In: Advances in Engineering Research.

Volume 2 ISBN 978-1-61324-709-9

Editor: Victoria M. Petrova 2012 Nova Science Publishers, Inc.

No part of this digital document may be reproduced, stored in a retrieval system or transmitted commercially
in any form or by any means. The publisher has taken reasonable care in the preparation of this digital
document, but makes no expressed or implied warranty of any kind and assumes no responsibility for any
errors or omissions. No liability is assumed for incidental or consequential damages in connection with or
arising out of information contained herein. This digital document is sold with the clear understanding that
the publisher is not engaged in rendering legal, medical or any other professional services.

Chapter 8

DESIGN OF ROCK SLOPES

USING CLASSIFICATION SYSTEMS

Abbas Taheri
School of Civil, Environmental and Mining Engineering
The University of Adelaide
North Terrace Campus
Adelaide, SA, Australia

1. INTRODUCTION
The estimation of rock slope stability is required by the civil and mining engineering
industries for a wide variety of projects, not only during the feasibility study but also during
the excavation and operating stages. Rock mass classification systems are then essential to
quickly and reliably estimate the stable angle of a required or existing slope or design the
proper slope support system.
Many rock mass classification systems have been developed in the past 100 years,
motivated initially by the first tentative formalizations of tunnel design. The two most
common systems that gained broad acceptance in the civil and mining industries are the
Geomechanics classification scheme, RMR (Bieniawski 1973) and the rock tunneling quality
index, Q (Barton et al. 1974). However, both systems were proposed essentially based on case
studies of underground excavations, while the number of surface case studies was
considerably limited (Bieniawski 1989). Besides the RMR and Q systems, Terzaghi (1946),
Wickham et al. (1972) and Palmstrom (1996) proposed also their own classification systems.
However, they remained specific to underground openings. Even though all the rock mass
classification systems mentioned above could be successfully applied in tunneling and
underground mining, most of them actually suffer strong limitations and shortcomings in case
of rock slope problems.
A number or researchers have attempted to correlate rock slope design with rock mass
parameters. Many of these methods have been subsequently modified by others and are now
currently being used for assessment the stability of rock slopes. After introducing the primary
454 Abbas Taheri

failure modes in rock slopes, beside Rock Mass Rating (RMR) system, a review of the most
commonly used rock mass classification systems which can be appropriate for assessment the
stability of rock slopes are presented in this chapter. Some topics, which difficult the effective
use of current rock mass classification system for rock slope stability, will be reviewed.
A geomechanical classification for slopes, named Slope Mass Rating (SMR), is
introduced in this chapter. Since its appearance in 1985, this classification has been used for
appraisals and preliminary studies in many countries. The SMR system provides adjustment
factors, field guidelines and recommendations on support methods which allow a systematic
use of geomechanical classification for slopes. Posterior to this introduction, the limitation
and shortcomings of this system in closely jointed rock masses and large-scale rock slopes
which generally characterize a rock slope as non-structurally controlled are discussed.
This chapter also presents a new rock mass classification system called Slope Stability
Rating (SSR). SSR can be very useful as a tool for the preliminary assessment of large-scale
and non-structurally controlled rock slope stability. SSR classification is a development of the
so-called Geological Strength Index (GSI) which has become known worldwide, and applied
by many engineers and researchers as a systematic tool to describe rock mass conditions and
determine the shear strength parameters. In addition to the modified Geological Strength
Index (GSI), SSR considers five additional parameters which were uniaxial compressive
strength of intact rock, rock type (lithology), slope excavation method, groundwater condition
and earthquake force.
Application of the GSI to design the stable excavation angle of the slopes has not been
possible to date. SSR gives some simple design charts which describe the relationships
between the rock slope height and the SSR value versus the stable slope angle, for different
factors of safety. The appropriate stable angle of the rock slope can be obtained accordingly.

2. TYPES OF ROCK SLOPE FAILURES

2.1. Introduction

The classification of the rock slope is generally based on the mode of the failure. In a
majority of cases, the slope failures in rock mass are governed by joints, and develop across
surfaces formed by one or several joints. Some common modes of failure which are
frequently found in the field are described below briefly. More detailed information may be
found in Wyllie and Mah (2005) and Kiliche (1999).

2.2. Plane Failure

A plane failure is a comparatively rare sight in rock slopes because it is only occasionally
that all the geometric conditions required to produce such a failure occur in an actual slope.
Plane failure takes place along prevalent and/or continuous joints dipping towards the slope
(Figure 1a). The following conditions should be met to create a plane failure:
a) The strike of the joint must be within r 20 D of the strike of the crest of the slope;
b) The toe of the joint must daylight between the toe and the crest of the slope;
 Design of Rock Slopes Using Classification Systems 455

c) The dip of the joint must be less than the dip of the slope; and
d) The mobilized shear strength in the joint is must be not enough to assure stability.

2.3. Wedge Failure

The possibility of wedge failure exists where two discontinuities strike obliquely across
the slope face and their line of intersection daylights in the slope face (Figure 1b). The wedge
failure depends on the joint attitude and conditions, and is more frequent than plane failure.
The size of the failure depends on the joint frequency, and is usually minor compared to plane
failure. The factor of safety of a sliding rock wedge increases significantly with a decrease in
wedge angle for any given dip of the intersection of its two joint planes.

2.4. Toppling Failure

Toppling failure involves rotation of columns or blocks of rock about a fixed base. This
failure occurs along a prevalent and/or continuous family of joints which dip against the
slope, and with strike near-parallel to the slope face (Figure 1c). Toppling failure occurs when
the weight vector of a block of rock resting on an inclined plane falls outside the base of the
block.

2.5. Circular Failure

It occurs along a surface which only partially develops along joints, but mainly crosses
them. These failures can only happen in heavily jointed rock masses with a very small block-
type size in relation to the scale of the slope and/or very weak or heavily weathered rock
(Figure 1d). It is essential that all the joints are oriented favorably so that large-scale plane or
wedge failure is not possible.

2.6. Effect of Scale and Structures

As discussed earlier, the geological structure is obviously one of the most important
factors governing the slope stability. When the size and spacing of the structures in relation to
the height of the slope is large, structurally controlled failures such as plane, wedge or
toppling failures, dominate in rock slopes. While this may be true for slopes with large scale
structural features, it does not necessary apply to a rock mass with many, but smaller,
discontinuities. Figure 2, shows two rock slopes, one of 10m and one of 100m. Both slopes
have a joint spacing of 2m. Therefore, as show previously by Douglas and Mostyn (1999),
Liao and Hencher (1997) and Sjoberg (1999), the block size is critical in deciding the mode
of the failure. The smaller the block size (when compared to slope height) the more likely
rock mass failure would be the dominant failure mechanism.
456 Abbas Taheri

(a)

Df & Ds

(b)

Df
Di & Ds
(c)

Df & Dt

(d)

Randomly
oriented joints

Pole concentrations Df: dip direction of face

Ds: direction of sliding
Slope face
Dt: direction of toppling
Discontinuities plane corresponding Di: dip direction of line
to centers of pole concentrations of intersection

Figure 1. Main types of block failures in slopes, and structural geology conditions likely to give rise to
these failures: (a) plane failure; (b) wedge failure; (c) toppling failure; and (d) circular failure.
 Design of Rock Slopes Using Classification Systems 457

Figure 2. 10m and 100m height slopes with block size of 2m.

