Proceedings, Slope Stability 2011: International Symposium on Rock Slope Stability in Open Pit Mining and Civil
Engineering, Vancouver, Canada (September 18-21, 2011)

Analysis of Natural Rock Slope Deformations under Temperature
Variation: A Case Study from Japan
A. Mufundirwa Rock Mechanics Laboratory, Hokkaido University, Sapporo, JapanY. Fujii Rock Mechanics Laboratory, Hokkaido University, Sapporo, Japan
N. Kodama Hakodate National College of Technology, Hakodate, Japan
J. Kodama Rock Mechanics Laboratory, Hokkaido University, Sapporo, Japan

Abstract
To get better insight into the causative agents of rock falls, natural rock slope deformation across fractures
predominantly in a chert rock mass was monitored using six surface fracture displacement sensors. And, thedeformations arising from thermal stresses were predicted using (5 m  5 m) two-dimensional (2D) finite
element (FE) plane strain analysis coupled with a model for rock mass expansion due to freezing of pore water.
A new and simple method to minimize displacement proportional to temperature (due to thermal response ofchert rock mass and sensor) was proposed. By applying the method, the corrected displacement, u, can be wellrecognized. Under u, clear rock mass movement, which could be related to fracture growth was observed. In
addition, progressive fracture opening and closure were noted. Results from this study indicate insignificant
influences of weather conditions on fracture/rock mass movement. Furthermore, under numerical analysis (FE),in the rock mass model (with 1-m deep fracture), tensile stresses that were large enough to induce fracture
growth appeared at the fracture tip when temperature lowered. This research suggests that freezing effects on
deformation of chert rock mass are insignificant, and we tentatively suggest that thermal fatigue predominantly
caused the permanent fracture deformations.

1

Introduction

Unprecedented catastrophic geohazards continue to affect our daily lives, by causing major fatalities, major loss
in terms of economics and extensive damage of property. For example, in Japan, greater than 70% of the land issloping ground, and to some extent fatal accidents have occurred in the past due to large-scale slope collapse
onto roads and railways, disrupting transportation and normal daily activities (Saito 1965, 1969, Shiotani 2003).
As a result, ensuring the stability of rock slopes is a major priority.
In a broad sense, numerous factors contribute to rock slope destabilization. Nicolson & Hencher (1997) discuss
agents of rock slope deterioration, which include physical and chemical processes, e.g., stress release, cycles ofwetting and drying, etc (Matsuoka 2008). They suggested that these mechanisms could cause dilation of existing
open and incipient discontinuities allowing ingress of water, rock fragments, organic material, and otherdamaging elements, hence destabilizing rock slopes. More importantly, the presence of fractures could also
affect rock mass strength and increase ingress of water thereby causing instability.
In cold regions, cycles of freezing and thawing could cause rock slope instabilities (Matsuoka 2001, 2008,
Nicholson & Nicholson 2000). Murton et al. (2006) introduced the concept of rock fracture and crack growth byice segregation in cold regions. In line with that, Matsuoka (2008) reinforces ice segregation as emanating fromlong-term slowing freezing.
Thermal effects on rock mass deformation are also a practical concern. Ishiguro & Nakaya (1986) and Waragai(1998) mentioned that the possibility of crack/fracture initiation due to temperature variations must be taken into
consideration for structural safety: temperature fluctuations in the rock mass could be caused by external weatherconditions or by heat generation in the sub-surface environment. Therefore, it is essential to understand fracture
behaviour under various conditions, especially under temperature changes (Kostak et al. 1998).
In this paper, a 767-day-long displacement and temperature record for a natural rock slope in Iwate prefecture(Shimohei district, Kawai village) in Japan is described (Fig. 1a). Fracture displacement sensors were installedon the surface of a natural rock slope for continuous measurement of rock slope deformations. A new and simple
method was proposed to reduce the apparent displacements (masking the true rock mass displacements) so that
we could establish more accurate displacements. The thermal behaviours of a rock mass and a rock slope, bothwith a one-metre deep fracture subjected to temperature variations, were numerically analyzed. Important
thermal deformation characteristics were deduced from the field measurements and numerical results.

