SWedge

Surface Wedge Analysis for Slopes

Verification Manual

© 2019 Copyright Rocscience Inc.

Table of Contents

SWedge Geometry Verification .................................................................................................. 1

1. SWedge Verification Problem #1 .................................................................................... 2
2. SWedge Verification Problem #2 .................................................................................... 6
3. SWedge Verification Problem #3 ...................................................................................11
4. SWedge Verification Problem #4 ...................................................................................13
5. SWedge Verification Problem #5 ...................................................................................16
6. SWedge Verification Problem #6 ...................................................................................28
7. SWedge Verification Problem #7 ...................................................................................31
8. References ....................................................................................................................34
SWedge Bolt Model Verification ................................................................................................35
9. SWedge Verification Problem #1 ...................................................................................36
SWedge Ponded Water Pressure Model Verification ................................................................42
10. SWedge Verification Problem #1 ...............................................................................43
11. SWedge Verification Problem #2 ...............................................................................48
12. SWedge Verification Problem #3 ...............................................................................55
 SWedge Verification Manual

SWedge Geometry Verification

This document presents several examples, which have been used as verification problems for
SWedge. SWedge is an engineering analysis program for assessing the stability of wedges
formed in rock slopes, produced by Rocscience Inc. of Toronto, Canada.

The first examples presented here are based on examples and case studies presented in
Kumsar, Aydan, and Ulusay [1]. The results of these lab tests performed by Kumsar et al. [1]
were used to confirm the validity of a limit equilibrium analysis method presented in Kovari and
Fritz [2]. Two wedge examples presented by Priest [3] are also verified here.

The results produced by SWedge agree very well with the documented examples and confirm
the reliability of SWedge results.

1
 SWedge Verification Manual

1. SWedge Verification Problem #1

[SWedge Build 6.001]

1.1. Problem Description

In this verification example, a static stability assessment (SSA) is presented to verify that
SWedge computes values using the correct equations. The equations used to verify the results
produced by SWedge were originally presented by Kovari and Fritz [2]. These equations were
later shown to be valid by laboratory tests of wedge models [1]. In the following verification
problem, a wedge with joints having the same dip is examined. A tension crack is not present in
this example.

1.2. Analytical Solution

Equations
The following equations, developed by Kovari and Fritz [2], were verified against lab tests [1]:

cos 𝑖𝑎 tan 𝜙 (1)

𝐹𝑆 = 𝜆
sin 𝑖𝑎

cos 𝜔1 + cos 𝜔2 (2)

𝜆=
sin(𝜔1 + 𝜔2 )

𝜔1 + 𝜔2 = 2𝜔 (3)

Where:
𝜃 is the apparent friction angle due to the wedge geometry
𝜙 is the friction angle
𝜆 is the wedge factor derived by Kovári and Fritz [2]
𝜔 is the half wedge angle
𝜔1 is the angle between the surface of joint 1 and the vertical
𝜔2 is the angle between the surface of joint 2 and the vertical
𝑖𝑎 is the inclination angle (or intersection angle)

Notice that 𝜔1 = 𝜔2 = 𝜔.

Figure 1-1: Front and Side Cross-Sectional Views of a Wedge Without a Tension Crack

2
 SWedge Verification Manual

Sample Calculation
Using Equations 1-3, which have been validated by experimental results [1], the calculation
process for an example wedge is outlined below. From the plot of half wedge angle vs. wedge
intersection angle (graphed using Equation 1, with a factor of safety FS = 1), the intersection
angle for the example wedge is obtained. In order to verify the SWedge results, the inclination
angle (plunge) calculated by SWedge is compared to the inclination angle obtained using the
analytical solution (from the graph).

Figure 1-2: Comparison of Dry-Static Figure 1-3: Graph of Equation 1

Model Test Results with Theoretical (𝝓 = 33°, 35°, 37°; FS = 1)
Solution [1] 𝟏
Note: 𝝀 simplified to 𝝀 = 𝐬𝐢𝐧 𝝎

Table 1-1 shows a set of joint dip and dip direction values for a sample wedge, for which 𝜔1 =
𝜔2 = 𝜔. When the dip and dip direction values from Table 1-1 are input into SWedge the
resulting factor of safety FS ≅ 1. When 𝜔 is calculated, and 𝜙 is chosen, the corresponding
intersection angle can be found using Figure 1-3.

Normal vectors to the joint planes have the following components:

𝑙 = sin(𝑑𝑖𝑝) × cos(𝑑𝑖𝑝 𝑑𝑖𝑟𝑒𝑐𝑡𝑖𝑜𝑛)

𝑚 = sin(𝑑𝑖𝑝) × sin(𝑑𝑖𝑝 𝑑𝑖𝑟𝑒𝑐𝑡𝑖𝑜𝑛)

𝑛 = cos(𝑑𝑖𝑝)

Table 1-1: Joint Dip and Dip Direction for Sample Wedge
Joint # Dip (°) Dip Direction (°) 𝒍 𝒎 𝒏
1 45 141 -0.5495 0.4450 0.7071
2 45 219 -0.5495 -0.4450 0.7071

3
 SWedge Verification Manual

Referring to Figure 1-1, the normal vectors to the planes of joints 1 and 2 intersect. 2𝜔 is equal
to their obtuse angle of intersection.

The half wedge angle, 𝜔, is calculated as follows:

𝑎•𝑏
cos 𝛼 = = (0.5495)2 − (0.445)2 + (0.707)2
‖𝑎‖ × ‖𝑏‖

180 − 𝛼
𝜔= = 63.57°
2

Now that the half wedge angle (𝜔 = 63.57°) is known, an intersection angle can be traced out
using Figure 1-3. Let us choose the line plotted for 𝜙 = 35°. The intersection angle (if
approximately traced using a pencil) is approximately 𝑖𝑎 = 38°.

1.3. SWedge Analysis

Now verify that SWedge calculates the same intersection angle.

Figure 1-4: Input Data and Results

4
 SWedge Verification Manual

The values from Table 1-1 are input into SWedge, and the resulting plunge, or 𝑖𝑎 = 37.85°. This
is essentially the same value that was obtained from Figure 1-3.

Notice that the plunge is not affected by changing the slope height, unit weight, or values for the
upper face and slope face. Such values are not included in the equations used and therefore
should not affect the plunge.

1.4. Results
In the previous section, SWedge was verified to work for the example problem.

More tests were done, as shown in Figure 1-5; SWedge results were plotted against the
theoretical solution. Models were made for three friction angles, and SWedge results are shown
as series T33, T35, and T37.

It should be noted that the wedges created in this exercise were symmetrical not only due to the
dip but also in terms of dip direction. When looking at the Front view in SWedge, the wedge is
symmetrical. To achieve this symmetry, use dip directions with a sum of 360°. Symmetry is
maintained in order to reproduce the conditions for the model wedges described in [1].

