Modification of Slope Mass Rating SMR by PDF

Cite this paper as: Toms, R.; Delgado, J.; Sern, J.B.
Modification of Slope Mass Rating

(SMR) by continuous functions. International Journal of Rock Mechanics and Mining Sciences,
44, 1062-1069, 2007. http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1365160907000445
MODIFICATION OF SLOPE MASS RATING (SMR) BY CONTINUOUS FUNCTIONS
1 2 3
R. Toms , J. Delgado , J.B, Sern
(1) Departamento de Ingeniera de la Construccin, Obras Pblicas e Infraestructuras Urbanas.

Escuela Politcnica Superior, Universidad de Alicante, P.O. Box 99, E-03080 Alicante, Spain.
E-mail: roberto.tomas@ua.es
(2) Departamento de Ciencias de la Tierra y Medioambiente. Facultad de Ciencias, Universidad
de Alicante, P.O. Box 99, E-03080 Alicante, Spain. E-mail: Jose.delgado@ua.es
(3) Departamento de Ingeniera del Terreno, Escuela Tcnica Superior de Ingenieros de Cami-
nos, Canales y Puertos, Universidad Politcnica de Valencia. Camino de Vera, s/n, E-46022
Valencia, Spain. E-mail: jbseron@upv.tr.es
Abstract:
Slope Mass Rating (SMR) is a very useful geomechanical classification used in rock slope
characterization. The SMR index is obtained from the basic Rock Mass Rating, RMR using four
factors that take into account the geometrical relationship between the rock slope face and dis-
continuity affecting rock mass (factors F1 to F3) as well as the excavation method used (F4).
RMR and SMR are obtained using characteristic values of the rock mass employing discrete
functions. The aim of this study is to present new continuous functions based on the Sen and
Sadagah functions proposed for RMR calculus for Slope Mass Rating calculus. These continu-
ous functions for RMR are modified by introducing new ways of defining hydraulic conditions
and RQD. Three sigmoidal arctangent functions are also proposed to define the F1, F2 and F3
parameters used in SMR classification. Finally, the proposed functions are applied to 61 rocky
slopes previously analyzed through discontinuous classification to perform a comparative anal-
ysis of both indexes. The results obtained by continuous functions show that they provide SMR
values with maximum differences compared with discontinuous functions of 14 points with an
average value of 5 4 points. The proposed continuous functions allow discrimination between
slopes with a similar quality and eliminate the ambiguity resulting from their calculus.
Keywords: Geomechanical classification, SMR, basic RMR, continuous function.
1
Cite this paper as: Toms, R.; Delgado, J.; Sern, J.B. Modification of Slope Mass Rating
1. Introduction
Rock mass classification systems are a universal communication system for those who use
them (explorers, designers and constructors). They facilitate characterization, classification and
knowledge of rock mass properties and provide a quantitative valuation of rock mass by a sim-
ple arithmetic algorithm [1]. Some of the published geomechanical classifications for slopes are
(RMR, [2],[3]), Rock Mass Strength (RMS, [4]), Slope Mass Rating (SMR, [5]), Slope Rock Mass
Rating (SRMR, [6]), Rock Mass Rating, Mining Rock Mass Rating (MRMR, [7]), Mining Rock
Mass Rating modified (MRMR modified, [8]), Chinese Slope Mass Rating (CSMR, [9]), Natural
Slope Methodology (NSM, [10]), Modified Rock Mass Rating (M-RMR, [11]), Slope Stability
Probability Classification (SSPC, [12]) and the modified Slope Stability Probability Classification
(SSPC modified, [13]).
Among the above-mentioned classifications, the SMR is widely used [14], [15], [16] and is de-
rived from basic RMR [3]. It was initially created for tunneling applications, but its author has
included proposals for slope correction factors in order to take into account if the discontinuities
strike and dip are favorable or not for slope failure. In practice, it is not easy to apply RMR to
slopes as there is no exhaustive definition for the use of correction factors in the original RMR
classification. The detailed quantitative definition of the correction factors [17] is one of the most
important advantages of SMR classification.
Both RMR and SMR are discrete classifications, computed by assigning a specific rating to
each parameter included, depending on the value adopted by the variable that controls the pa-
rameter under consideration. The discrete character of these classifications can cause major
changes in the value of one of the parameters due to small differences in the value of the varia-
ble, which can cause changes in the quality assigned to the rock mass. On the other hand, ge-
omechanical quality indexes are extremely biased, which also conditions the final quality index.
The aim of this study is to define continuous functions for SMR computation using basic RMR
continuous functions proposed by Sen and Sadagah [18]. Some new ways of calculating RQD
and hydrological conditions are introduced and continuous functions for SMR correction factors
in planar, wedge and toppling failure cases are also proposed. Finally, a comparison is made
between continuous functions and the original discrete SMR classification for 61 rocky slopes to
establish the validity of the proposed functions.
2. The Slope Mass Rating (SMR) classification
The geomechanical index SMR, proposed by Romana [5], is calculated by adding four correc-
tion factors to the basic RMR [3]. These factors depend on the geometrical relationship existing
between discontinuities affecting the rock mass and the slope, and the slope excavation meth-
od. It is obtained using the following expression:
2
SMR RMRb (F1 F2 F3 ) F4 (1)
where:
- RMRb is the RMR index resulting from Bieniawskis Rock Mass Classification without any
correction. Thus, it is calculated according to RMR classification parameters [3]. It is equiva-
lent to the corrected RMR after subtracting the term corresponding to discontinuity orienta-
tion correction (rc). It is obtained by adding five parameters that take into account uniaxial
compressive strength or point load strength of the rock (r), discontinuity spacing (rX) and
conditions (rJ), hydraulic conditions (rG) and the RQD (rRQD):
RMRb RMR rc r rX rJ rG rRQD (2)
- F1 depends on the parallelism between discontinuity,j (or the intersection line, i, in the
case of wedge failure) and slope dip direction (Table 1).
- F2 depends on the discontinuity dip (j) in the case of planar failure and the immersion, i
(or plunge) of the intersection line in wedge failure. As regards toppling failure, this parame-
ter takes the value 1.0. This parameter is related to the probability of discontinuity shear
strength [19].
- F3 depends on the relationship between slope (s) and discontinuity (j) dips (toppling or
planar failure cases) or the immersion line dip (i) (wedge failure case) (Table 1). This pa-
rameter retains the Bieniawski adjustment factors that vary from 0 to -60 points and express
the probability of discontinuity outcropping on the slope face [19] for planar and wedge fail-
ure.
- F4 is a correction factor that depends on the excavation method used (Table 1).
3. Continuous functions for Basic Rock Mass Rating (RMR b)
Sen and Sadagah [18] modified RMR for tunneling by continuous functions. The use of continu-
ous functions allows only the RMR index to be obtained, substituting the values of the different
properties of rock mass. The above-mentioned functions are:
rRQD 0.2RQD (3)
rX 24 15.1 log( X ) (4)
r 167
. (1 P ) (5)
r 0.075 C (6)
3
rG 10 2.9 log(G) (7)
Where RQD is expressed as a percentage; X is the average discontinuity spacing in meters,

