Empirical Rock Slope Design

Empirical Rock Slope Design
Page 5.1
5 EMPIRICAL ROCK SLOPE DESIGN

5.1 INTRODUCTION
Due to the complexity of rock masses, a number of 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 in practice for
preliminary and sometimes final design. This chapter presents a review of the more
commonly used empirical rock slope design methods. The historical development of these
methods and the data used to support them is discussed. A number of case studies are
assessed using the different methods. Finally, a new relationship between the Geological
Strength Index, GSI, slope height and stable slope angle is presented for use in the design
of cuts in rock masses in dry conditions or under moderate water pressures.
Page 5.2
5.2 REVIEW OF THE ROCK MASS RATING SYSTEMS

There are several empirical rock mass rating techniques that can be utilised in the design
of slopes. These include:
RMR
- Rock mass rating (Bieniawski, 1976 & 1989)
MRMR
- Mining rock mass rating (Laubscher, 1977 & 1990)
RMS
- Rock mass strength (Selby, 1980)
SMR
- Slope mass rating (Romana, 1985)
SRMR
- Slope rock mass rating (Robertson, 1988)
CSMR
- Chinese system for SMR (Chen, 1995)
GSI
- Geological strength index (Hoek et al. 1995)
M-RMR - Modified rock mass classification (nal, 1996)

BQ
- Index of rock mass basic quality (Lin, 1998)
The majority of methods require the determination of a basic rock mass rating. The rating
is usually calculated as the summation of a number of rating values that account for intact
rock strength, block size, defect condition and possibly groundwater. A number of the
methods then adjust this value based on such factors as defect orientation, excavation
method, weathering, induced stresses and the presence of major planes of weakness.
Table 5.1 compares a number of these methods. The numbers show the range of
weightings possible for each component of the rating system, whilst an asterix, *, shows
which parameters are taken into account in each method. It should be noted that the
different rock mass rating systems use varying methods to account for each parameter.
The MRMR and M-RMR adjustment factors are multipliers whilst the adjustment factors
for the other methods are added to the basic rock mass rating. The maximum value of 141
for CSMR assumes a slope height of 50m. The numbers shown in brackets, ( ), in Table
5.1 represent negative values.
Table 5.1. Comparison of weightings for various rock mass rating methods
ADJUSTMENTS
BASIC ROCK MASS RATING
Method
Intact strength
Block size
- Spacing
- RQD
Defect condition
-
Persistence
Aperture
Roughness
Infilling
Weathering
Ground water
Defect orientation
- Strike
- Dip
- Slope dip defect dip
Excavation method
Weathering
Induced stresses
Major plane of weakness
TOTAL RANGE
Page 5.3
RMR76 RMR89 MRMR

0-15
0-15
0-20
8-50
8-40
0-40
*
*
*
*
*
*
0-25
0-30
0-40
RMS
5-20
8-30
*
3-14
SMR
0-15
8-40
*
*
0-30
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
0-10
(60)-0
*
*
0-15
(60)-0
*
*
*
63-100%
*
*
1-6
5-20
80-100%
30-100%
60-120%
-
3-10
-
0-15
(60)-0
*
*
*
(8)-15
-
0-120
25-100
(52)-100 (52)-100
CSMR M-RMR SRMR

0-15
0-15
0-30
8-40
0-40
8-40
*
*
*
*
*
*
0-30
0-30
0-30
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
0-15
0-15
(60)-0 (12)-(5)
*
*
*
(8)-15 80-100%
60-115%
70-100%
-
(60)-115 (63)-141
(7)-105
8-100
GSI
0-15
8-50
*
*
0-25
*
*
*
*
*
10
18-100
Note values in brackets are negative
5.2.1 Methods for Estimating the Basic Rock Mass Rating

The basic rock mass rating attempts to capture the main features of a rock mass that, in the
context of this report, affect the shear strength of the rock mass and subsequently the
stability of slopes in that rock mass.
5.2.1.1 The Rock Mass Rating, RMR, and Geological Strength Index, GSI
Bieniawskis (1973, 1975, 1976, 1989) rock mass rating (RMR) is probably the most
commonly used rock mass rating system for estimating rock mass strength. Initially
created to assess the stability and support requirements of tunnels, it has been found to be
useful in assessing the strength of rock masses for slope stability. Table 5.2 shows the
rating method of Bieniawski (1989). It should be noted that the weighting of the
parameters has changed slightly over the years since its development. Wherever the RMR
is referred to in this document, the subscript will refer to the year of publication of that
version. For example, RMR76, refers to the RMR published by Bieniawski (1976).
Hoek et al (1995) modified the RMR so as to make it more applicable to assessing the
strength of rock masses. The result of this was the Geological Strength Index (GSI). Table
5.3 shows the components and ratings from the GSI.
Page 5.4
The GSI is based on RMR76 and is calculated by summing the ratings for each parameter
and adding 10. A rating value of 10 is added as the GSI assumes water conditions to be
dry. No corrections are made for joint orientation as it is assumed to be favourable. Hoek
et al. (1995) believe that joint orientation and water conditions should be assessed during
the analysis.
Hoek et al. (1995) allow for the use of RMR89 to estimate the GSI by using GSI = RMR89
5. The author warns that RMR89 should be used with caution as it can lead to a GSI
difference of up to 10 when compared with the GSI derived as above. Hoek (2000)
provides another method of estimating GSI using Figure 5.1.
This chapter is primarily concerned with the estimate of the strength of large rock masses
and the subsequent correlation with slope angles. The GSI is made up of several
components: intact rock strength; rock quality designation (RQD); defect spacing; and
joint condition (water is already set to dry). All these components can be affected by
scale and thus must be considered carefully when designing for very large rock masses. A
larger discussion of the applicability of using the GSI for rock slopes is contained in
Chapter 6.
Table 5.2. Rock mass rating (Bieniawski, 1989)
Page 5.5
Page 5.6
Table 5.3. Geological strength index, GSI (Hoek et al, 1995)
5.2.1.2 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) (Table
5.4 and Table 5.5). 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 less than 3m but it is displaced by another joint that
is, the joints are features that define blocks of ground. Joints logged from boreholes are
placed in three 30 dip ranges. Experience is used to divide these ranges into further
joint sets.
MRMR was specifically developed for use in the assessment of support for underground
openings and there is ambiguity in the assessment of MRMR when dealing with slopes.
For poor and very poor quality rock masses (MRMR<40) the MRMR can be largely
influenced by the evaluation of joint spacing and joint/water conditions. The appropriate
evaluations are very difficult to assess when only borehole data is available and clearly
requires a large degree of judgement even when exposures are available.
Page 5.7
Figure 5.1. Estimate of GSI based on geological descriptions. (Hoek, 2000)
Page 5.8
Table 5.4. MRMR (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
IRS (MPa)
141-136
135-126
125-111
110-96
95-81
80-66
65-51
50-36
35-21
20-6
5-0
Rating
10
Defect spacing
Depends on number of defect sets and spacing
Rating
30.................................................................................................................................. 0
Defect condition
45 .......................................................See Table ........................................................5
Rating
30.................................................................................................................................. 0
Inflow/10m length
25 l/min
25 125 l/min
125 l/min
Joint water pressure/1
0.0 - 0.2
0.2 - 0.5
0.5
Description
dry
moist
Moderate pressure
Severe problems
Rating
10
Groundwater
Table 5.5. Defect condition rating for MRMR (Laubscher, 1977)

Parameter
Joint expression
Description
Percentage adjustment
to maximum rating of
30
Wavy unidirectional
90-99
Curved
80-89
Straight
70-79
Striated
85-99
Smooth
60-84
Polished
50-59
Alteration zone
Softer than wall rock
70-99
Joint filling
Coarse hard-sheared
90-99
Fine hard-sheared
80-89
Coarse soft-sheared
70-79
Fine soft-sheared
50-69
Gouge thickness < irregularities
35-49
Gouge thickness > irregularities
12-23
Flowing materials > irregularities
0-11
(Large-scale)
Joint surface
(Small-scale)
Page 5.9
5.2.1.3 Rock Mass Strength, RMS