aShimohei district

Sea of Japan
Iwate Prefecture

Site of investigation

Pacific Oceanb
Fracture displacement sensor, ch
4

c

5

6

3

To data logger

Strain gauge
Rock surface

2()

Thermometer

Bolts fixing
sensor to
rock surface(+)
160 ~ 280 mm

1

Fractures
Data logger

Rain gauge

Fracture with aperture in rock mass

Snow depth indicator

Figure 1.

2

Not to scale(a) Topographic view for the investigation site, (b) Schematic diagram of natural rock slope showing
layout of fracture displacement sensors and meteorological equipments, and (c) Setting of fracture
displacement sensor.

Site investigation

A field investigation was conducted on a natural rock slope on a south-facing mountain side in Iwate prefecture(Shimohei district, Kawai village) in Japan (Fig. 1a). The topography of the steep rock slope with a dip (> 65o) is
also shown in Figure 1a. Geologically, the rock slope consists of a chert block with some spatially distributed
slates; both rocks are severely jointed within the North Kitakami Belt, the accretionary wedge. This area islocated in cool temperate zone, with relatively moderate snowing winter and high humidity most of the time.

Six surface fracture displacement sensors (ch1–ch6) were installed on the surface of natural rock slope as shownin Figures 1b and 2. The fracture displacement sensors (Kyowa, BCD-5B model) had an operating range of 10
to 60 oC, a measuring range of 5 mm, and a rated output of 1 mV/V (2000  10-6). Weather conditions
namely, air temperature, humidity, snowfall, and rainfall were recorded from 9 November 2006 to present. Datathrough 14 December 2008 were analyzed. Data from all the instruments were recorded automatically at 30minute intervals using a data logger (CR series, Campbell Scientific).

ch1

ch2

ch3

Large apertureLong bolting

ch4

Figure 2.

3

ch5

ch6

(a) Fracture displacement sensors (ch1–ch6) installed on surface of natural rock slope in Iwate
prefecture (Japan).

Interpretation of field data

Variations of fracture displacement (u) and air temperature (Ta) for the natural rock slope for each channel are
shown in Figure 3. From observation, maximum and minimum temperatures achieved were 23 oC and 4.1 oC,
respectively (ch1, Fig. 3). Roughly, temperature-induced displacement varied sinusoidally with temperature,indicating thermal expansion/contraction (all channels, except ch2 in Fig. 3). This means other displacementsthat occur (e.g., sudden displacement trend changes), may be due to external factors/processes affecting
fracture/rock mass movement (Nicolson & Hencher, 1997).
For ch1, in the range t  257–286 days, the fracture/rock mass moved (ch1 in Fig. 3). It occurred during thesummer period from 23 July 2007 to 21 August 2007. A sharp displacement of 0.2 mm was recorded. This
displacement was not temperature-induced as illustrated with ch1 in Figure 4. Furthermore, there was little rain
0–2.2 mm/day (see t  257–286 days in Fig. 5a) and humidity was generally high ( 80%) as evidenced in
Figure 5b. Fracture displacement sensor, ch2, was installed on a highly fractured rock mass (see ch2, Fig. 2). It
gave variations of displacement significantly different from all the other channels (ch2 in Fig. 4). Ch2 has apositive slope, whilst the other channels have a negative slope (Fig. 4). The close linear relationship reflected in
ch3 and ch5 (R2 = 0.98 and 0.96), shows closeness to elastic (recoverable) deformations (Fig. 4). Ch4 and 6
recorded some permanent deformations of 0.126 mm and 0.187 mm, respectively, from the start (S) to end (E) of
monitoring (Fig. 4).