Therefore, based on the scale effects and geological conditions discussed above, slope
failure can be either structurally controlled (i.e. plane, wedge or toppling failure) along
discontinuity surfaces or non-structurally controlled (i.e. circular failure) through the rock
mass. Consequently, two types of the failure are likely to happen:

a) The slopes in hard jointed rocks, where the size and spacing of the discontinuities in
relation to the scale of the project is large (Figure 3a) are called structurally
controlled. In this case, slope stability is controlled by geological features such as
bedding planes and joints that divide the rock into a discontinuous mass and the
potential for failure is dependent on the presence and orientation of discontinuities,
and shear strength along them. Under these conditions, one or more of the
discontinuities normally defines the slide surface.
b) The slopes in closely jointed or highly weathered rock, when the joint spacing is
small in relation to the scale of the project in question are called non-structurally
controlled. In closely jointed media (Figure 3b), or randomly jointed with rather
small persistence (Figure 3c), it seems appropriate to assume that the material is
approximately isotropic and homogeneous, i.e. there are no clearly defined joint
planes or joint sets which control the form of the failure mode. In these rocks, the
individual particles of rock mass are very small compared to the dimension of the
slope (Sonmez et al., 1998). When the rock mass contains a number of discontinuity
sets, having relatively small spacing in relation to the slope size, the slide surface is
free to find the line of least resistance through the slope and failure can occur along a
shear surface similar to those observed in soil slopes. Therefore, the required
conditions for a circular failure are mostly satisfied in heavily jointed rock masses.
458 Abbas Taheri

a)

b)

c)

Figure 3. Different conditions of discontinuities in a rock slope consider to scale: a) jointed rock mass;
b) closely jointed rock mass; c) randomly jointed rock mass with small persistence and no clearly
defined joint planes.
 Design of Rock Slopes Using Classification Systems 459

3. ROCK MASS RATING (RMR)

3.1. Concept of RMR System

Bieniawski (1973) introduced a rock mass classification called the Geomechanics

Classification or the Rock Mass Rating (RMR) system. RMR is probably the most commonly
used rock mass rating system to evaluate the stability of geo-structures. The rating system
was based on Bieniawskis experience in shallow tunnels in sedimentary rocks. This
classification was modified over the years based on new case histories mostly from
underground projects (Bieniawski, 1974, 1975, 1976, 1989). The discussion which follows is
based upon the 1989 version of the classification (Bieniawski, 1989).
When applying this classification system, one divides the rock mass into a number of
structural regions and classified each region separately. The RMR system uses the following
six parameters, whose ratings are added to obtain a total RMR value.
i. Uniaxial compressive strength of rock material;
ii. Rock Quality Designation (RQD);
iii. Spacing of discontinuities,
iv. Condition of discontinuities;
v. Groundwater conditions; and
vi. Orientation of discontinuities.
The first five parameters (i-v) represent the basic parameters (RMRbasic) in the
classification system. The sixth parameter is treated separately because the influence of
discontinuities orientations depends upon engineering application. Table 1 shows the first five
parameters of the RMR (1989) classification. Individual rate for each parameter is obtained
from the property of each parameter. The weight of each parameter has already considered in
the rating, for example, maximum rating for joint condition is 30 while for rock strength is
15. The overall basic RMR is the sum of individual rating. RMR may be defined as follows:

RMR RMRbasic  adjusment rating for discontinuities orientation, (1)

RMRbasic 6 parametersi  ii  iii  iv  v rating. (2)
The adjustments rating for discontinuity orientation for slopes in given as follows:
Very favorable 0
Favorable -5
Fair -25
Unfavorable -50
Very unfavorable -60

3.2. Application of RMR in Slope Stability

RMR system is the most common system which gained broad acceptance in the civil and
mining industries. Consequently, it applied widely over the years to characterize rock mass
structures. As mentioned earlier in the 1976 version of RMR system an adjustment rating for
460 Abbas Taheri

discontinuities orientations in rock slopes were proposed. This was the only application of
RMR in slope stability. Various researchers mentioned several limitations for application of
RMR classification system in rock slope problems. Some of these limitations are mentioned as
follows:
1) RMR system was proposed based essentially on case studies of underground
excavations, while the number of surface case studies was considerably limited
(Bieniawski, 1989).
2) No guidelines have been presented by RMR to define adjustment rating for
discontinuities orientations for the definition of each class. The reason for this lack of
use is probably the extremely high values of the adjustment rating value, which can
reach 60 points out of 100. Definition of this value in a wrong way can supersede by
far any careful evaluation of the rock mass. (Romana 1993, Pantelidis 2009).
3) Regardless of the fact that RQD is widely used as a rock mass characteristic, there
are several major disadvantages related to its definition and the drilling procedure. A
number of studies questioned the relevance of the Rock Quality Designation, RQD,
as a parameter in the characterization of rock masses (Ramamurthy and Arora, 1992;
Singh and Goel, 1999; Riedmuller and Schubert, 1999; Douglas and Mostyn, 1999
and Pantelidis 2009). Some of RQD limitations are briefly described as follows.
a. There is general correlation between RQD and defect spacing and as such the
need for both spacing and RQD in this method is questioned. For slopes of
several hundred meters and large scale rock masses this subject is more
significance.
b. Since the RQD is based on a fixed length of 100mm, the ability of the RQD to
give meaningful information reduces as slopes get larger.
c. Spacing of joints slightly less than 10cm, will give zero percent RQD, while a
spacing of slightly greater than 10cm, would result 100% RQD. Therefore
consideration of RQD in assessing the quality of rock mass is deceptive.
d. RQD is sensitive to direction of its measurement.
e. When spacing of joints is more than a meter, variation of spacing has not any
effect on RQD value. In very high rock slopes, this matter is more significance.
4) Rating for spacing of discontinuities considered RMR was derived based on
underground tunnels that were of the order of 10m span. It is likely that this rating
ceases to be valid in case of slopes of several hundred meters (Dauglas and Mostyn,
1999).
5) Robertson (1988) established that when RMR > 40 the slope stability is governed
both by orientation and shear strength of discontinuities, whereas, for RMR < 30 the
failure develops across the rock mass. However, he, Moon et al. (2001) and Brook
and Hutchinson (2008), also mentioned that the RMR system when applied to weak
rock masses does not give reliable results.
The above statements implies that, the scope for using RMR classification alone as a
design method in rock slope stability, particularly in large-scale slopes with a height of
several hundred meters and/or in weak rock masses, is very limited. Moreover, although the
RMR (1989) includes discontinuity orientation parameters, no reference exists for the type of
failure (plane, wedge or toppling).
 Design of Rock Slopes Using Classification Systems 461

Table 1. Basic rock mass rating (RMR) classification system (Bieniawski 1989)
Strength of Point load strength index > 10 4-10 2-4 1-2
intact rock (MPa) > 250 100-250 50-100 25-50 1-5 <1
1 material Uniaxial compressive strength 15 12 7 4 1 0
Rating (MPa)

RQD (%) 90 - 100 75 - 90 50 - 75 25 - 50 < 25

2 Rating 20 17 13 8 3

Joint >2 0.6 - 2 0. 2 - 0.6 0.06 - 0.2 < 0.06

spacing (m) 20 15 10 8 5
3
Rating

not slightly rough continuous continuous, continuous

continuous, surfaces, rough surfaces, slickensided surfaces, joints, soft
very rough highly highly or gouge < 5 mm gauge
Condition
surfaces, weathered, weathered, thick, or separation > 5mm
of joints
4 unweathered, separation separation 1-5mm thick, or
no separation < 1 mm < 1 mm 10 separation
30 20 > 5 mm
Rating
20
0
inflow per 10 m tunnel length None < 10 10-25 25-125 > 125
Ground- (l.min), or 0 0-0.1 0.1 - 0.2 0.2-0.5 > 0.5
water joint water pressure/major completely damp wet dripping flowing
5 condition in-situ stress, or dry 10 7 4 0
Rating general conditions at excavation 15
surface

3. SLOPE MASS RATING (SMR)

3.1. The Slope Mass Rating

The geomechanical classification SMR (Slope Mass Rating) enables the preliminary
assessment of the susceptibility of rock slopes to failure. The SMR value is obtained from
Bieniawskis basic RMR (Rock Mass Rating) through an adjustment factor and an
excavation factor. SMR is the most commonly used classification system for slopes and
since its appearance in 1985 (Romana 1985), has been used for appraisals and preliminary
studies in many countries. SMR describes as follows:
SMR = RMRbasic (F1. F2. F3) + F4 . (3)
Where, RMRbasic is evaluated according to Bieniawski (1989) by adding the ratings of five
parameters (i.e. strength of intact rock material, RQD, spacing or discontinuities, condition of
discontinuities and groundwater condition). The F1, F2 and F3, are adjustment factors related
to joint orientation with respect to slope orientation and F4, is the correction factor for method
of excavation. These factors may be defined as follows:
F1: Depends upon parallelism between joints and slope face strikes. It ranges from 0.15 to
1.0. It is 0.15 in cases when the angle between the critical joint plane and the slope face is
462 Abbas Taheri

more than 30o and the failure probability is very low, whereas, it is 1.0 when both are near
parallel. F1 could be defined using the following expression:
F1 1  sin A2 . (4)
Where, A denotes the angle between the strikes of the slope face and the joint.
F2: Refers to joint dip angle in the plane failure mode. Its values also vary from 0.15 to
1.0. It is 0.15, when the dip of the critical joint is less than 20o and 1.0 for joints with dip
greater than 45o. For toppling mode of failure, F2 remains equal to 1.0. F2 may be defined as
follows:
F2 tan2 B j . (5)
F3: Refers to the relationship between the slope face and joint dips. In plane failure, F3
refers to the probability of that joints daylight in the slope face. Conditions are called fair
when the slope face and the joints are parallel. Where the slope dips 10o more than the joints,
the condition is termed very unfavorable. For the toppling failure, unfavorable conditions
depend upon the sum of dips of joints and the slope.
In SMR classification proposed by Romana (1985), wedge failure is not discussed
separately. Anbalagan et al. (1992) has modified SMR to make it applicable for wedge failure
analysis. The unstable wedge is a result of combined effect of the intersection of different
joints. In the modified SMR the same method is applicable for plane and toppling failure. But,
in case of wedge failure, the plunge and the direction of line of intersection of the unstable
wedge are used instead. Thin wedges with low angles are likely to be stable and should not be
considered. Values of adjustment factors F1, F2 and F3, for different joint orientations are
given In Table 2.

