
distribution is substituted in RiU and RiF is calculated
using Eq. (23). Repeating this calculation, a sequence
of the variable u is generated and this generated set of
u values shows a Fisher distribution. The dip and dip
direction of the generated discontinuity will be eval-
245
uated by a simple calculation from a variable u as
proposed in Leung and Quek (1995). Consequently,
randomly generated dips and dip directions of the
discontinuity are obtained in this step of the proce-
dure. In the second step, the position of the sliding
block and the height of groundwater surface are
generated. For the wedge failure case, the intersection
point of the intersection line of the two joints with the
slope face, which is a daylighting position, is de®ned
randomly. Distribution of this position is considered
as a uniform probability distribution along the height
of the slope. Therefore, a new daylighting position on
the block is generated for each iteration. In addition,
the height of groundwater level is also assumed as a
uniform probability distribution along the line of
intersection for the wedge failure case. Then, dimen-
sions of the sliding wedge block are evaluated using
the systematic procedure suggested by Hoek and Bray
(1981) for the wedge failure. The trend and plunge of
the line of intersection, areas of the joint faces and
volumes of wedges are evaluated based on the infor-
mation for the orientation of two intersecting joints
and the intersection point for the line of intersection.
Based on these parameters, which are generated and
evaluated in previous steps, the kinematic stability of
a wedge is checked. If sliding is possible kinemati-
cally, the next step of simulation for kinetic analysis
begins. However, if sliding is impossible, the proce-
dure moves to the ®rst step of simulation, and then
another parameter value for discontinuity orientation
and daylighting position are generated. Then the
previous steps are repeated in the simulation proce-
dure. In the next step, for the kinematically unstable
wedge, the shear strength parameters are generated
randomly using statistical parameters and the prob-
ability density distribution of shear strength para-
meters. The internal friction angle of the
discontinuity is only considered as a shear strength
to be a normal distribution on the basis of experimen-
tal test data. In this step, for the same wedge geometry
that occurs in the previous steps, many different shear
strength parameters are generated and used to calcu-
late many different factors of safety.
After performing a suf®ciently large number of
iterations, the probability of failure is determined.
The probability of failure consists of two failure prob-
abilities (or instability); the probability of kinematic
246 H. Park, T.R. West / Engineering Geology 59 (2001) 233±251
instability and the probability of kinetic instability.
The probability of kinematic instability is evaluated
as the ratio of the number of iterations (or the number
of wedges formed in each iteration) that are deter-
mined as kinematically unstable to the number of
total iterations. The probability of kinetic instability
is the ratio of the number of the iterations that the FS
is less than 1 to the number of total iterations that
the FS is calculated. Then the probability of slope
failure is evaluated by multiplying the probability of
kinematic instability by the probability of kinetic
instability
7.2. Assessment of probability of failure
The de®nition of the probability of failure is some-
times presented in a vague fashion in previous
research publications. According to Quek and Leung
(1995), the probability of failure is calculated:
NF
Pf ˆ …24†
NT
where NF is the number of iteration that the wedges
failed, that is, FS is less than 1, and NT is the total
number of iterations that wedges were analyzed.
However, as Feng and Lajtai (1997) pointed out, NT
can be interpreted in two different ways; NT is either
the total number of iterations performed or only those
iterations that form kinematically unstable wedges.
Depending on this de®nition, the probability of failure
will be different. Lajtai and Carter (1989) de®ne NT as
the number of the iterations that form kinematically
unstable wedges and Feng and Lajtai (1998) used both
de®nitions without a clear distinction between them.
However, a clear de®nition and the results of prob-
ability of failure are provided in the current paper. The
probability of failure is de®ned as the multiplication
of the probability of kinematic instability by the prob-
ability of kinetic instability. This multiplication is
based on the concept of composite models suggested
by Marek and Savely (1978) and Serrano and Castillo
(1974). The concept of composite models states that
all the individual components that affect probability of
failure must be compiled to calculate probability of
failure. Glynn (1979) also suggested the composite
model for calculation of FS. That is,
X tion procedure and are easily applied to evaluate the
Pf ˆ P‰AŠP‰BŠ …25†
where P[A] is the probability that a wedge will
daylight, that is, the wedge is kinematically unstable,
and P[B] is the probability that the driving force
exceeds the resisting forces. Therefore in this study,
P[A] in Eq. (25) is similar to the probability of kine-
matic instability and P[B] is similar to the probability
of kinetic instability.
