International Journal of Mining Science and Technology xxx (2013) xxx–xxx

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

International Journal of Mining Science and Technology

j o u r n a l h o m e p a g e : w w w . e l s ev i e r . c o m / l o c a t e / i j m s t

Determination and stability analysis of ultimate open-pit slope under

geomechanical uncertainty
⇑
Ali Moradi Afrapoli , Morteza Osanloo
Department of Mining, Metallurgy and Petroleum Engineering, Amirkabir University of Technology, Tehran 15875-4413, Iran

article info abstract

Article history: In open-pit mines, pit slope as one of the important parameters affects the mine economy and total min-able reserve, and it is
Received 3 May 2013 also affected by different uncertainties which arising from many sources. One of the most critical sources of uncertainty effects
Received in revised form 24 June 2013 on the pit slope design is rock mass geomechanical properties. By comparing the probability of failure resulted from
Accepted 10 July 2013 Available online
deterministic procedure and probabilistic one, this paper investigated the effects of aforesaid uncertainties on open-pit slope
xxxx
stability in metal mines. In this way, to reduce the effect of variance, it implemented Latin Hypercube Sampling (LHS)
technique. Further-more, a hypothesis test was exerted to compare the effects on two cases in Middle East. Subsequently, the
Keywords:
investigation approved high influence of geomechanical uncertainties on overall pit steepness and stability in both iron and
Safety factor
Probability of failure copper mines, though on the first case the effects were just over.
Geomechanical property uncertainty
Overall pit slope 2013 Published by Elsevier B.V. on behalf of China University of Mining & Technology.
Stability analysis

1. Introduction
Determination of acceptable slope angles for open-pit mines is a key
aspect of the mine design, as it implies seeking the optimum balance between
the additional economic benefits gained from having steeper slopes, and the
additional risks resulting from the consequent reduced stability of the open-pit
slopes [1]. But, pit slope as one of three important parameters (e.g., product
price, cut-off grade, and pit slope) affects the mine economy and ore re-serve
of the mine, and it is also affected by different uncertainties which arising
from many sources which are the most operative causes of difficulty in
determining the acceptable slope angles in the first steps of the process of
mine design.
In the process of mine design during prefeasibility and feasibil-ity studies,
a vast majority of uncertainties including spatial and temporal ones will be
faced. The same is true in determination of acceptable slope where various
uncertainties, such as inherent spatial variability of rock properties,
subsurface stratigraphy, sim-plifications, and approximations adopted in
geotechnical models, exist [2]. To encounter by these and also to define the
inherent natural variability, field data collection and site investigations are
implemented. As a result, many studies of probabilistic slope sta-bility have
been presented recently by paying a special attention to the uncertainties and
randomness in soil and rock properties [3–15]. Also in the face of geological
complexity, overall wall sta-bility and open-pit reserve optimization depend
upon overall slope
⇑ Corresponding author. Tel.: +98 937 159 2236.
E-mail address: ali.moradiafrapoli@gmail.com (M.A. Ali).
angle and the pit wall configuration, layout and position on a bench by bench
basis [16].
Generally, aforesaid uncertainties of the ore body and its sur-rounding
rocks affect on the mine evaluation particularly slope de-sign and analysis in
the both types of risks which might be repelled in evaluation procedure. There
are two types of risk in mine eval-uations: (1) risk inherent to physical
characteristics of the mineral body; (2) risk associated with future events [17].
Detailed geotech-nical data is often a major unknown factor in open-pit
design and mining, the lack of which constitutes a significant risk in any min-
ing venture [18]. Furthermore, usually, in almost all mining activ-ities around
the world, these data are not available in the prefeasibility and feasibility step
study during which the mine is evaluating and being design (it is due to
spatially and temporally variation of rock properties even within
homogeneous layers as a result of depositional and post-depositional
processes that cause variation in properties and errors in human data
measurements) [19,20]. Subsequently, effects of lack of detailed geotechnical
infor-mation will be appearing when the pit depth increases to its prede-
termined ultimate limits. The most important effect of these uncertainties is
unreliability of the feasibility study step designed pit wall slope.
This paper represented effects of the geomechanical properties uncertainty
on open-pit slope design by comparing between deter-ministic and
probabilistic slope stability analysis with respect to two large copper and iron
open-pit mines in Iran (e.g., Sungun Cop-per Mine and Chadormaloo Iron
Mine, respectively). In this way, after a deterministic finite difference
analysis, a procedure of probabilistic slope stability was handled to compare
slope stability