Table 2. Values of adjustment factors for different joint orientations

(Romana, 1985)
Very Very
Case of slope failure Favorable Fair Unfavorable
favorable unfavorable
P
T

W > 30o 20-30o 10-20o 5-10o < 5o


P/W/T F1 0.15 0.40 0.70 0.85 1.00
P
W < 20o 20-30o 30-35o 35-45o > 45o

P/W F2 0.15 0.40 0.70 0.85 1.00
T F2 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
P
W > 10o 0-10o 0o 0 to -10o < -10o

T < 110o 110-120o > 120o
P/W/T F3 0 -6 -25 -50 -60
 Design of Rock Slopes Using Classification Systems 463

P: plane failure; T: toppling failure; W: wedge failure; Ds: slope strike; Dj: joint
strike; Di: plunge direction of line of intersection; Es: slope dip; Ej: joint dip and Ei: plunge
of line of intersection
F4: Refers to the adjustment for the method of excavation. It includes the natural slope
and the cut slope excavated by pre-splitting, smooth blasting, normal blasting, poor blasting
and mechanical excavation. Table 3, shows the adjustment rating F4 for different excavation
method, which has been obtained empirically as follows:
a) Natural slopes are more stable than excavated slopes, because of longtime erosion
and built-in protection mechanisms (vegetation, crust desiccation, etc.): F4 = +15.
b) Presplitting method increases slope stability for half a class: F4 = +10.
c) Smooth blasting, when well done, also increases slope stability: F4 = +8.
d) Normal blasting, when applies with sound methods, does not change slope stability:
F4 = 0.
e) Mechanical excavation of slopes usually by ripping can be done only in soft or
heavily fractured rock and is often combined with some initial blasting. The plane of
slope is difficult to finish. The method neither increases nor decreases the slope
stability: F4 = 0.
f) Poor blasting often with too much explosive, no detonation timing and/or non-
parallel holes, damages stability: F4 = -8.

Table 3. Adjustment rating for method of excavation (Romana, 1985)

Normal blasting or
Excavation Natural Smooth Poor
presplitting mechanical
method slope blasting blasting
excavation

F4 +15 +10 +8 0 -8

Table 4. Stability classes for SMR classification (Romana, 1985)

Class SMR Rock mass Stability Failures Support

description
I 81-100 Very good Completely None None
stable
II 61-80 Good Stable Some blocks Occasional
III 41-60 Normal Partially stable Some joints or Systematic
many wedges
IV 21-40 Bad Unstable Plane or big Important/
wedges corrective
V 0-20 Very bad Completely Big plane or Re-excavation
unstable soil-like or
circular
464 Abbas Taheri

3.2. Stability Classes

Romana (1993) defined five stability classes for SMR values which are described in
Table 4. It is inferred from this table that the slopes with SMR value below 20 may fail very
quickly. No slope with SMR below 10 was registered because such a slope would not
physically exist.

3.2. Support Measures

From the studied case histories, Romana (1993) proposed the more common support
measures for each SMR stability class (Table 5). In a broader sense, support measures for
SMR classes are given in Table 6.

Table 5. Recommended support measures for each stability class (Romana 1985)

Class SMR Support

Ia 91-100 None
Ib 81-90 None, scaling
IIa 71-80 (None, toe ditch or fence),
spot bolting
IIb 61-70 Toe ditch or fence/nets,
spot or systematic bolting
IIIa 51-60 Toe ditch and/or nets,
Spot or systematic bolting,
spot shotcrete
IIIb 41-50 (Toe ditch and/or nets), systematic
bolting/anchors, systematic
shotcrete,
toe wall and/or dental concrete
IVa 31-40 Anchors,
systematic shotcrete,
toe wall and/or concrete,
(re-excavation), drainage
IVb 21-30 Systematic reinforced shotcrete, toe
wall and/or concrete,
re-excavation, deep drainage
Va 11-20 Gravity or anchored wall,
re-excavation

(Less popular support measures are given in brackets)

 Design of Rock Slopes Using Classification Systems 465

Table 6. SMR suggested support measures (Romana 1985)

SMR Support measures

65-100 None, scaling
45-70 Protection
30-75 Reinforcing
20-60 Concreting
10-40 Drainage
10-30 Toe walls, re-excavation

3.3. Applications and Limitations

In its first publication in 1985, 28 slopes (both natural and excavated) were registered and
classified to develop the SMR classification, where six of the slopes failed and only one of
those was a rock mass failure. The highest known slopes tested against were up to 62m in
calcareous slopes. In 1988 (Collado and Gili, 1988), SMR was applied to 44 slopes during the
geotechnical studies for a new highway. The slopes had been recently excavated, none of
them had failed and most of them were small in height. Romana and Izquierdo (1988) also
applied SMR system to study the final slopes of a quarry and compared the results with actual
behaviour. The maximum height of the slopes was 35m. Moreover, in 2003 (Romana et al.
2003) the SMR system was reviewed with data from 87 actual slopes in Valencia, Spain, with
heights between 10 and 65 m and aged between several months and more than 100 years. In
addition, many researchers have applied SMR in many case records. The readers should pay
attention to the following limitations for SMR classification system:

a) In SMR classification system, no guidelines are given for the non-structurally

controlled type of failure. Consequently, in randomly jointed, closely jointed or
crushed rock masses (i.e. non-structurally controlled rock slopes), the adjustment
factors for discontinuities (F1, F2 and F3) used by SMR systems (Romana 1985) are
ignored and therefore the final rating depends only on the basic RMR value. In the
case of heavily jointed or weathered rock masses, the RMR value is very low and the
material behaves as soil. However, as mentioned earlier, the RMR system when
applied to weak rock masses does not give reliable results.
b) As the stability of slopes depends upon of joints along slope, the support measures
proposed by SMR might be over-estimated where the length of the joint along slope
is rather small consider to the height of the slope.
c) The SMR proposed support measures are generally applicable only in civil
engineering slopes. Since in large-scale mining slopes, generally the stability
achieves solely by reducing the open pit walls excavation angle and design of proper
blasting method.
d) SMR classification system does not take into account the geometry of the rock slope
i.e. the slope height and slope angle. This could be an important disadvantage in open
pit mines, where the depths of cut slopes are very large.
466 Abbas Taheri

The above statements implies that, in weak and/or heavily jointed rock masses or
randomly jointed rock masses without any clear joint set(s) where the non-structurally
controlled failure is satisfied (see Section 2.6), SMR classification system has limitations and
may gives misleading results. This situation mostly happens in large-scale rock slope (more
than 50m high) in mining operations and/or crushed rock slopes. Whereas, in medium to
strong rock masses with well defined joint set(s), where the structurally controlled failure is
satisfied (see Section 2.6) SMR can be applied to investigate rock slope stability. This
situation usually occurs in small-scale rock slopes (less than 50m high) and/or rock slopes
with dominant discontinuities.

4. SLOPE STABILITY RATING (SSR)

4.1. Introduction

A new rock mass classification system called Slope Stability Rating (SSR) is introduced
here. SSR classification system proposed by Taheri et al. (2006) based on some case records
in Iran and then modified in 2007 (Taheri and Tani, 2007). In this section beside the
classification system, design charts and case records, some guidelines for determination of
SSR in slope stability projects are presented.
SSR can be very useful as a tool for the preliminary assessment of large-scale and non-
structurally controlled rock slopes. SSR classification is a development of the so-called
Geological Strength Index (GSI) which has become known worldwide, and applied by many
engineers and researchers as a systematic tool to describe rock mass conditions and determine
the shear strength parameters. Application of the GSI to design the stable excavation angle of
the slopes has not been possible to date. SSR gives some simple design charts which describe
the relationships between the rock slope height and the SSR value versus the stable slope
angle, for different factors of safety. The appropriate stable angle of the rock slope can be
obtained accordingly.

