Rock Mech Rock Eng (2010) 43:321–333
DOI 10.1007/s00603-009-0050-4
ORIGINAL PAPER
Assessment of the Stability of Rock Slopes by the Slope Stability
Rating Classification System
Abbas Taheri Æ Kazuo Tani
Received: 16 July 2008 / Accepted: 6 April 2009 / Published online: 5 May 2009
Ó Springer-Verlag 2009
Abstract Given the lack of suitable systems in the
characterization of slope stability of heavily jointed rock
masses, a new rock mass classification system called Slope
Stability Rating (SSR) is proposed. In addition to the so-
called modified Geological Strength Index, the proposed
system considers five additional parameters whose relative
effects on the stability of fractured rock slopes were pre-
cisely examined based on data retrieved from eight dif-
ferent rock slope sites in Iran. An overall rating for the rock
mass is obtained from the summation of the individual
ratings of each parameter. A number of design charts are
provided as illustration. The new system was then validated
based on 46 slope case histories from Iran and Australia.
For this, by means of the design charts previously men-
tioned, a recommended stable angle for each slope was
given and compared with the current slope conditions. As a
result, SSR design charts for maximum excavation angle
(FS = 1.0) and also for other more conservative excava-
tion angles (FS = 1.2, 1.3, 1.5) were presented.
Keywords Rock mass classification system

Slope Stability Rating
SSR
GSI
Design chart
A. Taheri (&)
Department of Civil Engineering, Tokyo University of Science,
2641 Yamazaki, Noda, Chiba 278-8510, Japan
e-mail: taheri@rs.noda.tus.ac.jp
K. Tani
Department of Civil Engineering,
Yokohama National University, 79-5 Tokiwadai,
Hodogaya-ku, Yokohama 240-8501, Japan
e-mail: tani@ynu.ac.jp
1 Introduction
The estimation of rock slope stability is required by the
civil and mining engineering industries for a wide variety
of projects, not only during the feasibility study but also
during the excavation and operating stages. Rock mass
classification systems are then essential to quickly and
reliably estimate the stable angle of a required or existing
slope.
Many rock mass classification systems have been
developed in the past 100 years, motivated initially by the
first tentative formalizations of tunnel design. The two
most common systems that gained broad acceptance in the
civil and mining industries are the Geomechanics classifi-
cation scheme, RMR (Bieniawski 1973) and the rock tun-
neling quality index, Q (Barton et al. 1974). However, both
systems were proposed essentially based on case studies of
underground excavations, while the number of surface case
studies was considerably limited (Bieniawski 1989). In
addition, the rating for spacing of discontinuities consid-
ered in Bieniawski (1973) was derived based on under-
ground tunnels that were of the order of 10 m span. It is
likely that this rating ceases to be valid in case of slopes of
several hundred meters (Douglas and Mostyn 1999).
A number of studies similarly questioned the relevance
of the Rock Quality Designation (RQD), as a parameter in
the characterization of rock masses (Singh and Goel 1999;
Ramamurthy and Arora 1992; Riedmuller and Schubert
1999). Besides the RMR and Q indexes, Terzaghi (1946)
and Palmstrom (1996) proposed also their own classifica-
tion indexes (e.g., the Rmi index). However, they remained
specific to underground openings. Even though all the rock
mass classification systems mentioned above could be
successfully applied in tunneling and underground mining,
most of them actually suffer strong limitations and
123
322
Fig. 1 Modified GSI
classification (Sonmez and
Ulusay 2002)
shortcomings in case of rock slope problems. In particular,
limitations arise from their applications to closely jointed
rock masses and from the lack of suitable design charts to
estimate the stable angle of the required slope.
Posterior to the RMR classification system, another
geomechanical classification for slopes, named Slope Mass
Rating (SMR), was proposed (Romana 1993). But Singh
and Goel (1999) among others demonstrated the limitations
in case of closely jointed rock masses and large-scale rock
slopes. The Mining Rock Mass Rating system has also
been tentatively used for evaluating the stability of rock
slopes (Haines and Terbrugge 1991). Design charts for
rock slope problems could be proposed based on a number
of case histories from South Africa. Yet, as this system was
basically introduced for underground mining industry, its
application into rock slope design might suffer similar
limitations.
A number of empirical design charts have also been
proposed, for example, based on the Geological Strength
123
A. Taheri, K. Tani
Index (GSI) system (Douglas 2002). However, since some
of the major slope stability parameters are not included in
GSI, the application of this method for rock slope design is
conditional and remains limited to particular cases. Given
the above and in order to meet the needs of engineers who
are looking for an empirical method to evaluate the sta-
bility of large-scale rock slopes, prior to the application of
more sophisticated design methods, the purpose of this
study is to introduce a new rock classification system with
relevant design charts.
The GSI was developed by Hoek and Brown (1997)
based upon the visual impression on the rock mass struc-
ture. To provide a more quantitative numerical basis for
evaluating the GSI, this classification system was modified
by Sonmez and Ulusay (1999). Then, this quantitative GSI
chart was slightly modified by Sonmez and Ulusay (2002),
and defined by fuzzy sets (Sonmez et al. 2003). In this
latest version of the quantitative GSI chart, a top row of
‘‘intact or massive’’ rock was included into the system
Assessment of the Stability of Rock Slopes by SSR System 323