Figure 1-5: SWedge Results Compared to Theoretical Solution for FS = 1

5
 SWedge Verification Manual

2. SWedge Verification Problem #2

[SWedge Build 6.001]

2.1. Problem Description

In Verification Problem #1, SWedge was verified for static stability. The program will now be
verified for dynamic stability assessment (DSA). In this experiment, the intersection angles are
set at certain values yielding FS > 1. The dips will once again be identical for both joints and the
dip directions will sum up to 360° for symmetry. If a seismic co-efficient is included in the
analysis within SWedge, a safety factor FS = 1 will be generated. Wedge acceleration will be
calculated from this seismic coefficient and compared to a graph of the analytical solution.

The equations used to verify those used within SWedge have been validated by experimental
results [1]. There is no tension crack in any of the analyses in this verification.

2.2. Analytical Solution

The following is a derivation of seismicity coefficient, 𝜂. The equations were all verified by lab
tests [1]:

𝜆[cos 𝑖𝑎 − 𝜂 sin(𝑖𝑎 + 𝛽)] tan 𝜙 (1)

𝐹𝑆 =
sin 𝑖𝑎 + 𝜂 cos(𝑖𝑎 + 𝛽)

𝛽 = 0 (seismic forces have a horizontal trend – refer to Figure 1) (2)

𝜔1 + 𝜔2 = 2𝜔 (3)

cos 𝜔1 + cos 𝜔2 1 (4)

𝜆= =
sin(𝜔1 + 𝜔2 ) sin 𝜔

𝜆(cos 𝑖𝑎 − 𝜂 sin 𝑖𝑎 ) tan 𝜙 (5)

𝐹𝑆 = =1
sin 𝑖𝑎 + 𝜂 cos 𝑖𝑎

𝜆 cos 𝑖𝑎 tan 𝜙 − sin 𝑖𝑎 (6)

𝜂=
cos(𝑖𝑎 + 𝛽) + 𝜆 sin(𝑖𝑎 + 𝛽) tan 𝜙

cos 𝑖𝑎 tan 𝜙 − sin 𝑖𝑎 sin 𝜔 (7)

∴𝜂=
cos 𝑖𝑎 sin 𝜔 + sin 𝑖𝑎 tan 𝜙
𝑎 (8)
𝜂=
𝑔

Where:
𝜆 is the wedge factor from Kovári and Fritz [2]
𝜔 is the half wedge angle
𝜔1 is the angle between the surface of joint 1 and the vertical
𝜔2 is the angle between the surface of joint 2 and the vertical
𝑖𝑎 is the inclination angle (or intersection angle)

6
 SWedge Verification Manual

𝜂 is the seismicity coefficient

𝜙 is the friction angle
𝛽 is the inclination of the dynamic force (labeled “𝐸” in Figure 2-1)
𝑎 is acceleration
𝑔 is acceleration (981 cm/s2)

Note that 𝜔1 = 𝜔2 = 𝜔.

Figure 2-1: Front and Side Cross-Sectional Views of a Wedge Without a Tension Crack
(dynamic force “𝑬” has an inclination of 𝜷)

Sample Calculation
It is now assumed (based on Verification Problem #1) that the inclination angle function in
SWedge is working correctly. The dynamic stability assessment calculation for a specific wedge
(using the equations shown above) is performed. The SWedge results are then verified against
the analytical solution, which is plotted in Figure 2-2, based on FS = 1, for four different
inclination angles.

Figure 2-2: Analytical Solution for Dynamic Stability Assessment with FS = 1

(𝝓 = 35°; 𝒊𝒂 = 27°, 29°, 30°, and 31°)
Derive 𝜔, using the same procedure as was used Verification Problem #1.

Normal vectors to the joint planes have components:

7
 SWedge Verification Manual

𝑙 = sin(𝑑𝑖𝑝) × cos(𝑑𝑖𝑝 𝑑𝑖𝑟𝑒𝑐𝑡𝑖𝑜𝑛)

𝑚 = sin(𝑑𝑖𝑝) × sin(𝑑𝑖𝑝 𝑑𝑖𝑟𝑒𝑐𝑡𝑖𝑜𝑛)

𝑛 = cos(𝑑𝑖𝑝)

Table 2-1: Joint Dip and Dip Direction for Sample Wedge
Joint # Dip (°) Dip Direction (°) 𝒍 𝒎 𝒏
1 50 119 -0.37139 0.669998 0.642788
2 50 241 -0.37139 -0.669998 0.642788

Enter the above values for joint dip and dip direction into SWedge. FS = 1.6325 is computed
which suggests that the wedge is statically stable. This is an expected result because the values
in Table 2-1 are chosen specifically to get 𝑖𝑎 = 30.0182 ≅ 30. Remember that the plots in Figure
2-2 are based on 4 different inclination angles.

Now, suppose there is a seismic force on the wedge. Using Equation 7, the seismic coefficient
lowers the safety factor to FS = 1. The inclination angle (𝑖𝑎 = 30.0182°) and the friction angle (𝜙
= 35°) are known. Solve for the wedge angle and the seismic coefficient (𝜂).

𝑎•𝑏
cos 𝛼 = = (0.37139)2 − (0.669998)2 + (0.642788)2
‖𝑎‖ × ‖𝑏‖

180 − 𝛼
𝜔= = 47.930
2
cos 𝑖𝑎 tan 𝜙 − sin 𝑖𝑎 sin 𝜔
𝜂=
cos 𝑖𝑎 sin 𝜔 + sin 𝑖𝑎 tan 𝜙
cos( 30.0182) tan( 35) − sin( 30.0182) sin( 47.93)
𝜂= = 0.2365
cos( 30.0182) sin( 47.93) + sin( 30.0182) tan( 35)

2.3. SWedge Analysis

Enter 𝜂 = 0.2365 into SWedge. Notice that the plunge (or 𝑖𝑎 ) in Figure 2-3 is not affected by
changing the slope height, unit weight, or values for upper face and slope face. Such values are
not factors in the equations used, and they do not affect the plunge.

8
 SWedge Verification Manual

Figure 2-3: SWedge Seismic Results

Figure 2-4: Seismic Force Specified in SWedge Input

9
 SWedge Verification Manual

Since the safety factor has changed to FS = 1, the analysis functions for SWedge in DSA are
functioning correctly. To further verify this, see if the acceleration (derived from Equation 8)
using the seismic coefficient in SWedge is equal to the acceleration range of the graph in Figure
2-2. The acceleration (if approximately traced using a pencil) is about 235 cm s-2. By using
Equation 8, the acceleration from the seismic coefficient (shown in Figure 2-4) is 232 cm s-2.
Such an accurate result justifies the reliability of the SWedge program.

2.4. Results
In the previous section, SWedge is verified to work for the specific example discussed.

More tests were done, as shown in Figure 2-6. A number of SWedge results for each 𝑖𝑎 value
was plotted against the analytical solution. SWedge results for 𝑖𝑎 = 27°, 𝑖𝑎 = 29°, 𝑖𝑎 = 30°, and
𝑖𝑎 = 31° are shown as series T27, T29, T30, and T31, respectively.

Figure 2-5: Comparison of Dynamic Figure 2-6: SWedge Results Compared to

Model Test Results with Analytical Analytical Solution
Solution [1]

10
 SWedge Verification Manual

3. SWedge Verification Problem #3

[SWedge Build 6.001]

3.1. Problem Description

This verification problem is based on the case study presented as Case 3 on page 43 of [1]. A
rock mass near Ankara Castle in Bent Deresi region of Ankara City had a wedge failure.
Kumsar et al. [1] studied this wedge and found that the wedge block was unstable.