2095-2686/$ - see front matter 2013 Published by Elsevier B.V. on behalf of China University of Mining & Technology.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.ijmst.2013.12.018

Please cite this article in press as: Ali MA, Morteza O. Determination and stability analysis of ultimate open-pit slope under geomechanical uncertainty. Int J Min Sci Technol (2013),
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.ijmst.2013.12.018
2 M.A. Ali, O. Morteza / International Journal of Mining Science and Technology xxx (2013) xxx–xxx

condition with and without ignoring geomechanical properties uncertainty.
The procedure is based on a Monte Carlo Simulation (MCS) in which a
probability of failure for a crucial 2-dimentional cross section compute by
exerting the safety factors calculated from a 2-dimensional finite difference
analysis. The analysis was performed by FLAC version 4.00 (Itasca
Consulting Group) under two basic logic assumptions which are listed below:
(1) plane strain condition; (2) due to the purpose of study (geomechanical
property uncertainty effects on the analysis), the paper disregard effects of
structures, underground water condition, and unit weight uncertainties.
2. Methods
The conventional tools for dealing with ground heterogeneity in the field
of geotechnical engineering have been applied under the use of safety factors
and by implementing local experience and engineering judgment [21].
However, it has been recognized that the factor of safety is not a consistent
measure of risk since slopes with the same safety factor value may exhibit
different risk levels depending on the variability of the properties [22].
Accordingly, numerous studies have been undertaken in recent years to
develop a probabilistic slope stability analysis that deal with the uncertain-ties
of rock properties in a systematic manner. Because of that, this study used a
Monte Carlo based (i.e., LHS) deterministic and prob-abilistic slope stability
analysis and design.
2.3. Probability of failure (PoF)
The performance of a proposed design in the presence of uncer-tainty can
be quantified in terms of the ‘failure probability’ [26]. Accordingly,
probabilistic design is a systematic procedure for examining the effect of the
variability of each parameter on slope stability. Also the probabilistic failure
analysis intends to find a set of model parameters and aims to identify
uncertain parameters that would significantly affect the slope performance
[27]. A prob-ability distribution of the factor of safety (FS) is calculated, from
which the probability of failure of the slope is determined. In this case the
input parameters are described as probability distribu-tions. By combining
these distributions within the deterministic model used to calculate the FS, the
probability of failure of the slope can be estimated. A technique commonly
used to combine the distributions is the MCS, especially LHS. In this way, a
FS is cal-culated by implementing the procedure on each set of randomly
generated samples. Afterwards, the probability of failure calculated as a ratio
between the number of cases that failed (FS < 1) and the total number of
simulations which are illustrated on Fig. 1 [1].
The use of probability analysis in design requires that there be generally
acceptable range of probability of failure for different types of structure.
These criteria have been defined by some researchers, as indicated in Table 1.
2.4. Hypothesis tests