Selby (1980, 1982, 1987, 1993 and Moon & 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 and the margins of the
Central plateau of southern Africa. The geology included sedimentary sequences and
metamorphic (quartzite, gneiss, schist and marble) and igneous (dolerite, basalt and
granite) rock masses.
The RMS is calculated in a similar way to RMR with a summation of rating parameters
for intact rock strength, weathering, defect spacing, aperture, defect orientation relative to
the slope, defect continuity and groundwater flow (Table 5.6).
Orr (1992) found an approximate (r2 = 0.88) correlation between RMS and RMR88:
RMR88 = 2.2 RMS 130
(5.1)
Selby uses natural slopes in his database, and thus the slopes have been exposed over
geological time. These slopes could therefore be seen to be conservative when compared
to slopes in a pit with a limited design life. Selby breaks the natural slopes into small
sections (generally bedding layers) and assesses the slope angle of these. The slope
angles of these segments of limited height are generally structurally controlled (slaking
mudstones may be an example of an exception) in practice and thus not applicable to
correlations with rock mass.
Schmidt and Montgomery (1996) modified the RMS for application to deep-seated
bedrock landsliding in sedimentary rocks. They examined a total of 61 slopes, of which
17 were rockslides. The slopes were in the Eocene Chuckanut Formation, which
comprises a fluvial sequence of interbedded sandstone and siltstone/mudstone. Schmidt
and Montgomery note that there were distinct planes of weakness at lithological contacts.
The sandstone and siltstone/mudstone layers showed distinct differences in strength.
Table 5.6. RMS Classification and Ratings (mod. Selby, 1980)

Intact strength
(N-type Schmidt
100-60
60-50
50-40
40-35
35-10
Page 5.10
Hammer R)
Rating
Weathering
Rating
Defect spacing
Rating
Defect
orientation
Rating
Defect aperture
Rating
Defect continuity
Rating
Groundwater
outflow
Rating
20
18
14
10
unweathered
slightly
moderately
highly
completely
weathered
weathered
weathered
weathered
10
>3m
3-1m
1-0.3m
0.3-0.05m
<0.05m
30
28
21
15
very favourable
favourable
fair
unfavourable
very unfavourable
steep dips into

slope, cross
defects
interlock
moderate dips
into slope
horizontal dips, or
nearly vertical
(hard rocks only)
moderate dips
out of slope
steep dips out of

slope
20
18
14
<0.1mm
0.1-1mm
1-5mm
5-20mm
>20mm
none continuous
few continuous
continuous, no
infill
continuous,
thin infill
continuous, thick
infill
none
trace
slight
<25
l/min/10m2
moderate
25-125
l/min/10m2
great
>125
l/min/10m2
The main changes to the RMS were in the defect orientation parameter. Schmidt and
Montgomery (1996) state that defects with moderate dips into the slope should have a
higher rating than those with steep dips into the slope. Steep dips into the slope are more
likely to cause toppling and so this change appears reasonable. They also give steep dips
out of the slope a higher rating than moderate dips out of the slope. This appears to
contradict what would be expected.
An important point to note is that Schmidt and Montgomerys data appears to be based on
translational slides and hence structurally controlled rather than on rotational rock mass
slides. This would be backed up by their statement that the vast majority of deep-seated
rockslides occur on hillslopes inclined at 15 to 35. Schmidt and Montgomery also
state that the low RMS values associated with rockslides are due to the intact rock and
defect orientation parameters.
Page 5.11
Based on their data, Schmidt and Montgomery claim that the RMS successfully
discriminates localised areas of low rock mass strength within a landscape exhibiting
deep-seated rockslides. However, as this data appears defect controlled it is not
considered to be reliable for use with a rock mass rating and hence this author cannot
come to the same conclusion. Also, the method could only apply in bedded rocks given its
database.
5.2.1.4 Slope Rock Mass Rating, SRMR

Robertson et al (1987), using back analysis of slopes at Island Copper Mine in British
Columbia, found that the RMR and MS (Hoek-Brown correlation to RMR) were poor
predictors of the strength of rock masses for weak rock masses. They developed the
Island Copper Rock Mass Rating (ILC-RMR) which modified RMR for RMR values less
than 40. As this method did not allow for consistency in strength assessment (i.e. different
rock mass rating methods above and below RMR = 40), Robertson (1988) proposed the
SRK Geomechanics Classification of rock masses (SRMR), shown in Table 5.7.
Robertson (1988) defines weak rock masses as those with shear strength parameters less
than:
c = 0.2 MPa
= 30
This being equivalent to a jointed specimen having an unconfined compressive strength,
UCS, of less than 0.7MPa. Robertson gives three cases where rock mass strength can be
this low (or combinations of these).
1. Where the intact rock is very weak or soil-like.
2. Where there is an intense number of defects that allow the material to fail along
random stepped surfaces.
Page 5.12
3. Where there is sufficient freedom of rotation in the mass to allow intact material to
rotate to allow for the formation of a failure surface. Note, rotation/freedom increases
with equidimensional, rounded intact particles with weak infill or voids.
The SRMR varies from RMR74 in the following ways:
Groundwater is ignored as it is assumed that groundwater is a destabilising force and

does not influence the rock mass strength. The maximum groundwater factor (15) has
been added to the intact rock factor.
For material in the soil strength range additional classes and ratings have been
added (S1-S5).
The RQD has been replaced with a handled RQD (HRQD). This is in effect a
disturbed RQD where the material has been firmly twisted and bent but without
substantial force or use of any tools or instruments. High RQD values will therefore
not be assigned for weak or weakly cemented rock. Note that the RQD should only be
applied to hard rock masses and as such, if properly recorded, should be equivalent
to HRQD. The HRQD suffers from the same problems as RQD when using it for large
slopes.
Discontinuity spacing is substituted with handled discontinuity spacing in a similar

manner to HRQD.
The discontinuity condition parameters stay unchanged except that the rating is limited
to less than or equal to ten for mat1erial with intact rock strength less than or equal to
R1. This is to stop weak rock being given a high discontinuity condition rating.
Table 5.7. SRK Geomechanics Classification or Slope Rock Mass Rating (SRMR)
RANGES OF VALUES
PARAMETER
Strength of
intact rock
material
Is50
> 10
4 - 10
2-4
1 2
(MPa)
For this low range

UCS test is preferred
UCS
R5
R4
R3
R2
(MPa)
>250
100-250
50-100
25-50
R1
R1
<1
5-25 1-5 S5 S4 S3 S2 S1
Rating
Handled RQD
30
27
22
19
90-100
75-90
50-75
25-50
<25
20
17
13
>2000
600-2000
200-600
60-200
<60
20
15
10
Rock > R1
Rock > R1
Rock > R1
Rock R1
Rock < R1
Very rough surfaces
Slightly rough
surfaces
Slightly rough
surfaces
Slickensided surfaces
Soft gouge > 5mm thick
OR
OR
Separation < 1mm
Separation < 1mm
Gouge < 5mm
Separation > 5mm
Slightly weathered
walls
Highly weathered
walls
OR
Continuous
(%)
Rating
Handled
(mm)
discontinuity spacing
Rating
Condition of
discontinuities
Page 5.13
Not continuous
No separation
Unweathered rock
wall
17
15 10
Separation 1 5mm
Continuous
Rating
30
25
20
10
The SRMR system was found to give similar rating values as the ILC-RMR for the Island
Copper Mine. Therefore, Robertson (1988) concludes that Robertson et al (1987)
correlations with rock strength can be used with the SRMR. The SRMR or SRK-RMR
system was also checked using Getchell Mine, Nevada. Table 5.8 shows the correlations
given by Roberston (1988). Figure 5.2 shows these correlations as Mohr-Coulomb
strength curves. It can be seen that for SRMR = 20-25 the results seem invalid for normal
stresses less than about 700kPa (for values less than this it implies that higher SRMR
values give lower strengths). The author does not know the normal stresses acting on the
Island Copper Mine Slopes. Table 5.8 and Figure 5.2 show that the correlations vary a
considerable amount with sites and thus the rating system may need refining. Robertson
cautions that more case histories are required before the data in Table 5.8 can be used
with confidence.
Table 5.8. SRMR strength correlation (Robertson, 1988)

Strength Parameters
Rock
Mass
SRMR
Island Copper Mine

c
Class
(kPa)
IVa
35-40
86
Getchell Mine
c
(kPa)
40
Page 5.14
30-35
72
36
25-30
69
34
48
30
20-25
138
30
48
26
Va
15-20
62
27.5
48
24
Vb
5-15
52
24
14
21
IVb
1000
1000
35-40
35-40
30-35
800
30-35
800
25-30
25-30
600
20-25
15-20
(kPa)
(kPa)
20-25
5-15
400
600
15-20
5-15
400
200
200
0
0
200
400
n (kPa)
600
800
1000
200
400
n (kPa)
600
800
1000
Figure 5.2. SRMR strength correlation (a) Island Copper Mine (b) Getchell Mine
(Robertson, 1988)
5.2.1.5 Modified Rock Mass Classification, M-RMR
nal (1996) developed the M-RMR from the RMR method with additional features for
better characterisation of weak, stratified, anisotropic and clay bearing rock masses. The
method was based on investigations carried out at a borax mine and two coal mines. The
geology at the borax mine comprised laminated and bedded limestone with continuous
beds (varying from 2m to 9m in thickness) of consolidated clay. Stability was affected by
the presence of water. The coal mines consisted of lignite with associated coal measure
rocks (marl, claystone, mudstone) and clayey limestone.
The rating is given below. IUCS, IRQD, IJC, IJS, IGW and IJO are the ratings for c, RQD,
joint condition, joint spacing, groundwater and joint orientation respectively. Table 5.9
and Table 5.10 show the ratings for IJC. The tables appear very extensive however, as
they are based on a very limited database the author believes these should not be used for
general application. Fc is the weathering coefficient and Ab and Aw are the adjustment
factors for blasting and major planes of weakness respectively. The factors are discussed
further in the rating adjustment section.
Page 5.15
M - RMR = Ab Aw (Fc (IUCS + I RQD + I JC ) + I JS + I GW + I JO )
(5.2)
IUCS = 0.856 c0.515
(5.3)
I RQD = 2.7 + 0.173RQD
(5.4)
I RQD = 0.443RQD
(5.5)
I JS = 3.93J S0.187
(5.6)
I GW = 15e 0.03W
(5.7)
For RQD>10:
For RQD10:
Where, w = Inflow of groundwater per 10m of tunnel length (lt/min)

