Engineering Geology 67 (2002) 51 61 www.elsevier.

com/locate/enggeo

Kinematic analysis for sliding failure of multi-faced rock slopes

W.S. Yoon, U.J. Jeong, J.H. Kim *
School of Earth and Environmental Sciences, Seoul National University, San 56-1, Shilim-dong, Kwanak-gu, Seoul, 151-742, South Korea Received 3 October 2001; accepted 29 April 2002

Abstract Most kinematic analyses for rock slope stability have dealt with single-faced slopes (SFS) with a planar surface of a constant strike. However, there are many slopes with non-planar surfaces along road cuts and in open pits, etc. Multi-faced slopes (MFS) consist of two or more faces with different strikes. Multi-faced slopes have different sliding conditions compared to single-faced slopes because of their geometrical characteristics, i.e. convex surface on plan view. On stereographic projection, a sliding envelope of a multi-faced slope is a union of envelopes of individual faces formed on the slope surface. Sliding modes of multifaced slopes are divided into two types and they are subdivided into two modes, respectively; Type 1 single or double plane sliding and Type 2 single or double plane sliding. Type 1 sliding failures are controlled by the same rule as the single-faced slopes as suggested by Hocking [Int. J. Rock Mech. Min. Sci. Geomech. Abstr. 13 (1976) 225]. Type 2 sliding failures can occur on multi-faced slopes only. A Type 2 sliding block must have two or more adjacent slope faces. Though two joint sets must be developed for Type 1 sliding, Type 2 single plane sliding can occur with only one joint plane in the multi-faced slopes. A simple Type 2 single sliding block is composed of one joint plane, two slope faces and the upper natural slope surface. If two joint planes act as sliding planes for plane failures at two adjacent faces of a multi-faced slope, they form a block of Type 2 double plane sliding in the slope. On a stereographic projection, a Type 2 sliding zone is defined as the area between the true dip lines of two side-slope faces in the sliding envelope of a multi-faced slope. If the true dip lines of one or two joint planes plot within a Type 2 sliding zone, Type 2 sliding failure can be possible. D 2002 Elsevier Science B.V. All rights reserved.
Keywords: Kinematic analysis; Rock slope; Single-faced slope; Multi-faced slope; Stereographic projection

1. Introduction Kinematic analysis, which is purely geometric, examines which modes of slope failure are possible in a jointed rock mass. Angular relationships between discontinuities and slope surfaces are applied to determine the potential and modes of failures (Kliche,

Corresponding author. Tel.: +82-2-880-6733; fax: +82-2-8713269. E-mail address: jhk@plaza.snu.ac.kr (J.H. Kim).

1999). Numerous studies (Markland, 1972; Goodman, 1976; Hocking, 1976; Cruden, 1978; Lucas, 1980; Hoek and Bray, 1981; Matherson, 1988) have been performed to determine failure modes utilizing stereographic projection technique since Panet (1969). The Markland test (Markland, 1972) is one of the kinematic analysis methods designated to evaluate the possibility of wedge failure. A refinement to Marklands test has been discussed by Hocking (1976). He differentiated the sliding along one plane (single plane sliding) forming the base of the wedge from the sliding along the line of intersection of two joints

0013-7952/02/$ - see front matter D 2002 Elsevier Science B.V. All rights reserved. PII: S 0 0 1 3 - 7 9 5 2 ( 0 2 ) 0 0 1 4 4 - 8