To compare the effects of geomechanical properties uncertainty on the

2.1. Distribution function stability of overall pit slope in two important base metals mines of Iran
(Sungun and Chadormalu, Fig. 2), it could be used many different statistical
The most common type of distribution function is the normal distribution
methods that analyze the effects quantitatively.
in which the mean value is the most frequently value. This paper uses the
normal distribution due to its important prop-erties, such as constant area When the uncertainty of an uncertain system parameter has a significant
under the curve which is equal to 1.0, determined and constant amount of effect on the probability of slope failure, the mean l of failure samples of the
values that are laying within a range of one, two or three standard deviation parameter differs significantly from the mean l0 of its unconditional samples.
either side of the mean, and also, its compatibility with the method by which,
The statistical difference be-tween l and l0 is evaluated by hypothesis tests. A
ran-dom values form distribution function will be generated. The den-sity of
null hypothesis H0 and alternative hypothesis HA are defined as Eqs.(4) and
the normal distribution is defined by:
(5)
[28,29]:
2
1
f ðxÞ ¼
1
p ffiffiffiffiffiffi e ½ ð x xÞ= SD&
2 ð1Þ
H 0 : l ¼ l0 & H A : l– l0 ð4Þ
ffi

SD 2p
Then a hypothesis test statistic ZH (z-test) of the parameter is for-mulated as:
where x is the mean value given by:
x ¼ Pn ð2Þ l l0
n x ZH ¼ pffiffiffi ð5Þ
x¼1 r= n

and SD is the standard deviation given by: where r is the standard deviation of the uncertain parameter; and n the number
2 1=2
of failure samples. Based on the Central Limit Theorem,
"P x #
SD ¼ n

x¼1
xÞ ð3Þ
ðn

that relies on repeated random sampling to compute their results.

2.2. Latin Hypercube Sampling Monte Carlo Simulation (LHSMCS)

Several sampling techniques have been developed in order to improve the

computational efficiency of the sampling method by reducing the statistical
error in the sampling procedure where one of the most plausible variance
reduction techniques is Latin Hypercube Sampling (LHS), which can be used
for generating pre-cise random samples of a distribution [23]. The technique
was first described by McKay in 1979 [23]. It was further elaborated by Iman
et al. [24]. Detailed computer codes and manuals were later published [25].
LHS never increases the variability of estimates as compared to crude Monte
Carlo simulation. Fig. 1. Definition probability of failure and its relationship with factor of safety, according to
uncertainty magnitude [1].

Please cite this article in press as: Ali MA, Morteza O. Determination and stability analysis of ultimate open-pit slope under geomechanical uncertainty. Int J Min Sci Technol (2013),
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.ijmst.2013.12.018
 M.A. Ali, O. Morteza / International Journal of Mining Science and Technology xxx (2013) xxx–xxx 3

Table 1 procedure it represented the effects of geomechanical uncertain-ties on overall

Acceptable PoF criteria for typical pit slope. pit slope design and analysis by comparing between the results of
Slope scale Consequence of failure PoF (max.) (%) deterministic analysis with probabilistic one. To com-pare the geomechanical
Bench Low–high 25–50 property uncertainties effects on overall pit slope stability in copper mines
Inter-ramp Low 25 with the uncertainties in iron one, z-test was implemented.
Medium 20
High 10
Overall Low 15–20
Medium 5–10 3. Case studies
High 65
3.1. Sungun Copper Mine (SCM)

As shown in Fig. 2, SCM is located in Azerbaijan province of northwest

Caspian Turkmenistan Iran at latitude 38L4103000 north and longitude 46L4202000 east, and the
SCM Ashkhabad
Sea mine is an open-pit mine exploiting the Sungun copper porphyry deposit.
Baki Tecran Conspicuously, considerable final slope height and the presence of faults and
intrusive dykes make it one of the exceptional case studies for geotechnical
engineering and slope stability. Furthermore, pit geometry in the critical cross
Bagh Afghanistan
section at azimuth 30L and summarized statistical rock mass prop-erties are
Iraq Iran CIM
represented in Fig. 4 and Table 2, respectively [30].
Kuwait