To some extent, the observed displacement data contain displacement components that are proportional totemperature caused by the thermal response of the rock mass, fracture displacement sensors and materials
fixing/holding the sensors onto the surface of rock slope. Therefore, attempts to minimize these apparent
displacement components were done in order to get the true displacement components due to external processes.

ch2

0

10

-0.1
0
-4.1 C
0

200

400

600

-10

o

0

10

-0.1
0
-0.2
-0.3

0

200

t (days)

ch4

0.1
0

10

-0.1
0
-0.2
600

u - Displacement (mm)

20

400

0
-0.2
0

200

-10

20
0.1
0

10

-0.1
0
-0.2
-0.3

0

200

400

400

600

-10

ch6

600

0.3

30

0.2
20
0.1
0

10

-0.1
0
-0.2
-0.3

-10

0

200

400

600

-10

t (days)t (days)

u

4

10

-0.1

-0.3

30

0.2

t (days)Figure 3.

0t (days)

0.3
Ta- Air temperature ( oC )u - Displacement (mm)

0.2

200

-10

20
0.1

ch5
30

0

600

0.2

t (days)

0.3

-0.3

400

u - Displacement (mm)

-0.3

o

0.1

Ta- Air temperature ( oC )

-0.2

20

30
Ta- Air temperature ( oC )

0.1

0.2

0.3
u - Displacement (mm)2030
Ta- Air temperature ( C )

23 C

0.2

u - Displacement (mm)

o

ch3

0.3
Ta- Air temperature ( oC )u - Displacement (mm)30

Ta- Air temperature ( oC )

ch1
0.3

Ta

Temporal variations in displacement u (daily average) and air temperature Ta (daily average) for six
surface fracture displacement sensors, ch1–ch6. A sharp movement (arrow) occurred at t = 257–286
days.

Corrected displacements

First and foremost, to minimize displacement components that are proportional to temperature, the following
equations were used:u '  u  AT a[1]

U a  u 'max  u 'min[2]

where u is measured displacement (one-day moving-average), u is the corrected displacement, A is thermal
correction coefficient, Ta is air temperature (one-day moving-average), Ua is displacement amplitude, umax is
maximum corrected displacement, and umin is minimum corrected displacement.

0.4
2

R = 0.74

E
S

0
-0.2

Fracture/ rock mass movement

-0.4
-10

0

10

20

0.2
0

S
E

-0.2
-0.4
-10

30

u = 0.0040Ta - 0.15
2
R = 0.63

0

10

ch4
u - Displacement (mm)u - Displacement (mm)2

R = 0.65

S

-0.2

0

10

-0.2

0

20

30

Ta- Air temperature ( oC )30

Ta- Air temperature ( C )ch62

R = 0.96

0.2
S
E

-0.2
-0.4
-10

20

0.4
u = -0.0067Ta + 0.021

0

10

o

0.4
u = -0.0036Ta + 0.027

-0.4
-10

E

ch5

0.4

0

S

0

-0.4
-10

30

R2 = 0.98

0.2

Ta- Air temperature ( C )Ta- Air temperature ( C )E

u = -0.0071Ta + 0.0042

o

o

0.2

20

u - Displacement (mm)

0.2

0.4
u - Displacement (mm)u - Displacement (mm)u - Displacement (mm)u = -0.0078Ta + 0.10

Figure 4.

ch3

ch2

ch1
0.4

0

10

20

30

Ta- Air temperature ( oC )u = -0.0074Ta - 0.060
R2 = 0.67

0.2
S

0
-0.2
-0.4
-10

E
0

10

20

30

Ta- Air temperature ( oC )Temporal variations in displacement u (daily average) against air temperature Ta (daily average) for
ch1–ch6. Note: S and E denote the start and end of monitoring.