4.2. The Slope Stability Rating (SSR)

The proposed Slope Stability Rating (SSR) is obtained from modified Geological
Strength Index (GSI) (Figure 4), by adding five additional parameters whose are effective on
the stability of fractured rock slopes (Table 7).
SSR = GSImodified + P1 + P2 + P3 + P4 + P5. (6)
Where:
P1 refers to uniaxial Compressive Strength (UCS) of intact rock. Since the intact rock
strength has a positive effect on the stability of rock slopes, positive values are considered for
the rating. Using Figure 5a, P1 values versus the UCS value may be determined.
P2 depends on rock type (lithology) and may be obtained from Table 8. In this table, the
rock quality improves with an increase in the rock group number. Therefore, similar to the
UCS parameter, positive rating values are considered for this parameter.
 Design of Rock Slopes Using Classification Systems 467

Figure 4. Modified GSI (Sonmez & Ulusay 2002).

P3 is a parameter which is related to slope excavation method, which has considerable

influence on rock mass conditions and on the stability of rock slopes. In particular, the
spacing of discontinuities will be strongly affected in that, depending on the blasting damage,
blasted slopes may have closer discontinuity spacing than natural slopes. This parameter is
chosen almost similar to the previously discussed F4 factor for SMR system. It may appear
obvious that natural slopes are more stable than excavated slopes. Then, presplitting method
and smooth blasting, if correctly performed, can be considered as provoking limited damage
to the slope. Normal blasting with sound methods may not reduce significantly the slope
stability either. On the other hand, poor blasting with too much explosives and no detonation
timing tends to reduce largely the slope stability while it is known that in case of spoil piles
468 Abbas Taheri

with high proportion of rock pieces, the stability of a completely disturbed rock mass
condition is very low. Accordingly, and similar to the SMR classification system (Romana
1985), positive or negative ratings are assigned to each excavation method.

50

40

Rating
30 a)

20

10

0
40 80 120 160 200
Strength of intact rock (MPa)
0

-5
Rating

-10 b)

-15

-20
0 20 40 60 80 100
Saturation of the slope (%)

-5

-10
Rating

-15 c)

-20

-25

-30
0.00 0.05 0.10 0.15 0.20 0.25 0.30 0.35 0.40
Horizontal earthquake accelaration (g)

Figure 5. Rating of parameters for the SSR classification system: a) Uniaxial compression strength of
intact rock; b) Groundwater condition and; c) Earthquake force.
 Design of Rock Slopes Using Classification Systems 469

P4 is Groundwater condition in the fractured rock slope. Water triggers instabilities in

rock cuttings either acting solely or in combination with other (triggering) factors, such as
earthquakes and diurnal temperature changes. Since the stability of rock slopes decreases in
presence of groundwater, a negative rating is assigned to this parameter. Using Figure 5b the
rating for each groundwater level can be calculated.
P5 is a parameter representing earthquake force. In seismically active regions,
earthquakes are a major trigger for instability of natural and excavated slopes. Therefore,
seismic effects are essential design considerations for slope stability. Similar to P4, the
earthquake force has adverse effects on the stability of surface structures. Thus, negative
ratings are assigned to this parameter, plotted in Figure 5c against the horizontal earthquake
acceleration.
The SSR value of a given rock slope is obtained after summation of the rating values of
all the parameters, as illustrated in Table 7.

Table 7. SSR (Slope Stability Rating) rock mass classification system

for preliminary evaluation of slope stability

Parameter Range of values

Modified GSI (See Fig 5)
Rating 0 - 100
Uniaxial compressive
0 -10 10 -25 25 - 50 50 - 100 100 - 150 150 - 200
strength (MPa)
Rating (P1) 0 7 18 28 37 43
Rock type (See Table 8) Group 1 Group 2 Group 3 Group 4 Group 5 Group 6
Rating (P2) 0 4 9 17 20 25
Slope excavation method Waste Poor Normal Smooth Presplitting Natural
damp blasting blasting blasting slope
Rating (P3) -11 -4 0 6 10 24
Ground- Ground- Dry 0 20 20 40 40 60 60 - 80 80 100
water water level % % % % %
from
bottom of
the slope
*100
Slope
height
Rating (P4) 0 -1 -3 -6 -14 -18
Earth-
Horizontal
quake 0 0.15 g 0.20 g 0.25 g 0.30 g 0.35g
acceleration
force
Rating (P5) 0 -11 -15 -19 -22 -26
470 Abbas Taheri

Table 8. Rock groups defined for SSR classification system

Rock
Rock type Name of rocks
group
1 Sedimentary Clay shale, Mudstone, Claystone & Marl
2 Metamorphic Schists & Mylonites
Sedimentar Limestone shale, Dolomite, Limestone, Chalk & Siltstone
3
Metamorphic Slate, Phyllites & Marble
Sedimentary Anhydrite & Gypstone
4
Igneous Tuff, Basalt, Breccia, Dacite & Rhyolite
Sedimentary Breccia, Greywacke, Sandstone & Conglomerate
5 Metamorphic Hornfels
Igneous Dolerite, Obsidian, Andesite, Norite & Agglomerate
6 Igneous Granite, Granodiorite, Diorite & Gabbro

4.3. Guidelines for SSR Evaluation

4.3.1. Geological Strength Index (GSI)

The Geological Strength Index (GSI) was developed by Hoek et al. (1997) based upon
the visual impression on the rock mass structure. To provide a more quantitative numerical
basis for evaluating the GSI, this classification system was modified by Sonmez and Ulusay
(1999). Then, this quantitative GSI chart was slightly modified by Sonmez and Ulusay
(2002), and defined by fuzzy sets (Sonmez et al., 2003). In this latest version of the
quantitative GSI chart, a top row of intact or massive rock was included into the system
(Figure 5) as previously suggested by Marinos and Hoek (2000). To address the lack of
parameters to describe surface condition of the discontinuities and the rock
mass structure, the quantitative GSI chart (Sonmez and Ulusay, 2002) considers two terms,
namely, the structure rating, SR and the surface condition rating, SCR, as shown in
Figure 4. This GSI chart shown this figure is employed as a parameter to determine SSR
value.
Values of GSI which are related to both the degree of fracturing and the condition of
fracture surfaces might be determined as follows:
Surface condition rating, SCR: estimated from the right upper margin of the table given in
Figure 4, which may be obtained using the following expression:
SCR = Rr + Rw + Rf . (7)
Where, Rr , Rw and Rf denotes the rating for roughness, weathering and infilling, respectively.
Since the sum of the maximum ratings of these parameters is 18, the SCR axis in Figure 4 is
divided into 18 equal divisions.
Structure rating, SR: estimated from volumetric joint count (Jv), which is defined as the
sum of the number of joints per meter for each joint set present. Jv may be estimated by one
of the following expressions:
 Design of Rock Slopes Using Classification Systems 471

N1 N 2 N
Jv  " n , (8)
L1 L2 Ln
1 1 1
Jv  " . (9)
s1 s 2 sn
Where, N is the number of joints along a scanline, L is the length of the scanline, S in the true
spacing and n is the number of the joint sets.
To estimate Jv for heavily jointed rock masses with no identifiable structural pattern, the
following approach is advisable to estimate the number of the discontinuities in a rock mass
with a volume of 1 m3.
Nx Ny Nz
Jv   . (10)
L x L y Lz
Where, Nx, Ny and Nz are the number of discontinuities counted along the scanlines (Lx, Ly and
Lz ) perpendicular to each other. However, in some cases in can be difficult to find exposures
along which three scanline surveys in perpendicular directions can be carried out. In such
circumstances, by assuming the rock mass as homogeneous, Eq. (10) can be rewritten as
follows:
3
N
Jv . (11)
L
A figure shown in the left margin of Figure 4 can be used to assign a rating for SR of any
rock mass using the value of Jv.

Table 9. Classification of rock strengths (ISRM, 1981)

Approx. range of
uniaxial
Grade Description Field identification
compressive
strength (MPa)
Specimen can only be chipped with
R6 Extremely strong rock > 250
geological hammer.

Specimen requires many blows of

R5 Very hard rock 100-250
geological hammer to fracture it.