52

W.S. Yoon et al. / Engineering Geology 67 (2002) 5161

(double plane sliding). Most methods including Marklands test are restricted to rock slopes with a constant strike. Even though the angle of the natural slope (upper slope surface) has no fundamental effect on the kinematical stability of a slope, it has been used in cal and O zgenog lu, 1997). kinematic analysis (O If a slope surface has a constant strike, section view is more important rather than the geometry on plan view. However, many rock slopes consist of several faces with different strikes. If upper natural slopes are not considered, single-faced slopes (SFS) can be defined as slopes having only one face with a constant strike, and multi-faced slopes (MFS) can be defined as slopes having two or more faces with different strikes. Convex- and concave-shaped slopes on plan views are defined as positive and negative MFSs, respectively. This paper deals with positive MFSs. MFSs have different sliding conditions from the SFSs because of their geometrical characteristics. For example, two or more joint sets are necessary for sliding failures of SFSs. These joint sets act as sliding planes or release surfaces of sliding blocks. Even if only one joint plane is developed, sliding failure can occur in MFSs because this joint can intersect two conjoined slope faces acted as lateral boundaries of sliding block. Therefore, upper natural slope angles on section views can be negligible for estimating the stability of rock slopes, but geometries of slope surfaces on plan views must be considered to determine failure modes and potential. However, many MFSs have been analyzed as for SFSs in the processes of stability analysis. The aims of this paper are: (1) to describe sliding modes of MFSs compared with SFSs, and (2) to suggest a method of kinematic analysis for MFSs based on the Markland test. A real example of MFS is subjected to stability analysis.

2. Sliding failure of single-faced slopes (SFS) The wedge failure is a common type in jointed rock slopes. Markland (1972) proposed that wedge failures occur along the lines of intersection of joints and hence, these intersections must daylight in the slope faces. In order for the line of intersection to daylight, the plunge of the intersection should be less than the dip angle of the slope face measured along the trend

of the intersection. In addition, the plunge of the intersection must exceed the friction angle of the joint planes. In the Markland test (Markland, 1972), the great circle of a slope face (SL in Fig. 1) and the circle of the friction angle, /, of the joint are plotted on a stereographic projection. The zone (the thick-lined envelope in Fig. 1) between the great circle (SL) and the friction circle is called the sliding envelope. This sliding envelope represents Marklands wedge failure conditions, i.e. plunge of intersection of the joints is less than slope angle and greater than friction angle of the joint. If the intersection (L12 in Fig. 1) of the two joints (J1 and J2, dotted great circles in Fig. 1) is located in the sliding envelope, the wedge failure is possible. Hocking (1976) divided wedge failures into two modes in term of sliding planes of wedges. One is single plane sliding (so-called plane failure), and the other is double plane sliding which is the general form of wedge failure suggested by Markland (1972). If two joint planes bound a sliding wedge, single plane sliding (upper part of Fig. 1a) is defined as a sliding on only one of the joints bounding the base of the wedge, but the double plane sliding (upper part of Fig. 1b) is defined as a sliding on both joint planes parallel to the line of intersection. If the true dip (L1) of either (J1) of the joint planes lies within the shaded area between the line of intersection (L12) and true dip of slope face (LSL), as shown in lower part of Fig. 1a, the single plane sliding can occur (Hocking, 1976). Cruden (1978) suggested that if true dip of either or both wedge-forming joint planes fall into the area, the sliding mode of the wedge is a single plane sliding. However, if the line of intersection (L12) locates in the sliding envelope and both L1 and L2 lie outside the area (shaded area in lower part of Fig. 1b), the double plane sliding can occur. Hoek and Bray (1981) proposed two general conditions of a plane failure by single plane sliding, (1) the strike of sliding plane must be parallel or nearly parallel ( F 20j) to the slope face, and (2) release surfaces must be present in the rock mass to define the lateral boundaries of the slide. The second condition is a critical condition of the plane failure. If the release surface does not exist, single plane sliding cannot occur, though the strike of sliding plane is parallel to the slope face. These release surfaces can be divided

W.S. Yoon et al. / Engineering Geology 67 (2002) 5161

53

Fig. 1. Hockings (1976) stereographic solution for sliding of a single-faced slope. (a) Single plane sliding. The sliding direction (thick arrow) of the sliding block is same as L1. (b) Double plane sliding. The sliding direction (thick arrow) of the sliding block is same as L12. SL, great circle of slope face; J1 and J2, great circles of joint planes; LSL, true dip of slope face; L1 and L2, true dip lines of J1 and J2; L12, line of intersection between J1 and J2; / = 30j, friction angle of joint planes.

into two types: (1) joint planes that intersect the sliding plane and (2) free faces that intersect the slope surface. These release surfaces lead to differences in sliding possibilities between SFSs and MFSs. In SFSs, joint planes act as the release surfaces, whereas individual faces as well as joint planes can act as the release surfaces in MFSs.