(Note, damp = 0-10; wet = 10-20; dripping = 20-35; flowing >35)
For ICR5:
I JO = 12
(5.8)
Where, ICR = Intact core recovery (%)

For 5<ICR<25:
I JO = 0.35 ICR 13.75
(5.9)
I JO = 5
(5.10)
For ICR25:
FC = 0.0015 I d 2 + 0.6e 0.00515I d 2

Where, Id-2 = Slake durability index
(5.11)
Page 5.16
Table 5.9. Joint condition index IJC (nal, 1996)

Intact core recovery
ICR < 5
5 ICR 25
ICR > 25
Condition
JJC
No filling
10
Filling
No filling, RQD = 0
13
No filling, 0 < RQD < 10
17
No filling, RQD 10
22
Filling 5mm (soft)
Filling 5mm (hard)
Filling 1 - 5mm (soft)
Filling 1 - 5mm (hard)
11
Filling < 1mm
14
No filling
W + R + (C A D )
Filling 5mm (soft)
Filling 5mm (hard)
2 + (C D )
Filling 1 - 5mm (soft)
4 + (C D )
Filling 1 - 5mm (hard)
6 + (C D )
Filling < 1mm
8 + (C D )
It is interesting to note that IJO is calculated from the intact core recovery from boreholes.
nal (1996) indicates that Bieniawskis (1989) adjustments should be used where field
surveys are available.
Page 5.17
Table 5.10. Ratings for joint condition parameters (nal, 1996)

Parameter
Weathering
W
Roughness
R
Condition
Rating
Parameter
Condition
Rating
Unweathered
Very low
Slightly weathered
Low
Moderately weathered
Continuity
Medium
Highly weathered
Very highly weathered
Very high
Decomposed
0.0 - 0.01mm
Undulating, very rough
Aperture
0.01 - 1.0mm
Undulating, rough
1.0 - 5.0mm
Undulating, slightly rough
>5mm
Undulating, smooth
None
Undulating, slickensided
0 - 1mm
Planar, very rough
Filling
1-5mm, hard
3.5
Planar, rough
1-5mm, soft
Planar, slightly rough
>5mm, hard
Planar, smooth
>5mm, soft
Planar, slickensided
High
3.5
1.5
5.2.1.6 Basic Quality, BQ

The BQ system was introduced as a forced standard in China in 1995 (Lin, 1998). It
was developed using an extensive database of projects around China. A number of
numerical analysis techniques were used to assess the data including: reliability analysis;
stepwise regression (dynamic cluster analysis and expert system); and stepwise
discriminative analysis (dynamic cluster analysis and expert system). The final equation
chosen to represent a rock mass is shown below.
BQ = 41.0451 + 1.9212 c + 546.1130 K v 0.0064 c2 + 1.0492 c K v 276.9786 K v2 (5.12)

where,
Kv =
insitu seismic velocity

intact seismic velocity
c = unconfined compressive strength of the intact rock
Page 5.18
Although this equation is called precise it should be noted that other parameters were
found to have some importance including rock unit weight and average defect spacing.
There is also no statistical data presented to support the formula.
Table 5.11 shows the rock classes. There are no correlations to rock mass properties
provided in the paper.
Table 5.11. The basic quality, BQ, rock mass classes (Lin, 1998)
Page 5.19
5.2.2 Adjustment Factors to basic rock mass ratings

Most of the empirical rating methods apply adjustment factors to their basic rock mass
rating. These adjustment factors account for such things as defect orientation, excavation
method, weathering, induced stresses and major planes of weakness.
Bieniawski (1976 and 1989) applies the adjustments by subtracting them from the rock
mass rating.
Table 5.1 shows that the defect orientation adjustment can dominate the RMR. If the
defect orientations are deemed very unfavourable an adjustment of -60 is required to
the basic rock mass rating. Even for defect orientations denoted as fair this adjustment
is -25. There is no guideline as to what very unfavourable means. Bieniawski (1989)
recommends the use of the Romana (1985) SMR corrections for slopes.
Romana used the same basic rock mass rating as RMR89 but developed new adjustment
factors for joint orientation and blasting to account for the lack of guidelines in the RMR
methods. The equation for SMR is shown below. The joint orientation weighting includes
a factor for the difference between joint dip and slope angle, F3. This requires an iterative
approach for design. Table 5.12 and Table 5.13 show the adjustment ratings.
SMR = RMR89 F1 F2 F3 + F4
(5.13)
Romana (1985) developed his factors not only for rock mass failures but also for wedge
and planar failure. A rock mass rating method should not be used for these two cases as
they are defect controlled and can be assessed using such measures as stereographic
projection. Even if the method was applicable, the ratings for planar failure are
questionable. F2 depends on defect dip and must account for the defect shear strength
however, the method seems to assume that friction angles are quite high. For example,
bedding surface shears may attain strengths of below 12 yet these would be given a
very favourable rating of 0.15.
Page 5.20
Table 5.12. Adjustment rating for joints (after Romana, 1985)

Case
Very
Favourable
Fair
Unfavourable
Favourable
P
j s
j s 180 o
P/T
F1 = 1 sin j s
Very
unfavourable
>30
30-20
20-10
10-5
<5
0.15
0.4
0.7
0.85
1.00
<20
20-30
30-35
35-45
>45
F2 = tan 2 j
0.15
0.4
0.7
0.85
1.00
F2
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
j s
>10
10-0
0-(-10)
<-10
j s
<110
110-120
>120
P/T
F3
-6
-25
-50
-60
P - Planar failure
s - Slope dip direction
j - Defect dip direction
T - Toppling failure
s - Slope dip
j - Defect dip
Table 5.13. Adjustment Rating for methods of excavation of slopes (after Romana,
1985)
Method
Natural
Presplitting
Slope
F4
+15
+10
Smooth
Blasting or
Defficient
Blasting
Mechanical
Blasting
+8
-8
Figure 5.3 shows the problem with attempting to predict structurally controlled failures
with rock mass ratings. The example shows a defect dipping out of the slope at 60. The
dip direction is within 15 of the dip direction of the slope. The intact rock has a high
strength and there are no other defects. The defect shown is unweathered, fairly tight and
slightly rough. By inspection, this is an unstable slope however, the SMR rates it as II
Good (Table 5.14).
Page 5.21
Table 5.14. Tentative description of SMR classes (after Romana, 1985)

SMR
0-20
21-40
41-60
61-80
81-100
Class
IV
III
II
Description
Very Bad
Bad
Normal
Good
Very Good
Stability
Completely
Unstable
Unstable
Partially
Stable
Stable
Completely
Stable
Failures
Big planar or
soil like
Planar or big
wedges
Some joints
or many
wedges
Some blocks
None
Support
Reexcavation
Important/
Systematic
Occasional
None
Corrective
60
UCS rating = 15 (300MPa)

RQD rating = 20 (100%)
Spacing rating = 20 (> 2m)
Condition rating = 25
Groundwater rating = 15 (dry)
F1 = 0.7 (15)
F2 = 1.0
F3 = -60
F4 = +10 (presplitting)
SMR = 63
Figure 5.3. Example of Planar Failure Case with High SMR
The CSMR method (Chen, 1995) is based on the SMR method. The CSMR applies a
discontinuity condition factor, , that describes the conditions of the controlling
discontinuity on which the ratings F1, F2 and F3 are based (Table 5.15). This factor ranges
from 0.7 to 1.0. The CSMR method also assumes that the SMR method is applicable for a
slope height of 80m but must be adjusted for other slope heights, H, using the slope height
factor, . The relationship for , based on an extensive survey and rigorous analysis of
slopes in China, is shown in Figure 5.4. With the addition of the two new factors, the
equation for CSMR is defined as:
CSMR = RMR76 F1 F2 F3 + F4
(5.14)
Page 5.22
= 0.57 + 34.4 H
(5.15)
where, H = Slope height in metres