Specimen requires more than one below of

R4 Strong rock 50-100
geological hammer to fracture it.
Cannot be scraped or peeled with a pocket
R3 Medium strong rock knife, specimen can be fractured with 25-50
single firm below of geological hammer.
Can be peeled with pocket knife with
difficultly, shallow identifications made by
R2 Weak rock 5.0-25
firm below with point of geological
hammer.
Crumble under firm bellows with point of
R1 Very weak rock geological hammer and can be peeled by a 1.0-5.0
pocket knife.

R0 Extremely weak rock Indented by thumbnail. 0.25-1.0

472 Abbas Taheri

Groundwater condition in the slope Rating

Fully drained or Dry

-1

0-20 % saturated

-3

20-40 % saturated

-6

40-60 % saturated

-14

60-80 % saturated

-18

Fully saturated or
subjected to heavy surface

Figure 6. Ground water conditions in SSR classification system.

 Design of Rock Slopes Using Classification Systems 473

4.3.2. Strength of Intact Rock

The compressive strength of rock can be measured on core samples, or from index tests
applied to outcrops in the field. The point load test is an appropriate method to estimate the
compressive strength for rock slope design. The equipment is portable, and tests can be
carried out quickly and inexpensively in the field on both core and lump samples. If no
equipment is available to measure the compressive strength, simple field observations can be
used to estimate the strength with sufficient accuracy for most purposes. Table 9 (ISRM,
1981) describes a series of field index tests and observations of rock behavior, and gives the
corresponding range of approximate compressive strengths.

4.3.3. Rock Type (Lithology)

Rocks are precisely classified using various properties which are determined by
petrologists using microscopes and other complicated and sophisticated equipment. More
approximate, field terms are used by geologists in the field to identify rocks in outcrops. A
number of introductory geology textbooks are listed at the reference list of the chapter, which
might be used to identify the rocks, in the field, laboratory or at home (Zim et. al, 1957;
Sorrell and Sandstrom, 1973; Hamilton et. al, 1977 and Pough and Peterson, 1998 ).

4.3.4. Groundwater Condition

The saturation of the slope may be estimated by measuring the phreatic surface. Phreatic
surface may be determined by geophysical surveys or drilling boreholes and monitoring the
groundwater condition. Figure 6 shows the groundwater conditions ranging from dry or fully
drained to fully saturated and the relative ratings, which are produced almost similar to that
was used previously by Hoek and Bray (1981) to develop circular failure design charts. This
figure may be used to adopt the groundwater condition in each particular rock slope.

4.3.5. Excavation Method

The general condition for every blasting method is defined according to Romana (1993)
as follows:
Presplitting
A row of holes is drilled along the final face.
Each hole is carefully marked in the field.
Holes must be parallel (maximum 2% inclination).
Distance between holes is in order of 50-80 cm.
Charges are decoupled from borehole walls, leaving air space.
Charges are very light.
Row is fired before the main blast.
Smooth blasting
A row of holes is drilled along the final face.
Each hole is carefully marked in the field.
Holes must be parallel (maximum 2% inclination).
Distance between holes is in order of 60-100 cm.
Charges are very light.
474 Abbas Taheri

Row is fired before the main blast (sometimes using micro-delays).

Normal blasting
Each blast is done according to a previously fixed scheme.
Each hole is marked in the field.
Charges are kept to the minimum possible.
Blast is fired sequentially, using delays or microdelays.
Poor blasting
The blasting scheme is only a general one.
Charges are not the minimum possible.
Blast is not fired sequentially.
If blasting is done nominally in one of these categories but some condition is not fulfilled,
adjusting factor of the next lower one may be used.

Horizontal earthquake acceleration in each location may be determined from seismic

national maps in each country. Seismic Hazard Maps display earthquake ground motions for
various probability levels and are applied in seismic provisions of codes, design of
geotechnical structures, risk assessments, and other public policy. Figure 7 presents an
example of a seismic hazard zones map which may be used to determine P5 value in each
area.

Figure 7. United States seismic zones map (IVI International, Inc website).
 Design of Rock Slopes Using Classification Systems 475

400
375
350 30 35 40 45 50 55 60 65 70
325
300
275

Height (m)
250
225
a)
200
175
150
125
100
75
50
25
30 35 40 45 50 55 60 65 70 75 80 85 90 95
400
375
350 30 35 40 45 50 55 60 65 70
325
300
275
Height (m)

250
225 b)
200
175
150
125
100
75
50
25
35 40 45 50 55 60 65 70 75 80 85 90 95 100 105

SSR
400
375
350 30 35 40 45 50 55 60 65 70
325
300
275
Height (m)

250
225
200 c)
175
150
125
100
75
50
25
40 45 50 55 60 65 70 75 80 85 90 95 100 105 110

SSR
400
375
350 30 35 40 45 50 55 60 65 70
325
300
275
Height (m)

250
225
200 d)
175
150
125
100
75
50
25
45 50 55 60 65 70 75 80 85 90 95 100 105 110 115

SSR

Figure 8. Rock slope design chart based on SSR classification: a) F.S (factor of safety) = 1.0; b) F.S =
1.2; c) F.S = 1.3 and; d) F.S = 1.5.
476 Abbas Taheri

4.4. SSR Slope Design Charts

Figure 8 shows a number of design charts based on the SSR system. Each presents a set
of relationships between the slope height and the SSR value versus the safe slope angle
(between 30q and 70q), and for a given factor of safety: 1.0, 1.2, 1.3 or 1.5. As shown, the sets
of slope height - SSR relationships have similar shapes but are gradually shifted to the right
with an increase in the factor of safety, i.e. with more and more conservative designs. Using
the given design charts, knowing the SSR value of the rock slope, the safe slope excavation
angle versus slope height might be determined at different factors of safety.

4.5. Case Records

To establish the SSR classification system, firstly, nine slope case studies in Iran were
considered, with the geometrical and stability conditions listed in Table 10. Based on the
information obtained from site investigations, the SSR values of the slopes were determined
considering otherwise static conditions (i.e. zero rating for earthquake force parameter). Note
that among the 9 slope cases studied, two were failed and the other ones are in stable
conditions. Secondly, 37 cases histories from 13 open pit mines in Australia (Douglas, 2002)
were considered, as listed in Table 11. Each mine has several stable/unstable slopes denoted
as a, b, c, and so on. Groundwater conditions comprise three levels denoted as dry, moderate
and high. Since the case studies were obtained from open pit mines, the excavation method
was assumed to be normal blasting (production blasting). UCS and rock type rating were
obtained based on the information provided by Douglas (2002). The SSR values were finally
derived considering again static conditions (i.e. zero rating for earthquake force parameter).

Table 10. Summary of slope data from case studies in Iran

Slope
UCS Ground Excavation Height
Case Rock type GSI SSR angle Stability
(MPa) water method (m)
(deg)
Gole-Gohar
Schist 44 65 None Poor 76 60 60 Stable
mine
Dolomite 47 153 Little Poor 92 184 55 Stable
Iran-Kuh
Shale 28 50 None Poor 52 140 34 Stable
mine
Shale 33 50 None Poor 57 40 71 Failed

Emarat mine Shale 41 46 None Poor 59 35 67 Stable

Schist- 28 109 None Poor 76 35 67 Stable
Choghart
Marble-
mine 28 109 None Poor 76 63 35 Stable
Phyllite

Angooran
Shale 48 104 None Poor 83 180 45 Stable
mine
Karoon III Crashed
25 50 None Normal 58 110 50 Failed
hydropower limestone

Notice: Failure mode is all failed slopes is non-structural control and circular-shaped.
 Design of Rock Slopes Using Classification Systems 477

Table 11. Summary of slope data from case studies in Australia

(some information is taken from Dauglas, 2002)

Slope
UCS Ground Excavation Height
Case Rock type GSI SSR angle Stability
(m)
(MPa) water method (deg)