As mentioned previously, the probability of kine-
matic instability is de®ned as
Nm
Pfm ˆ …26†
NT
where Nm is the number of iterations that are kinema-
tically unstable for the wedge and NT is the total
number of iterations. Since the kinetic analysis is
performed only when the wedge is kinematically
unstable, the probability of kinetic instability is
de®ned as
Nf
Pfk ˆ …27†
Nm
where Nf is the number of iterations that a wedge has a
FS less than 1. That is, the probability of kinetic
instability is a conditional probability based on the
premise that the wedge is kinematically unstable.
Therefore, on the basis of probabilistic theory, the
multiplication of the probability of kinematically
instability and the kinetically instability produces
the probability of failure. That is,
Nm N N
Pf ˆ Pfm Pfk ˆ £ f ˆ f …28†
NT Nm NT
From this, the probability of failure should be de®ned
as the ratio of the number of iterations that the FS is
less than 1, which is based on premise that the wedge
is kinematically unstable, and the number of total
iterations. Hence, the multiplication of Pfm and Pfk
provides a clear de®nition based on probability theory
and simpli®es the evaluation of FS, thereby removing
any confusion. Based on this, the probability of kine-
matic instability and the probability of kinetic
instability are evaluated separately using the simula-
probability of slope stability.
 H. Park, T.R. West / Engineering Geology 59 (2001) 233±251
Table 3
Input values for probabilistic analysis
(a) Input for slope geometry
Orientation of slope Height of slope (m) Unit weight of rocks (kN/m 3)
(dip direction/dip)
069/45 30 25.7
(b) Input for discontinuity properties
Set no. J1 J2
Mean orientation (dip 257/25 174/69
direction/dip)
Fisher constant 57 180
Mean friction angle (8) 40 40
STD of friction angle 3.78 3.78
Mean length (m) 3.7 3.7
Roughness (8) 9 9
Spacing (m) 0.9 0.9
8. Application of probabilistic analysis
This probabilistic approach was applied to a stabi-
lity analysis for a rock cut along Inter-state Highway
26 in North Carolina, USA. A 30 m high slope with an
orientation of 069/45 was excavated in a rock mass in
which the upper slope was essentilly horizontal. The
rock slope is located within the Blue Ridge Belt, a
geologic province bounded to the west by the Great
Smoky thrust fault and to east by the Brevard Fault
zone. The major lithology of the rock mass is Precam-
brian aged, Cranberry granite gneiss. It is a medium-
grained, even-textured rock that varies from light to
dark gray in color. A total of 280 discontinuities were
measured by means of the scanline method on rock
outcrops and existing road cut slopes, as well as use of
a borehole method providing oriented cores. The sets
of measured discontinuity orientations were deter-
mined using the clustering algorithm proposed by
Mahtab and Yegulalp (1982). As a results of the clus-
tering procedure, six sets, consisting of ®ve joint sets
and one foliation set, were identi®ed and the mean (or
representative) directions and Fisher constants for
each set were determined. Length, spacing and rough-
ness of discontinuities were also measured in the ®eld
and their probabilistic properties were decided using
visual comparisons and the Chi-square goodness-of-
®t test. Shear strengths of discontinuities in this area
were determined by direct shear tests on discontinu-
ities. The shear strengths for joints and foliations were
measured separately and the mean and standard devia-
tion of friction angles for joints were 40.0 and 3.788,
247
J3 J4 J5 F1
086/60 125/80 232/88 092/46
50 34 14 16
40 40 40 27.03
3.78 3.78 3.78 2.94
3.7 3.7 3.7 2.4
9 9 9 6
0.9 0.9 0.9 0.9
respectively. Friction angles for foliation have a mean
and standard deviation of 27.03 and 2.948, respec-
tively. As discussed previously, a truncated normal
distribution is suggested by Hoek (1997). However,
according to investigations by the authors and testing
simulations, there is a very low possibility (about
0.3%) that friction angle will be less than 308 and
greater than 508 based on the testing data acquired
from these sites. Cohesions for both discontinuities
were assumed to equal 0. However, it was decided
to assign the same friction angle, mean length and
roughness value for all joint planes. This is because
of the limited number of measurements and testing
results obtained. However, the random properties of
foliation were collected separately and assigned
different values. Input data for the slope geometry
and discontinuity properties are listed in Table 3.