Different thermal correction coefficients, A, were determined for ch1–ch6. To compute A, an iterative approach
was used, which is somewhat time-consuming. Intuitively, the thermal correction coefficient, A, that gave thelowest/minimum displacement amplitude was used to correct the displacement (Fig. 6). In other words, a low A
implies minimum temperature effects or erroneous displacements. With reference to Figure 6, A ranges from
0.005 to 0.007 mm/oC, except for ch2. For verification, the displacement sensor was calibrated in thelaboratory and A = +0.00721 mm/oC was obtained.
At ch2, A = 0.003 mm/oC, which is different from other channels (Fig. 6). This may be attributed to the highly
fractured nature of the surrounding rock mass within its vicinity (see ch2 in Fig. 2). Setup of the displacement
sensor was different from the other channels as shown by the elongated bolt supporting the displacement sensor(ch2 in Fig. 2). This sensor arrangement might have impacted on the real/true rock displacement at ch2.
Furthermore, at ch2, fracture tends to open or close with temperature variation with some time lag (ch2 in Fig.
7).

a

ch1

0.4

50

40
0.2
30
0
20

Rainfall (mm/day)u - Displacement (mm)uRainfall

-0.2
10

-0.4

0

200

400

600

0

t (days)

b

ch1

0.4

150

0.2
100
0

Humidity (%)

u - Displacement (mm)u
Humidity

-0.2
50
-0.4

0

200

400

600

t (days)Figure 5.

Temporal variations in displacements and meteorological factors for ch1: (a) displacement vs.
rainfall, (b) displacement vs. humidity. A sharp movement (arrow) occurred at t = 257–286 days.

Figure 7 shows that displacement variations at ch3 and ch5 are very small, and the possibility of fracture
propagation is very low. At ch4, the fracture is gradually opening, and the possibility of fracture propagation ishigh (ch4 in Fig. 7). This phenomenon may be explained by creep or sub-critical fracture growth (inelastic
fatigue) of the rock mass, possibly due to the presence of cyclic thermal stresses at the crack tip. In contrast, at
ch6 (Fig. 7), fracture is generally closing possibly due to viscous deformation.
Notably, relations between the corrected displacement and air temperature show near-horizontal patterns/slopes
for ch3 and ch5 (Fig. 8); this indicates insignificant rock mass deformations. In principle, abnormal deviations
from linearity are considered as fracture/rock mass movement caused by external processes, such as dilation ofexisting fractures by root growth, freeze-thaw and so forth (ch1 in Fig. 8). Small permanent deformations(0.0014–0.21mm) were observed in all the channels in two years (Fig. 8).
Essentially, after correction at ch1 in Figure 7 (u using A = +0.007 mm/oC), the steep increase in fracture
displacement (at t  36–40 weeks) became more apparent than in raw data (ch1 in Fig. 3). As an importantfeature, it was noted that the computed coefficients (0.005 to 0.007 mm/oC) are close to the determinedlaboratory coefficient (+0.00721 mm/oC), except for ch2. This means that fractures in chert rock mass have little
or insignificant deformations with temperature variation (Fig. 7).

Ua- Displacement amplitude (mm)1ch1, A = +0.007
ch2, A = -0.003
ch3, A = +0.007
ch4, A = +0.005
ch5, A = +0.006
ch6, A = +0.005

0.8

0.6

0.4

0.2
minimum Ua

0
-0.01

0

0.01
o

A - Coefficient (mm/ C)

0

40

60

80 100

-10

o

-0.1
0
-0.2
-0.3

0

20

20
0.1
0

10

-0.1
0

'

-0.2
-0.3

0

20

40

60

80 100-10

u - Corrected displacement (mm)0.2

Ta- Air temperature ( C )(A = +0.005)
30
Fracture opening

'

ch4

0.3

ch5
0.3

80 100

-10

10

-0.1
0
-0.2
-0.3

0

20

(A = +0.006)
30

20
0.1
0

10

-0.1
0
-0.2
-0.3

0

20

40

60

80 100-10t (week)

u'

40

60

80 100-10t (week)

0.2

t (week)

Figure 7.