During their analysis, they found that the friction angle was 𝜙 = 30°. A stability assessment of
the block was carried out under dry-static conditions, and the test yielded a safety factor of
FS = 0.73. SWedge is verified to calculate approximately the same safety factor.

Geometry
Table 3-1: Joint Dip and Dip Direction [1]
Dip Direction
Dip (°)
(°)
Joint #1 45 195
Joint #2 70 105
Slope 70 160

Table 3-2: Wedge Geometry [1]

Parameter Value
𝝎𝟏 (°) 77
𝝎𝟐 (°) 28
𝒊𝒂 (°) 42

3.2. SWedge Analysis

The wedge geometry is summarized in Table 3-1 and Table 3-2. The dip and dip directions
were derived from a stereonet presented in [1]. The values from Table 3-1 were used in
SWedge.

11
 SWedge Verification Manual

The SWedge model looks like this:

Figure 3-1: SWedge Results

3.3. Results
Looking at Figure 3-1, the factor of safety calculated by SWedge is FS = 0.71. The factor of
safety calculated by SWedge agrees well with the experimental results.

12
 SWedge Verification Manual

4. SWedge Verification Problem #4

[SWedge Build 6.001]

4.1. Problem Description

This verification problem is based on the case study presented as Case 4 on page 45 of [1].
This verification, based on data from Dinar in western Turkey, includes both a static and
dynamic analysis.

Kumsar et al. [1] carried out a wedge analysis and determined the wedge friction angle was 𝜙 =
40.8°. Under static conditions, the wedge factor of safety was found to be FS = 2.02; the
dynamic assessment yielded FS = 0.99.

In the following analysis using SWedge, verify that SWedge gives approximately the same
results as the experiment.

Geometry and Material Properties

Table 4-1: Joint Dip and Dip Direction [1]
Dip Dip Direction
(deg.) (deg.)
Joint #1 75 33.5
Joint #2 75 248
Slope 75 337.5

Table 4-2: Wedge Geometry and Material Properties [1]

Parameter Value
𝝎𝟏 (°) 17
𝝎𝟐 (°) 25
𝒊𝒂 (°) 50
𝝓 (°) 40.8

Seismic Properties
Looking at the acceleration data presented in Table 4-3, the maximum acceleration is in the
east-west direction. Assume that this acceleration is in the same direction as the intersection
angle of the wedge being considered, as this is dynamically the worst condition for stability.
Based on this, the seismic coefficient used in the SWedge analysis is:
𝑎
𝜂=
𝑔
(where 𝑔 = 981 cm/s2 )
324
𝜂= = 0.3303
981

13
 SWedge Verification Manual

Table 4-3: Seismic Accelerations [1]

Parameter Value
𝜷 (°) 0
𝒂𝒎𝒂𝒙 in NS direction (cm/s2) 282
𝒂𝒎𝒂𝒙 in EW direction (cm/s2) 324

4.2. SWedge Analysis

The wedge geometry, material properties, and accelerations are summarized in Table 4-1,
Table 4-2, and Table 4-3. The data from Table 4-1 (derived from a stereonet), and the friction
angle from Table 4-2, is input into SWedge as is.

The SWedge model looks like this:

Figure 4-1: SWedge Static Stability Analysis

14
 SWedge Verification Manual

Figure 4-2: SWedge Dynamic Stability Analysis

4.3. Results
For the static analysis, SWedge calculates FS = 2.02 (see Figure 4-1). With the seismic load,
the factor of safety drops to FS = 0.99, as shown in Figure 4-2. Since the safety factors
calculated by SWedge match the experimental results fairly well, SWedge is verified for factor of
safety calculations for dynamic stability assessments.

15
 SWedge Verification Manual

5. SWedge Verification Problem #5

[SWedge Build 6.001]

5.1. Problem Description

This example is based on Case 5, presented on p.46 of [1]. In this verification problem, a wedge
failure at Mt. Mayuyama (Japan), is examined. This failure occurred in 1792 after an
earthquake. Kumsar et al. [1] carried out a number of tests to determine the possible wedge
failure mechanisms, considering four different conditions.

In this verification, four different cases are analyzed, using Joint 1 and Joint 2 geometry
discussed in [1].

5.2. Analytical Solution and SWedge Analysis

The wedge geometry is summarized in Table 5-1.

Table 5-1: Wedge Geometry

Parameter Value
𝝎𝟏 (°) 54
𝝎𝟐 (°) 54
𝒊𝒂 (°) 23

The following equations, which were all verified from lab samples in [1], are the basis of Figure
5-2, which illustrates the four different conditions.

{𝜆[𝑊(cos 𝑖𝑎 − 𝜂 sin(𝑖𝑎 + 𝛽)) + 𝑈𝑠 sin 𝑖𝑎 + 𝑈𝑡 cos 𝑖𝑎 ] − 𝛼𝑈𝑏 } tan 𝜙 + 𝑐(𝐴1 + 𝐴2 ) (1)

𝐹𝑆 =
𝑊[sin 𝑖𝑎 + 𝜂 cos(𝑖𝑎 + 𝛽)] − 𝑈𝑠 cos 𝑖𝑎 + 𝑈𝑡 sin 𝑖𝑎

cos 𝜔1 + cos 𝜔2 (2)

𝜆=
sin(𝜔1 + 𝜔2 )

𝑈𝑏 = 𝑈𝑏𝑠 + 𝑈𝑏𝑒 = (𝛾𝑠 + 𝛾𝑒 )𝑊 (3)

𝑈𝑏 = 𝑈𝑏1 sin 𝜔1 + 𝑈𝑏2 sin 𝜔2 (4)

Where:
𝜆 is the wedge factor from Kovári and Fritz [2]
𝑖𝑎 is the inclination angle
𝛽 is the inclination angle of the dynamic force
𝜔1 , 𝜔2 are the half wedge angles
𝑈𝑠 , 𝑈𝑡 are the water forces acting on the face and the upper part of the slope
𝐴1 , 𝐴2 are the joint surface areas
𝑈𝑏 is a force caused by fluid pressure that has components normal to each
joint
𝛾𝑠 is the static fluid pressure coefficient
𝛾𝑒 is the excess fluid pressure coefficient

16
 SWedge Verification Manual

Both 𝜔1 and 𝜔2 are equal to 54° since 𝜔1 = 𝜔2 = 𝜔, the half wedge angle. 𝑈𝑏 itself is the force,
which points vertically, hence the trigonometric system shown in Equation 4. All these
components are shown below in Figure 5-1. Refer to Figure 5-1 to assure the calculations.