Kuwait
Saudi Persian 0
200 km 3.2. Chadormalu Iron Mine (CIM)
Guif 0
150 m
Arabia Manama Pak.
Riyadh Bahrain Doha U.A.E. Oman Gult of As shown in Fig. 2, CIM in Yazd province of Iran is located at lat-itude
Abu dhabi man 37L170 north and longitude 55L 30 0 east. By referring to Fig. 5, the ultimate
Fig. 2. SCM and CIM location in Iran. pit wall at azimuth 57L with an approximately 300 m height was selected to
be analyzed. CIM pit geometry in the critical cross section at azimuth 57L and
a short list of rock mass properties are shown in Fig. 5 and Table 3,
ZH follows the standard normal distribution when n is large (e.g., respectively [31].
n P 30). When the failure sample mean l deviates statistically from the
unconditional mean l0 of the parameter, the absolute value of ZH increases, 4. Discussion and results
the statistical difference between l and l0 becomes growingly significant, and
the effect of the uncertain parameter 4.1. Deterministic analysis of SCM
on failure probability becomes significant too. The absolute value of Z H will
be used as an index to measure the effects of the uncertain parameters on As followed by the deterministic procedure in Fig. 3, the geome-chanical
failure probability and to prioritize their relative ef-fects on failure probability rock mass property sets import into the model geometry, one after another.
[27]. The FLAC model for each set of properties were solved, and for each set a SF
This paper used a procedure (Fig. 3) to determine safety factor (SF), and calculated. Inputted set of rock mass properties into FLAC and the results of
probability of failure (PoF) of the cases under both deter-ministic and the procedures (e.g., SFs) are listed in Table 4.
probabilistic situations, and also, at the end of the

Specify the slope geometry

Probabilistic procedure Deterministic procedure

Fitting the best normal distribution Select N plausible c and φ sets from site
to both c and φ data investigated data sheet and save in a matrix
(e.g., X=[x1, x2, x3, , xn])
Generate N sets of c and φ using Latin
hypercube sampling and save in a matrix
(e.g., Y=[y1, y2 , y3, , yn]) For i=1 to N;
Assign the xi property to the slope in FLAC;
Calculate the SFi;

For j=1 to N; Save SFi as an array of SF(x) matrix

Assign the yj property to the slope in FLAC;
Calculate the SFj;

Save SFj as an array of SF(y) matrix Fitting the best normal distribution
to the calculated SFjs
Fitting the best normal distribution
to the calculated SFjs Calculating the PoF (SF 1)

Calculating the PoF (SF 1)

Compare probabilistic procedure

results with deterministic ones

Fig. 3. Schematic of overall pit slope analysis by both deterministic and probabilistic procedures.

Please cite this article in press as: Ali MA, Morteza O. Determination and stability analysis of ultimate open-pit slope under geomechanical uncertainty. Int J Min Sci Technol (2013),
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.ijmst.2013.12.018
 4 M.A. Ali, O. Morteza / International Journal of Mining Science and Technology xxx (2013) xxx–xxx
Table 4

Deterministic 2-dimentional finite difference analysis results in SCM.

No. Cohesion (kPa) Friction angle (L) Safety factor

1 53 21.2 0.97
2 444 48.8 2.78
3 83 14.6 0.65
4 111 29.3 1.41
5 113 19.0 0.86
6 231 37.0 1.89
7 89 21.5 0.99
8 247 38.8 2.02
Fig. 4. SCM cross section at azimuth 30L. 9 121 26.2 1.24
10 497 50.2 2.86

Table 2
Geomechanical rock mass properties at azimuth 30L SCM.