60

0t (week)ou - Corrected displacement (mm)t (week)

40

20
0.1

ch6

(A = +0.005)
30
Fracture closing

0.3
0.2

o

20

10

u' - Corrected displacement (mm)00Ta- Air temperature ( oC )

'

-0.2

0.1

0.2

Ta- Air temperature ( oC )

-0.1

20

(A = +0.007)
30

20
0.1
0

10

-0.1
0
-0.2
-0.3

Ta- Air temperature ( C )

10

0.2

ch3
0.3

'

0

30

u - Corrected displacement (mm)0.1

ch2 (A = -0.003)
0.3

Ta- Air temperature ( C )

20

-0.3

Ta- Air temperature ( C )

0.2

'

30
o

u - Corrected displacement (mm)ch1 (A = +0.007)
0.3

u - Corrected displacement (mm)Displacement amplitude Ua vs. thermal correction coefficient A, for six surface fracture
displacement sensors, ch1–ch6. Symbol , depicts points of minimum temperature effects.

Figure 6.

0

20

40

60

80 100-10t (week)Ta

Temporal variations in corrected displacement u (moving averaged) and air temperature Ta (moving
averaged) for ch1–ch6.

0
-0.1

fracture/ rock mass movement

-0.1

S
E

-0.2

permanent displacement

0.2 = 0.10 mm
E
0.1
0

S

-0.1

-0.3
-10

0
10
20
30
o
Ta- Air temperature ( C )ch5 (A = +0.006)
0.3
0.2
0.1
0

0.039 mm

S
E

-0.1
-0.2

'

-0.2
-0.3
-10

0
10
20
30
o
Ta- Air temperature ( C )0.2
0.0014 mm

0.1

S

0
E

-0.1
-0.2
-0.3
-10

0
10
20
30
o
Ta- Air temperature ( C )ch6 (A = +0.005)
0.3
0.2
0.1

permanent displacement= 0.21 mm

S

0
-0.1
-0.2

E

'

ch4 (A = +0.005)
0.3

u - Corrected displacement (mm)

0
10
20
30
o
Ta- Air temperature ( C )'u - Corrected displacement (mm)

-0.3
-10

Figure 8.

50.086 mm

0

'

-0.2

0.1

ch3 (A = +0.007)
0.3

'

S

0.2

u - Corrected displacement (mm)E

ch2 (A = -0.003)
0.3

u - Corrected displacement (mm)0.1

u - Corrected displacement (mm)0.047 mm0.2'

u - Corrected displacement (mm)ch1 (A = +0.007)
0.3

-0.3
-10

0
10
20
30
o
Ta- Air temperature ( C )

-0.3
-10

0
10
20
30
o
Ta- Air temperature ( C )Temporal variations in corrected displacement u (daily average) and air temperature Ta (daily
average) for ch1–ch6. Note: S and E denote the start and end of monitoring.

Numerical simulation of rock slope deformation

To get a better insight into the deformation of a fracture under temperature variation, numerical analyses for arock mass with a one-metre deep fracture under temperature variations were carried out using (5 m  5 m) twodimensional plane strain analysis coupled with the fundamental heat transfer equation using the Crank-Nicolson
method (Crank 1975, William et al. 2007).
Two boundary conditions were used; confined and unconfined conditions to simulate different in-situ conditions
under elastic and elasto-plastic finite element analysis as shown in Fig. 9 (Timoshenko & Goodier 1969). To
simulate temperature in the field, two patterns of transient heat analysis (variable temperature boundary) were
exclusively applied on the top rock surface under confined and unconfined conditions for duration of 52 weeks.
The first temperature pattern had a positive temperature variation (7.8–32.2 oC), with an initial rock masstemperature (Tref) of 20 oC applied. The second temperature pattern had positive and sub-zero temperatures(2.2–22.2 oC), with an initial temperature of 10 oC applied as the temperature of rock mass. With reference toFig. 10, we defined:   T[3]

where ε is the thermal strain due to temperature variation, α is the thermal expansion coefficient of rock; T is
the change in temperature. It was assumed that rock expands from T1 to T2 due to freezing of pore water, where
T1 is the temperature at which freezing starts; T2 is the temperature at which freezing finishes (Fig. 10).

a

442

Rock surface

A

Fracture
y
x

5m

B

5m
Symmetrical axis
Case 1: side AB is confined.
Case 2: side AB is unconfined.