Therefore, using the input values for each parameter
and the simulation procedure proposed previously, the
probability of slope failure was evaluated.
In this study, in order to compare the probability of
slope failure with the traditional deterministic
method, the FS for each case was calculated. This
determination of safety factor uses the same determi-
nistic models and the same formula as used in the
probabilistic method. All deterministic parameters
used in the probabilistic simulation were assigned
the same values when calculating the deterministic
FS. However, for random parameters used in the prob-
abilistic approach, mean values of respective distribu-
tions were used as is commonly done by most design
engineers for deterministic analysis.
248 H. Park, T.R. West / Engineering Geology 59 (2001) 233±251

Table 4
Results of wedge failure for the deterministic analysis and the probabilistic analysis

Set no. 1 Set no. 2 Deterministic Probabilistic

Factor of safety Probability of failure

Kinematic Kinetic Total Pf (%)

No contact Plane 1 Plane 2 Both planes

J1 J2 Stable 0 0 0 0 0
J1 J3 Stable 0 0 0 0 0
J1 J4 Stable 0 0 0 0 0
J1 J5 Stable 0 0 0 0 0
J1 F1 Stable 0.049 0.001 0 0.0048 0 0.028
J2 J3 Stable 0.005 0.132 0 0.011 0 0.072
J2 J4 Stable 0 0 0 0 0
J2 J5 Stable 0.003 0.1428 0 0.0144 0 0.047
J2 F1 Stable 0.316 0.0495 0 0.053 0.0002 3.25
J3 J4 Stable 0.006 0.092 0 0.046 0.0002 0.083
J3 J5 Stable 0 0 0 0 0
J3 F1 Stable 0.2713 0.0034 0 0.04 0 1.18
J4 J5 Stable 0 0 0 0 0
J4 F1 FS4 ˆ 1.53 0.526 0.0183 0 0.0713 0 4.71
J5 F1 Stable 0.315 0.0132 0 0.0584 0 2.26

The results of stability analyses are listed in Table 4.
As stated previously, a total of six discontinuity sets
were identi®ed and for stability analysis, all possible
discontinuity combinations were generated and
checked for stability. As Table 4 indicates, the prob-
abilities of kinematic instability and kinetic instability
were evaluated separately. In addition, the probability
of kinetic instability is evaluated for each mode of
sliding for a wedge failure.
According to the deterministic analysis results for
each discontinuity combination, all discontinuity
combinations except one (J4 and F1) were shown to
be kinematically stable. That is, only one discontinu-
ity combination was kinematically unstable and there-
fore only its FS was evaluated. However, even though
the J4 and F1 combination has a kinematically
unstable condition, the FS for this combination was
calculated to be 1.53. Therefore, the wedge formed by
the J4 and F1 combination should not fail. Conse-
quently, based on the deterministic analysis results,
this slope has no possibility of failure and is quite
stable.
By contrast, the results of a probabilistic analysis
indicate that eight discontinuity combinations, J1 and
F1, J2 and J3, J2 and J5, J2 and F1, J3 and J4, J3 and
F1, J4 and F1 and J5 and F1 have possibilities of
kinematic instability. Among these eight, four combi-
nations, J2 and F1, J3 and F1, J4 and F1 and J5 and F1,
show a high probability of kinematic instability, 31.6,
27.1, 52.6 and 31.5%, respectively. Yet, except for the
J4 and F1 combination, the other combinations do not
show kinematic instability based on the deterministic
analysis. Therefore, as discussed previously, a single
representative orientation (commonly a mean value)
for a discontinuity set does not properly represent the
widely scattered orientation data. In such cases, the
deterministic approach gives a misleading conclusion
in the stability analysis, which could lead to a serious
problem such as a large slope failure.
However, as can be seen in Table 4, the probabil-
ities of kinetic failure for the combinations yield
mostly low values, ranging from 0.02 to 14.3%.