No. 3 Cohesion (kPa) Friction angle (L)

Unit weight (kg/m ) Probability less than upper bound is 0.078168
1 2300 53 21.2 1.0
0.9
2 2300 444 48.8
0.8
3 2300 83 14.6
0.7
4 2300 111 29.3

Density
0.6
5 2340 113 19.0 0.5
6 2340 231 37.0 0.4
7 2360 89 21.5 0.3
8 2360 247 38.8 0.2
9 2360 121 26.2 0.1
10 2360 497 50.2 0 0.5 1.0 1.567 2.0 2.5 3.0
Deterministic safety factor (SCM)

Fig. 6. Deterministic SF distribution and the related PoF (SCM).

by using of the LHSMCS. Afterwards, a 2-dimentional finite differ-ence

analysis handled for each set of properties and SFs calculated (Table 5). As it
is shown in Fig. 7, in the next step, the best esti-mated normal distribution
was fitted to probabilistic SFs which calculated before by using of MATLAB
7.11.0 (R2010b). As a result, the best mean and standard deviation of the
calculated SFs obtained from the fitted curve are 1.3740 and 0.1404,
respectively. Accordingly, Fig. 7 mentions that mean of SFs and PoF in
probabi-listic procedure are 1.374 and 0.39%, respectively.
Fig. 5. CIM cross section at azimuth 57L [32].

By comparing between deterministic procedure and probabilis-tic one,

Table 3 both the mean of SFs and the PoF in the second one are unmistakably less
Geomechanical rock mass property, azimuth 57L CIM [31]. than that calculated by first procedure.
3
Critical PoF for overall slope of a mine is held on 5% which is specified
No. Unit weight (kg/m ) Cohesion (kPa) Friction angle (L)
by SRK consulting Company (Table 1). Though, popular analysis of the
1 2200 99 31.84
2 3700 61 46.70
crucial cross section signified a PoF almost 2.5% more than regular PoF (5%)
3 2560 189 41.90 that categorize the analyzed slope in the class of unstable ones, according to
4 2200 26 13.90 the results of this investi-gation, PoF of the most critical wall of SCM is about
5 2400 120 34.42 4.5% less than critical PoF (5%). The results illustrate that for obtaining more
6 2750 169 37.97
in-come from the venture, the most critical wall of the mine could be
7 2790 202 41.34
8 2570 70 26.63 permitted to be deeper and steeper than now. The more steeper the wall the
9 3710 111 49.99 more reduce the stripping ratio and the more increase in NPV (net present
value).

By using of MATLAB 7.11.0 (R2010b), this step estimated and fitted the
best normal distribution of deterministic SFs which cal-culated formerly (Fig.
Table 5
6). Subsequently, the best mean and stan-dard deviation of the calculated SFs
Probabilistic 2-dimentional finite difference analysis results in SCM.
which are obtained from the aforesaid fitted curve are 1.567 and 0.789,
respectively. As it is shown in Fig. 6, respectively, the mean of safety factor in No. Cohesion (kPa) Friction angle (L) Safety factor
determin-istic procedure is equal to 1.567 and the probability of failure is 1 166.1614 27.72422 1.32
7.82%. 2 168.5409 25.83824 1.22
3 145.0394 29.31930 1.41
4 167.4735 29.00399 1.39
5 161.1030 25.27651 1.19
4.2. Probabilistic analysis of SCM 6 157.9390 28.20150 1.35
7 159.7480 26.52825 1.25
8 162.8585 30.22933 1.46
In the probabilistic step, at first, 10 sets of rock mass properties were 9 175.0631 30.88454 1.50
selected from the best normal distribution of the input data

Please cite this article in press as: Ali MA, Morteza O. Determination and stability analysis of ultimate open-pit slope under geomechanical uncertainty. Int J Min Sci Technol (2013),
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.ijmst.2013.12.018
 M.A. Ali, O. Morteza / International Journal of Mining Science and Technology xxx (2013) xxx–xxx 5

Probability less than upper bound is Table 6

Deterministic 2-dimentional finite difference analysis results in CIM.
0.0038656
3.0 No. Cohesion (kPa) Friction angle (L) Safety factor
2.5 1 99 31.84 1.37
2 61 46.70 0.73
Density

2.0
3 189 41.90 1.96
1.5 4 26 13.90 0.57
5 120 34.42 1.52
1.0
6 169 37.97 1.75
0.5 7 202 41.34 1.92
8 70 26.63 1.22
0 1.0 1.2 1.374 1.6 1.8 2.0 9 111 49.99 2.92

Deterministic safety factor (SCM)

Table 7
Fig. 7. Probabilistic SF distribution and the related PoF (SCM).
Probabilistic 2-dimentional finite difference analysis results in CIM.