Table 5.15. Discontinuity condition factor (Chen, 1995)
1.0
0.8 to 0.9
0.7
Defect Condition
Faults, long weak seams filled with clay
Bedding planes, large scale joints with gouges
Joints, tightly interlocked bedding planes
10
8
6
4
2
0
1
10
100
1000
H (m)
Figure 5.4. Slope height, H, vs slope height factor, (after Chen, 1995)
The CSMR has been based on the SMR and thus has similar problems. CSMR
acknowledges the affect of slope height. It is the authors view that height should not be
grouped with the rock mass rating (a defacto strength estimate) but should be addressed
during the stability analysis where it will contribute to the stresses acting.
Laubscher (1977) adjusts his MRMR for weathering; field and induced stresses; change
in stress due to mining; orientation and type of excavation with respect to geological
structures; and blasting effects. The multipliers were developed primarily for
underground excavations but are also used for slopes.
Page 5.23
nal (1996) uses corrections for weathering, blasting and major planes of weakness.
Table 5.16 and Table 5.17 show the adjustment factors Ab and Aw for blasting and major
planes of weakness respectively.
( (
M - RMR = Ab Aw Fc I UCS + I RQD + I JC + I JS + I GW + I JO
(5.16)
Table 5.16. Blasting adjustment, Ab (nal, 1996)

No blasting
1.0
Smooth blasting
0.95
Fair blasting
0.90
Poor blasting
0.85
Very poor blasting
0.80
Table 5.17. Major plane of weakness adjustment, Aw (nal, 1996)

No major weakness zones
1.0
Stiff dykes
0.90
Soft ore zones
0.85
Host rock/ore contact zones
0.80
Folds; synclines; anticlines
0.75
Discrete fault zones
0.70
It is not understood why the RQD rating is adjusted for weathering whilst the joint
spacing rating is not. It is felt that ideally Aw should not be used in a rock mass
classification system for slopes. If major planes of weakness exist they should be
considered individually during the analysis phase.
MRMR, RMS and M-RMR contain an adjustment for weathering. The author believes that
weathering should not be used as an adjustment factor in the estimation of rock mass
strength. The effect of weathering is to alter the intact strength and defect condition
parameters over geological time. Present day weathering condition should already have
been accounted for in the strength of the rock substance. Where further weathering may be
expected within the design life of a slope, the parameters for intact strength and defect
condition could be adjusted. However, the extent of these effects needs to take into
account the scale of influences versus the scale of the slope. That is, surficial weathering
Page 5.24
may not extend into the slope to such a degree as to affect the strength of the rock mass
along the shear failure surface.
The excavation method adjustment (MRMR, SMR, CSMR and M-RMR) was originally
designed for support of underground excavations where it has obvious implications. The
method of excavation may affect low height slopes, however large slopes are unlikely to
be affected by blasting (with regard to rock mass failure). The author believes that the
rock mass involved in the failure is usually remote to the region affected by blasting.
Blasting may affect the stability of benches. However, failures of slopes of this scale can
be expected to be caused by failure along structure and not through rock mass due to the
low stresses acting. Hoek et al (2002) suggest that destressing can have a significant
affect on the strength of rock masses for slopes. Where blasting or destressing is believed
to have affected the rock mass to a large degree, then these affects should be accounted
for in the assigning of weightings for block size (smaller) and joint condition (persistence
and aperture) and not as an adjustment factor.
The author believes that the best currently available rock mass rating for slope design is
the GSI (Hoek et al, 1995). The GSI is relatively simple to use and accounts for the major
factors that affect rock mass strength (block size and strength and defect condition).
Reducing the GSI can incorporate affects due to destressing and blasting. The effect of
groundwater should be included in the analysis as a stress and the effect of major
structures should be analysed separately.
Page 5.25
5.3 A REVIEW OF SLOPE DESIGN METHODS WHICH ARE

BASED ON ROCK MASS RATINGS
5.3.1 Correlations with Shear Strength Parameters and Slope Angles

Bieniawski (1976) and Robertson (1988) provided estimates of cohesion and friction
angle values for different RMR and SRMR ranges respectively that could be used for
slope stability analysis. Robertsons (1988) shear strength correlations (Table 5.8) were
based on the back analysis of failed slopes in weak rock masses at two mine sites.
Bieniawskis (1976) shear strength correlations (Table 5.18) were based on experience
working with underground excavations, slopes and foundations. Cited published case
studies included: a cable jacking test in highly weathered to friable gneiss and schist
bedrock (Pells, 1975); a 50m high toppling slope failure induced by base shearing
through weak decomposed amphibolite; and slopes (stable and one failure) consisting of
dolerite, shale and melaphyre (Bieniawski, 1975). The cases reported comprised failures
in very poor quality rock masses.
Table 5.18. Rock mass properties for RMR76 (Bieniawski, 1976)

RMR76
<20
21-40
41-60
61-80
81-100
Rock mass cohesion (kPa)
<100
100-150
150-200
200-300
>300
Rock mass friction angle ()
<30
30-35
35-40
40-45
>45
Laubscher (1977) presents a table of stable slope angles versus MRMR independent of
slope height (Table 5.19). These slope angles were based on Laubschers 20 years of
experience working predominately in metamorphic and volcanic rocks of varying quality,
taking in the whole range of possible MRMR values. Laubscher (1977) mentions an
example of a pit slope with MRMR of 12 that failed at a slope angle of 45. A stable
slope angle was found at 35, which corresponds with the value in Table 5.19. No
information with regard to the slopes height, geology or failure mode was provided.
Page 5.26
Table 5.19. Stable slope angle versus MRMR (Laubscher, 1977)

MRMR
Slope Angle
81-100
61-80
41-60
21-40
0-20
75
65
55
45
35
Abrahams and Parsons (1987) performed a statistical analysis of Selbys RMS data and
developed the following relationship:
Stable Slope Angle (degrees ) = 2.681RMS 141.072
(5.17)
The data has a narrow spread of RMS (approximately 55 to 90) and yet, the slope angles
predicted by the equation range from approximately 5 to 90 for their RMS data. The
line of best fit to Selbys data indicates a slope angle of -74 for a very weak rock
mass (RMS=25). This is not meaningful and is likely due to the lack of weak and very
weak rock masses (RMS<50) in the data. Selby (1980) divided the slopes he assessed
into sections of similar geology, generally with slope heights less than 40m. This resulted
in short lengths of slopes under different stresses being compared. Slope angles for low
slope heights are likely to be governed by the dip of defects and less so the strength of
rock mass where the intact rock strength is high enough to prevent intact rock failure.
These aspects may account for some of the scatter in the data and subsequent poor
statistical results.
Orr (1992) proposed the following relationship between RMR (converted from RMS)
and slope angle as the limit of long term stability, using the data on Figure 5.5. Orr (1992)
states that the equation is for slopes up to 50m high and with RMR values of between 20
and 77.
Slope angle = 35 ln( RMR) 71
(5.18)
Page 5.27
Figure 5.5. RMR versus slope angle (Orr, 1996)
Romana (1985) correlated SMR with stability class. Of the 28 slopes (ignoring the six
toppling failures) presented by Romana (1985) only six had failed and only one of those
was a rock mass failure (soil like failure), the others were planar or wedge failures
(Table 5.20). The highest known slopes tested against SMR by Romana were up to 62m
in calcareous slopes and all were stable or partially stable (Jord et al., 1999). Slope
heights less than 40m are invariably controlled by structure (Duran and Douglas, 1999)
and hence there is very little if any published rock mass failure data supporting the
Romana (1985) SMR correlation.
Page 5.28
Table 5.20. Case records for SMR (after Romana, 1985)

Rock
Excavation method
SMR
Failures
Limestone
Presplitting
85
None
Sandy marl
Natural slope
84
None
Limestone
Presplitting
77
3 small blocks
Gneiss
Presplitting
72-75
Limestone
Blasting
74
Dolestone
Blasting
64-76
Small planes during construction
Limestone
Smooth blasting
61-73
None
Marl
Smooth blasting
71
None
Limestone
Blasting
70
Small blocks
Sandstone/Siltstone
Natural slope
68
Small blocks
Limestone
Deficient blasting
59
Many blocks
Marl/Limestone
Mechanical excavation
55
Local problems
Gypsum rock
Natural slope
52
Some wedges (1m3)
Claystone/Sandstone
Blasting
47
Big wedge (15m3)
Claystone
46
Surface erosion
Sandstone/Marl
Blasting
43
Many wedges
Limestone
Deficient blasting
40
Many failures
Gypsum Rock
Natural slope
Sandy marl
Small wedges during construction