Another important factor considered in the proposed

classification system is the method of excavation, which
has considerable influence on rock mass conditions
(Romana 1993) and on the stability of rock slopes, to a
Angooran Jajarm
Mine Mine
much larger extent than in case of underground excava-
Tehran-North
Freeway tions. In particular, the spacing of discontinuities will be
strongly affected in that, depending on the blasting dam-
Emarat IranKuh
Mine Mine
Choghart age, blasted slopes may have closer discontinuity spacing
Mine
than natural slopes.
Karoon (III)
Hydropower Project Taking into account the method of excavation, Sonmez
Meidook Sarcheshmeh and Ulusay (1999) could demonstrate a good agreement
Mine Mine
between estimated and back-calculated strengths from
Gole-Gohar
Mine
observed slope failures. To this end, an adjustment factor
(df), ranging between 0.8 and 1, was considered based on
the method of excavation. Similarly, Hoek et al. (2002)
proposed to include a disturbance factor (D) in the Hoek–
Brown failure criterion through the empirical equation
estimating the deformation modulus of rock masses in
Fig. 2 Location of studied rock slope sites in Iran association with the GSI.
Finally, Sonmez et al. (2004) successfully developed
(Fig. 1) as previously suggested by Marinos and Hoek practical charts for the estimation of df in function of the
(2000). To address the lack of parameters to describe sur- degree of disturbance, otherwise based on the measurement
face condition of the discontinuities and the rock mass of shear wave velocities in the rock mass before and after
structure, the quantitative GSI chart (Sonmez and Ulusay blasting. Given the above, for each particular slope exca-
2002) considers two terms, namely, the ‘‘structure rating, vation method, the value of df will be determined in the
SR’’ based on the volumetric joint count (Jv) and the present study and incorporated in the new rock classifica-
‘‘surface condition rating, SCR’’, estimated from three tion system.
input parameters (the roughness rating Rr, the weathering
rating Rw, and the infilling rating Rf) as shown in Fig. 1.
The GSI, which has been modified by Sonmez and 2 Methodology
Ulusay (2002), provided a useful tool for describing rock
mass structure and determination of rock mass parameters 2.1 Data Collection
in rock slopes. In this study, therefore, the GSI chart shown
in Fig. 1 is employed to determine rock mass parameters in Having selected the base classification system (GSI), rel-
conjunction with the Hoek–Brown failure criterion and evant information and field data of ten mines and civil
also used as a basis to develop a new rock mass classifi- engineering projects in Iran were collected. The locations
cation system. of these sites are shown in Fig. 2.

Table 1 Characteristics of selected slope sites

Case Rock type GSI Intact rock properties Final designed geometry Factor of
3
safety
c (kN/m ) UCS (MPa) mi df Slope height Slope angle
(m) (deg)

IranKuh mine Dolomite 47 27 153 9 0.87 184 55 1.76

IranKuh mine Shale 28 26 50 8 0.95 140 34 1.70
Gole-Gohar mine Schist 44 44 65 17 0.91 220 45 1.58
Jajarm mine Limestone 58 27 172 9 0.85 135 65 2.01
Emarat mine Shale 41 27 29 7 0.91 70 50 1.37
Karoon III hydropower project Crushed Limestone 25 26.5 50 10 0.97 110 45 1.59
Choghart mine Schist Marble Phyllites 39 27 109 18 0.87 270 45 1.71
Angooran mine Limestone 48 30 104 7 0.95 170 55 1.78