Figure 9.

Finite element mesh configuration used in numerical simulation for confined and unconfinedboundary conditions: Note: 442 is node number that represents the beginning of the fracture at therock surface. The fracture has some aperture.

Strain, εεf

Tref (Reference/Initial temperature)

1

α

α
1
T1
()

T2

0

Expansion due tofreezing of porewater

Figure 10. Model for expansion due to freezing of pore water.

Temperature, T(+)

5.1 Analytical model and conditions
A two-dimensional finite element mesh was generated (864 triangular elements, 467 nodes). The thermal
displacements in the x-direction under elastic analysis (uxe) and elasto-plastic analysis (uxep) were calculated byconsidering nodal displacements of the fracture at the rock surface (node 442) as shown in Fig. 9. Stress in the xdirection (sigx/x), normal to the fracture axis was mainly considered; it is these stresses that have a highpossibility of causing fracture propagation. The model is symmetrical about the y-axis, and tensile stresses aretaken as positive () whilst compressive stresses as negative () in these numerical analyses. Positive
displacement means fracture opening and negative displacement means fracture closure (Fig. 1c). A total of 8
numerical simulations were performed; these are elastic and elasto-plastic analyses (confined and unconfined)
under the two transient temperature patterns as mentioned above. The rock mass is assumed to be homogeneousand isotropic, and the properties of the rock mass used in the FE analyses are as in Table 1.
Table 1.

Properties of rock mass used in numerical model.

Property

SymbolYoung’s modulusE

110 (GPa)

Poisson’s ratio



0.2a

Uniaxial compressive strengthc

181 (MPa)m

Angle of internal friction



30oa

Friction angle of rupture plane



30oa

Tensile strength (intact)t20.4 (MPa)m

Residual tensile strengtht

0 (MPa)a

Thermal conductivity

K

7.40 (W/ m K)m

Specific heatc995 (J/ kg K)m

Density2636 (kg/m3)mExpansion coefficientα7.94  10-6 (K-1)a

Effective porosity



0.8%m

Volumetric ice expansion due to freezing

v

9%a

Linear expansive strain due to freezing

f0.00036a

Temperature at which freezing starts

T1

0 oCa

Temperature at which freezing finishes

T2–30 oCammeasured.

aassumed.

*2 is used because of plane strain analysis.

Value

Formulam(  v)/2*

6

Simulation results and discussion

Thermal displacements under elastic (uxe) and elasto-plastic conditions (uxep) were computed, and the stability of
the natural rock mass was then assessed by analysing displacement from the numerical simulations.

6.1 Elastic analysis
Elastic-confined conditions under positive temperature (7.8–32.2 oC) were simulated as shown in Figure 11. As
temperature increased, the rock mass expanded, (e.g., at maximum temperature 32.2 oC, there is rock mass
expansion) as shown in Figure 11a. Initially, a slight aperture is assumed for the fracture so that the expansion isallowed. Expansion of rock mass across the fracture axis (Fig. 11a) practically means fracture closure. At thefracture tip, compressive stresses were observed, in which stress in the x-direction was less than the uniaxial
compressive strength (x < c); therefore no compressive failure was observed (Fig. 11b). As temperature
decreased, the rock mass contracted (e.g., at minimum temperature 7.8 oC, rock mass contracted) as illustrated in
Figure 11c, thereby causing the fracture to open. Large tensile stresses around 30.8 MPa, in which stress in the xdirection was greater than the tensile strength of intact rock (x > t) were observed at the fracture tip (Fig. 11d).
This condition could lead to fracture propagation, thereby deepening the fracture into the rock mass (Waragai1998).