P is the point load strength and C is the uniaxial compressive strength, they are both ex-
pressed in MPa; rJ is the factor depending on discontinuity conditions and G is the water flow
existing in the discontinuities expressed in liters per ten meters/minute.
Table 1. Correction parameters for SMR (modified from Romana [1] by Anbalagan et al. [20]).
VERY FA- UNFAVORA- VERY UNFA-

TYPE OF FAILURE FAVORABLE NORMAL
VORABLE BLE VORABLE
P |j-s|
| - -
T A j s >30 30-20 20-10 10-5 <5
180|
W |i-s|
P/T/W F1 0.15 0.40 0.70 0.85 1.00
P/W B |j| |i| <20 20-30 30-35 35-45 >45
P/W 0.15 0.40 0.70 0.85 1.00
F2
T 1.00
P j-s
>10 10-0 0 0-(-10) <(-10)
W C i-s
T j+s <110 110-120 >120 - -
P/T/W F3 0 -6 -25 -50 -60
EXCAVATION METHOD (F4)

Natural slope +15 Blasting or mechanical 0
Presplitting +10 Deficient blasting -8
Smooth blasting +8
P: planar failure; T: toppling failure; W: wedge failure.
It is important to note that function (7) is not defined for values of G equal to 0 (dry state).
Romana [21] proposed an alternative function for hydrogeological conditions of rock mass
based on pore pressure relationship. He states that a more accurate method for calculating rG is
using the expression:
1
rG 10 log 1.5 (8)
ru
valid for ru (= u / v) values varying between 0.02 and 0.7, with u being the existing pore pres-
sure and v the existing vertical stress at the considered depth.
4
Consequently, taking into account that basic RMR is obtained using expression (2) and consid-
ering continuous functions (3), (4), (5), (6), (7) and (8), basic RMR can be expressed as:
0.2 RQD 15.1 log( X ) 1.670 P 2.9 log( G ) 35.67 (rJ )