1a Saprolite/Basalt 49 3 None Normal 53 70 49 Stable

1b Saprolite/Basalt 46 3 None Normal 50 41 50 Failed
1c Saprolite/Basalt 49 3 None Normal 53 41 55 Failed
1d Saprolite/Basalt 50 3 None Normal 54 46 55 Failed
1e Saprolite/Basalt 48 3 None Normal 52 57 49 Failed
2a Saprolite/Basalt 55 5 None Normal 59 58 50 Stable
2b Saprolite/Basalt 54 5 None Normal 58 60 48 Stable
2c Saprolite/Basalt 56 5 None Normal 60 60 52 Stable
3a Volcanoclastics 35 13 Moderate Normal 38 20 39 Failed
3b Volcanoclastics 37 13 Moderate Normal 38 40 32 Stable
3c Volcanoclastics 37 13 Moderate Normal 38 60 31 Stable
4a Talc chlorite schist 41 30 Moderate Normal 54 70 44 Failed
4b Talc chlorite schist 40 30 Moderate Normal 53 120 35 Failed
4c Talc chlorite schist 41 30 Moderate Normal 54 120 38 Failed
4d Talc chlorite schist 45 30 Moderate Normal 58 150 31 Stable
4e Talc chlorite schist 45 30 Moderate Normal 58 150 35 Stable
5a Argilite 50-60 25-50 Moderate Normal 67 250 42 Failed
5b Argilite 50-60 25-50 Moderate Normal 67 107 37 Stable
5c Argilite 50-60 25-50 Moderate Normal 67 80 38 Stable
6a Schist 50 12 Moderate Normal 53 70 45 Failed
6b Schist 50 12 Moderate Normal 53 95 45 Failed
7 Mudstone/Siltstone 57 5 None Normal 61 38 39 Stable
8 Breccia 76 150 None Normal 133 200 65 Stable
9a Faulted breccia 40 60 High Normal 49 78 32 Stable
9b Faulted breccia 40 60 High Normal 49 50 34 Stable
9c Faulted breccia 40 60 High Normal 49 77 37 Failed
9d Faulted breccia 40 60 High Normal 49 60 40 Failed
10a Sheared siltstone 68 23 Moderate Normal 84 97 36 Stable
10b Siltstone 48 23 None Normal 70 157 48 Stable
10c Siltstone 48 23 None Normal 70 60 53 Stable
11 Siltstone 40 25 Moderate Normal 62 110 48 Failed
12a Shale 39 18 Moderate Normal 43 29 39 Stable
12b Shale 39 18 Moderate Normal 43 37 28 Stable
12c Shale 39 18 Moderate Normal 43 30 40 Failed
12d Shale 30 18 Moderate Normal 34 45 26 Failed
13a Granodiarite/breccia 70-80 100-150 None Normal 120 40 75 Stable
13b Granodiarite/breccia 70-80 100-150 None Normal 120 90 80 Stable

Notice: Failure mode in all failed slopes is non-structural control and circular-shaped.
478 Abbas Taheri

Figure 9 summarizes the SSR values obtained from the 46 case studies in Iran and
Australia with the SSR design chart for a factor of safety equal to 1.0. Note that a total of 28
slopes actually failed and the failure modes were non-structural i.e. thoroughly fractured rock
mass. It may be seen from Figure 10 that the case records mostly agree with the design curves
when factor of safety is equal to 1.0.
400
375 Failed,<30
30 35 40 45 50 55 60 65 70
350 Failed, 35-40
325 Failed, 40-45
300 Failed, 45-50
Height (m)

275
Failed, 50-55
250
Failed. >70
225
200 Stable, <30
175 Stable, 30-35
150 Stable, 35-40
125 Stable, 45-50
100
Stable, 50-55
75
Stable, 60-70
50
25 Stable, 70-80
30 35 40 45 50 55 60 65 70 75 80 85 90 95 100

SSR

Figure 9. Relationship between slope height and SSR value in function of the slope angle for the 46
case studies.

4.6. Application of SSR

As mentioned earlier, RMR and SMR rock mass classification which generally apply in
rock slope stability problems have some limitations. In particular, limitations arise from their
applications to closely jointed rock masses and from the lack of suitable design charts to
estimate the stable angle of the required slope. SSR classification system with its relevant
design charts can be applied as a useful empirical tool to evaluate the stability of heavily
jointed and/or large-scale rock slopes prior to the application of more sophisticated design
methods.
It is worth noting that, SSR classification system is not valid if the slopes are obviously
structurally controlled. Therefore, the SSR-based slope stability assessment should be
considered only once potential structurally controlled failures are investigated. Furthermore,
as SSR system mostly concerns overall or large-scale rock slope stability, it should be used
only in cases where some minor local instabilities are acceptable.

4. OTHER CLASSIFICATION SYSTEMS

In this section, some rock mass classification systems which tentatively used for
evaluating the stability of rock slopes are described briefly. However, they are not commonly
used by geo-engineers due to some limitations in using them in rock slopes.
 Design of Rock Slopes Using Classification Systems 479

4.1. Mining Rock Mass Rating, MRMR

Laubscher (1977, 1984 and 1990) developed a classification system, based on Bieniawski
(1973) that gave a basic rating from 0 (very poor) to 100 (very good). MRMR is presented in
Tables 12 & 13. The system changes some of the weightings of parameters and alters the
method of determining joint spacing and condition compared to Bieniawski (1973).
Laubscher assesses the rock joint spacing for one, two or three continuous joint
systems. A joint is continuous if its length is greater than one diameter of the excavation or
3m. It is also continuous if it is displaced by another joint, that is, joints are features that
define blocks of ground. Joints logged from boreholes are placed in three 30o dip ranges.
Experience is used to divide these ranges into farther joint sets.
Laubscher (1977) presents a table of stable slope angle versus MRMR independent of
slope height (Table 14). But no information with regard to the slope height, geology or failure
mode was provided.
In 1991 Haines and Terbrugge attempted to use the MRMR system for evaluating the
stability of rock slopes. For this purpose, based on some case histories from South Africa,
they proposed some design charts for rock slope problems. The slope design methodology is
presented in Figure 10 as a relation between slope height versus MRMR and with contours of
slope angle. Knowing the MRMR value of the rock mass, the proposed design charts may be
used for the engineering design of rock slopes.

Table 12. MRMR classification system (Laubscher, 1977)

RQD (%) 100-91 90-76 75-66 65-56 55-46 45-36 35-26 25-16 15-6 5-0
Rating 20 18 15 13 11 9 7 5 3 0

Rock 141- 135- 125- 110- 95-81 80-66 65-51 50-36 35-21 20-6 5-0
strength 136 126 111 96
(MPa)
Rating 10 9 8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1 0

Defect Depends on number of defect sets and spacing

spacing
Rating 30 - 0

Defect 45o 5o (see table 13)

condition
Rating 30 - 0

Inflow/10 m length 0 25 l/min 25-125 l/min 125 l/min

Ground- Joint water pressure/V1 0 0.0-0.2 0.2-0.5 0.5
water Description dry moist moderate severe
pressure problems
Rating 10 7 4 0
480 Abbas Taheri

Table 13. Defect condition rating for MRMR (Laubscher, 1977)

Parameter Description Percentage adjustment to

maximum rating of 30

Wavy unidirectional 90-99

Joint description
Curved 80-89
(large-scale)
Straight 70-79

Strained 85-99
Joint surface
Smooth 60-84
(Small-scale)
Polished 50-59

Softer than wall rock 70-99

Coarse hard-sheared 90-99
Fine hard-sheared 80-89
Course soft-sheared 70-79
Alteration zone & joint Fine soft-sheared 50-69
filing Gouge thickness < irregularities 35-49
Gouge thickness > irregularities 12-23
Flowing materials > 0-11
irregularities

Table 14. Stable slope angle versus MRMR (Loubscher, 1977)

MRMR 81-100 61-80 41-60 21-40 0-20

Slope angle (deg) 75 65 55 45 35

There are some limitations on use of Haines & Terbrugge (1991) design curves as
follows:
a) As this system was basically introduced for use in the assessment of support for
underground openings, assessment of MRMR when dealing with slopes is
questionable.
b) The data does not appear to indicate the validity of the design curves presented in
Figure 10.
c) The shapes of the interpreted design curves are broadly convex in shape and nearly
linear for slope heights up to 100m. However, a concave shape when the slope height
is low is expected.
d) The case records presented by Haines & Terbrugge (1991) are not related to unstable
slopes.
 Design of Rock Slopes Using Classification Systems 481

Figure 10. Design chart to determine slope angle using MRMR classification data (Haines &
Terbrugge 1991).