3. Sliding failures of multi-faced slopes (MFS) 3.1. Sliding modes of MFS Various modes of failure can occur in MFSs as shown in Fig. 2. Single plane sliding (Fig. 2a) released by other intersected joint plane is called Type 1 single plane sliding. This type of sliding complies with the Hocking single plane sliding rule. Fig. 2b shows a

sliding block formed by only one joint plane without any intersected joints. This single plane failure can occur because two adjacent faces act as free faces for a sliding block. Single plane sliding without the presence of any other joint plane can be defined as Type 2 single plane sliding. The sliding block of Type 2 single plane sliding must be bounded by two or more slope faces and upper natural slope surface. Double plane sliding in MFSs has different characteristics when compared with double plane sliding in SFSs. If one joint is a potential sliding plane of single plane sliding in one face and the other joint is a potential sliding plane of single plane sliding in an adjacent face, double plane sliding along the intersection of two joint planes can occur (Fig. 2d). This double plane sliding is called Type 2 double plane sliding in MFSs, and Hockings double plane sliding for SFSs (Fig. 2c) called Type 1 double plane sliding.

54

W.S. Yoon et al. / Engineering Geology 67 (2002) 5161

Fig. 2. Sliding modes of a multi-faced slope (a rectangular three-faced slope) can be divided into two types which are subdivided into two modes, respectively. (a) Type 1 single plane sliding and (b) Type 2 single plane sliding. (c) Type 1 double plane sliding and (d) Type 2 double plane sliding. Type 2 sliding blocks (c and d) must be bounded by two or more slope faces.

Therefore, sliding modes of MFSs can be divided into two types: Type 1 single and double plane sliding and Type 2 single and double plane sliding. In case of Type 1 sliding blocks, two wedge-forming joint planes must be necessary, but the number of slope faces is not important. For Type 2 sliding, at least two slope faces are necessary. If upper slope surface (or natural slope surface) is not considered, boundary conditions of sliding blocks are summarized as follows: Type 1 single or double plane sliding block: two joint planes and one slope face (Fig. 2a and c). Type 2 single plane sliding block: one joint plane and two slope faces (Fig. 2b). Type 2 double plane sliding block: two joint planes and two slope faces (Fig. 2d). 3.2. Stereographic projection technique for simple multi-faced slopes Fig. 3 is an example of kinematic analysis using stereographic projection technique for two-faced

slopes with different sliding modes. A two-faced slope is the simplest MFS. The surfaces of a two-faced slope form a triangular shape between the two ends (S and SV in the middle part of Fig. 3) in plan views. The straight line connecting the two ends (S and SV) is defined as mean slope line (MS, the dashed line in Fig. 3). RS and LS in Fig. 3 are the side-slope faces. The side-slope face with a positive side-slope orientation angle measured clockwise from MS is called a left side-slope face (LS), and the face with a negative side-slope orientation angle is called a right side-slope face (RS) in this paper. The side-slope orientation angles (a and b in the middle part of Fig. 3) are defined as the acute angles between the strikes of side-slope faces and MS. The clockwise angle measured from MS has a positive value. MS of the example in Fig. 3 trends EW, and the latitudes of LS and RS are N45 jW/60 jSW and N60jE/60jSE, respectively. The side-slope orientation angle of LS is 45j (a), and the angle of RS is 30j (b). Friction angle of all joints is assumed as 30j. In the kinematic analysis, individual faces of the MFS keep on their sliding envelopes because all faces