0.2 RQD 15.1 log( X ) 0.075 2.9 log( G ) 34.00 (r )
C J
0.2 RQD 15.1 log( X ) 1.670 P 10 log(1 / ru ) 24.17 (rJ )

RMRb (9)
0.2 RQD 15.1 log( X ) 0.075 C 10 log(1 / ru ) 22.50 (rJ )
0.2 RQD 15.1 log( X ) 1.670 P 25.67 (rG rJ )

0.2 RQD 15.1 log( X ) 0.075 C 24.00 (rG rJ )
These expressions allow us to calculate basic RMR for several kinds of data (point load
strength or uniaxial compressive strength, water flow or pore pressure relationship). As hydro-
geological conditions are usually defined using subjective descriptions (dry, damp, wet, dripping
or flowing), the last two expressions allow us to calculate basic RMR.
When no borehole data are available and we use scanline data or volumetric measures to esti-
mate Rock Quality Designation (RQD), the Priest and Hudson [22] expression can be used:
RQD 100e 0.1 (0.1 1) (10)
or the Palmstrom [23] expression:
RQD 115 3.3J v (11)
Where is the discontinuity frequency and Jv is the volumetric joint count respectively. Conse-
quently, the basic RMR of (9) can be expressed for RQD obtained from expression (10) and
taking into account that 1/ X newly as:
20(1 0.1 ) e 0.1 15.1 log( ) 1.670 P 2.9 log( G ) 35.67 (rJ )
0.1
20(1 0.1 ) e 15.1 log( ) 0.075 C 2.9 log( G ) 34.00 (rJ )
20(1 0.1 ) e 0.1 15.1 log( ) 1.670 P 10 log(1 / ru ) 24.17 (rJ )

RMRb 0.1
(12)
20(1 0.1 ) e 15.1 log( ) 0.075 C 10 log(1 / ru ) 22.50 (rJ )
20(1 0.1 ) e 0.1 15.1 log( ) 1.670 P 24.67 (rG rJ )

20(1 0.1 ) e 0.1 15.1 log( ) 0.075 C 24.00 (rG rJ )
And for RQD obtained from expression (11), expression (9) is expressed as:
5
3.3J V 15.1 log( X ) 1.670 P 2.9 log( G ) 150.67 (rJ )

3.3J 15.1 log( X ) 0.075 C 2.9 log( G ) 149.00 (rJ )
V
3.3J V 15.1 log( X ) 1.670 P 10 log(1 / ru ) 139.17 (rJ )

RMRb (13)
3.3J V 15.1 log( X ) 0.075 C 10 log(1 / ru ) 137.50 (rJ )
3.3J V 15.1 log( X ) 1.670 P 139.67 (rG rJ )