No. Cohesion (kPa) Friction angle (L) Safety factor

4.3. Deterministic analysis of CIM
After performing the deterministic procedure (Fig. 3), the re-sults of 1 151.9415 36.31493 1.62
analysis are portrayed in Fig. 8 and listed in Table 6, respec-tively. The best 2 155.3745 31.75283 1.63
mean and standard deviation of the calculated SFs obtained from the fitted 3 121.4684 37.55221 1.88
curve are 1.5511 and 0.7068, respectively. 4 153.8345 44.71579 2.41
5 144.6436 35.98913 1.61
As it is obvious in Fig. 8, the mean of SFs in deterministic proce-dure is
6 140.0789 39.08049 1.95
equal to 1.55 and the probability of failure is 8.41%. 7 142.6888 38.11044 1.80
8 147.1764 34.01756 1.50
9 164.7841 34.37576 1.49
4.4. Probabilistic analysis of CIM
Probability less than upper bound is 0.0056563
The probabilistic procedure of determination of CIM slope sta-bility
performed on the case’s geomechanical data (Table 7). As re-sults, the best
1.4
mean and standard deviation of the calculated SFs obtained from the fitted 1.2
curve are 1.7350 and 0.2902, respectively. Fig. 9 shows that the mean of SFs
Densit

1.0
y

in probabilistic procedure is equal to 1.74 and PoF is 0.57%. 0.6

0.8
Subsequently, both the mean of SFs and PoF of probabilistic pro-cedure 0.4

are significantly less than deterministic one. By referring to SRK consulting

Company, the most critical PoF for an overall slope is equal to 5%. In the 0.2

deterministic step of analyzing the wall sta-bility calculated PoF was 3.5% 0 1.0 1.5 1.735 2.0 2.5 3.0
more than acceptable PoF for an overall slope. Since, by implementing the
Deterministic safety factor (SCM)
analysis procedure prob-abilistically under geomechanical uncertainties, PoF
of crucial wall of the mine was around 4.5% less than acceptable criteria. By
Fig. 9. Probabilistic SF distribution and the related PoF (CIM).
regarding to this, the designed wall that is in used nowadays could be steeper
to reach deeper deposit and increasing NPV by decreas-ing stripping ratio
without effecting on risk of venture. Table 8
z-test parameters of both cases.

Case Deterministic Probabilistic n

4.5. Hypothesis test of the cases SCM l = 1.567 l = 1.3740 782
r = 0.789 r = 0.1404
To calculate and compare between the effects of cohesion and friction CIM l = 1.5511 l = 1.7350 842
r = 0.7068 r = 0.2902
angle uncertainty in two types of base metal mines includ-ing Copper mine
and Iron one, at the first step it is needed to gather together the parameters
which are required to perform a hypoth-esis test like z-test. In this paper, to probabilistic SFs distribution, and also number of failure samples (n), a Monte
obtain z-test input parameters, including means and standard deviations of Carlo random sampling for SFs of each case was done (number of sample
deterministic and generated in each Monte Carlo procedure was equal to 10 000).

Probability less than upper bound is 0.084136 Table 8 shows the results of the random sampling and other re-quired
1.0 parameters for the test. Values of z-test of SCM and CIM are 0.008747 and
0.9 0.008972, respectively.
0.8
0.7
The absolute z-value for CIM is more than the z-value of SCM. It is
comprehended that, the effect of geomechanical property uncer-tainties in an
Density

0.6
0.4
0.5 iron mine is more than the effects of such uncertain-ties in a copper mine.
0.3

0.2
0.1
0 0.5 1.0 1.5511 2.0 2.5 3.0 5. Conclusions

Deterministic safety factor (SCM)

The paper has investigated the effects of geomechanical prop-erty
uncertainties on open-pit slope stability in base metal mines.
Fig. 8. Deterministic SF distribution and the related PoF (CIM).