None
31-43
Big wedge (100m3)
32
Blocks, mud flows
Sandstone/Marl
Blasting
30
Big planar failure during construction
Limestone
Blasting
29
Several wedges (50m3)
Marl
Smooth blasting
36
Almost total planar failure after

weathering
Volcanic tuff/Diabase
Blasting
30
Big planar failure
Marl
Blasting
16
Total planar failure after weathering
Marl
Blasting
42
Small wedges
Marl
Blasting
17
Total planar failure after weathering
Marl
Blasting
43
Small wedges
Slate/Greywacke
17
Soil like failure
The CSMR uses the same stability class correlation as SMR. Figure 5.6 shows
correlations between observed behaviour (ESMR) and SMR and CSMR for 44 slopes
with heights ranging from 8 to 42m. Chen (1995) uses a similar method proposed by
Collado and Gili (1988) to determine ESMR. The ESMR is derived from estimates of the
factor of safety from field engineers and the following empirical equation:
Page 5.29
ESMR = 100
52.5
F 0.15
where, F = Factor of safety

All points falling on the 45 line would represent a good correlation. Although the CSMR
has slightly less scatter than the SMR, both methods can be seen to have a poor
correlation.
Figure 5.6. Observed cases (ESMR) vs (a) SMR, (b) CSMR (Chen, 1995)
Moon et al (2001) found that rock mass classification techniques (RMR, SMR and RMS),
used for slope angle estimation, perform poorly for weak rock masses where failure
occurs through intact rock, rather than solely along defects.
Page 5.30
Tsiambaos & Telli (1991) compare the RMR and SMR systems for limestone slopes.
They found that the RMR system leads to an underestimation of the stability conditions
(i.e. the actual rock conditions are better than predicted) of limestone cuts whilst the SMR
was a better predictor. It should be noted that the only stability problems the slopes had
were rock falls that were structurally controlled.
Of the methods presented, Robertsons (1988) approach has the most merit as it was
developed specifically for slopes and is based on slope failures in weak rock masses.
Unfortunately, only two slopes have been used and hence c and values are only
available for two specific rock masses. Other methods presented have limited value as
they are based on either long-term natural slopes that are often structurally controlled;
stable slopes; or slopes of only limited height.
5.3.2 Available Slope Performance Curves

Slope performance curves provide a valuable tool in the design process where rock mass
failure plays a strong control in the stability of slopes. The curves are derived from the
performance of stable and unstable slopes plotted on a slope angle versus slope height
plot. The curves are often site specific and take into account the impact of existing
failures, the remaining time frame for mining and the acceptable risks to the mining
operation.
Extending slope design curves from being a site specific tool to a general tool must be
treated with caution. Early attempts at doing this include Lane (1961) and Fleming et al
(1970 for slopes in shale, Coates et al (1963) for incompetent rock slopes, Shuk (1965)
for natural slopes, Lutton (1970) and Hoek (1970) for general rock excavations.
Hoek and Bray (1981) present a collection of data, from mines, quarries, dam foundation
excavations and highway cuts, on stable and unstable slopes in hard rock (Figure 5.7).
The plot also shows a curve representing the highest and steepest slopes that have
successfully been excavated in hard rock (note that many failures have occurred in flatter
slopes). This line can therefore be used as a guide as to the upper bound heights and slope
angles that can be considered in slope design.
Page 5.31
McMahon (1976) attempted to group similar rock masses together and came up with
correlations (based on log-log graphs) relating slope length, L, with slope height, H
(Equations 5.19 and 5.20 and Table 5.21).
H = aLb
(5.19)
L = H tan ( slope angle )
(5.20)
Figure 5.7. Upper bound slope height versus slope angle curve for rock masses
(Hoek & Bray, 1981)
Page 5.32
Table 5.21. Parameters for McMahons (1976) slope relationship

Rock mass type
Massive granite with few joints
139
0.28
Horizontally layered sandstone
85
0.42
Strong but jointed granite and gneiss
45
0.47
Jointed partially altered crystalline rocks
16
0.58
Stable shales
8.5
0.62
Swelling shales
2.4
0.75
Figure 5.8 shows the data from McMahon (1976) replotted on a slope height versus slope
angle curve. The relationships from Table 5.21 are also plotted on the graph. It can be
seen from the figure that the relationships provide a poor fit to a lot of the data,
particularly the stronger rock masses. The curves also tend toward about 10 which is not
supported by the data. It should also be noted that only the data for shale was near limit
equilibrium and so the curves for the other rock mass types represent conservative (by an
unknown amount) boundaries.
Haines and Terbrugge (1991) took this technique further and tried to correlate slope
design curves with rock mass ratings. The Haines and Terbrugge (1991) slope design
methodology makes use of the MRMR empirical rock mass strength assessment as
presented by Laubscher (1977 and 1990). The slope design methodology is presented in
Figure 5.9 and again in Figure 5.10, replotted on the basis of slope angle versus slope
height and with contours of MRMR presented. Haines & Terbrugge (1991) divide the
graph into three design zones where: (1) classification alone may be adequate; (2)
marginal on classification alone; and (3) slopes require additional analysis.
Page 5.33
3000
Massive granite with few joints

Horizontally bedded sandstones
Strong but jointed granite and gneiss
2500
Jointed partially altered rocks

Horizontally bedded stable shales
Swelling shales
Clay shale
Jointed & altered
Height (m).
2000
Sandstone and shale

strong granite and gneiss
1500
1000
500
0
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
90
Slope angle
Figure 5.8. Slope angle versus slope height with regression curves (modified after
McMahon, 1976)
Case studies were utilised by Haines & Terbrugge (1991) to evaluate the design curves.
It is noted that several of the cases presented related to slopes for feasibility studies that
had at the time not been excavated. The cases of excavated slopes have been presented in
Figure 5.10. The MRMR values, grouped into intervals, are presented by the use of
different symbols. Three aspects of the Haines & Terbrugge (1991) design curves are of
concern:
Page 5.34
Firstly, the data does not appear to indicate the validity of the design curves presented.
Vertical design lines could have been equally appropriate, i.e. independent of slope
height. This is in keeping with the use of MRMR for open pit slopes, as originally
proposed by Laubscher (1977), shown in Table 5.19.
Secondly, the shape of the interpreted design curves does not appear valid. The curves
are broadly convex in shape and nearly linear for slope heights of up to 100m. This is at
odds with the wide body of experience, which suggests a concave shape is appropriate.
In addition, the experience presented in Figure 5.11 suggests a predominant curvature
would be expected for slope heights up to 100m. Finally, the curves are not asymptotic
and indicate a continuing reduction in slope angle with slope height is required.
Thirdly, none of the case studies presented by Haines & Terbrugge (1991) related to
unstable slopes. Moreover, a third of the cases related to road cuttings where typically a
high degree of conservatism is utilised. As such the design curves have a large element of
conservatism built into them.
Figure 5.9. Slope height vs slope angle for MRMR (Haines & Terbrugge, 1991)
Page 5.35
250
MRMR
Slopes require
additional analysis
0-10
10-20
20-30
200
30-40
40-50
Slope Height (m) .
Marginal on
classification alone
150
MRMR
40
Values
50-60
60-70
60
80
100
20
100
Classification alone
may be adequate
50
0
20
30
40
50
Slope angle (deg)
60
70
Figure 5.10. Haines & Terbrugge (1991) slope design replotted on basis of slope
angle versus slope height showing Haines & Terbrugge (1991) slope data.
Page 5.36
5.3.3 Pells Sullivan Meynink Slope Performance Curves