Thus, the probabilities that any two intersecting
discontinuities will form an unstable wedge, Pf, are
expected to be quite small. The Pf values for combi-
nation J1 and F1, J2 and J3, J2 and J5, J2 and F1, J3
and J4, J3 and F1, J4 and F1 and J5 and F1 are 0.028,
0.072, 0.047, 3.25, 0.083, 1.18, 4.71 and 2.26%,
respectively.
However, as can be observed in Table 3, the
 H. Park, T.R. West / Engineering Geology 59 (2001) 233±251 249

Table 5 because the probability of kinematic instability is

Results for evaluation of the probability of slope failure and average evaluated based on geometry of the slope and orienta-
volume of possible wedge
tion of discontinuities, and the probability of kinetic
Set Set Probability of Average volume of instability is based on the strength parameters in a
no. 1 no. 2 entire slope failure possible wedge (m 3) given discontinuity orientation. Therefore, on the
basis of the evaluated probabilities, the parameters
J1 J2 0 0
J1 J3 0 0 that critically affect slope stability in a speci®c area
J1 J4 0 0 can be determined. For the combination such as J1 and
J1 J5 0 0 F1, J2 and F1 and J3 and F1, the probabilities of
J1 F1 0.0003±0.0039 0.48 kinematic instability is greater than the probabilities
J2 J3 0.0007±0.0207 0.02
of kinetic instability. Therefore, geometry of the slope
J2 J4 0 0
J2 J5 0.0005±0.0154 0.03 and orientation of discontinuities play a major role in
J2 F1 0.0324±0.9999 7.98 these combinations.
J3 J4 0.0008±0.0229 0.0002
J3 J5 0 0
J3 F1 0.0118±0.2479 0.5
J4 J5 0 0
9. Summary and conclusions
J4 F1 0.0471±0.6859 3.61
J5 F1 0.0226±0.4222 4.29 Probabilistic analysis has been used to quantify and
model the variability and uncertainty of input data,
which are commonly involved in engineering geology
spacing of discontinuities, which affects the probabil- studies. In probabilistic analysis, input parameters are
ities of entire slope failure, P 0f ; in this area is as small considered as random variables and their random
as 0.9 m. Therefore, P 0f values are expected to have properties are characterized using statistical para-
high values due to such small spacing values. This is meters and the PDF. Since the rock slope stability is
because the small spacing value indicates that numer- mainly dependent upon the characteristics of discon-
ous discontinuities occur in a slope cut and a great tinuities, the random properties of discontinuities play
number of wedges could form. The P 0f values for a critical role in probabilistic analysis of rock slope
each combination are shown in Table 5. As expected, stability. However, stochastic properties of disconti-
some upper bounds have high probabilities compared nuities cannot be fully described as random variables,
to their lower bound values that are the probabilities and consequently most probabilistic approaches for
that one wedge is formed. Especially, for the combi- rock slope stability include a deterministic model as
nation of joint set 2 and foliation set 1, the upper part of the failure procedure. Therefore, the problems
bound of the probability of slope system failure is due to the inclusion of a deterministic model need to
quite high (99.9%) and the expected volume of a be considered and solved. Previous probabilistic
possible wedge is approximately 8 m 3. In addition, procedures do not provide a comprehensive treatment
the upper bound probability of the J3 and F1 combi- of these problems.
nation is 24.8%, but the average volume is small, The study presents improvements that eliminate
0.5 m 3. Also, the upper bound of J4 and F1 and J5 some of the previous limitations. Utilized are the
and F1 show 68.6 and 42.2%, respectively and their equations of systematic procedures proposed by
possible failure volumes are 3.6 and 4.3 m 3. There- Hoek and Bray (1981) because many deterministic
fore, wedge failures, whose volumes are relatively models used in previous research are not appropriate
small, are expected in this area. An interesting obser- for probabilistic analysis. Also, the proposed proce-
vation is that combinations with high probabilities of dures are simple and easy to apply in a probabilistic
failure involve foliation set 1. In addition, as the prob- approach. Another improvement provided in this
ability of kinematic instability and the probability of study is calculation of the probability of failure by
kinetic instability are evaluated separately in the prob- multiplying the probability of kinematic instability
abilistic approach for this study, we can decide which by the probability of kinetic instability. This is
parameters are more critical for slope stability. This is appropriate as probability of kinetic instability is a
250 H. Park, T.R. West / Engineering Geology 59 (2001) 233±251
conditional probability based on the premise that a
wedge block is kinematically unstable. By contrast,
previous probabilistic methods evaluating failure
probability did not consider kinematic aspects in a
probabilistic manner. Finally, as the probability of
failure is a conditional probability based on the
premise that only one unstable wedge block occurs,
probability of failure for the entire slope must also
consider the discontinuity spacing, indicating the
block sizes likely to occur. These new considerations
provide improvements that can be easily applied using
the current probabilistic analysis.