123
324 A. Taheri, K. Tani

Table 2 Rock groups defined for slope stability purposes

Rock group Rock type Name of rocks mi value Dry unit weight (kN/m3)

1 Sedimentary Clay shale, Mudstone, Claystone and Marl 4 25.0

2 Metamorphic
3 Sedimentary
Metamorphic
4 Sedimentary
Igneous
5 Sedimentary
Metamorphic
Igneous
6 Igneous
Schists and Mylonites 6 26.6
Limestone shale, Dolomite, Limestone, Chalk and Siltstone 9 27.0
Slate, Phyllites and Marble
Anhydrite and Gypstone 16 27.2
Tuff, Basalt, Breccia, Dacite and Rhyolite
Breccia, Greywacke, Sandstone and Conglomerate 20 27.3
Hornfels
Dolerite, Obsidian, Andesite, Norite and Agglomerate
Granite, Granodiorite, Diorite and Gabbro 28 26.6

2.2 Stability Analysis Table 3 Disturbance factor (df) for different excavation methods
Slope excavation method Disturbance factor
Based on the data mentioned above, the GSI values of a
selected number of rock slopes were determined, the rock Waste damp 0.80
mass shear strengths being calculated by using the Hoek– Poor blasting 0.87
Brown failure criterion (Sonmez and Ulusay 2002). Normal blasting 0.91
Eight slopes were selected from the sites shown in Smooth blasting 0.95
Fig. 2. Relevant characteristics such as the final designed Presplitting 0.97
geometry, the rock type, and rock properties are listed in Natural slope 1.00
Table 1. The height of the studied slopes ranges from 70 to
270 m, the slope angles from 34° to 65°, and the GSI
values of the rock masses from 25 to 58. The values of friction angle of intact rock, had considerable effects
disturbance factors df for each site are also listed in Table 1 on the stability of rock slopes. The slope stability
and were obtained by back-analysis of the rock mass shear being otherwise closely related to the dry unit weight
strengths, and by taking into account the excavation of intact rock, it is proposed to consider these two
method, as explained later. The stability analysis was parameters in terms of rock type (lithology). For this
performed by means of a limit equilibrium code, CLARA, purpose, the reference tables of rock material
and which has been proven to be relevant in the analysis of
jointed rock slopes (Hunger Geotechnical Research Inc.
1988). Set GSI = GSI(1) Set 5 considered parameters
(For example: GSI(1)= 50) (For example: UCS(1)=20 MPa)

2.3 Sensitivity Analysis

Change one of the parameters, others remain constant
(For example: UCS(2)= 50 MPa)
Among the number of parameters that may influence the
Stability analysis, FS = a
stability of jointed rock masses, besides the discontinuities
condition (otherwise reflected by the GSI value), the fol- Change GSI, Keep 5 parameters in initial condition
lowing five parameters were retained in the present study: (For example: GSI(2) = 60)

(a) Uniaxial Compressive Strength (UCS) of intact rock Stability analysis, FS = b

naturally, the rock material strength is expected to
greatly influence the stability of rock slopes. There- a=b
fore, the UCS was considered as one of the param-
eters in the new classification system. According to Effect of change of the selected parameter is equal to
the effect of change of GSI
the collected data, this parameter ranges from 10 to (For example: 30 MPa increase of UCS = 10 unit
200 MPa among the case studies considered. increase of GSI)

(b) Rock type (Lithology) stability analyses showed that Determine weight of each parameter
the variation of mi in the Hoek–Brown failure
criterion, which is approximately equivalent to the Fig. 3 Procedure to estimate weight of each parameter

123
Assessment of the Stability of Rock Slopes by SSR System 325

30
60
(a) (b)
IranKuh Mine (Dolomite)
IranKuh Mine (Shale)
50 25
Gole-Gohar Mine
Jajarm Mine
Emarat Mine
40 20
Karoon III Project
Choghart Mine

Weight
Weight

Angooran Mine
30 15
IranKuh Mine (Dolomite)
IranKuh Mine (Shale)
Gole-Gohar Mine 10
20
Jajarm Mine
Emarat Mine
Karoon III Project
10 5
Choghart Mine
Angooran Mine

0 0
0 20 40 60 80 100 120 140 160 180 200 1 2 3 4 5 6

UCS (MPa) Rock group number

25 IranKuh Mine (Dolomite)

(c) 40 (d) IranKuh Mine (Shale)
Gole-Gohar Mine
IranKuh Mine (Dolomite) Jajarm Mine
IranKuh Mine (Shale) 20 Emarat Mine
Gole-Gohar Mine Karoon III Project
30 Jajarm Mine Choghart Mine
Emarat Mine Angooran Mine
15