Through the utilisation of aggressive designs within interim pits and documentation of
stable and failed slopes, slope performance curves have been established at several
mining operations by Pells Sullivan Meynink Pty Ltd, consulting geotechnical engineers
and engineering geologists, to aid in the slope design process. They indicate that the
methodology has been of enormous benefit in slope design for mining operations where
multiple open pits are developed in similar geotechnical conditions, a poor rock mass is
present and rock mass failures have been the predominant control on slope stability.
Figure 5.11 presents six case studies where slope performance curves were developed on
the basis of the site specific stability.
Pells Sullivan Meynink (pers. com. Alex Duran) indicate that the methodology has been
of particular use in operations where multiple shallow pits have been developed and
where no geotechnical studies were available. Although these curves are not presented
the shapes of the curves are in keeping with those presented in Figure 5.11.
Three key regions can be defined on the slope performance curves in Figure 5.11. The
three regions and the division within the slope angle versus slope height plot are in
keeping with typical rock mass strengths for poor quality rock masses and the concept of
a curved strength envelope.
Region 1: Typically negligible rock mass failures occur for slope heights of less
than 40m. This is in keeping with findings of a survey of 54 mining operations
which indicated generally stable pits for slope heights less than 45m (Swindells,
1990). This is anticipated since for these heights, i.e. low stress levels, rock mass
strengths typically have a high friction angle. Typical slip-circle analyses indicate
steep slopes can be achieved for these slope heights. The experience of the author
and that of Pells Sullivan Meynink personnel indicates unstable slopes in Region 1
are invariably controlled by structure except where very poor rock mass conditions
are encountered.
Page 5.37
250
Upper bound
from Hoek &
Bray (1981)
see Figure 5.7
Case 1
Case 2
Case 3
Case 4
200
Case 6
Slope Height (m) .
Case 9
After Figure 7,
Hoek & Bray
(1981)
Slope
performance
curves
150
4
Solid symbols
Solidunstable
symbols
represent
slopes
as doesunstable
the
represent
symbol
9
100
xslopes
50
Numbers refer
Numbers
refertoto
cases in Table 5.22
cases in Table 2
0
20
30
40
50
Slope angle (deg)
60
70
Figure 5.11. Slope performance curves for case studies (Duran & Douglas, 1999)
Page 5.38
Region 2: For slopes above 40m in height rock mass failures become apparent in
poor quality rock masses. The design curves display a pronounced concave
curvature with a reduction in the overall slope angle for increasing slope height.
This curvature is in keeping with that indicated by Hoek & Bray (1981) and with
typical slip circle analyses. The curvature of the design curves conform to a curved
rock mass strength envelope. Back analyses indicate the use of a fixed friction angle
and cohesion provides a poor fit. Whilst back analyses using a decreasing friction
angle and increasing cohesion, with increasing slope height (i.e. increasing stress
level), provides a better fit to the curves. It should be noted the design curves are
roughly sub-parallel and with curves further to the right representing better rock
mass conditions.
Region 3: For slope heights above 90m the curves show a trend of becoming
asymptotic to a given slope angle. This is in keeping with the fact that at higher
stress levels the curved envelope approaches a straight line and a constant friction
angle is implied.
Page 5.39
5.4 ANALYSIS OF CASE STUDY DATA
5.4.1 Case Studies Used

Table 5.22 summarises the case studies that were made available to the author by Pells
Sullivan Meynink Pty Ltd. Each case represents a particular open pit mine. Each mine
may have several stable/unstable slopes in the database. Where this situation exists the
different slopes are denoted a, b, c etc. Case 5 was obtained separately from Glastonbury
(2002).
A total of 13 cases with 37 slopes, of which 21 were stable and 16 had failed, was made
available. All failures were considered to have had a rock mass failure component.
Table 5.22. Summary of slope data from case studies

Geology
Mine
Height
Slope
MRMR
GSI
Case
(m)
angle
interval
interval
Water
Stable
()
Saprolite/Basalt
1a
70
49
20-30
40-50
none
yes
Saprolite/Basalt
1b
41
50
20-30
40-50
none
no
Saprolite/Basalt
1c
41
55
20-30
40-50
none
no
Saprolite/Basalt
1d
46
55
20-30
40-50
none
no
Saprolite/Basalt
1e
57
49
20-30
40-50
none
no
Saprolite/Basalt
2a
58
50
30-40
50-60
none
yes
Saprolite/Basalt
2b
60
48
30-40
50-60
none
yes
Saprolite/Basalt
2c
60
52
30-40
50-60
none
yes
Volcanoclastics
3a
20
39
10-20
30-40
mod
no
Volcanoclastics
3b
40
32
10-20
30-40
mod
yes
Volcanoclastics
3c
60
31
10-20
30-40
mod
yes
Talc chlorite schist
4a
70
44
30-40
40-50
mod
no
4b
120
35
30-40
40-50
mod
no
4c
120
38
30-40
40-50
mod
no
4d
150
31
30-40
40-50
mod
yes
4e
150
35
30-40
40-50
mod
yes
Argillite
5a
250
42
30-40
50-60
mod
no
Page 5.40
Table 5.22. Summary of slope data from case studies (cont.)

Geology
Mine
Height
Slope
MRMR
GSI
Case
(m)
angle
interval
interval
Water
Stable
()
Argillite
5b
107
37
30-40
50-60
mod
yes
Argillite
5c
80
38
30-40
50-60
mod
yes
Schist
6a
70
45
20-30
40-50
mod
no
Schist
6b
95
45
20-30
40-50
mod
no
Mudstone/siltstone
38
39
40-50
50-60
none
yes
Breccia
200
65
60-70
70-80
none
yes
Faulted breccia
9a
78
32
20-30
40-50
high
yes
Faulted breccia
9b
50
34
20-30
40-50
high
yes
Faulted breccia
9c
77
37
20-30
40-50
high
no
Faulted breccia
9d
60
40
20-30
40-50
high
no
Sheared siltstone
10a
97
36
20-30
40-50
mod
yes
Siltstone
10b
157
48
50-60
60-70
none
yes
Siltstone
10c
60
53
50-60
60-70
none
yes
Siltstone
11
110
48
30-40
40-50
none
no
Shale
12a
29
39
10-20
30-40
mod
yes
Shale
12b
37
28
10-20
30-40
mod
yes
Shale
12c
30
40
10-20
30-40
mod
no
Shale
12d
45
26
10-20
30-40
mod
no
Granodiorite breccia
13a
40
75
50-60
70-80
none
yes
13b
90
80
50-60
70-80
none
yes
5.4.2 Correlations of MRMR, SRMR and RMS with GSI

Data from 12 of the case studies have been used to provide correlations between three
rating methods (MRMR, SRMR and RMS) and GSI (Table 5.23 and Figure 5.12). The
data from Selby (1980) has also been used for the correlation between RMS and GSI and
is plotted on Figure 5.12.
Table 5.24 and Table 5.25 show the data used to determine the GSI for the case studies.
Table 5.26, Table 5.27 and Table 5.28 show the data used to determine the MRMR,
Page 5.41
SRMR, and RMS for the case studies respectively. Best estimate data was used for all
case studies and interpolation used to choose ratings for each parameter.
Some assumptions were made in assessing SRMR for the authors case studies, based on
the intact strength and character of borehole core, to assess handled RQD and spacing.
Table 5.23. Correlation between rating methods authors case studies

Rock Unit
MINE
GSI
MRMR
SRMR
RMS
CASE
1
Saprolite/Basalt
41
22
42
58
Saprolite/Basalt
52
36
49
74
Volcanoclastics
37
15
35
59
Talc chlorite schists
45
30
47
69
Schist
44
22
45
51
Mudstone/Siltstone
57
43
49
76
Breccia
76
65
97
98
Faulted breccia
49
24
57
71
10a
Sheared siltstone
48
24
51
54
10c
Siltstone
68
54
63
80
11
Siltstone
46
35
55
63
12
Shale
39
18
41
52
13
73
55
83
85
GSI was chosen since it provides a measure of the basic rock mass quality. Correlation
with the other rating systems was not considered appropriate in view of the rating
adjustments required. The correlations exhibit a good fit, even though there is limited data
for the correlations with MRMR and SRMR.
Page 5.42
100
MRMR
SRMR
RMS
80
GSI = 0.78MRMR + 25.22

R2 = 0.94
GSI
60
40
GSI = 0.67SRMR + 15.10
GSI = 1.07RMS - 22.39
R2 = 0.82
R = 0.84
20
0
0
20
40
60
80
100
Rating
Figure 5.12. Correlations of GSI with MRMR, SRMR, RMS rating (mod. Duran and
Douglas, 2002).
Page 5.43
Table 5.24. Summary of best estimate GSI data for mine cases
MINE
CASE
Rock Unit
UCS
RQD Spacing
Defect
Condition
Saprolite/
value
3MPa
46%
0.6m
Table 5.25
a-e
Basalt
rating
1.3
9.3
11.2
9.8
Saprolite/
value
5MPa
56%
2m
Table 5.25
a-c
Basalt
rating
1.5
11
20
9.7
value
13MPa
45%
0.1m
Table 5.25
rating
2.2
9.1
6.1
9.6
3
a-c
Volcanoclastics
Talc chlorite
value
30MPa
25%
1m
Table 5.25
a-e
schists
rating
3.8
6.1
14.6
11.1
value
12MPa
65%
0.1m
Table 5.25
rating
2.1
12.6
6.1
12.6
Mudstone/
value
5MPa
75%
1m
Table 5.25
Siltstone
rating
1.5
14.6
14.6
16.7
value 150MPa 98%
5m
Table 5.25
rating
11.4
19.5
11.8
23.3
6
a-b
7
Schist
Breccia
Faulted
value
60MPa
50%
0.5m
Table 5.25
a-d
breccia
rating
6.4
9.9
10.3
12.8
10
Sheared
value
23MPa
90%
2m
Table 5.25
siltstone
rating
3.1
17.7
20
16.7
value
23MPa
70%
0.5m
Table 5.25
rating
3.1
13.6
10.3
10.8
10
b-c
11
12
a-d
Siltstone
value
RMR from Q = 1.3 and
rating
RMR = 9 ln Q + 44
Siltstone
Shale
GSI
41
52
37
45
44
57
76
49
68
48
46
value
18MPa
40%
0.1m
Table 5.25
rating
2.7
8.3
6.1
12.1
39
Page 5.44
Table 5.25. Summary of defect condition for GSI