This new probabilistic approach was applied to a
practical stability analysis of a rock cut slope in North
Carolina, USA. Comparison of results for the deter-
ministic analysis and probabilistic analysis shows a
signi®cant difference between them. Deterministic
analysis while based on a ®xed value for discontinuity
and slope parameters failed to indicate the possibility
of slope failure. Consequently, the deterministic
analysis does not represent actual rock slope condi-
tions but neglects the random nature of parameters
and can provide simpli®ed and misleading results,
possibly causing serious problems. By contrast, the
probabilistic analysis is more representative of the
actual behavior of parameters and provides results,
which most likely will more closely represent actual
rock slope conditions. In all, the rock slope stability
affected by the discontinuity characteristics which are
widely scattered and variable, cannot be properly
represented by single value input parameters and a
single FS value. Therefore, it is recommended that
the probabilistic analysis should be applied especially
in cases where signi®cant scatter in the data of slope
parameters occur.
References
Call, R.D., Nicholas, D.E., 1978. Prediction of step path failure
geometry for slope stability analysis. Proceedings of 19th US
Symposium on Rock Mechanics, Stateline, Nevada.
Carter, B.J., Lajtai, E.Z., 1992. Rock slope stability and distributed
joint systems. Canadian Geotechnical Engineering Journal 29,
53±60.
Einstein, H.H., Baecher, G.B., 1982. Probabilistic and statistical
methods in engineering geology. Rock Mechanics 12, 47±61.
Feng, P., Lajtai, E.Z., 1997. Probabilistic treatment of the sliding
wedge with EzSlide. Engineering Geology 50, 153±163.
Feng, P., Lajtai, E.Z., 1998. Probabilistic treatment of the sliding
wedge with EZSlide. Engineering Geology 50, 153±163.
Glynn, E.F., 1979. A Probabilistic approach to the stability of rock
slopes. PhD thesis, Massachusetts Institute of Technology,
Cambridge, Massachusetts.
Goodman, R.E., 1976. Methods of Geological Engineering in
Discontinuities Rocks, West, St. Paul, Minnesota.
Harr, M.E., 1987. Reliability-Based on Design in Civil Engineering.
McGraw-Hill, New York.
Hoek, E., 1997. Rock Engineering; Course notes by Evert Hoek
(Online), available on the Internet at http://www.rockeng.utor-
onto.ca/Hoekcorner.htm.
Hoek, E., Bray, J.W., 1981. Rock Slope Engineering. . 3rd ed.In-
stitute of Mining and Metallurgy, London.
Jaeger, J.C., 1971. Friction of rocks and stability of rock slopes.
Geotechnique 21, 97±134.
Kovari, K., Fritz, P., 1984. Recent developments in the analysis and
monitoring of rock slopes. Proceedings of Fourth International
Symposium on Landslides, Toronto, Canada.
Kulatilake, P.H.S.W., Finley, R.E., Ghosh, A., 1985. Effect of varia-
bility of joint orientation and strength on factor of safety of
wedge stability. Proceedings of International Symposium on
Fundamentals of Rock Joints, Loen, Norway, pp. 25±33.
Kutter, H.K., 1974. Analytical methods for rock slope analysis. In:
Muller, L. (Ed.). Rock Mechanics. Springer, New York, pp.
198±211.
Lajtai, E.Z., Carter, B.J., 1989. GEOSLIDE Ð A computer code on
the IBM PC for the analysis of rock slopes. Department of Civil
and Geological Engineering, University of Manitoba, Winni-
peg, Canada.
Leung, C.F., Quek, S.T., 1995. Probabilistic stability analysis of
excavations in jointed rock. Canadian Geotechnical Journal
32, 397±407.
Li, K.S., White, W., 1987. Probabilistic approaches to slope design.