W.S. Yoon et al. / Engineering Geology 67 (2002) 5161

55

are controlled by Hockings rule like a SFS. Therefore, the sliding envelope of a MFS is the union of envelopes of individual faces forming the slope surface. In Fig. 3, the sliding envelope (thick-lined) is composed of the envelopes of LS and RS. If the absolute values of the two side-slope orientation angles are increased, the area of the sliding envelope is increased. Fig. 3a shows the Type 1 single plane sliding condition of the two-faced slope. If one (or both) true dip of one (or both) of the wedge-forming joints lies within the shaded area, bounded by the trend of the line of intersection and the true dip line of any face, the Type 1 single plane sliding is possible (see Fig. 1a). In lower part of Fig. 3a, the intersection (L12) of two joint planes (J1 and J2) is located within the sliding envelope (thick-lined) of the two-faced slope, and the true dip line (L1) of J1 joint plane plots in the shaded area between L12 and true dip line (LRS) of RS. This indicates that Type 1 single plane sliding on J1 joint plane can occur within RS. Even if only one joint plane is developed in a MFS, Type 2 single plane sliding can be possible. Fig. 3b shows Type 2 single plane sliding of a two-faced slope. The Type 2 sliding block (Fig. 3b) is formed by one joint plane (J1) and two side-slope faces in the plan view. In order that a sliding block is formed by one joint plane and two or more faces, the acute angle (h1 of Fig. 3b) between the strike of the sliding plane (J1, dotted line) and MS (dashed line) should lie between the two side-slope orientation angles (b < h < a). h has a positive value when measured CW from MS. Additionally, the sliding plane should daylight in the MFS, and its dip angle should be larger than the friction angle. In Fig. 3b, h1 is 15j and Type 2 single plane sliding on J1 can occur because h1 lies between the two side-slope orientation angles; b ( 30j) < h1 (15j) < a (45j). Type 2 single plane sliding cannot occur within the slope in Fig. 3a because the angle (h1 = 45j) of the sliding plane (J1) for Type 1 single plane sliding is smaller than a and b; h1 ( 45j) < b ( 30j) < a (45j). This orientation condition for Type 2 single plane sliding can be represented as a Type 2 sliding zone on a stereographic projection. If h1 lies between the two side-slope angles (b < h < a), the true dip of J1 plots within the area between true dip lines of two side-

slope faces. This area is defined as Type 2 sliding zone in this paper. If the true dip of a joint plane is plotted in the Type 2 sliding zone, single plane sliding can occur without any other joint plane. Type 1 double plane sliding within slopes is controlled by Hockings double plane sliding condition (see Fig. 1b). Fig. 3c shows the condition for Type 1 double plane sliding for two-faced slopes. The boundaries of the sliding block in Fig. 3c are two joint planes (J1 and J2) and one side-slope face (RS). The intersection line (L12) is located within the sliding envelope of RS, and the true dip lines (L1 and L2) of the two joint planes (J1 and J2) lie outside the shaded area between L12 and true dip line (LLS or LRS) of any face (LS or RS). Type 1 double plane sliding on both joint planes can occur within RS of the two-faced slope. Type 2 double plane sliding has a different sliding condition from Type 1 double plane sliding. In Fig. 3d, both joint planes for Type 2 double plane sliding can act as sliding planes for single plane sliding. If the two wedge-forming joint planes can respectively act as sliding planes for Type 1 single plane sliding within two adjacent slope faces, and the line of intersection also satisfies Type 1 double plane sliding, the block formed by the two joints and the two faces will slide on both joint planes along the line of intersection. For this Type 2 double plane sliding condition, the angles h1 and h2 in Fig. 3d (the angles between strikes of the two joint planes (J1 and J2) and MS) must satisfy the following conditions: 0 < h1 < a, and b < h2 < 0. These conditions indicate that true dip lines of both joints will plot within the Type 2 sliding zone bounded by the two true dip lines of side-slope faces in sliding envelope on the stereo-net. For example, in Fig. 3d, if h1 = 30j and h2 = 20j, then 0 < h1 (30j) < a (45j) and b ( 30j) < h2 ( 20j) < 0. The true dip lines (L1 and L2) of the two wedge-forming joint planes (J1 and J2) and line of intersection (L12) are located within the Type 2 sliding zone (shaded area), and L12 plots between L1 and L2. In Fig. 3d, J1 and J2 joint planes can act as sliding planes of Type 1 single plane sliding for LS and RS, respectively. If the sliding block is formed by only or either of two joint planes, Type 2 single plane sliding will occur including both slope faces. However, if a sliding block is formed by two joint planes (J1 and J2) and two slope faces like in Fig. 3d, sliding does not occur on either of the two planes, but occur on both

