## 3 Results
### Kinematic Analysis Results  
Kinematic analysis is an alternative set of techniques that can be used for the analysis of rock slope stability. In general, kinematic analysis refers to any empirical approach that addresses rockfalls and landslides based on the physical characteristics of the material involved, slope geometry, and geological structures present. The mapped dip and strike of the geological structures were distributed in an Excel spreadsheet and the data were exported to DIPS to generate sets. Six sets were developed, as documented in Table 3. The pole plots of the collected data are documented in Figure 8a, while the contour plot along with the mean discontinuity planes and face plane for the selected study area are shown in Figure 8b. Figure 7: Slope observation along Section 2: (**a**) rockfall occurrence, (**b**) stable zone and planar failure zone, (**c**) a stable stratified slope face, and (**d**) progressive planar failure. Following the results stated above, it has been observed in Figure 8b that the toppling slope failure occurs due to the rotation of the blocks or columns of rock on the slope, as indicated by [33]. A close look at the occurrence of the toppling failure across the slope was undertaken and it was revealed that the analysis of the slope met conditions to be classified as toppling failure. Over 90% of Set Four, representing geological conditions along one of the six R37 slopes, reflects toppling susceptibility. The failure region is confined within the friction cone but below the slip limit, which represents the critical zone for flexural toppling. Any poles in this region represent a risk of flexural toppling, as a near-horizontal pole represents a near-vertical plane with strata that dip into the slope face (pit slope), as observed in Figure 8b, above. A negligible percentage (less than 5%) of Sets Three and Four structural distribution falls within the toppling region, suggesting a slight susceptibility or minor occurrence of toppling failure. Such results also concur with the empirical observation that only a few structures that were mapped satisfy the conditions for toppling failure to occur. In as much as kinematic analysis bases its predictions on structural information (dip and strike), the block geometry (base length and height) contributes to the failure. To further clarify, it has been envisaged that a block base length that exceeds the block height on an inclined jointed surface is prone to failure, as explained by the chart in [33]. [PERSON] [33] also documented that, for the interlayer slip to occur, the normal to the toppling plane must have a plunge (dip angle) less than the inclination of the slope face, which is less than the friction angle of the surface. Indeed, a similar situation has been observed and it is wise to conclude that toppling failure may be expected across three of the six selected R37 slopes. Nonetheless, toppling is not the only mode of failure predicted by kinematic analysis, as already outlined in the methodology. In Figure 9, it is demonstrated that the zone bounded by a generated curve shows a clear demonstration of planar sliding zone. Owing to that, the planar region shown in Figure 9 is governed by poles plotting within it; as such, the poles plotting within it denote planar risk. Furthermore, the visual estimate on risk indicated that 5% to 6% of the theoretical population of Joint Set 1 falls within the planar failure zone. Arguably, one may note that if the variability in friction angle is ignored, a planar risk of 6% is possible to achieve across Joint Set 1. The other sets do not reflect planar failure susceptibility. However, the analysis presented here is just a starting point for more detailed analysis and should always be accompanied by a more thorough field analysis in cases where a risk of failure is indicated. Since elements other than kinematics and friction angle may operate to promote stability (e.g., joint cohesiveness, joint persistence, etc.