MINE
Rock Unit
CASE
Length Separation
(m)
(mm)
Roughness
Infilling Weathering
Saprolite/Basalt
0-1
smooth
soft
High
Saprolite/Basalt
0-1
smooth
soft
High
Volcanoclastics
20
0-1
slickensided
soft
moderate
10
1-5
smooth
soft
fresh
Schist
20
1-5
smooth
hard
fresh
Mudstone/Siltstone
0-1
smooth
hard
fresh
Breccia
<1
rough
hard
fresh
Faulted breccia
15
1-5
slightly rough
soft
fresh
10a
Sheared siltstone
15
1-5
smooth
soft
fresh
10c
Siltstone
0-1
smooth
hard
fresh
11
Siltstone
12
Shale
10
1-5
slightly rough
hard
moderate
Page 5.45
Table 5.26. Summary of best estimate of Laubschers MRMR data for mine cases
Mine
Case
1
UCS
RQD
Defect set
spacing
Defect condition*
3MPa
46%
0.6m/0.8m/5m
wavy/smooth undulose/soft medium
15
13
5MPa
56%
2m/5m/10m
curved/smooth undulose/soft medium
10
22
11
13MPa
45%
0.1m/2m/5m
straight/smooth planar/soft medium
12
30MPa
25%
1m/2m/5m
slight undulating/slickensided undulose/soft fine
12
18
12MPa
65%
0.1m/2m/2m
slight undulating/smooth-rough planar/non soft med
10
11
11
5MPa
75%
1m/5m/5m
straight/rough planar/no filling
1.5
12
21
17
5m/5m/5m
slight undulating/rough undulose/non soft medium
150MPa 98%
16
15
25
20
60MPa
50%
0.5m/2m/5m
straight/smooth to rough/gouge
16
Adjustments
RMR
37
45
31
43
35
51
76
33
MRMR
Weathering
Orientation
Blasting
slight 1 year
poor
good conventional
0.9
0.75
0.9
slight 4 years
good
good conventional
0.96
0.9
0.92
slight 1 year
topple
poor
0.9
0.65
0.85
nil
poor
fair
0.8
0.88
nil
very poor
fair conventional
0.7
0.9
nil
good
good conventional
0.9
0.94
nil
good
good conventional
0.9
0.94
nil
fair
poor
0.85
0.85
22
36
15
30
22
43
65
24
Page 5.46
Table 5.26. Summary of best estimate of Laubschers MRMR data for mine cases (cont.)
Mine
Case
10a
10b,c
UCS
RQD
spacing
Defect condition*
23MPa
70%
0.5m/0.8m/1m
curved/slickensided undulose/non soft medium
10
11
16
23MPa
90%
2m/2m/5m
curved/smooth stepped/non soft coarse
3.5
14
20
22
RMR from Q = 1.3 and RMR = 9 ln Q + 44
11
12
Defect set
18MPa
40%
0.1m/2m/5m
slight undulating/smooth-rough, planar/hard med.
12
11
large scale/small scale/infilling
Adjustments
RMR
40
59
46
32
MRMR
Weathering
Orientation
Blasting
nil
very poor
poor
0.7
0.85
nil
very good
pre-split
0.95
0.97
nil
fair
fair conventional
0.85
0.9
nil
topple
poor
0.65
0.85
24
54
35
18
Page 5.47
Table 5.27. Summary of best estimate of SRMR data for mine cases
Mine
Rock unit
Case
1
Saprolite/Basalt
Saprolite/Basalt
Volcanoclastics
Schist
Mudstone/Siltstone
Breccia
Faulted breccia
UCS
Handled
RQD
Spacing
Defect
Condition
value
3MPa
34.50%
0.3 to 0.4m
R1
rating
15
10
10
value
5MPa
28%
1 to 2m
R1
rating
15
8.5
15
10
value
13MPa
22.50%
0.08m schist
R1
rating
15
10
value
30MPa
25%
1 to 2m
R2, Slickensided surfaces
rating
19
15
10
value
12MPa
48.75%
0.08m schist
R1
rating
17
10.5
10
value
5MPa
37.50%
0.5 to 2m
R1
rating
16
15
10
value
150MPa
98%
R4, rough, not continuous
rating
27
20
20
30
value
60MPa
40%
0.5 to 2m
R3, slightly rough - gouge
rating
22
15
12
SRMR
42
49
35
47
45
49
97
57
Page 5.48
Table 5.27. Summary of best estimate of SRMR data for mine cases (cont.)
Mine
Rock unit
Case
10a
10b,c
11
12
Sheared siltstone
Siltstone
Siltstone
Shale
UCS
Handled
RQD
Spacing
Defect
Condition
value
23MPa
52.50%
0.4 to 0.6m
R1
rating
19
10.5
11
10
value
23MPa
90%
R1
rating
19
18.5
15
10
value
SRMR estimated using MRMR and multiplying by average
rating
SRMR/MRMR ratio for all cases (=1.2)
value
18MPa
30%
0.08 to 0.5m
R1
rating
17
10
SRMR
51
63
55
41
Page 5.49
Table 5.28. Summary of best estimate of RMS data for mine cases
Defect
Mine
Rock unit
Case
1
Saprolite/Basalt
Saprolite/Basalt
Volcanoclastics
Schist
Mudstone/Siltstone
Breccia
Faulted breccia
UCS
Water
Weathering
Spacing
Orientation
Aperture
Length
value
3MPa
high
0.6m
unfavourable
0-1mm
5m
none
rating
21
value
5MPa
high
2m
favourable
0-1mm
5m
none
rating
28
18
value
13MPa
moderate
0.1m
favourable
0-1mm
20m
slight
rating
15
18
value
30MPa
fresh
1m
unfavourable
1-5mm
10m
slight
rating
10
10
25
value
12MPa
fresh
0.1m
unfavourable
1-5mm
20m
mod
rating
10
15
value
5MPa
fresh
1m
very favourable
0-1mm
5m
trace
rating
10
25
20
value
150MPa
fresh
5m
very favourable
<1mm
2m
none
rating
18
10
30
20
value
60MPa
fresh
0.5m
fair
1-5mm
15m
moderate
rating
14
10
21
14
RMS
58
74
59
69
51
76
98
71
Page 5.50
Table 5.28. Summary of best estimate of RMS data for mine cases (cont.)
Defect
Mine
Rock unit
Case
10a
10b,c
11
12
Sheared siltstone
Siltstone
Siltstone
Shale
UCS
Water
Weathering
Spacing
Orientation
Aperture
Length
value
23MPa
fresh
0.5m
very unfavourable
1 to 5mm
15m
slight
rating
10
21
value
23MPa
fresh
2m
very favourable
0 to 1mm
5m
trace
rating
10
28
20
value
25MPa
fresh
0.05-0.3m
fair
<1mm
few
none
rating
10
15
14
value
18MPa
moderate
0.1m
favourable
1 to 5mm
10m
mod
rating
10
18
RMS
54
80
63
52
Page 5.51
5.4.3 General Assessment of the Parameters in GSI

The GSI calculated from RMR (GSIRMR) contains ratings for UCS, RQD, defect spacing
and defect condition. This section uses the case study data to assess how well these
individual ratings differentiate rock mass strength. Figure 5.13 shows GSI versus slope
height for both failed and stable slopes from the case studies. A general observation
shows that the failed slopes are gathered at the lower end of the ratings. Figure 5.14 to
Figure 5.17 show the same graph as Figure 5.13 with defect spacing rating, defect
condition rating, RQD rating and UCS rating substituted for GSI respectively. The RQD
and spacing ratings (which essentially are both substitutions for block size) both appear
to differentiate between the rock masses well and have the failed slopes toward the lower
rating values. The defect condition rating appears to group most rock masses in the case
studies together. The UCS rating does not appear to differentiate between the failed and
stable slopes. This is not suprising as slope failure will generally occur along defects
unless the intact rock strength is very low due to the low stress environment.
250
Failed
Stable
H (m).
200
150
100
50
0
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
90
100
GSI Rating
Figure 5.13. GSI versus slope height for failed and stable slopes
Page 5.52
250
Failed
Stable
H (m).
200
150
100
50
0
0
10
15
20
25
30
Spacing Rating
Figure 5.14. GSI defect spacing rating versus slope height for failed and stable
slopes
250
Failed
Stable
H (m).
200
150
100
50
0
0
10
15
20
25
Defect Rating
Figure 5.15. GSI defect condition rating versus slope height for failed and stable
slopes
Page 5.53
250
Failed
Stable
H (m).
200
150
100
50
0
0
10
12
14
16
18
20
RQD Rating
Figure 5.16. GSI RQD rating versus slope height for failed and stable slopes
250
Failed
Stable
H (m)
200
150
100
50
0
0
6
8
UCS Rating
10
12
14
Figure 5.17. GSI UCS rating versus slope height for failed and stable slopes
Page 5.54
5.4.4 Development of Generalised Slope Design Curves