56

W.S. Yoon et al. / Engineering Geology 67 (2002) 5161

planes along the line of intersection. This double plane sliding is a Type 2 double plane sliding. When two joint sets develop in an MFS rock mass, two or more different sliding modes can be possible and these sliding modes have different conditions to those for SFS, because a MFS is composed of two or more slope faces.

3.3. Stereographic projection technique for complex multi-faced slopes (MFSs) The stereographic overlay technique for two-faced slopes (Fig. 3) can be applied to more complicated MFS using the same method. Fig. 4 shows examples of three-faced (Fig. 4a) and round-faced (Fig. 4b)

Fig. 3. Sliding modes (upper), plan views (middle) and stereographic projections (lower) for a two-faced slope (S SV ). (a) Type 1 single plane sliding. The sliding block is formed by J1, J2 and RS. (b) Type 2 single plane sliding. The sliding block is formed by J1, LS and RS. (c) Type 1 double plane sliding. The sliding block is formed by J1, J2 and RS. (d) Type 2 double plane sliding. The sliding block is formed by J1, J2, LS and RS. LS and RS, left and right side-slope faces; MS, mean slope line; a and b, side slope orientation angles of LS and RS; LLS and LRS, true dip lines of LS and RS; h1 and h2, angles between MS and strike lines of sliding planes (J1 and J2); sliding direction, a thick arrow. For key to other abbreviations, see Fig. 1.

W.S. Yoon et al. / Engineering Geology 67 (2002) 5161

57

Fig. 3 (continued ).

slopes. These examples have the same side-slope orientation angles (a = 45j and b = 30j) and MS as the two-faced slopes in Fig. 3. Surface of a three-faced slope (Fig. 4a) consists of LS, RS and the central slope face (CS). Sliding envelope (thick-lined) of the three-faced slope is a union of the three envelopes of the three individual slope faces, and the Type 2 sliding zone is a shaded area between true dip lines of RS and LS in Fig. 4a.

The surface of a round-faced slope has unlimited number of faces (Fig. 4b). The side-slope faces of this slope can be considered as the two tangential faces at two ends of the slope surface as shown in Fig. 4b. The sliding envelope (thick-lined) of a round-faced slope is a union of unlimited number of envelopes, and the Type 2 single plane sliding zone (shaded) is the area between dip direction lines of two tangential faces of the sliding envelope. If the orientations of the two

58

W.S. Yoon et al. / Engineering Geology 67 (2002) 5161

Fig. 4. Stereographic projections for (a) a three-faced slope and (b) a round-faced slope. CS is the central slope face, and LCS is true dip of CS. The shaded area is a Type 2 sliding zone. For key to other abbreviations, see Fig. 3.

side-slope angles (a and b) are constant, the sliding zone increases with an increase in the number of slope faces.

4. Case study To evaluate the proposed method, a fracture survey and kinematic analysis was carried out on the exposed rock slope faces in a quarry of Jurassic granite in Seoul, Korea, where building stones were quarried until 1979. Recently, this site has been developed for

housing. However, sliding failures have occurred several times during re-excavation and site preparation. A rock slope in Fig. 5 is an example of these. The rock slope has a steep-quarried surface with a gentle upper slope surface. The quarried surface (Fig. 5) is a typical two-faced slope having LS and RS. The latitudes of LS and RS are N12 jE/75 jSE and N40jW/75jNE, respectively. The lengths of LS and RS are about 25 and 60 m, respectively. The trend of MS is N25jW, and side-slope orientation angles of LS and RS are 32j and 15j, respectively. Two joint sets are developed in the rock mass of the slope.