Figure 5-1: Front and Side Cross-Sectional Views of a Wedge Without a Tension Crack

Figure 5-2: Case Results for Wedge Failure at Mt. Mayuyama

(assumed 𝝓 = 35°)

17
 SWedge Verification Manual

Case 1:
A mass of dry rock with an earthquake is present. The seismic coefficient (𝜂) is constantly
increasing from 0.0 to 0.4 as shown in Figure 5-2. On p.49 [1] the following are given for
Condition 1:

𝑐 = 0; 𝑈𝑠 = 0; 𝑈𝑡 = 0; 𝑈𝑏 = 0; 𝛼 = 1; 𝛽 = 0

Based on the parameters defined for Condition 1, and the equations defined above, the safety
factor can be determined:

𝜆(cos 𝑖𝑎 − 𝜂 sin 𝑖𝑎 ) tan 𝜑

𝐹𝑆 =
sin 𝑖𝑎 + 𝜂 cos 𝑖𝑎

2 cos 54 1
𝜆= =
sin(2 ∙ 54) sin 54

𝑖𝑎 = 23°

(tan 35)(cos 23 − 𝜂 sin 23) (5)

∴ 𝐹𝑆 =
(sin 54)(sin 23 + 𝜂 cos 23)

Equation 5 is used to plot the line in Figure 5-2 for Case 1. Notice in Figure 5-2 that when the
seismic coefficient is 𝜂 ≅ 0.32, the safety factor is FS = 1. By inserting this seismic coefficient
into an SWedge analysis, FS = 1 at that point as well. The settings for dip and dip directions are
found in Figure 5-3 and are the same for all the cases. The dip and dip direction values for the
joints were determined from a stereonet presented in [1].

The factor of safety without the earthquake load is FS = 1.9577. Once the seismic coefficient is
introduced the safety factor reduces to FS = 1.082 ≅ 1. This verifies SWedge results.

18
 SWedge Verification Manual

The SWedge model looks like this:

Figure 5-3: SWedge Results for Static Case

19
 SWedge Verification Manual

Figure 5-4: SWedge Results for Case with Earthquake Load

20
 SWedge Verification Manual

Case 2:
In this case that the excess fluid pressure (𝛾𝑒 ) is changing as the domain in Figure 5-2 from 0.0
to 0.4. The static fluid pressure is constant at 𝛾𝑠 = 0.4. The following are defined for Condition 2
[1]:

𝑐 = 0; 𝑈𝑠 = 0; 𝑈𝑡 = 0; 𝑈𝑏 = 0; 𝛼 = 1; 𝛽 = 0; 𝜂 = 0

Static fluid pressure: 𝑈𝑏𝑠 = 𝛾𝑠 𝑊

Excess fluid pressure: 𝑈𝑏𝑒 = 𝛾𝑒 𝑊

𝑈𝑏 = (0.4 + 𝛾𝑒 )𝑊

(𝜆 cos 𝑖𝑎 − 0.4 − 𝛾𝑒 ) tan 𝜙

𝑆𝐹 =
sin 𝑖𝑎

2 cos 54 1
𝜆= =
sin(2 ∙ 54) sin 54

𝑖𝑎 = 23°

(tan 35)(cos 23 − 0.4 − 𝛾𝑒 ) (6)

∴ 𝑆𝐹 =
(sin 23)(sin 54)

Equation 6 is used to plot the line in Figure 5-2 for Case 2. Notice in Figure 5-2 that when the
excess fluid pressure coefficient is 𝛾𝑒 = 0.06, the safety factor is FS = 1. By inserting this into an
SWedge analysis, SF = 1 there as well. The settings for dip and dip directions are found in
Figure 5-3 and are the same for all the cases.

Add the water forces to the wedge in SWedge. The following is a derivation of how much
pressure is put on the surface of each joint. A few assumptions were made.

𝑈𝑏 = 𝑈𝑏1 sin 𝜔1 + 𝑈𝑏2 sin 𝜔2

𝑈𝑏 = 𝑃1 𝐴1 sin 𝜔1 + 𝑃2 𝐴2 sin 𝜔2

(𝑃 is pressure (MN/m2) and 𝐴 is surface area of each joint)

Click on the Infoviewer in SWedge and make sure that the analysis input is set up as shown in
Figure 5-3. The wedge weight and the two joint areas are provided in the Infoviewer:

Wedge weight = 98870.95 MN

Wedge area (joint 1) = 68404.636 m2

Wedge area (joint 2) = 69797.393 m2

21
 SWedge Verification Manual

The following assumptions are made in determining the water pressure. These assumptions are
considered valid due to the fact that the wedge areas are almost the same, and so the
assumption will not have an overwhelming effect on the results:

𝑃1 ≅ 𝑃2 ≅ 𝑃

𝐴1 ≅ 𝐴2 ≅ 𝐴

𝜔1 ≅ 𝜔2 ≅ 𝜔

Based on the assumptions above and the wedge geometry, the water pressure to be applied in
SWedge is calculated:

𝑈𝑏
𝑃=
2𝐴 sin 𝜔

𝐴𝑎𝑣𝑒𝑟𝑎𝑔𝑒 = 69101 m2

𝑊 = 98870.95 MN

Given 𝛾𝑒 = 0.06, 𝑈𝑏 = (0.4 + 0.06)(98870.95) = 45480.64 MN:

45480.64 MN
𝑃= = 0.406 2
2(69101) sin 54 m

In this case, increase the friction angle from 𝜙 = 35° to 𝜙 = 36°. Notice that this will not change
the settings for weight or surface area of the joints. Based on the stereonet, the friction angle is
simply within the range of 35 and 40 degrees. By changing it to a friction angle of 𝜙 = 36°, better
accuracy is achieved. Below, the safety factor is FS ≅ 1.

22
 SWedge Verification Manual

The SWedge model looks like this:

Figure 5-5: SWedge Analysis with Custom Water Pressure

23
 SWedge Verification Manual

Case 3:
A mass of rock is present with an earthquake of increasing seismicity.

The seismic coefficient (𝜂) is constantly increasing from 0.0 to 0.4 as described in Figure 5-2.
The following information is given for Condition 3 [1]:

𝑐 = 0; 𝑈𝑠 = 0; 𝑈𝑡 = 0; 𝛼 = 1;

The fluid pressure was kept constant during the earthquake, at 𝛾𝑠 = 0.4. The equation for safety
factor is developed below:

𝜆[𝑊(cos𝑖𝑎 − 𝜂 sin 𝑖𝑎 ) − 𝑈𝑏 ] tan 𝜙

𝐹𝑆 =
𝑊(sin 𝑖𝑎 + 𝜂 cos 𝑖𝑎 )

𝑈𝑏 = (0.4 + 𝛾𝑒 )𝑊

Given 𝛾𝑒 = 0, 𝑈𝑏 = 0.4𝑊

(cos 23 − 𝜂 sin 23 − 0.4)(tan 35) (7)

∴ 𝑆𝐹 =
(sin 23 + 𝜂 cos 23)(sin 54)

Equation 7 is used to plot the line in Figure 5-2 for Case 3. Notice in Figure 5-2 that when the
seismic coefficient is 𝜂 = 0.05, the safety factor is FS = 1. Remember that the equation used for
this plot is based on a constant fluid pressure. By applying this seismic coefficient, along with
water pressure, the SF = 1 in SWedge as well.