Please cite this article in press as: Ali MA, Morteza O. Determination and stability analysis of ultimate open-pit slope under geomechanical uncertainty. Int J Min Sci Technol (2013),
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.ijmst.2013.12.018
6 M.A. Ali, O. Morteza / International Journal of Mining Science and Technology xxx (2013) xxx–xxx
At the first step, it used a deterministic finite difference proce-dure to
calculate the safety factors and probability of failure of the slopes. In the next
step, it calculated the safety factors and proba-bility of failure of the slopes by
using of a probabilistic finite differ-ence procedure, in which, the sets of rock
mass properties were selected randomly from the best normal distribution
fitted to the input data. In this step to reduce the effect of variance on the anal-
ysis, a method of variance reduction technique called Latin Hyper-cube
Sampling (LHS) was used. In the third step of the procedure, the paper
compared the effects of geomechanical property uncer-tainties in two base
metal mines in Iran (e.g., Sungun Copper Mine and Chadormalu Iron Mine)
by using of a statistical testing method named Hypothesis test (z-test).
The main concluding remarks of the paper are as follows:
(1) In an open-pit base metal mine, the effects of geomechanical property
uncertainties are more significant than to be ignored from the overall
slope stability analysis.
(2) The geomechanical property uncertainties have significant effects on
overall pit slope stability and could reduce the probability of failure in
both iron and copper mines.
(3) The effects of geomechanical property uncertainties in cop-per mines
are less than the effects in iron mines. Because of that, the overall pit
slope stability analysis under geome-chanical property uncertainties in
iron mines is more impor-tant than in copper mines.
(4) The geomechanical property uncertainties can reduce the probability
of failure in overall pit slopes in base metal mines, which can
conclude the dipper overall slope and increasing the NPV of the
project, subsequently.
(5) The feasibility study step overall pit slope (that is an impor-tant input
parameter of mine design) is not a reliable slope due to uncertainty of
its design input parameters.
(6) Herein it was indicated that, effects of the geomechanical uncertainties
on pit slope design and stability analysis is sig-nificant and in the
feasibility step design of slope and ulti-mate pit limits is not
negligible.
References
[1] Steffen OKH. Planning of open pit mines on a risk basis. J SAIMM 1997;97:47–56.
[2] Wang Y, Cao ZJ, Au SK. Efficient Monte Carlo simulation of parameter sensitivity in
probabilistic slope stability analysis. Comput Geotech 2010;37:1015–22.
[3] Whitman RV. Organizing and evaluating in geotechnical engineering. J Geotech
Geoenviron Eng 2000;1267:583–93.
[4] Duncan JM. Factors of safety and reliability in geotechnical engineering. J Geotech
Geoenviron Eng 2000;1264:307–16.
Please cite this article in press as: Ali MA, Morteza O. Determination and stability analysis of ultimate open-pit slope under geomechanical uncertainty. Int J Min Sci Technol (2013),
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.ijmst.2013.12.018
[5] El-Ramly H, Morgenstern NR, Cruden DM. Probabilistic slope stability analysis for
practice. Can Geotech J 2002;39:665–83.
[6] Low BK. Practical probabilistic slope stability analysis. In: Proceedings of the soil and
rock America, 12th Panamerican conference on soil mechanics and geotechnical