3.3J V 15.1 log( X ) 0.075 C 139.00 (rG rJ )
As a result, basic RMR can be expressed in 18 different forms (Eqs. 9, 12 and 13), depending
on the parameters available for determining rock mass quality.
Note that the discontinuity conditions term (rJ), which depends on roughness, continuity, altera-
tion, aperture and fill, has a descriptive character and consequently a continuous function can-
not be used to calculate it. Furthermore, it should be pointed out that eq. (12) has only four in-
dependent parameters while eqs. (9) and (13) have five different independent parameters.
4. Continuous Slope Mass Rating (SMR)
4.1 Available functions
As previously stated, SMR is calculated from eq. (1) by adding four correction factors (F1, F2, F3
and F4) to the basic RMR (Table 1).
Romana [19] proposed a function for the computation of the F1 parameter (Figure 1a):
F1 (1 sen A ) 2 (14)
where A is the parallelism between discontinuities and slope dip direction for planar and top-
pling failures. For wedge failure, A is the angle formed between the intersection of the two dis-
continuities (the plunge direction) and the slope dip direction [24]. This function is valid for all
possible values of A and provides more conservative values for F1 than the original discrete
function.
The same author established the following continuous function for F 2 computation (Figure 1b):
F2 tan2B (15)
where B corresponds to the discontinuity dip (j) in degrees, for planar failure and toppling and
to the plunge (i) of the wedge failure intersection line [24]. Its valid range is for values of B low-
er than 45. For higher values, F2 is set to 1. Consequently, this function is not valid for all val-
ues of B constituting a discrete function. Moreover, it is unsafe because it provides values of F2
lower than those proposed in the original function.
6
Figure 1. Proposed functions for SMR correction factors estimation: (a) F 1; (b) F2; (c) F3 for
planar and wedge failures; (d) F3 for toppling failures.
4.2 Alternative functions
In this section, alternative functions for the F1 and F2 correction parameters are proposed.
Moreover, new continuous functions are proposed for the F3 parameter.
The proposed F1 continuous function that best fits discrete values is expressed as (Figure 1a):
16 3 1
F1 atan ( A 17) (16)
25 500 10
Where parameter A and arctangent function are expressed in degrees.
7
We propose an alternative continuous function for F2 estimation, which is valid for all possible
values of B (Figure 1b):
9 1 17
F2 atan( B 5) (17)
16 195 100
Where parameter B and arctangent function are also expressed in degrees.
Toms et al. [25] proposed continuous functions for F3 calculus from dip relationship (C) using
sigmoidal and asymptotical arctangent function. These functions have been slightly readjusted
to the following new formula (Figure 1c and d), which is more conservative and shows a better
fit to the F3 discrete values:
1
F3 30 atanC (18)
3
1
F3 13 atan(C 120) (19)
7
Function (18) is used for slopes with planar or wedge failure and expression (19) is used for
toppling failure cases. The C variable expresses dip relationship and is equivalent to j-s for
planar failure, i-s for wedge failure and j+s for toppling failure.
Note that the use of arctangent functions has the advantage of being asymptotical to the ex-
treme score values and, consequently, for values higher than those corresponding to the prop-
erties near the extreme borders, they do not cause significant deviations from the discrete val-
ues.
Functions (18) and (19) are novel for Romanas classification application because they enable
the F3 parameter to be calculated using the original values of Bieniawskis classification (varying
from 0 to -60), which very much condition the final SMR value. For instance, a slope with pla-
nar failure and C=0, F3 is equal to -25 points. However, for values of 0<C10 F3, is equal to -6
points and for values of -10C<0, F3 is equal to -50 points, which, in the worst case scenario,
implies maximum SMR indexes with differences of -44 points (more than 2 classes). Conse-
quently, 1 can cause important changes in the chosen score and, for the slope under consid-
eration, we will select a value of F3 equal to -50, to be on the safe side.
As a result, when this correction index is continuous, we avoid the ambiguity that sometimes
appears when reference values approach interval borders. This observation can be performed
equally on the remaining parameters.
Finally, F4 factor depends on the excavation system employed for slope construction. It has an
unavoidably descriptive character and is not suitable for continuous functions.
8
5. Comparison between original and modified by continuous functions SMR
In this section, we applied the proposed functions to 61 slopes in order to establish their confi-
dence with the original, discrete functions for SMR. Most of the cases correspond to Spanish
slopes measured by the authors, although several of them have been taken from historical and
bibliographical cases.
The results obtained from the comparison between continuous and discrete SMR correction
parameters in the cases considered are shown in Figure 2 and Table 2.
Table 2. Statistics about differences among SMR classification continuous and discrete correc-
tion factor terms (61cases studied).
Using eqs. (14) and Proposed eqs.
F1 x F2 x F 3 (15) from Romana [19] (eq. (16), (17), (18) and
and eqs. (18) and (19) (19))
Average difference 57 03
Maximum difference 21 4
Minimum difference -7 -7
The continuous functions provide a unique correction value for every case (Figure 2) in compar-
ison with discrete functions. It can be observed that equations (14) and (15) generally provide
lower values than those provided by original SMR discrete functions. Moreover, the correction
values obtained from continuous functions (16) and (17) are generally higher (in absolute value)
than those obtained using discrete functions and are therefore on the safe side. Some of these
facts can be seen in Table 2. It shows that the average and maximum differences between cor-
rection factor terms F1 x F2 x F3 from the SMR classification are 5 7 points (half a subclass)
and 21 points (more than one class), respectively, if we use equations (14), (15), (18) and (19)
and 03 points and 4 points (less than a subclass) if we use eqs. (16), (17), (18) and (19).
Figure 3 shows the comparison between basic RMR and SMR continuous and discrete indexes.
Although it is not the principal aim of this study to discuss the suitability of the continuous func-
tions proposed by Sen and Sadagah [18] and the changes introduced due to the incorporation
of new functions proposed and contrasted by other authors, we have also included the basic
RMR index statistics. For this index, an average value of 5 4 points (a coincidence of 107
7%) and a maximum difference of 16 points (Table 3 and Figure 3a), almost equivalent to a
geomechanical class, has been calculated. For the SMR index, an average difference of 9 8
points (a coincidence of 123 26%) and a maximum difference value of 28 points have also
been calculated using equations (14), (15), (18) and (19) (Table 3 and Figure 3b). For equations
(16), (17), (18) and (19) (Table 3 and Figure 3b), the average differences are reduced to 5 4
(a coincidence of 110 14%) with maximum differences of 14 points.
9
If we analyze these differences for the existing types of failure (Table 4 and figures 3c and 3d)
we can see that the greater level of coincidence between lump and continuous SMR indexes
corresponds to planar failure mode with average differences of 5 3 points and a maximum of
10 points if we use eqs. (16), (17), (18) and (19).
Figure 2. Comparison between discrete and continuous F1, F2 and F3 parameters using differ-
ent functions (61 case studies considered).
Finally, differences among lump and continuous indexes have been studied for the different
geomechanical classes (Table 4). Minimum differences correspond to class V with average
differences of 4 2 points and a maximum difference of 7 points. However, this class is the
least represented with only five cases.
As a result, we can conclude that no significant differences between proposed continuous func-
tions and discrete functions have been observed for the different geomechanical classes and
10
types of failure. These differences are, in the worst case scenario, 14 points, which is less than
three quarters of a geomechanical class.
Table 3. Statistical differences among continuous and lump geomechanical indexes.
Coincidence Avr. differ- Max. differ- Min. differ-