4.2. Rock Mass Strength, RMS

Selby (1980, 1982, 1993 and Moon and Selby 1983) developed the RMS system based on
correlations between RMS and stable slope angles of natural rock outcrops. The slopes were
located in New Zealand, Antarctica, the Namib Desert in Namibia and the margins of the
central plateau of southern Africa. The geology was included sedimentary sequences and
metamorphic (quartzite, gneiss, schist and marble) and igneous (dolerite, basalt and granite)
rock mass.
Selby (1980) incorporated eight factors in the RMS classification than Moon (1984)
modified to include seven parameters: strength or rock material, state of rock weathering,
spacing, orientation, width, length (continuity) and infilling of discontinuities, and outflow of
groundwater. Ratings are applied to each parameter, with the final rating being the sum of the
rating values (Selby 1993), with a maximum value of 100. The possible range of the total
RMS value spans five rating categories from very strong to very weak (Table 15). This
total RMS value then plotted against slope angle (T) to provide a strength-equilibrium
relationship where:
T 2.38RMS 116.67 . (12)
This relationship was further refined by Abrahams and Parsons (1987) to give:
482 Abbas Taheri

T 2.681RMS 141.072 . (13)

It is worth-noting that, in RMS a database of natural slopes are used, and therefore the
slopes have been exposed over geological time. These slopes are expected to be conservative
when compared to excavated slopes with limited design life. Moreover, the effect of slope
height on stability is overlooked.

Table 15. Rock mass strength (RMS) classification and ratings (Moon 1984)
Very strong Strong Moderate Weak Very weak

Intact strength 43-42, 41-40,

100-70, 69-57, 49-48, 47-46, 35-33, 32-29,
39-38, 37-36, 24-17, 17-5
56-53, 52-50 45-44 28-25
37-36
Rating 20, 19, 18, 17 16, 15, 14 13, 12, 11. 10 9, 8, 7 6, 5

Slightly Moderately Highly Completely

Weathering Un weathered
weathered weathered weathered weathered
Rating 10 9 7 5 3

>3, 3-2.2, 2.2- 1.2-1.0, 1.0- 0.6-0.5, 0.5-0.4, 0.2-0.15, 0.15- 0.05-0.03, 0.03-
Joint spacing
1.9, 1.9-1.6, 0.8, 0.8-0.7, 0.4-0.3, 0.3- 0.1, 0.1-0.07, 0.025, 0.025-
(m)
1.6-1.4, 1.4-1.2 0.7-0.6 0.25, 0.25-0.2 0.07-0.05 0.02. <0.02

30, 29, 28, 27, 20, 19, 18, 17,

Rating 24, 23, 22, 21 15, 14, 13, 12 11, 10, 9, 8
26, 25 16

Joint Horizontal and <30o out of

>30o into slope <30o into slope >30o out of slope
orientation vertical\ slope
Rating 20 18 14 9 5

Joint width
<0.1 0.1-1 1-5 5-20 >20
(mm)
Rating 7 6 5 4 2

Joint None Few Continuous, no Continuous, Continuous, thick

continuity continuous continuous infill thin infill infill
Rating 7 6 5 4 1

Groundwater None Trace Slight Moderate Great

Rating 6 5 4 3 1

4.3. Slope Rock Mass Rating, SRMR

Robertson (1988), proposed Slope Rock Mass Rating (SRMR), classification system to
predict shear strength parameters of weak rock masses in open pit mines with back analyzing
of failed slopes (Table 16). Robertson (1988) defines rock masses as those with shear strength
parameters less than:
Effective cohesion: c = 0.2 MPa.
Effective friction angle: I = 30o.
 Design of Rock Slopes Using Classification Systems 483

Robertson (1988) introduces three conditions where rock mass strength can be this low
(or combination of these):
1) Where rock material is very weak;
2) Where rock mass is heavily jointed; and
3) Where there is sufficient freedom of rotation in the rock mass to allow rock material
to rotate and form a failure surface.
As shown in Table 16, the RQD is replaced by a handled RQD (HRQD). The HRQD is
measured in the same way as the RQD after the cores has been firmly handled. HRQD,
therefore, is smaller than RQD, particularly in weak rocks. Discontinuity spacing is
substituted with handled spacing in a similar manner to HRQD.
Given in Table 17, Robertson (1988) presented a correlation between rock mass shear
strength parameters and SRMR in two open pit mines which can be used as a reference in
similar cases.

Table 16. Slope Rock Mass Rating (SRMR) classification system (Robertson, 1988)

Is50 > 10 4-10 2-4 1-2 for this low range UCS
Strengt
(MPa) test is preferred
h of
R5 R4 R3 R2 R1 R1 <1
rock
UCS > 250 100-250 50-100 25-50 5- 1-5 S5 S4
materia
(MPa) 25 S3 S2
l
S1
30 27 22 19 17 15 10 6
Rating 2 1
0

Handled RQD (%) 90-10 75-90 50-75 25-50 < 25

Rating 20 15 10 8 5

Handled discontinuity >2000 600-2000 200-600 60-200 <60

spacing (mm)
Rating 20 15 10 8 5

Rock > R1 Rock > R1 Rock > R1 Rock R1 Rock < R1

very rough slightly slightly slickenside
surfaces, rough rough d surfaces soft gouge >5 mm
not surfaces, surfaces, or gouge thick
Condition of continuous, separation separation <5 mm or or
discontinuity no < 1mm, < 1mm, separation separation > 5 mm,
separation, slightly highly 1-5 mm, continuous
un- weathered weathered continuous
weathered walls walls
rock wall
Rating 30 25 20 10 0
484 Abbas Taheri

Table 17. SRMR rock mass shear strength correlation (Robertson, 1988)

Shear strength parameters

Rock mass
SRMR Island copper mine Gotchell mine
class
c' (kPa) I' (deg) c' (kPa) I' (deg)

35-40 86 40
IVa
30-35 72 36
25-30 69 34 48 30
IVb
20-25 138 30 48 26
Va 15-20 62 27.5 48 24
Vb 5-15 52 24 14 21

4.4. Chinese Slope Mass Rating, CSMR

Chinese Slope Mass Rating (CSRM) is developed by Chen (1995) in order to adopt SMR
system to rock slope conditions in China. The CSMR applies a discontinuity condition factor,
O, that describes the conditions of the dominant discontinuity on which the factors F1, F2 and
F3 are based (Table 18). This factor ranges between 0.7 and 1.0. The CSMR method also
assumes that the SMR method is applicable for a slope height of 80 m but must be adjusted
for other slope heights, H, using the slope height factor, [. The relation between slope heights,
H, and the slope height factor, [ based on several rock slopes in China is shown in Figure 11.
CSRM may be defined as follows:
CSMR [  RMR76  J u F1 F2 F3  F4 , (14)
[ 0.57  34.4 H . (15)
The CSMR classification system acknowledges the effect of slope height; however, it
mostly suffers from the same limitations mentioned earlier for SMR system (see Section 3.3).

Table 18. Discontinuity condition factor, O, for CSMR

classification system (Chen, 1995)

O Discontinuity condition
1.0 Faults, long weak seams filled with clay
0.8 0.9 Bedding planes, large scale joints with gouges
0.7 Joints, tightly interlocked bedding planes
 Design of Rock Slopes Using Classification Systems 485

Figure 11. slope height, H, versus slope height factor, [ (Chen, 1995).

REFERENCES
[1] Abrahams, A. D., Parsons, A. J. (1987): Identification of strength equilibrium rock
slopes: Further statistical considerations. Earth Surface Processes and Landforms,
12: 631-635.
[2] Anbalagan, R. Sharma, S. and Raghuvanshi, T. K. (1992): Rock mass stability
evaluation using modified SMR approach. Proc. 6th. Nat. Sym. on Rock Mech.,
India, pp. 258-268.
[3] Barton, N. R., Lien, R. and Lunde, J. (1974): Engineering classification of rock
masses for the design of tunnel support. Rock Mechanics, 6(4):189-236.
[4] Bieniawski, Z. T. (1973): Engineering classification of jointed rock masses. Trans. S.
Afr. Inst. Civ. Eng., 15:335-344.
[5] Bieniawski, Z. T. (1974): Geomechanics classification of rock masses and its
application in tunneling. In Advances in Rock Mechanics 2, part A: pp. 27-32.
Washington, D.C.: National Academy of Sciences.
[6] Bieniawski, Z. T. (1975): Case studies: Prediction of rock mass behaviour by the
geomechanics classification. Australian New Zealand Conference of Geomechanics
2nd, Institution of Engineers, 36-41.
[7] Bieniawski, Z. T. (1976): Rock mass classification in rock engineering. In
Exploration for rock engineering. Proc. of the Symp., (ed. Z. T. Bieniawski) 1, 97-
106. Cape Town: Balkema.
486 Abbas Taheri