SWedge is utilized for an analysis of the constant water and seismic forces. The following is a
derivation of how much pressure is put on the surface of each joint. Note that the same
assumption is made in terms of wedge area as was made in Case 2.

𝑈𝑏 = 0.4𝑊

𝑊 = 98870.95 MN

𝑈𝑏 = 39548.38 MN

𝑈𝑏 MN
𝑃= = 0.3537 2
2𝐴 sin 𝜔 m

24
 SWedge Verification Manual

The SWedge model looks like this:

Figure 5-6: SWedge Analysis with Custom Water Pressure and Seismic Force Defined
Looking at Figure 5-6, SWedge calculates FS = 1.0042 ≅ 1. SWedge is now verified for Case 3.

25
 SWedge Verification Manual

Case 4:
A mass of rock is present with an earthquake. Both the seismic coefficient (𝜂) and the excess
fluid pressure (𝛾𝑒 ) are constantly increasing (at the same time) from 0.0 to 0.4 as described in
Figure 5-2. The following are defined for Condition 4 [1]:

𝑐 = 0; 𝑈𝑠 = 0; 𝑈𝑡 = 0; 𝛼 = 1

The safety factor equation is developed below:

𝜆[𝑊(cos 𝑖𝑎 − 𝜂 sin 𝑖𝑎 ) − 𝑈𝑏 ] tan 𝜙

𝐹𝑆 =
𝑊(sin 𝑖𝑎 + 𝜂 cos 𝑖𝑎 )

𝑈𝑏 = (0.4 + 𝛾𝑒 )𝑊

(cos 23 − 𝜂 sin 23 − 0.4 − 𝛾𝑒 ) tan 35 (8)

∴ 𝐹𝑆 =
(sin 54)(sin 23 + 𝜂 cos 23)

Equation 8 is used to plot the line in Figure 5-2 for Case 3. Notice in Figure 5-2 that when 𝜂 =
𝛾𝑒 = 0.02, the safety factor is FS = 1. Now verify this with SWedge.

Calculate the water pressure to be applied (the same assumptions as in Case 2 and 3 with
regard to wedge area and water pressure are used):

𝑈𝑏 = 𝑈𝑏𝑠 + 𝑈𝑏𝑒 = (0.4 + 0.02)𝑊

𝑊 = 98870.95 MN

∴ 𝑈𝑏 = 41525.799 MN

𝑈𝑏
𝑃=
2𝐴 sin 𝜔
41525.799
∴𝑃= = 0.3414 MN/m2
2(69101) sin 54

Enter the values for seismicity and pressure into SWedge as shown in Figure 5-7 below. The
resulting safety factor is FS = 1.0332 ≅ 1. This result verifies SWedge for this example.

26
 SWedge Verification Manual

The SWedge model looks like this:

Figure 5-7: SWedge Analysis with Custom Water Pressure and Seismic Force Defined
(Pressure and Seismicity are Changing at the Same Rate)

27
 SWedge Verification Manual

6. SWedge Verification Problem #6

[SWedge Build 6.001]

6.1. Problem Description

This problem was taken from Priest [3]. It is his first example on 3-D plane sliding of tetrahedral
blocks, and it demonstrates the double plane sliding mechanism. The fictitious example also
includes an external force on the block due to infrastructure. In this verification, the factor of
safety for the block is determined.

6.2. SWedge Analysis

Verification Problem #6 models a non-overhanging rock slope with two planar discontinuities
(orientations given in Table 6-1).

Geometry and Material Properties

A water table exists in this example, and is modeled by defining mean water pressure in each of
the discontinuities equal to 5 kPa (joint 1) and 15 kPa (joint 2). A wedge volume of 45.20 m3 is
specified, which is equivalent to a wedge height of 6.7978 m. There is no tension crack. The unit
weight of rock is 26 kN m-3. The foundations of a pylon to be sited on the block will exert a force
of 180 kN along a line of trend/plunge 168/70.

Table 6-1: Slope and Joint Geometry

Plane Dip (°) Dip Direction (°)
Joint Set 1 47 203
Joint Set 2 52 287
Upper Slope (Bench) 5 225
Slope 60 230

Table 6-2: Material Properties

Cohesion Friction Angle
Joint Set
(MPa) (°)
1 0.01 40
2 0.02 35

Water Pressure
Table 6-3: Water Pressure
Mean Water
Joint Set
Pressure (MPa)
1 0.005
2 0.015

6.3. SWedge Analysis

Enter the values from Table 6-1 and Table 6-3 into SWedge.

28
 SWedge Verification Manual

The SWedge model looks like this:

Figure 6-1: SWedge Results

Figure 6-2: Stereonet from Priest [3] Figure 6-3: SWedge Stereonet
(Upper Face Not Shown)

29
 SWedge Verification Manual

6.4. Results
The SWedge analysis results are summarized in this section.

SWedge Analysis Results:

Analysis type=Deterministic Water Pressures/Forces:

Factor of Safety=1.49663 Average pressure on joint1=0.005 MN/m2
Wedge height (on slope)=6.7978 m Average pressure on joint2=0.015 MN/m2
Wedge width (on upper face)=4.232 m Water force on joint1=0.2057 MN
Wedge volume=45.201 m3 Water force on joint2=0.3064 MN
Wedge weight=1.175 MN
Wedge area (joint1)=41.147 m2 Failure Mode:
Wedge area (joint2)=20.428 m2 Sliding on intersection line (joints 1&2)
Wedge area (slope)=38.955 m2
Wedge area (upper face)=21.2423 m2
Normal force (joint1)=0.406 MN
Normal force (joint2)=0.251 MN
Driving force=0.893 MN
Resisting force=1.337 MN

Priest’s Factor of Safety is FS ≅ 1.5, which verifies that the results obtained from SWedge are
correct. The failure mode also agrees with Priest’s double plane sliding mechanism.

30
 SWedge Verification Manual

7. SWedge Verification Problem #7

[SWedge Build 6.001]

7.1. Problem Description

This problem was taken from Priest [3]. It is his second example on 3-D plane sliding of
tetrahedral blocks, and it demonstrates the single plane sliding mechanism, due to geometry
and increased water pressure in one of the joint sets. In this verification, the factor of safety for
the block is determined.

7.2. SWedge Analysis

Verification Problem #7 analyzes a non-overhanging planar rock slope with two joint sets, or
discontinuities (Table 7-1). A water table exists in this example and is modeled by defining
mean water pressure in each of the discontinuities equal to 25 kPa (joint 1) and 15 kPa (joint 2).
A wedge volume of 81.74 m3 is specified, which is equivalent to a wedge height of 6.8471 m.
There is no tension crack in this problem. The unit weight of rock is 25 kN m-3.

Geometry and Material Properties

Table 7-1: Plane Orientation
Plane Dip (°) Dip direction (°)
Joint Set 1 74 65
Joint Set 2 41 186
Bench 11 122
Slope 65 134

Table 7-2: Material Properties

Cohesion Friction Angle
Joint Set
(MPa) (deg.)
1 0.015 32
2 0.005 40

Water Pressure
Table 7-3: Water Pressure
Mean Water
Joint Set
Pressure (MPa)
1 0.025
2 0.015

7.3. SWedge Analysis

Enter the values from Table 7-1 and Table 7-2 into SWedge.