(%) ence ence ence
RMRb 107 7% 54 16 1
SMR (eqs. 16, 17, 18 and 19) 110 14% 54 14 0
SMR (eqs. 14 and 15 from 123 26% 98 28 0
Romana [19] and eqs. 18 and
19)
Nr. of considered cases = 61
Figure 3. Comparison between continuous and discrete indexes: (a) Basic rock mass rating. (b)
Slope Mass Rating for different continuous functions. (c) Slope Mass Rating for different failure
types and eqs. (14) and (15): Romana [19] and eqs. (18) and (19). (c) Slope Mass Rating for
different failure types and eqs. (16), (17), (18) and (19).
11
Table 4. Absolute differences in discrete SMR and continuous SMR according to failure type
and slope rock mass class (N. of considered cases = 61)
(*)
FAILURE TYPE CLASS
W T P I II III IV V
Cases (n) 13 29 19 0 16 15 25 5
(eqs. (16), (17), (18) and
54 64 53 - 43 54 64 42
(19))
Average
(eqs. (14) and (15) from
difference
Romana [19] and eqs. (18) 12 10 7 5 11 9 - 6 4 7 5 14 9 3 3
and (19))
(eqs. (16), (17), (18) and
11 14 10 - 10 10 14 7
(19))
Maximum
difference
Romana [19] and eqs. (18) 28 16 27 - 15 18 28 6
and (19))
(eqs. (16), (17), (18) and
0 0 0 - 0 0 0 1
(19))
Minimum
difference
Romana [19] and eqs. (18) 2 0 0 - 0 1 2 0
and (19))
W: wedge failure; T: toppling failure; P: planar failure. (*) Taking discrete SMR.into account
5. Conclusions
Rock mass classifications are a very useful tool for the characterization of rock masses. Among
all available rock mass classifications, SMR is the most extended and is applied for rocky slopes
due to its ease and exhaustive, well established, quantitative definition of correction factors.
These factors are: F1, which depends on parallelism between discontinuities and the slope face;
F2, which depends on discontinuity dip; F3, which depends on the relationship between the slope
face and the discontinuity dip and F4, which depends on the excavation method.
In this study, new arctangent and asymptotical continuous functions for F 1, F2 and F3 SMR cor-
rection factors are proposed. These functions show maximum absolute differences with discrete
functions lower than 7 points and significantly reduce subjective interpretations. Moreover, the
proposed functions for SMR correction factors calculus reduce doubts about what score to as-
sign to values near the border of the discrete classification. Only the F4 parameter preserves its
subjective and descriptive character.
These functions have been combined with Sen and Sadagahs proposal [18] to also reduce
basic RMR subjective interpretations. These continuous basic RMR functions have been slightly
modified to increase the possibilities of expressing different parameters.
12
The resulting functions obtained by combining basic RMR and SMR correction parameter con-
tinuous functions allow a unique SMR value to be assigned for every slope and allow discrimi-
nation among slopes that have the same discrete SMR index. The differences observed among
lump and continuous functions are less than 14 points for the SMR with an average value of 5
4. These differences are higher if we use that proposed by Romana [19] for F1 and F2 estima-
tion.
The continuous functions make it easy to program data processing routines for SMR calculus
and facilitate the implementation of SMR using the Geographical Information System but in
contrast they are difficult to apply in the field, where chart classification is more useful.
Acknowledgments
This study was partially funded by the Spanish Ministry of Science and Technology and FEDER
(project TEC-2005-06863), by the Valencia Regional Government (project GV06/179 and
GRUPOS03/085) and by the University of Alicante (project VIGROB-157).
References
[1] Romana M. El papel de las clasificaciones geomecnicas en el estudio de la estabilidad de