W.S. Yoon et al. / Engineering Geology 67 (2002) 5161

59

Fig. 5. View of the rock slope with two faces used for this study. Orientations of left and right side-slope faces (LS and RS) are N12jE/75jSE and N40jW/75jNE, respectively. Trace of Set 1 joint planes are dotted lines and traces of Set 2 joint planes are continuous lines.

Latitudes of Set 1 joints (J1) and Set 2 joints (J2) are N14jW/43jNE and N82jW/75jSW, respectively. A major sliding failure occurred by single plane sliding within both slope faces. This sliding block is formed by J1 (sliding plane) and two side-slope faces. This sliding is Type 2 single plane sliding on J1 plane. Sliding plane is partly intersected by another joint. J1 does not satisfy the plane failure condition (h < F 20j) suggested by Hoek and Bray (1981) for the two side-slope faces as SFSs. The angle between the strike of the J1 and LS is 26j, and the angle between the strike of the J1 and RS is 26j. According to the plane failure condition by Hoek and Bray (1981), an occurrence of plane failure is unlikely because the angles between strikes of the J1 and two side slopes is larger than 20j. Using the geometric data above, two different kinematic analyses have been carried out to determine the sliding potential and modes of failure. The first is a kinematic analysis for two single-faced slopes. In this approach, the rock slope is divided into two independent single-faced slopes; left and right slopes. Although this method cannot explain the behaviour of MFSs, it has been tried as a general method used

until now. In the second kinematic analysis, the rock slope is considered as a two-faced slope. Fig. 6 shows the results of kinematic analysis for two single-faced slopes (right and left slopes). In the stereographic projection of the right slope (N40Wj/ 75jNE, Fig. 6a), the line of intersection (L12) of two joint planes (J1 and J2) is located in the thick-lined sliding envelope. The true dip line (L1) of J1 joints plots in the shaded area defined by true dip line (LRS) of the slope face and L12. These results indicate that Hockings single plane sliding can occur within the right slope. In the stereographic projection of the left slope (N12Ej/75jSE, Fig. 6b), the line of intersection (L12) of two joint planes (J1 and J2) is located in the thick-lined sliding envelope. Both true dip lines (L1 and L2) of two joint planes (J1 and J2) do not lie in the shaded area defined by true dip line (LRS) of the slope face and L12. These results indicate that Hockings double plane sliding can occur within the left slope. Consequently, Type 1 single or double plane failure can occur within right and left slopes, respectively. Fig. 7 shows the result of kinematic analysis for the two-faced slope with two side-slope faces (LS and RS). The true dip line (L1) of the J1 joint plots within

60

W.S. Yoon et al. / Engineering Geology 67 (2002) 5161

Fig. 7. Kinematic analysis to estimate the sliding potential of the rock slope shown in Fig. 5 using the stereographic projection technique for multi-faced slope. Type 2 single plane sliding on joint plane J1 as well as Type 1 single plane sliding are possible. For key to other abbreviations, see Fig. 3.

the Type 2 sliding zone (shaded area) between true dip lines, LLS and LRS, of the sliding envelope (Fig. 7). This result indicates that Type 2 single plane sliding on J1 joint planes can occur including both slope faces, as shown in Fig. 5. This case study shows that the suggested kinematic analysis method is a more effective method to determine characteristics (i.e., modes, locality and potential, etc.) of sliding failures in multi-faced slopes.

5. Conclusions A single-faced slope is straight in plan view, but a multi-faced slope, which consists of two or more faces, is not straight in plan view. This difference in surface geometries in plan view can trigger different sliding conditions related to boundary conditions of sliding blocks. Sliding modes and the stereographic projection technique for stability analysis of multifaced slopes are as follows. (1) Sliding modes in multi-faced slopes are divided into two types based on number of slopes involved in

Fig. 6. Kinematic analysis to estimate the sliding potential of the rock slope shown in Fig. 5 using the stereographic projection technique for single-faced slope. (a) Right slope (RS). Type 1 single plane sliding can occur on joint plane J1 (N14jW/43jNE). (b) Left slope (LS). Type 1 double plane sliding can occur along the line of intersection between joint planes J1 and J2 (N82jW/75jSW). For key to other abbreviations, see Fig. 3.