engineering, and 39th U.S. rock mechanics symposium. Cambridge; 2003. p. 2777–84.
[7] Bhattacharya G, Jana D, Ojha S, Chakraborty S. Direct search for minimum reliability
index of earth slopes. Comput Geotech 2003;306:455–62.
[8] Griffiths DV, Fenton GA. Probabilistic slope stability analysis by finite lements. J Geotech
Geoenviron Eng 2004;1305:507–18.
[9] Babu GLS, Mukesh MD. Effect of soil variability on reliability of soil slopes.
Geotechnique 2004;545:335–7.
[10] Xu B, Low BK. Probabilistic stability analyses of embankments based on finite element
method. J Geotech Geoenviron Eng 2006;13211:1444–54.
[11] Low BK, Tang WH. Efficient spreadsheet algorithm for first-order reliability method. J
Geotech Geoenviron Eng 2007;13312:1378–87.
[12] Shinoda M. Quasi-Monte Carlo simulation with low-discrepancy sequence for reinforced
soil slopes. J Geotech Geoenviron Eng 2007;1334:393–404.
[13] Cho SE. Effects of spatial variability of soil properties on slope stability. Eng Geol
2007;923(4):97–109.
[14] Su YH, Zhao MH, Zhang YY. Numerical method of slope failure probability based Bishop
Model. J Cent South Univ Technol 2008;15:100–5.
[15] Tan XH, Wang J. Finite element reliability analysis of slope stability. J Zhejiang Univ Sci
2009;10(5):645–52.
[16] Xu DW, Lilly P, Walker P. Stability and risk assessment of pit walls at BHP Iron Ore’s MT
WHALEBACK mine. In: Proceedings of international conference on geotechnical and
geological engineering. Melbourne; 2000.
[17] Kennedy BA. Surface mining. Baltimore: SME publication; 1990. 1194.
[18] Bye AR, Bell FG. Geotechnical applications in open pit mining. Geotech. Geol. Eng.
2001;19:97–117.
[19] Cho SE. Effects of spatial variability of soil properties on slope stability. Eng. Geol.
2007;92:97–109.
[20] Lacasse S, Nadim F. Uncertainties in characterizing soil properties, in uncertainty in the
geologic environment: from theory to practice. In: Proceedings of uncertainty. ASCE
Geotechnical Special publication; 1996. p. 49–75.
[21] Elkateb T, Chalaturnyk R, Robertson PK. An overview of soil heterogeneity:
quantification and implementation on geotechnical field problems. Can Geotech J
2002;40:1–15.
[22] Li KS, Lumb P. Probabilistic design of slopes. Can Geotech J 1987;24:520–35.
[23] McKay MD, Beckman RJ, Conover WJ. A comparison of three methods for selecting
values of input variables in the analysis of output from a computer code. Technometrics
1979;21(2):239–45.
[24] Iman RL, Helton JC, Campbell JE. An approach to sensitivity analysis of computer
models: introduction, input variable selection and preliminary variable assessment. J Qual
Techno Albuq 1981;13(3):174–83.
[25] Iman RL, Davenport JM, Zeigler DK. Latin hypercube sampling (program user’s guide).
Albuquerque: Sandia National Laboratories; 1980.
[26] Au SK, Cao Z, Wang Y. Implementing advanced Monte Carlo simulation under
spreadsheet environment. Struct Safety 2010;32:281–92.
[27] Wang Y, Cao ZJ, Au SK. Efficient Monte Carlo simulation of parameter sensitivity in
probabilistic slope stability analysis. Comput Geotech 2010;37:1015–122.
[28] Hayter AJ. Probability and statistics for engineers and scientists. Pacific Grove; 2002.
[29] Walpole RE, Myers RH, Myers SL. Probability and statistics for engineers and scientists.
Upper Saddle River, Boston: Prentice Hall; 1998.
[30] Abbaszadeh M, Shahryar K, Sharifzadeh M, Heydari M. Uncertainty and reliability
analysis applied to slope stability: a case study from Sungun Copper Mine. Geotech Geol
Eng 2011;29:581–96.
[31] KaniKavan Shargh Engineering Co., Engineering geology and rock mechanics report.
Tehran; 2011.