taludes. In: Proceedings of the IV Simposio Nacional sobre taludes y laderas inestables, Gra-
nada, 1997. p. 955-1011.
[2] Bieniawski ZT. Rock mass classification in rock engineering. In: Proceedings of the Sympo-
sium Expl. Rock Engineering, Johannesburg, 1976. p. 97-106.
[3] Bieniawski ZT. Engineering Rock Mass Classification. Chichester: Wiley, 1989.
[4] Selby MJ. A rock mass strength classification for geomorphic purposes: with tests from Ant-
arctica and New Zeland. Zeitschrifts fr Geomorphologie 1980;24:31-51.
[5] Romana M. New adjustment ratings for application of Bieniawski classification to slopes. In:
Proceedings of the International Symposium on the role of rock mechanics, ISRM, Zacatecas,
1985. p. 49-53.
[6] Robertson AM. Estimating weak rock strength. In: Proceedings of the SME Annual meeting,
Phoenix, 1988. p. 1-5.
[7] Laubscher DH. A geomechanical classification system for the rating of rock mass in mine
design. Journal of the South African Institute of Mining and Metallurgy 1990;90:257-273.
[8] Haines A, Terbrugge PJ. Preliminary estimation of rock slope stability using rock mass clas-
th
sification system. In: Proceedings of the 7 Congress on Rock Mechanics, ISRM, xxxx, 1991. p.
887-892.
13
[9] Chen Z. Recent developments in slope Stability Analysis. Keynote lecture. In: Proceedings
of the 8th International Congress on Rock Mechanics, Tokio, 1995. p. 1041-1048.
[10] Shuk T. Key elements and applications of the natural slope methodology (NSM) with some
th
emphasis on slope stability aspects. In: Proceedings of the 4 South American Congress on
Rock Mechanics, ISRM, xxxx, 1994. p. 955-960.
[11] nal E. Modified rock mass classification: M-RMR system. In: Milestones in rock engineer-
ing, The Bieniawski Jubilee Collection, xxxx, ed. Xxxxx: Balkema, 1996, pp. 203-223.
[12] Hack HRGK. Slope Stability Probability Classification. Netherlands: ITC Delf Publication,
1998.
[13] Lindsay P, Campbell RN, Fergusson DA, Gillard GR, Moore TA. Slope stability probability
classification, Waikato Coal Measures, New Zeeland. International Journal of Coal Geology
2001;45:127-145.
[14] Romana M, Sern JB, Montalar E. La clasificacin geomecnica SMR: Aplicacin expe-
riencias y validacin. In: Proceedings of the V Simposio Nacional sobre taludes y laderas in-
estables, Madrid, 2001. p. 393-404.
[15] Romana M, Sern JB, Montalar E. SMR Geomechanics classification: Application, experi-
ence and validation. In: Proceedings of the International. Symposium on the role of rock me-
chanics, xxxx, 2003. p. 1-4.
[16] Romana M, Sern JB, Jord L, Vlez MI. La clasificacin geomecnica SMR para taludes:
Estado actual, aplicacin y experiencia internacional. In: Proceedings of the VI Simposio
Nacional sobre taludes y laderas inestables, Valencia, 2005. p. 239-250.
[17] Irigaray C, Fernndez T, Chacn J. Preliminary Rock-Slope-Susceptibility assesment using