W.S. Yoon et al. / Engineering Geology 67 (2002) 5161

61

sliding block formation which are further subdivided into two modes, respectively; Type 1 single and double plane sliding and Type 2 single and double plane sliding. (2) Type 1 single and double plane sliding are controlled by the same rules for single-faced slopes. A Type 1 sliding block has at least two wedge-forming joint planes. (3) Type 2 single and double plane sliding are controlled by the rules different than for single-faced slopes. A Type 2 sliding block involved at least the two slope faces, and two or more slope faces of the sliding block act as release surfaces. Type 2 single plane sliding can occur with only one joint plane and involves two or more faces of a multi-faced slope. For Type 2 double plane sliding, the intersection of the two wedge-forming joints must satisfy the Type 1 double plane sliding condition, and the joints must satisfy the Type 1 single plane sliding condition on two adjacent slope faces, respectively. (4) On a stereographic projection, individual faces of a multi-faced slope have their own sliding envelopes. The sliding envelope of a multi-faced slope is defined as the union of the envelopes of individual faces forming the slope surface. If the absolute values of the two side-slope orientation angles and the number of faces of the multi-faced slope increase, the area of the sliding envelope increases. (5) On a stereographic projection, Type 2 sliding zone is defined as an area between true dip lines of the two side-slope faces of the sliding envelope. If one (or two) true dip line(s) of joint(s) is (are) plotted within the Type 2 sliding zone, Type 2 single (or double) plane sliding is possible, involving two or more faces of the multi-faced slope. This Type 2 sliding cannot be predicted by kinematic analysis technique developed for a single-faced slope.

Acknowledgements This research was performed for the Natural Hazards Prevention Research Project, one of the Critical Technology-21 Programs, funded by the Ministry of Science and Technology of Korea. The BK 21 program through SEES has supported part of this study. We thank Dr. W.Y. Kim of KIGAM, Dr. Y.S. Kim and S.J. Yeo of SEES, Korea, Dr. J.R. Andrews of University of Southampton, UK and two anonymous reviewers for helpful comments.

References
Cruden, D.M., 1978. Discussion of G. Hockings paper A method for distinguishing between single and double plane sliding of tetrahedral wedges. Int. J. Rock Mech. Min. Sci. Geomech. Abstr. 15, 217. Goodman, R.E., 1976. Methods of Geological Engineering in Discontinuous Rocks. West Publishing, San Francisco. Hocking, G., 1976. A method for distinguishing between single and double plane sliding of tetrahedral wedges. Int. J. Rock Mech. Min. Sci. Geomech. Abstr. 13, 225 226. Hoek, E., Bray, J.W., 1981. Rock Slope Engineering Institution of Mining and Metallurgy, London. Kliche, C.A., 1999. Rock Slope Stability SME, Littleton, CO. Lucas, J.M., 1980. A general stereographic method for determining possible mode of failure of any tetrahedral rock wedge. Int. J. Rock Mech. Min. Sci. Geomech. Abstr. 17, 57 61. Markland, J.T., 1972. A useful technique for estimating the stability of rock slopes when the rigid wedge sliding type of failure is expected. Imp. Coll. Rock Mech. Res. Rep. 19, 10. Matherson, G.D., 1988. The collection and use of field discontinuity data in rock slope design. Q. J. Eng. Geol. 22, 19 30. cal, A., O zgenog lu, A., 1997. Determination of sliding mode of O tetrahedral wedges in jointed rock slopes. Rock Mech. Rock Eng. 30, 161 165. Panet, M., 1969. Discussion on Graphical stability analysis of slopes in jointed rock. By K.W. John. J. Soil Mech. Found. Div., Proc. ASCE. 95 (SM2), 685 686.