31
 SWedge Verification Manual

The SWedge model looks like this:

Figure 7-1: SWedge Results

Figure 7-2: Stereonet from Priest [3] Figure 7-3: SWedge Stereonet
(Upper Face Not Shown)

32
 SWedge Verification Manual

7.4. Results
The SWedge analysis results are summarized in this section.

SWedge Analysis Results:

Analysis type=Deterministic Water Pressures/Forces:

Factor of Safety=0.849288 Average pressure on joint1=0.025 MN/m2
Wedge height (on slope)=6.8471 m Average pressure on joint2=0.015 MN/m2
Wedge width (on upper face)=9.891 m Water force on joint1=0.860 MN
Wedge volume=81.741 m3 Water force on joint2=0.849 MN
Wedge weight=2.043 MN
Wedge area (joint1)=34.393 m2 Failure Mode:
Wedge area (joint2)=56.613 m2 Sliding on joint2
Wedge area (slope)=30.012 m2
Wedge area (upper face)=40.263 m2
Normal force (joint1)= 0 MN
Normal force (joint2)=0.7935 MN
Driving force=1.117 MN
Resisting force=0.949 MN

Priest states that the safety factor for this example is “approximately” = 0.9. The actual value is
FS = 0.864, if the force values which he has calculated into the specified factor of safety
equation (Equation 8.15 in [3]) are entered. This compares well with the SWedge calculated FS
= 0.85. The small difference in safety factors can be attributed to the fact that Priest used a
graphical method of decomposing forces on the stereonet, rather than an exact algebraic
method, for this example. Therefore, SWedge’s results have been verified with Priest’s results;
the failure modes are also in agreement.

33
 SWedge Verification Manual

8. References
1. Kumsar, H., Aydan, Ö., and Ulusay, R. (2000), “Dynamic and static stability assessment of
rock slopes against wedge failures.” Rock Mechanics and Rock Engineering, No. 33, pp. 31-
51.

2. Kovari, K., and Fritz, P. (1976), “Stability analysis of rock slopes for plane and wedge failure
with the aid of a programmeable pocket calculator.” Rock Mechanics, vol.8, no.2, pp. 73-113.

3. Priest, Steven. 1993. Discontinuity analysis for rock engineering. London: Chapman and Hall.

34
 SWedge Verification Manual

SWedge Bolt Model Verification

This section presents several verification examples for the UnWedge bolt model in SWedge.

The users can select from a list of pre-defined different types of bolts, choose to use bolt shear
strength instead of tensile and select to apply bolt orientation efficiency factor. Bolts in SWedge
can still be defined as either Active or Passive. The option is now included in the Bolt Properties
dialog. Analyses of the new bolt model were performed in SWedge and verified against
UnWedge. FS was compared. The results produced by SWedge agree very well with UnWedge,
which confirms the reliability of SWedge results.

35
 SWedge Verification Manual

9. SWedge Verification Problem #1

[SWedge Build 7.001]

9.1. Problem Description

In this verification example, several passive bolt types are modelled in SWedge. SWedge FS
are then compared to UnWedge.

Geometry and Material Properties

Table 9-1: Slope and Joint Geometry
Slope
Slope Dip Angle (°) 90
Dip Direction (°) 180
Height (m) 10
Upper Face Dip Angle (°) 0
Upper Face Dip Direction (°) 180
Rock Unit Weight (MN/m3) 0.027
Joint 1
Dip Angle (°) 45
Dip Direction (°) 125
Waviness (°) 0
Shear Strength Model Mohr-Coulomb
Phi (°) 35
c (MPa) 0
Joint 2
Dip Angle (°) 70
Dip Direction (°) 225
Waviness (°) 0
Shear Strength Model Mohr-Coulomb
Phi (°) 35
c (MPa) 0

Bolt Properties
Table 9-2: Bolt Properties
Spot Bolt
Trend (°) 0
Plunge (°) 0
Length (m) 17
Location (x, y, z) (-5,0,6.5)
Bolt Properties 1

9.2. SWedge Analysis

Enter the geometry parameter values from Table 9-1 into SWedge.

36
 SWedge Verification Manual

Bolt Properties
Enter the bolt properties from Table 9-2 into SWedge.

The SWedge model looks like this:

Figure 9-1: SWedge Model Geometry

Use the default capacity values for each Bolt Type. Be sure to select Passive Bolt Model in
SWedge as all bolts in UnWedge are passive. Run analysis with each Bolt type, with/without
Use Shear Strength checked and with/without Use Bolt Orientation Efficiency checked.
When enabling Use Bolt Orientation Efficiency, use the default Cosine Tension/Shear Method.
When testing shear bolts, uncheck the Use Bolt Orientation Efficiency option.

Note: The efficiency factor is not applied to the bolt shear strength. Bolt shear is
only considered when Use Shear Strength is checked and when the bolt is in the
corresponding deformation mode. Therefore, the bolt’s tensile capacity can still
be used when Use Shear Strength is checked. See Bolt Support Force topic in
Online Help for more information.

37
 SWedge Verification Manual

Figure 9-2: SWedge Bolt Property without using Bolt Orientation Efficiency

Figure 9-3: SWedge Bolt Property with Bolt Orientation Efficiency

38
 SWedge Verification Manual

Figure 9-4: SWedge Bolt Property with using Shear Strength

9.3. Building a Compatible UnWedge Model

Enter the UnWedge geometry as below:

Table 9-3: UnWedge Slope and Joint Geometry

General Input Data
Tunnel Axis Orientation Trend (°) 270
Tunnel Axis Plunge (°) 0
Design Factor of Safety 1
Rock Unit Weight (MN/m3) 0.027
Joint Orientations Input Data
Joint 1 Dip Angle (°) 45
Joint 1 Dip Direction (°) 125
Joint 2 Dip Angle (°) 70
Joint 2 Dip Direction (°) 225
Joint 3 Dip Angle (°) 90
Joint 3 Dip Direction (°) 180
Joint Properties Input Data
Name Joint Properties 1
Shear Strength Model Mohr-Coulomb
Phi (°) 35
c (MPa) 0

39
 SWedge Verification Manual

Use the following boundary coordinates for the UnWedge Opening Section:

Table 9-4: UnWedge Opening Section Coordinates

X Y
-1 0
0 0
0 10
10.2 10
10.2 11
-1 11

In the Perimeter Support Designer for UnWedge, add a spot bolt Normal to the vertical leg with
Length = 17m and Bolt Property 1 at coordinate (0, 6.5).