Weight
Karoon III Project
Weight

Choghart Mine
20 Angooran Mine
10

10
5

0 0
Waste damp Poor blasting Normal Smooth Presplitting Natural slope 0 20 40 60 80 100
blasting blasting

Slope excavation method Saturation of slope (%)

30
(e)
IranKuh Mine (Dolomite)
IranKuh Mine (Shale)
25
Gole-Gohar Mine
Jajarm Mine
Emarat Mine
20 Karoon III Project
Choghart Mine
Weight

Angooran Mine
15

10

0
0 0.05 0.1 0.15 0.2 0.25 0.3 0.35

Horizontal earthquake acceleration (g)

Fig. 4 Weighs of parameters determined relatively to the GSI value

specifications proposed by Hoek et al. (2002) and the stability of rock slopes and can be relevantly taken
Rzhevsky and Novik (1967) were used, leading to a into account via the disturbance factor (df). In this
classification of rocks into six groups with different study, df was determined for each method of slope
lithological characteristics (Table 2). As shown later, excavation based on the values used by Sonmez and
the rock groups defined in this manner have similar Ulusay (1999), Sonmez et al. (2004) and Romana
properties in regards to their slope stability. (1993). In case of poor blasting excavation methods,
(c) Slope excavation method as previously mentioned, the back-analysis of a failed slope in central Iran
slope excavation method has considerable effects on (IranKuh mine) was performed to determine the

123
326 A. Taheri, K. Tani

(a) 50 pseudo-static analysis was carried out by taking into

account the horizontal acceleration values of the
40 ground, ranging between 0.15 and 0.35 g.

30 The sensitivity analysis was then performed based on

Rating

the values of the parameters mentioned above.

20
2.4 Estimation of Parameters Weight
10
In order to evaluate the weight of each parameter, the GSI
0 value was used as a reference variable. The procedure is
0 40 80 120 160 200
UCS (MPa) detailed in Fig. 3. In each series of sensitivity analysis
performed, the value of one parameter is changed while the
0 values of the other four parameters are kept constant, the
(b)
resulting outcome being the determination of a given value
-4
of factor of safety (e.g., FS = a). Then, analyses are
-8
repeated by changing the GSI value in the back-analysis to
Rating

produce similar values of factor of safety (i.e.,

-12 FS(2) = b = a). This allows estimating the weight of each
parameter relatively to the GSI value. For example, as
-16 mentioned in Fig. 3, an increase in the UCS value from 20
to 50 MPa may correspond to an increase in the GSI value
-20
0 20 40 60 80 100 from 50 to 60, i.e., to a weight of 10.
Saturation of slope (%) Figure 4 shows the resulting weights of each parameter
versus their intrinsic values, which were derived based on
0
(c) each of the eight slope case studies considered. The final
-5 relationships retained are the medians of the set of relations
obtained from the eight case studies. Median was consid-
-10
ered to be more relevant than, e.g., the arithmetic mean as
Rating

-15 it is less influenced by abnormal values.

-20

-25 3 Newly Proposed Rock Mass Classification System

-30
0.00 0.07 0.14 0.21 0.28
Horizontal earthquake acceleration (g)
Fig. 5 Rating of parameters for the SSR classification system
disturbance factor. df values are listed in Table 3 and
range from 0.8 to 1.0.
(d) Groundwater condition the stability of rock slopes
may be strongly affected by the groundwater condition
since an increase in the water pressure in discontinu-
ities may reduce the overall stability by reducing the
strength of discontinuity surfaces. Therefore, the
water pressure will be taken into account by changing
the position of groundwater table in each slope. Yet,
due to modeling limitations, the softening or weaken-
ing effect of water on discontinuity surfaces will not
be considered in the stability analysis.
(e) Earthquake force: the stability of any earth slopes can
not be free from dynamic earthquake effects. There-
fore, in the stability analysis using CLARA code, the
0.35 Given the weight of each parameter, the following rating
values (either positive or negative) are considered in
regards to their influence on the stability of jointed rock
slopes:
(a) UCS since the intact rock strength has a positive
effect on the stability of rock slopes, positive values
are considered for the rating. Figure 5a shows the
resulting rating values versus the UCS value, corre-
sponding simply to the median of the relations shown
in Fig. 4a.
(b) Rock type (Lithology) from Table 2, it can be readily
seen that the rock quality improves with an increase
in the rock group number. Therefore, similarly to the
UCS parameter, positive rating values are considered
for this parameter.
(c) Slope excavation method it may appear obvious that
natural slopes are more stable due to long-term erosion
and associated built-in protection mechanisms. Then,
presplitting method and smooth blasting, if correctly