a32.2 oCb32.2 oC

fractureaxis

Rock mass expansion

Compressive stress
distribution in the vicinity offracture tip

c

7.8 oCd

7.8 oCfractureaxis

Rock mass contraction

Tensile stress distribution in thevicinity of fracture tip

Figure 11. Calculated results of Elastic-confined FE model: (a) Temperature distribution in rock mass at
maximum temperature, 32.2 oC, (b) Stress in x-direction (sigx/x) at 32.2 oC, (c) Temperature
distribution in rock mass at minimum temperature, 7.8 oC, and (d) x at 7.8 oC. Note: Deformation ismagnified  1000.

Similarly, elastic-unconfined conditions within (7.8–32.2 oC) were analyzed. For brevity, it was also found thatfracture tends to close and open with temperature increase and decrease, respectively. At minimum temperatureof 7.8 oC, small tensile stresses of 13.2 MPa (x < t) appeared at fracture tip (Table 2); therefore fracture
propagation is unlikely to occur. In a brief summary, elastic-confined conditions within the 2.2 to 22.2 oC
temperature range and elastic-unconfined conditions within the 2.2 to 22.2 oC temperature range are shown in
the Table 2. The maximum tensile stress generated (29.2 MPa) at 2.2 oC is smaller compared to that at
minimum temperature of 7.8 oC (30.8 MPa), as shown in Table 2. This is due to expansion of rock mass as aresult of freezing of pore water at sub-zero temperatures, which led to fracture closure, hence reducing tensilestresses around fracture tip (Murton et al. 2006).
Notably, for elastic-unconfined conditions within the 2.2 to 22.2 oC temperature range, the lowest tensilestresses (12.4 MPa at 2.2 oC) were generated at fracture tip (Table 2). Because of unconfinement, tensilestresses tend to be distributed more broadly within the unconfined rock mass, rather than in confined conditions,hence the smaller tensile stresses generated at the fracture tip.
Table 2.

Maximum tensile stress results under elastic analysis.
Elastic analysis

Temperature range

Boundary conditions
ConfinedoUnconfinedo7.8–32.2 C

30.8 MPa at 7.8 C

13.2 MPa at 7.8 oC–2.2–22.2 oC

29.2 MPa at –2.2 oC

12.4 MPa at –2.2 oC

6.2 Elasto-plastic analysis
To understand the behaviour of chert rock mass, a different constitutive model (elasto-plastic) was used. Elastoplastic confined conditions under the same temperature range as in elastic analysis were used. Only confinedconditions in which tensile stresses exceeded the tensile strength (x > t) are shown. For brevity, no element
failures were observed in unconfined conditions. Remarkably, at minimum temperature 7.8 oC (Fig. 12a), there
was tensile failure of 6 elements around the fracture tip. Similarly, for elasto-plastic confined conditions at 2.2oC, tensile failure of 4 elements occurred at the fracture tip (Fig. 12b).

7

Concluding remarks

To get better insight into the causative agents of rock falls, natural rock slope deformation across fractures in achert rock mass was monitored using six surface fracture displacement sensors, and those arising from thermal
stresses were predicted using two-dimensional finite element analysis. Using the new and simple proposed
method (Eqns. [1] and [2]), the deformations can be divided into two parts: 1) those proportional to temperature
variation, and 2) the other component u(corrected displacement). By minimizing the first component (due tothermal response), the u can be well recognized. After thermal correction of field data, under u, ch1 gave a clear
rock mass movement, which could be related to fracture growth (see ch1, Fig. 8). Ch3 and 5, exhibit very small
temperature-induced permanent fracture displacements (due to thermal change) over a period of over two years.
Ch4 was gradually opening whilst ch6 was generally closing. Insignificant influences of weather conditions on
fracture/rock mass movement were observed.
Using numerical analyses, in the rock mass model (Fig. 9), tensile stresses that were large enough to induce
fracture growth appeared at the fracture tip when temperature lowered. This research suggests that freezingeffects on deformation of chert rock mass are insignificant, and we tentatively suggest that thermal fatigue
predominantly caused the permanent fracture deformations. Further details of numerical analyses are found in
Mufundirwa et al. (2011). The yields from this study allow us to expand on our future investigations into theprecursors leading to these rock falls.