GIS and the SMR classification. Natural Hazard 2003;30:309-324.
[18] Sen Z, Sadagah H. Modified rock mass classification system by continuous rating. Eng.
Geol. 2003;67:269-280.
[19] Romana M. A geomechanical classification for slopes: Slope Mass Rating. In: Comprehen-
sive Rock Engineering, JA Hudson, ed. Oxford: Pergamon Press, 1993, pp. xxx-xxx.
[20] Anbalagan R, Sharma S, Raghuvanshi TK. Rock Mass Stability Evaluation Using Modified
SMR Approach. In: Proceedings of the 6th National Symposium on Rock Mechanics, 1992. p.
258-268.
[21] Romana M. Nota sobre la valoracin del 5 parmetro (condiciones hidrogeolgicas) del
RMR bsico en funcin de ru (razn de presiones intersticiales). In: Proceedings of the VI Sim-
posio de taludes y laderas inestables, Valencia, 2005. p. 221-226.
14
[22] Priest SD, Hudson JA. Estimation of discontinuity spacing and trace length using scanline
survey. J Rock Mech Min Sci Geomech Abstr 1981;18:183-197.
[23] Palmstrom A. The volumetric joint count A useful and simple measure of the degree of
th
rock mass jointing. In: Proceedings of the 4 Conference Int Assoc Eng Geol, New Delhi, 1982.
p. 221-228.
[24] Singh B, Gel RK. Rock Mass Classification. A Practical Approach in Civil Engineering.
msterdam: Elsevier, 1999.
[25] Toms R, Cano M, Cuenca A, Caaveras JC, Delgado J, Estvez A, Pina JA. Nuevas fun-
ciones continuas para el clculo del Slope Mass Rating (SMR): aplicacin mediante un sistema
de informacin geogrfica a los taludes rocosos de una cantera. Rev. Soc. Geol. Espaa
2006;19:87-97.
15

Modification of Slope Mass Rating SMR by PDF

Загружено:

Сведения о документе

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

Modification of Slope Mass Rating SMR by PDF

Загружено:

Авторское право:

Доступные форматы

Cite this paper as: Toms, R.; Delgado, J.; Sern, J.B.

Modification of Slope Mass Rating

MODIFICATION OF SLOPE MASS RATING (SMR) BY CONTINUOUS FUNCTIONS

(1) Departamento de Ingeniera de la Construccin, Obras Pblicas e Infraestructuras Urbanas.

Keywords: Geomechanical classification, SMR, basic RMR, continuous function.

2. The Slope Mass Rating (SMR) classification

SMR RMRb (F1 F2 F3 ) F4 (1)

RMRb RMR rc r rX rJ rG rRQD (2)

3. Continuous functions for Basic Rock Mass Rating (RMR b)

rRQD 0.2RQD (3)

rX 24 15.1 log( X ) (4)

rG 10 2.9 log(G) (7)

Where RQD is expressed as a percentage; X is the average discontinuity spacing in meters,

VERY FA- UNFAVORA- VERY UNFA-

EXCAVATION METHOD (F4)

P: planar failure; T: toppling failure; W: wedge failure.

0.2 RQD 15.1 log( X ) 1.670 P 2.9 log( G ) 35.67 (rJ )

0.2 RQD 15.1 log( X ) 1.670 P 10 log(1 / ru ) 24.17 (rJ )

RQD 100e 0.1 (0.1 1) (10)

or the Palmstrom [23] expression:

RQD 115 3.3J v (11)

taking into account that 1/ X newly as:

3.3J V 15.1 log( X ) 1.670 P 2.9 log( G ) 150.67 (rJ )

3.3J V 15.1 log( X ) 1.670 P 10 log(1 / ru ) 139.17 (rJ )

4. Continuous Slope Mass Rating (SMR)

4.1 Available functions

4.2 Alternative functions

Where parameter A and arctangent function are expressed in degrees.

Where parameter B and arctangent function are also expressed in degrees.

5. Comparison between original and modified by continuous functions SMR

Table 3. Statistical differences among continuous and lump geomechanical indexes.

Coincidence Avr. differ- Max. differ- Min. differ-

[1] Romana M. El papel de las clasificaciones geomecnicas en el estudio de la estabilidad de

[17] Irigaray C, Fernndez T, Chacn J. Preliminary Rock-Slope-Susceptibility assesment using

Вам также может понравиться