Research Report N. 20, Department of Civil Engineering,
Australian Defensa Force Academy, Canberra, Australia, 54.
Low, B.K., 1997. Reliability analysis of rock wedges. Journal of
Geotechnical and Geoenvironmental Engineering 123 (6),
498±505.
Low, B.K., Einstein, H.H., 1991. Simpli®ed reliability analysis for
wedge mechanisms in rock slopes. Proceedings of Sixth Inter-
national Symposium on Landslides, Christchurch, New Zeal-
and, A.A. Balkema, pp. 499±507.
Mahatab, M.A., Yegulalp, T.M., 1982. A rejection criterion for
de®nition of clusters in orientation data. Proceedings of 22nd
symposium on Rock Mechanics, Berkeley, American Institute
of Mining Metallurgical and Petroleum Engineers, New York,
pp. 116±123.
Marek, J.M., Savely, J.P., 1978. Probabilistic analysis of the plane
shear failure mode. Proceedings of 19th US Symposium on
Rock Mechanics. Stateline, Nevada, pp. 40±44.
McMahon, B.K., 1971. Statistical methods for the design of rock
slopes. First Australian±New Zealand Conference on Geome-
chanics, pp. 314±321.
Mostyn, G.R., Li, K.S., 1993. Probabilistic slope analysis Ð state
of play. Proceedings of Conference on Probabilistic Methods in
Geotechnical Engineering, Canberra, Australia, pp. 89±109.
 H. Park, T.R. West / Engineering Geology 59 (2001) 233±251
Muralha, J., Trunk, U., 1993. Stability of rock blocks Ð Evaluation
of failure probabilities by the Monte Carlo and ®rst order relia-
bility methods. International Symposium on Assessment and
Prevention of Failure Phenomena in Rock Engineering, Istan-
bul, Turkey, A.A. Balkema, pp. 759±765.
National Research Council, 1995. Probabilistic Methods in
Geotechnical Engineering. NRC. National Academy Press,
Washington, DC.
Norrish, N.I., Wyllie, D.C., 1996. Rock slope stability analysis. In:
Turner, A.K., Schuster, R.L. (Eds.), Landslides; Investigation
and Mitigation, Special Report 247, Transportation Research
Board, National Science Council, pp. 391±424.
Park, H.J., 1999. Risk analysis of rock slope stability and stochastic
properties of discontinuity parameters in western North Caro-
lina. PhD thesis, Purdue University, West Lafayette, IN, USA.
Piteau, D.R., Peckover, F.L., 1978. Engineering of rock slope. In:
Schuster, R.L., Krizek, R.J. (Eds.), Landslides: Analysis and
Control, Special Report 176, TRB, National Research Council,
pp. 192±234.
Priest, S.D., 1993. Discontinuity Analysis for Rock Engineering.
Chapman & Hall, London.
Quek, S.T., Leung, C.F., 1995. Reliability-based stability analysis
251
of rock excavations. International Journal of Rock Mechanics
and Mining Sciences and Geomechanics Abstract 32 (6),
617±620.
Sakurai, S., Shimizu, N., 1987. Assessment of rock slope stability
by Fuzzy Set Theory. Proceeding of Sixth International
Congress on Rock Mechanics, Montreal, Canada, pp. 503±506.
Serrano, A.A., Castillo, E., 1974. A new concept about the stability
of rock masses. Proceeding of Congress of Third International
Society for Rock Mechanics. Denver, Colorado, pp. 826±829.
Tabba, M.M., 1984. Deterministic versus risk analysis of slope
stability. Proceedings of Fourth International Symposium on
Landslides. Toronto, Canada, pp. 491±498.
Trunk, U., 1993. Probabilistic stability analysis of rock wedges.
Proceedings of Safety and Environmental Issues on Rock Engi-
neering, Eurock'93, Lisbon, pp. 227±232.
Watts, C.F., West, T.R., 1985. Electronic notebook analysis of rock
slope stability of Cedar Bluff. Bulletin of the Association of
Engineering Geologists 22 (1), 67±85.
Wolff, T.F., 1996. Probabilistic slope stability in theory and prac-
tice. ASCE Geotechnical Special Publication No. 58, Uncer-
tainty in Geologic Environment: from Theory to Practice,
ASCE Special Conference, ASCE, New York, NY.