Figure 9-5: UnWedge Spot Bolt Input Data

The UnWedge Model looks like this:

Figure 9-6: UnWedge Model Geometry

40
 SWedge Verification Manual

9.4. Results
The FS from both SWedge and UnWedge are listed below:

Table 9-5: SWedge and UnWedge Factor of Safety Comparison

Use Bolt FS
Use Shear
Bolt Type Orientation
Strength SWedge UnWedge
Efficiency
No No 1.014 1.014
Mechanically Anchored No Yes 1.0057 1.006
Yes No 0.9905 0.990
No No 1.0497 1.050
Grouted Dowel with 100% bond
No Yes 1.0297 1.030
length
Yes No 0.9924 0.992
No No 1.014 1.014
Grouted Dowel with 8m bond length
No Yes 1.0057 1.006
No No 1.0395 1.039
Cable Bolt No Yes 1.0229 1.023
Yes No 0.9924 0.992
No No 1.014 1.014
Split Set No Yes 1.0057 1.006
Yes No 0.9905 0.990
No No 1.014 1.014
Swellex No Yes 1.0057 1.006
Yes No 0.9905 0.990
Simple Bolt Force N/A N/A 1.014 1.014

The results produced by SWedge agree well with UnWedge and confirm the reliability of the
SWedge bolt model.

41
 SWedge Verification Manual

SWedge Ponded Water Pressure Model Verification

This section presents several verification examples for the ponded water pressure model in
SWedge.

Two types of water pressures can be modelled in SWedge:

• Ponded Water Pressure – water pressure which acts on the slopes of the wedge
and
• Joint Water Pressure (formerly Water Pressure) – water pressure which acts on the
internal joints of the wedge.

The user can specify the unit weight of the ponded water and the ponded water depth,
measured from the base of the slope. When ponded water pressure is modelled in conjunction
with joint water pressure, the user can select from two slope face types:

• Impervious – the joint water pressure distribution is modelled independent of the ponded
water, whereby users can select from a list of pre-defined pressure distribution models.
or
• Pervious – the joint water pressure distribution depends on the elevation of the ponded
water surface. The water table is defined by a combination of joint water surface planes
and the ponded water surface plane.

Analyses of the Ponded Water Pressure model were performed in SWedge and verified by
analytical solution and against Slide3 2019. FS was compared. The results produced by
SWedge agree very well with Slide3, which confirms the reliability of SWedge results.

42
 SWedge Verification Manual

10. SWedge Verification Problem #1

[SWedge Build 7.001]

10.1. Problem Description

In this verification example, the effects of ponded water are presented by comparing the results
of a dry slope face and fully ponded slope face in SWedge. The ponded water force computed
in SWedge is then verified with a set of sample calculations to ensure that water pressure and
force values are being computed using the correct equations.

Geometry and Material Properties

Table 10-1: Slope and Joint Geometry
Slope Input Data
Slope Dip Angle (°) 60
Slope Dip Direction (°) 0
Height (m) 10
Upper Slope Dip Angle (°) 20
Upper Slope Dip Direction (°) 0
Rock Unit Weight (MN/m3) 0.026
Joint Input Data
Joint 1 Dip Angle (°) 55
Joint 1 Dip Direction (°) 320
Joint 1 Waviness (°) 0
Joint 1 Shear Strength Model Mohr-Coulomb
Joint 1 Cohesion (MPa) 0
Joint 1 Friction Angle (°) 35
Joint 2 Dip Angle (°) 50
Joint 2 Dip Direction (°) 225
Joint 2 Waviness (°) 0
Joint 2 Shear Strength Model Mohr-Coulomb
Joint 2 Cohesion (MPa) 0
Joint 2 Friction Angle (°) 35

Water Pressure
Table 10-2: Ponded Water and Joint Water
Ponded Water
Unit Weight (MN/m3) 0.00981
Slope Face Type Impervious
Ponded Water Depth (m) 10
Joint Water
Unit Weight (MN/m3) 0.00981
Pressure Distribution Type N/A
Percent Filled (%) 0

43
 SWedge Verification Manual

10.2. Analytical Solution

The ponded water force vector acting on the face of the wedge is calculated as follows:

𝑈𝑝𝑜𝑛𝑑𝑒𝑑 = 𝑃̅𝐴𝑛̂

Where:

𝑃̅ is the average ponded water pressure on the slope face

𝐴 is the area of the slope face

𝑛̂ is the inward (into wedge) normal of the slope face

The ponded water pressure at each vertex is computed as follows:

𝑃𝑖 = 𝛾𝑤 (𝐻𝑤 − 𝑑𝑖 )

Where:

𝑢𝑖 is the water pressure at the ith slope vertex

𝛾𝑤 is the unit weight of ponded water

𝐻𝑤 is the vertical height between the base of the slope and the ponded water surface

𝑑𝑖 is the vertical height between the base of the slope and the ith vertex

Sample Calculation
The top two slope vertices are at the ponded water surface:

𝑃1 = 𝑃2 = 0 MPa

The bottom slope vertex is at 10 𝑚 below the ponded water surface:

MN
𝑢3 = 𝛾𝑤 𝐻𝑤 = (0.00981 ) (10 m − 0 m) = 0.0981 MPa
m3

The sample calculation is consistent with the Maximum Water Pressure results computed in
SWedge.

The average ponded water pressure is computed from the vertex values:

𝑃1 + 𝑃2 + 𝑃3 0 MPa + 0 MPa + 0.0981 MPa

𝑃̅ = = = 0.0327 MPa
3 3

The ponded water force magnitude:

𝑈𝑝𝑜𝑛𝑑𝑒𝑑 = 𝑃̅𝐴 = (0.0327 MPa)(58.438 m2 ) = 1.9109 MN

Converting using the dip and dip direction of the slope, the unit normal vector into the wedge is:

44
 SWedge Verification Manual

𝑛̂ = (0, −0.8663, −0.5)

Converting the dip and dip direction of the sliding direction computed in SWedge, the unit vector
is:

𝑠̂ = (0.1301, 0.7262, −0.6751)

The component of the ponded water force that contributes to the direction of sliding is:

(𝑈𝑝𝑜𝑛𝑑𝑒𝑑 ∙ 𝑛̂) ∙ 𝑠̂ = (1.9109 MN) ∙ (0, −0.8663, −0.5) ∙ (0.1301, 0.7262, −0.6751) = −0.557 MN

10.3. SWedge Analysis

Enter the geometry and material values from Table 10-1 into SWedge.

The SWedge model looks like this:

Figure 10-1: SWedge Model Geometry

Water Pressure
Enter the water parameter values from Table 10-2 into SWedge.

The analysis is run with Ponded Water Pressure checked only. Use the default unit weight
values for ponded water. Set the Ponded Water Depth to 10 m.

45
 SWedge Verification Manual

Note: The Slope Face Type has no impact on the water pressure computation in
SWedge when there is no Joint Water Pressure. See Water Pressure topic in Online
Help for more information.

Figure 10-2: SWedge Water Deterministic Input Data with Ponded Water Pressure Only
The SWedge model looks like this:

Figure 10-3: SWedge Ponded Water Model (Ponded Depth = 10m)

46
 SWedge Verification Manual

10.4. Results
Comparing SWedge results:

Table 10-3: SWedge Force and Factor of Safety Comparisons

Ponded Water Joint Water Resisting
Driving Force Factor of
Depth Percent Filled Force
(MN) Safety
(m) (%) (MN)
0 0 1.916 1.766 0.9218
10 0 1.359 3.309 2.4348

The slope is fully ponded. The factor of safety has increased from 0.9218 to 2.4348. In this
case, the ponded water on the slope acts as a stabilizing force on the wedge (decreasing the
total active force). The weight of the ponded water also increases the joint normal force and
shear resistance, thereby increasing the resisting force.