[8] Bieniawski, Z. T. (1989): Engineering Rock Mass Classification. John Wiley &
Sons.
[9] Brook, M. S. and Hutchinson, E. (2008): Application of rock mass classification
techniques to weak rock masses: A case study from the Ruahime Range, North
Island, New Zealand. Can. Geotech. J., 45: 800-811.
[10] Chen Z. (1995): Recent developments in slope stability analysis. In: Proceedings of
the 8th international congress ISRM, pp. 1041-48.
[11] Collado, A. and Gili, J. A. (1988): A geological geotechnical study for highway 420
(Coll de la Teixeta-Coll Negre) in Tarragona. Not published. Univ. Polyt. of
Catalunya, Barcelona, (in Spanish).
[12] Douglas, K. J. (2002): The shear strength of rock masses. Ph.D. Thesis, The
University of New South Wales, Australia.
[13] Douglas, K. J., Mostyn, G. (1999): Strength of large rock masses field verification.
Rock Mechanics for Industry, Balkema, 271-275.
[14] Haines, A., Terbrugge, P. J. (1991): Preliminary estimation of rock slope stability
using rock mass classification systems. 7th Int. Cong. on Rock Mechanics Proc.
ISRM, Aachen, 2:887- 892.
[15] Hamilton, W. R. Woolley, A. R. and Bishop, A. C. (1977): The Larousse Guide to
Minerals. Rocks and Fossils, Larousse and Co. Inc., New York.
[16] Hoek, E. and Bray, J. (1981): Rock Slope Engineering. 3rd edn, Inst. Mining and
Metallurgy, London, UK.
[17] Hoek, E., Brown, E. T. (1997): Practical estimates of rock mass strength. Int. J. Rock.
Mech. Min. Sci., 3(8):1165-1186.
[18] International Society of Rock Mechanics (ISRM) (1981): Rock Characterization,
Testing and Monitoring; ISRM Suggested Method. Pergamon Press, Oxford, UK.
[19] IVI International, Inc website, Available at: <http://www.ivi-intl.com/seismic-risk>
[Accessed 5 February 2011].
[20] Kliche, C. A. (1999): Rock Slope Stability, Society for Mining and Metallurgy and
Exploration, Inc.
[21] Laubscher D. H. (1977): Geomechanics classification of jointed rock masses-mining
applications. Trans Inst Min Metall, 86:A18.
[22] Laubscher D. H. (1984): Design aspects and effectiveness of support systems in
different mining conditions. Trans. Inst. Min. Metall., 93: A7082.
[23] Laubscher D. M. and Page C. H. (1990): The design of rock support in high stress or
weak rock environments. In: Proceedings of the 92nd Canadian Institute of Mining
and Metallurgy, Ottawa, Paper: 91.
[24] Liao, Q. H, Hencher, S. R. (1997): The effect of discontinuity orientation and
spacing on failure mechanisms in rock slopes results from systematic numerical
modelling, in Proceedings of CIM97, Paper No. WPM1-E2, Vancouver.
[25] Marinos, P., Hoek, E. (2000): A geologically friendly tool for rock mass strength
estimation. Int. Conf. on Geotechnical and Geological Engineering (GeoEng2000)
Proc., 14221440.
 Design of Rock Slopes Using Classification Systems 487

[26] Moon, B. P. (1984): Refinement of a technique for determination rock mass strength
for geomorphological purposes. Earth Surface Processes and Landforms, 9:189-193
[27] Moon, V., Russell, G. and Stewart, M. (2001): The value of rock mass classification
systems for weak rock masses: a case study example from Huntly. New Zealand.
Eng. Geol., 61:53-67.
[28] Moon. B. P., Selby, M. J. (1983): Rock mass strength and scarp forms in Southern
Africa. Geografiska Ann Ser A, 65A(1-2):135-45.
[29] Palmstrom, A. (1996): Characterizing rock masses by the Rmi for use in practical
rock engineering, part 1. Tunnelling and underground Space Technology, 11(2), 175
188.
[30] Pantelidis, L. (2009): Rock slope stability assessment through rock mass
classification systems. Int. J. Rock. Mech. Min. Sci., 46(2):315-325.
[31] Pough, F. H., Peterson, R. T. (1998): A Field Guide to Rocks and Minerals.
Houghton Mifflin Co., Boston.
[32] Ramamurthy, T., Arora, V. K. (1992): Strength and modulus for classification of
jointed rocks. Regional Symposium on Rock Slopes, India.
[33] Riedmuller, G., Schubert, W. (1999): Rock mass modeling in tunneling versus rock
mass classification using rating methods. Rock Mechanics for Industry, Balkema.
[34] Robertson AM. Estimating weak rock strength. In: Proceedings of the SME annual
meeting, Phoenix, 1988, p. 1-5.
[35] Romana, M. (1985): New adjustment ratings for application of Bieniawski
classification to slopes. In Proc. Int. Symp. On the Role of Rock Mech., pp. 49-53.
Zacatecas.
[36] Romana, R. (1993): A geomechanical classification for slopes: slope mass rating.
Comprehensive Rock Engineering, Editor in Chief, John A. Hudson, 575-600.
[37] Romana, M., Izqouierdo, F. (1988): La reparacin del desmonte de Cap Negre In 2
nd Simp. Nal. sobre Taludes, pp. 525-534, Andorra.
[38] Romana, M., Seron, J. B., Montalar, E., (2003): SMR Geomechanics classification:
Application, experience and validation ISRM 2003Technology roadmap for rock
mechanics, South African Institute of Mining and Metallurgy.
[39] Selby, M. J. (1980): A rock mass strength classification for geomorphic purposes:
with tests from Antarctica and New Zeland. Zeit Geomorph., 24(1):31-51.
[40] Selby, M. J. (1982): Rock mass strength and the form of some inselbergs in the
central Namib desert. Earth Surf. Proc. Landforms, 7(5):489-97.
[41] Selby, M. J. (1993): Hillslope material and processes, 2nd ed. Oxford university
press, Oxford, UK. 451p.
[42] Singh, B. and Goel, R. K. (1999): Rock Mass Classification. Elsevier.
[43] Sjoberg, J. (1999): Analysis of Large Scale Rock Slopes. Doctoral thesis: 01, Division
of Rock mechanics, Lulea University of Technology.
[44] Sonmez, H., Ulusay, R. and Gokceoglu, C. A. (1998): practical procedure for back
analysis of slope failures in closely jointed rock masses. Int. J. Rock Mech. Min. Sci.,
35(2): 219-233.
488 Abbas Taheri

[45] Sonmez, H., Ulusay, R. (1999): Modification to the geological strength index (GSI)
and their applicability to stability of slopes. Int. J. Rock. Mech. Min. Sci., 36:743-
760.
[46] Sonmez, H., Ulusay, R. (2002): A discussion on the Hoek-Brown failure criterion
and suggested modification to the criterion verified by slope stability case studies.
Yerbilimleri (Earthsciences), 26:77-99.
[47] Sonmez, H., Gokceoglu, C. and Ulusay, R. (2003): An application of fuzzy sets to
the geological strength index (GSI) system used in rock engineering. Engineering
Applications of Artificial Intelligence, 16:251-269.
[48] Sorrell, C. A., Sandstrom, G. (1973): Rocks and Minerals: A Guide to Field
Identification. Golden Guides from St. Martins Pre.
[49] Taheri, A., Taheri A. and Tani K. (2006): A modified rock mass classification system
for preliminary design of rock slopes. 4th Asian Rock Mechanics Symposium, 8 p.
[50] Taheri, A., Tani, K. (2007): Rock slope design using slope stability rating (SSR)
Application and field verification. 1st Canada-U.S. Rock Mechanics Symposium, pp.
215-221.
[51] Terzaghi, K. (1946): Rock defects and loads on tunnel support. Proctor R. V. White
T. L. Eds. Rock tunneling with steel supports Vol 1. Youngtown. OH: Commercial
Shearing and Stamping Company, 17-99.
[52] Wickham, G. E., Tiedemann, H. R. and Skinner, E. H. (1972): Support determination
based on geologic predictions. In Proc. North American Rapid Excav. Tunneling
Conf., Chicago, (eds K.S. Lane and L.A. Garfield), 43-64. New York: Soc. Min.
Engrs, Am. Inst. Min. Metall. Petrolm Engrs.
[53] Wyllie. D. C., Mah, C. W. (2005) Rock Slope Engineering. 4th edn. Taylor & Francis
e-Library.
[54] Zim, H. S., Shaffer, P. R. and Perlman R. (1957): Rocks and Minerals, a Golden
Nature Guide. Simon and Schuster, New York.