123
Assessment of the Stability of Rock Slopes by SSR System 327

Table 4 SSR (Slope Stability Rating) rock mass classification system for preliminary evaluation of slope stability
Parameter Range of values

1 Modified GSI (Refer to Fig. 1)

Rating 0–100
2 Uniaxial compressive strength (MPa) 0–10 10–25 25–50 50–100 100–150 150–200
Rating 0 7 18 28 37 43
3 Rock type (refer to Table 2) Group 1 Group 2 Group 3 Group 4 Group 5 Group 6
Rating 0 4 9 17 20 25
4 Slope excavation method Waste Poor Normal Smooth Presplitting Natural
damp blasting blasting blasting slope
Rating -11 -4 0 6 10 24
5 Groundwater (Groundwater level from Dry 0–20% 20–40% 40–60% 60–80% 80–100%
bottom of the slope/
slope height) 9 100
Rating 0 -1 -3 -6 -14 -18
6 Earthquake force Horizontal acceleration 0 0.15 g 0.20 g 0.25 g 0.30 g 0.35 g
Rating 0 -11 -15 -19 -22 -26

performed, can be considered as provoking limited
damage to the slope. Normal blasting with sound
methods may not reduce significantly the slope
stability either. On the other hand, poor blasting with
too much explosives and no detonation timing tends to
reduce largely the slope stability while it is known that
in case of spoil piles with high proportion of rock
pieces, the stability of a completely disturbed rock
mass condition is very low. Accordingly, and similarly
to the SMR classification system (Romana 1993),
positive or negative ratings are assigned to each
excavation method.
(d) Groundwater condition since the stability of rock
slopes decreases in presence of groundwater, a
negative rating is assigned to this parameter. Fig-
ure 5b shows the resulting relationship between the
rating and the groundwater level.
(e) Earthquake force similarly as for factor d, the
earthquake force has adverse effects on the stability
of surface structures. Thus, negative ratings are
assigned to this parameter, plotted in Fig. 5c against
the horizontal earthquake acceleration.
Based on the parameter ratings described above, a new
rock mass classification system called Slope Stability
Rating (SSR) is proposed. The final SSR value of a given
rock mass is obtained after summation of the rating values
of all the parameters, as illustrated in Table 4.
4 SSR Slope Design Charts
In order to provide a useful tool for the practical assess-
ment of rock slope stability, a number of design charts
were prepared. Stability analyses were performed by
means of the limit equilibrium code CLARA, considering
slopes with heights ranging from 25 to 400 m and slope
angles ranging from 30° to 70°. Different discontinuity
and intact rock properties, slope excavation methods,
groundwater condition and earthquake horizontal accel-
erations were anticipated. The SSR value was computed
for each case versus the geometry and for different factors
of safety. Figure 6 shows a number of design charts based
on the SSR system. Each presents a set of relationships
between the slope height and the SSR value versus the
safe slope angle (between 30° and 70°), and for a given
factor of safety: 1.0, 1.2, 1.3 or 1.5. As shown, the sets of
slope height–SSR relationships have similar shapes but
are gradually shifted to the right with an increase in the
factor of safety, i.e., with more and more conservative
designs.
5 Validation Based on Field Case Studies
Considering the practical applications of the SSR system, it
is important for the newly proposed classification to be
validated based on a relatively large number of case
studies.
First, nine slope case studies in Iran from some of the
sites as previously shown in Fig. 1 were considered, with
the geometrical and stability conditions listed in Table 5. It
should be noted that the geometrical conditions of the slope
sites presented in Table 1 are based on the final designed
height and slope angle whereas Table 5 presents their
actual current geometrical and stability conditions. Based
on the information obtained from site investigations, the
SSR values of the slopes were determined considering

123
328 A. Taheri, K. Tani

(a)
400
375
Secondly, 37 cases histories from 13 open pit mines
30 35 40 45 50 55 60 65 70
350 in Australia (Douglas 2002) were considered, as listed in
325
300 Table 6. Each mine has several stable/unstable slopes
275 Slope angle denoted as a, b, c and so on. Groundwater conditions
Height (m)