The difference in Driving Force computed in SWedge before and after ponded water is applied
is 1.916 MN - 1.359 MN = 0.557 MN. The sample calculation is consistent with the Active Force
results computed in SWedge.

47
 SWedge Verification Manual

11. SWedge Verification Problem #2

[SWedge Build 7.001]

11.1. Problem Description

In this verification example, a cohesionless wedge is modelled with ponded water and joint
water at various extents. The FS are verified against Slide3.

Geometry and Material Properties

The SWedge geometry and material properties are identical to Verification #1.

Water Pressure
Table 11-1: Ponded Water and Joint Water
Ponded Water
Unit Weight (MN/m3) 0.00981
Slope Face Type Pervious
Ponded Water Depth (m) 0, 5, 10, or 15
Joint Water
Unit Weight (MN/m3) 0.00981
Pressure Distribution Type N/A
Percent Filled (%) 0, 50, or 100

11.2. SWedge Analysis

Water Pressure
The analyses are run with both Ponded Water Pressure and Joint Water Pressure checked.
Use the default unit weight value for ponded water and joint water. Model the Slope Face Type
as Pervious for water pressure continuity across the slope faces. Vary the Ponded Water
Depth from 0 m, 5 m, 10 m, to 15 m for “dry” joints and “fully wetted” joints.

Note: The Slope Face Type impacts the water pressure computation in SWedge when
Joint Water Pressure exists. See Water Pressure topic in Online Help for more
information.

48
 SWedge Verification Manual

Figure 11-1: SWedge Water Input Data with Ponded Water Pressure and Joint Water
Pressure

49
 SWedge Verification Manual

Figure 11-2: SWedge Water Pressure Contours for Ponded Water Depths 0 m, 5 m, 10 m,
and 15 m with 0 Percent Filled Joint Water

50
 SWedge Verification Manual

Figure 11-3: SWedge Water Pressure Contours for Ponded Water Depths 0 m, 5 m, 10 m,
and 15 m with 100 Percent Filled Joint Water

11.3. Building a Compatible Slide3 Model

A valid Slide3 slope model is constructed by using an external box and two intersecting planes
for the Slope and Upper Slope. A valid Slide3 failure surface is created by setting a wedge as
the user-defined slip surface and specifying the approximate crest point to produce a wedge
with a height of 10 m. Under Slide3 Project Settings, the Analysis Method is set to Janbu
Simplified. Max Columns in X or Y are set to 200 to produce a smooth failure wedge.

51
 SWedge Verification Manual

Enter the Slide3 geometry parameters as below:

Table 11-2: Slide3 Slope and Joint Geometry

Slope Input Data
External Slope Dip Angle (°) 60
External Slope Dip Direction (°) 0
External Upper Slope Dip Angle (°) 20
External Upper Slope Dip Direction (°) 0
External Rock Unit Weight (MN/m3) 0.026
Wedge Surface Input Data
Joint 1 Dip Angle (°) 55
Joint 1 Dip Direction (°) 320
Joint 2 Dip Angle (°) 50
Joint 2 Dip Direction (°) 225
Crest Point (m) (8, 2.5, 18.42)

Enter the Slide3 material properties as below:

Table 11-3: Slide3 Material Properties

Material Input Data
Shear Strength Model Mohr-Coulomb
Cohesion (MPa) 0
Friction Angle (°) 35
Rock Unit Weight (MN/m3) 0.026
Ponded Water Input Data
Unit Weight (MN/m3) 0.00981

52
 SWedge Verification Manual

The Slide3 Model looks like this:

Figure 11-4: Slide3 Model Geometry

The water table in Slide3 is modelled by a horizontal plane or a set of planes at various
elevations. Hydraulic Assignments are set to None for all materials when joints are “dry” and
set to Water Table to when joints are “fully wetted”.

11.4. Results
The FS from both SWedge and Slide3 are listed below:

Table 11-4: SWedge and Slide3 Factor of Safety Comparison

Ponded Water Joint Water Percent FS
Depth Filled
SWedge Slide3
(m) (%)
0 0.9218 0.9103
5 1.0610 1.0614
0
10 2.4348 2.4384
15 5.8483 5.8087
0 0.2763 0.2719
5 0.3165 0.3136
100
10 0.7128 0.7059
15 0.9218 0.9131

53
 SWedge Verification Manual

The results produced by SWedge agree well with Slide3 and confirm the reliability of the
SWedge ponded water model.

54
 SWedge Verification Manual

12. SWedge Verification Problem #3

[SWedge Build 7.001]

12.1. Problem Description

In this verification example, a wedge with cohesion is modelled with ponded water and joint
water at various extents. The FS are verified against Slide3.

12.2. SWedge Analysis

The SWedge geometry and material properties are identical to Verification #1, except the joints
have a cohesion of 0.02 MPa. Slope Face Type is modelled as Pervious for water pressure
continuity across the slope faces (same as Verification #1).

12.3. Building a Compatible Slide3 Model

A valid Slide3 slope model is constructed by using an external box and two intersecting planes
for the Slope and Upper Slope. A valid Slide3 failure surface is created by setting a wedge as
the user-defined slip surface and specifying the approximate crest point to produce a wedge
with a height of 10m. Under Slide3 Project Settings, the Analysis Method is set to Janbu
Simplified. Max Columns in X or Y are set to 200 to produce a smooth failure wedge.

Enter the Slide3 geometry parameters as below:

Table 3-1: Slide3 Slope and Joint Geometry

Slope Input Data

External Slope Dip Angle (°) 60
External Slope Dip Direction (°) 0
External Upper Slope Dip Angle (°) 20
External Upper Slope Dip Direction (°) 0
External Rock Unit Weight (MN/m3) 0.026
Wedge Surface Input Data
Joint 1 Dip Angle (°) 55
Joint 1 Dip Direction (°) 320
Joint 2 Dip Angle (°) 50
Joint 2 Dip Direction (°) 225
Crest Point (m) (8, 2.5, 18.42)

55
 SWedge Verification Manual

Enter the Slide3 material properties as below:

Table 3-2: Slide3 Material Properties

Material Input Data

Shear Strength Model Mohr-Coulomb
Cohesion (MPa) 0.02
Friction Angle (°) 35
Tensile Strength (MPa) 0.02
Rock Unit Weight (MN/m3) 0.026
Ponded Water Input Data
Unit Weight (MN/m3) 0.00981

12.4. Results
The FS from both SWedge and Slide3 are listed below:

Table 3-3: SWedge and Slide3 Factor of Safety Comparison

Ponded Water Joint Water Percent FS

Depth Filled
SWedge Slide3
(m) (%)
0 2.1388 2.1069
5 2.3239 2.3067
0
10 4.1504 4.1284
15 7.8026 7.7368
0 1.4933 1.4659
5 1.5793 1.5562
100
10 2.4284 2.3922
15 2.8761 2.8365

The results produced by SWedge agree well with Slide3 and confirm the reliability of the
SWedge ponded water model.

56