5.4.4.1 Use of MRMR in Haines and Terbrugge Method
Table 5.22 shows the MRMRs that have been evaluated for the case studies. Each case
has been allotted into a MRMR interval owing to the uncertainties in assessing a rigorous
value.
The data presented by Haines & Terbrugge (1991) and the new case studies (Figure 5.10
and Table 5.22 respectively) have been combined into one database.
The author (Duran & Douglas, 1999) presented cases 1-10 and the Haines & Terbrugge
(1991) design methodology in Figure 5.18. Several of the cases do not confirm the Haines
& Terbrugge design curves. For cases 1, 2, 6 and 8 the Haines & Terbrugge curves are
conservative for these mining operations. In cases 4 and 9 however, the design curves
would have indicated the use of steeper slopes. For these two latter cases there are
additional factors which affected the overall stability of slopes. For case 4 structure made
a significant contribution to the failure. Whilst for case 9, groundwater played a critical
role.
5.4.4.2 Revised Method Using MRMR

Figure 5.19 presents design curves that have been defined by the author (Duran &
Douglas, 1999) on the basis of the available data. An upper bound design curve has been
suggested which relates to MRMR values greater than 40. This is based on the experience
of Duran & Douglas (1999) as no rock mass failures have been observed in slopes that
are comprised of good, or better, rock mass quality. This observation was previously
related by Robertson (1988) who indicated that stability was almost exclusively
controlled by structure where MRMR was greater than 40.
It must be stressed that these design curves are based on slopes in mining operations,
where some instability is acceptable and slopes need only to stand up over short time
frames of up to two years. Appropriate reductions in slope angles could be utilised where
a conservative design is required.
Page 5.55
It should be noted that cases 4 and 9 were treated as exceptions in defining the design
curves. This clearly reinforces that in the design of rock slopes there needs to be a careful
assessment of the influence of structure and groundwater in defining an acceptable design.
5.4.4.3 Method Based on the Use of the Geological Strength Index, GSI
The case studies discussed above together with additional data from Haines and
Terbrugge (1991) and Selby (1980) have been used to create slope design curves based
on GSI. Slope height versus slope angle was plotted for two ground water conditions, dry
and moderate pressures. Moderate water pressures are defined as where the piezometric
surface reaches the surface at a distance of 4 x the slope height. This is taken from Hoek
and Brays (1981) circular failure slope chart No. 3. Figure 5.20 and Figure 5.22 show
the data and the authors proposed design curves for dry and moderate water pressures
respectively. Where failure occurred predominantly through the rock mass the data is
presented as a solid symbol. Figure 5.20 does not contain a curve for GSI = 30 due to a
lack of data. It could be assumed that this curve would lie 10-15 to the right of the curve
for GSI = 40 based on the curves in Figure 5.22.
The slope design curves for various ranges of MRMR presented in the previous section
(Figure 5.19) have been used as the basis for deriving the GSI slope design curves. These
curves have been assessed for GSI values of 40 and 50, utilising the authors correlation.
The authors design curves provide a very good fit of the data.
Slope designs using strength estimates estimated by Bieniawski (1976), assuming no
rating adjustment for orientation, are presented on Figure 5.21 and Figure 5.23 based on
stability charts from Hoek and Bray (1981) and assuming a Factor of Safety of one. As
readily evident, Bieniawskis strength estimates are too high. Robertson (1988) provided
estimates of shear strength for back-analyses of failures. Using the correlation of SRMR
with GSI presented earlier, Robertsons rock mass strengths were assessed for GSI
values of 30 and 40, Figure 5.21 and Figure 5.23. Robertson (1988) suggested rock mass
failure in slopes was unlikely for an SRMR of greater than 35 (GSI40) and this is
confirmed by the data presented in Figure 5.21 and Figure 5.23. The strengths estimated
by Robertson (1988), if correlated to GSI, appear to overestimate slopes angles for dry
slopes. For moderate water pressures the curves are similar to the authors curves for
Page 5.56
heights greater than 150m for lower heights, the authors curves predict flatter stable
slope angles.
250
Haines &
Terbrugge
100 MRMR
curves
MRMR
0-10
10-20
80
20-30
200
30-40
60
40-50
50-60
Slope Height (m) .
60-70
40
150
20
Solid
symbols
Solid
symbols
represent unstable
represent
unstable
slopes as do the
slopes
symbols
+ x
100
50
0
20
30
40
50
Slope angle (deg)
60
70
Figure 5.18. Haines & Terbrugge (1991) slope design curves & slope data (Figure
5.10) with additional case studies (Duran & Douglas, 1999)
Page 5.57
250
MRMR
=Significant contribution
to failure from structure.
=High
water pressures in
H
slope
S
0-10
10-20
20-30
200
30-40
40-50
50-60
Slope Height (m) .
60-70
150
> 40
30
MRMR = 20
S
Solid
symbols
Solid
symbols
represent unstable
represent
unstable
slopes as do the
slopes
symbols
+ x
100
50
0
20
30
40
50
Slope angle (deg)
60
70
Figure 5.19. Suggested slope design curves for MRMR (Duran & Douglas, 1999)
Page 5.58
250
Solid symbols represent
unstable slopes
GSI
20-30
30-40
40-50
200
Slope Height (m).
50-60
60-70
GSI 40
70-80
80-90
150
GSI 50
100
50
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
90
Slope Angle (deg)
Figure 5.20. Slope height vs slope angle case study data and the authors proposed
design curves for a dry slope
Page 5.59
250
GSI
Robertson (1988)
GSI40
GSI30
20-30
30-40
200
40-50
Solid symbols represent

unstable slopes
Bieniawski (1979)
50-60
RMR<20
60-70
Slope Height (m).
70-80
RMR30
80-90
150
RMR50
100
Author's curves
GSI40
GSI50
50
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
90
Slope Angle (deg)
Figure 5.21. Slope height vs slope angle case study data and a comparison of design
curves for a dry slope
Page 5.60
250
200
Slope Height (m).
GSI
20-30
= Solid symbols represent

unstable slopes
S = Significant contribution to
failure from structure
H = High water pressures in
slope
150
30-40
40-50
50-60
GSI 30
60-70
GSI 40
70-80
80-90
GSI 50
S S
100
H
H
50
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
90
Slope Angle (deg)
Figure 5.22. Slope height vs slope angle case study data and the authors proposed
design curves for moderate pressures
Page 5.61
250
= Solid symbols represent
unstable slopes
S = Significant contribution to
failure from structure
H = High water pressures in
slope
Robertson
GSI30 GSI 40
200
Slope Height (m).
GSI
20-30
30-40
Bieniawski
RMR<20
150
40-50
RMR30
50-60
RMR50
S
100
50
Author's
curves
GSI50
60-70
GSI40
GSI30
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
90
Slope Angle (deg)
Figure 5.23. Slope height vs slope angle case study data and a comparison of design
curves for moderate pressures
Page 5.62
5.5 CONCLUSION
A rock mass rating system should provide a measure of the basic quality/strength of the
rock mass. Aspects such as ground water, excavation method, slope height and orientation
of structure should not be included in the rock mass rating and should be taken account of
during analysis.
Correlation of GSI with several other rock mass ratings indicates a good correlation and
would suggest GSI is an adequate indicator of basic rock mass quality for rock slopes.
Slope design curves have been developed based on a number of stable and unstable open
pit mine slopes. Shear strength estimates for rock slopes that were proposed by
Bieniawski (1976) are too high for values of GSI below 40. The design curves using
strength estimates proposed by Robertson (1988) predict steeper angles than the authors
design curves.
Most slopes will be structurally controlled and therefore a rock mass rating system will
not be applicable for most slope design. Empirical slope design using rock mass rating
systems should only be considered for slopes in rock masses with GSI values lower than
about 45 and only after any potential structurally controlled failures have been
investigated. The method should only be applied at the preliminary stage or as a site
specific tool to complement detailed mapping and analysis.

Empirical Rock Slope Design

Загружено:

Сведения о документе

Исходное описание:

Оригинальное название

Авторское право

Доступные форматы

Поделиться этим документом

Поделиться или встроить документ

Параметры публикации

Этот документ был вам полезен?

Это неприемлемый материал?

Авторское право:

Доступные форматы

Empirical Rock Slope Design

Загружено:

Авторское право:

Доступные форматы

Empirical Rock Slope Design

5 EMPIRICAL ROCK SLOPE DESIGN