aTensile failure at 7.8 oC

Six elements failed in tension in
the vicinity of fracture tipbTensile failure at 2.2 oC

Four elements failed in tension
in the vicinity of fracture tip

Figure 12. Calculated results of Elasto-plastic confined FE model: (a) Element failure at minimum temperature
7.8 oC and (b) Element failure at minimum temperature 2.2 oC. Note: Deformation is magnified 
1000.

8

References

Crank, J. (1975). The mathematics of diffusion. Oxford university press, Oxford, pp. 144–146.
Ishiguro, S., Nakaya, M. (1986). Temperature distribution analysis of concrete in fill dam gallery. Bulletin of the Universityof Osaka Prefecture, Ser. B 38: 35–43.
Kostak, B., Dobrev, N., Zika, P., Ivanov, P. (1998). Joint monitoring on a rock face bearing an historical bas-relief.
Quarterly Journal of Engineering Geology and Hydrogeology 31: 37–45.
Matsuoka, N. (2001). Direct observation of frost wedging in alpine bedrock. Earth Surface Processes and Landforms 26:
601–614.
Matsuoka, N. (2008). Frost weathering and rockwall erosion in the southeastern Swiss Alps: long-term (1994–2006)
observations. Geomorphology 99: 353–368.
Mufundirwa, A., Fujii, Y., Kodama, N., Kodama, J. (2011). Analysis of natural rock slope deformations under temperature
variation: A case from a cool temperate region in Japan. Cold Regions Science and Technology 65: 488–500.
Murton, J.B., Peterson, R., Ozouf, J. (2006). Bedrock fracture by ice segregation in cold regions. Science 314(5802): 1127–
1129.
Nicholson, D.T., Hencher, S.R. (1997). Assessing the potential for deterioration of engineered rockslopes, in: Marinos,
P.G., Koukis, G.C., Tsiambaos, G.C., Stournaras, G.C. (eds.), Engineering Geology and the Environment, Balkema,
Rotterdam, pp. 911–917.
Nicholson, D.T., Nicholson, F.H. (2000). Physical deterioration of sedimentary rocks subjected to experimental freeze-thaw
weathering. Earth Surface Processes and Landforms 25: 1295–1307.
Saito, M. (1965). Forecasting the time of occurrence of a slope failure. Proceedings of 6th International Conference on Soil
Mechanics and Foundation Engineering, Montreal, 2, pp. 537–541.
Saito, M. (1969). Forecasting time of slope failure by tertiary creep. Proceedings of 7th International Conference on Soil
Mechanics and Foundation Engineering, Mexico City, 2, pp. 677–683.

Shiotani, T. (2003). Evaluation of rock stability by means of acoustic emission. International Conference on Emerging
Technologies in Non-Destructive Testing, Greece.
Waragai, T. (1998). Effects of Rock Surface Temperature on Exfoliation, Rock Varnish, and Lichens on a Boulder in the
Hunza Valley, Karakoram Mountains, Pakistan. Arctic and Alpine Research 30: 184–192.
Timoshenko, S.P., Goodier, J.N. (1969). Theory of elasticity. McGraw-Hill, New York, 2nd edition.
William, H.P., Teukolsky, S.A., William, T.V., Brian, P.F. (2007). Numerical recipes, The art of scientific computing.
Cambridge University Press, New York, pp. 1045–1052.