250
225 comprise three levels denoted as dry, moderate and high.
200
175 Since the case studies were obtained from open pit
150
125
mines, the excavation method was assumed to be normal
100
75
blasting (production blasting). UCS and rock type rating
50 were obtained based on the information provided by
25
15 20 25 30 35 40 45 50 55 60 65 70 75 80 85 90 95 100 Douglas (2002). The SSR values were finally derived
SSR considering again static conditions (i.e., zero rating for
400 earthquake force parameter). SSR values are shown in
(b) 375
350 30 35 40 45 50 55 60 65 70 Table 6.
325
300
Figure 7 summarizes the SSR values obtained from the
275
Slope angle 46 case studies in Iran and Australia versus the slope height
Height (m)

250
225 and slope angle. Note that a total of 28 slopes actually
200
175 failed and the failure modes were non-structural, i.e.,
150
125
thoroughly fractured rock mass. Figure 8 compares these
100
75
failed cases with the SSR design chart for a factor of safety
50 equal to 1.0. It may be seen from Fig. 8 that a number of
25
20 25 30 35 40 45 50 55 60 65 70 75 80 85 90 95 100 105 cases do not agree with the proposed design curves in the
SSR sense that less steep or lower slope heights would have
400 been recommended following the SSR system. Therefore,
(c) 375
350
30 35 40 45 50 55 60 65 70 the proposed design curves should be modified toward a
325
300
less conservative design.
Slope angle
275 The modified design curves are plotted as dotted lines
Height (m)

250
225 in Fig. 9a–f, in comparison with the original design
200
175
curves (as solid lines) and the data obtained from the 46
150 case studies grouped by similar values of slope angles
125
100 (respectively, 30°–35°, 35°–40°, 40°–45°, 45°–50°,
75
50
50°–55° and 55°–70°). Two principal criteria were
25
25 30 35 40 45 50 55 60 65 70 75 80 85 90 95 100 105
considered when modifying the original design curves:
SSR (1) the data obtained from unstable or failed slopes
400
should be rather located above the modified design curve
(d) 375 while the data obtained from stable slopes should be
350
325
30 35 40 45 50 55 60 65 70
rather located beneath; (2) any crossing between two
300
275 design curves should not be allowed and an appropriate
Height (m)

250 Slope angle spacing between them should be maintained. In case of

225
200 slope angles of 55°–70° (Fig. 9f), due to the lack of data,
175
150 a simply averaged design curve was considered. The
125
100 modified design curves are plotted altogether, i.e., for all
75
50
slope angles ranging between 30° and 70° in Fig. 10 and
25
30 35 40 45 50 55 60 65 70 75 80 85 90 95 100 105 110 115
compared with the original ones in Fig. 11. From this
SSR last figure one may see that, in case of slope heights
below 100 m, the curvature of the design curves,
Fig. 6 Rock slope design charts based on SSR classification representing an increase of the slope excavation angle
versus the slope height reduction is rather large. Also,
the original analysis-based design charts tend to overes-
otherwise static conditions (i.e., zero rating for earthquake timate the stable design angle especially for less steep
force parameter). Note that among the nine slope cases slopes.
studied, two were failed and the other ones are in stable The following factors may explain the differences
conditions. between the original design charts and the modified

123
Assessment of the Stability of Rock Slopes by SSR System 329

Table 5 Summary of slope data from case studies in Iran

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

Gole-Gohar mine Schist 44 65 None Poor 76 60 60 Stable

Iran-Kuh mine Dolomite 47 153 Little Poor 92 184 55 Stable
Shale 28 50 None Poor 52 140 34 Stable
Shale 33 50 None Poor 57 40 71 Failed
Emarat mine Shale 41 46 None Poor 59 35 67 Stable
Choghart mine Schist- Marble- 28 109 None Poor 76 35 67 Stable
Phyllite 28 109 None Poor 76 63 35 Stable
Angooran mine Shale 48 104 None Poor 83 180 45 Stable
Karoon III Crashed limestone 25 50 None Normal 58 110 50 Failed
hydropower
Failure mode is all failed slopes is non-structural control and circular-shaped

Fig. 7 Relationship between

Failed,<30
slope height and SSR value in
function of the slope angle for Failed, 35-40
the 46 case studies considered in Failed, 40-45
400
this study 375 Failed, 45-50

350 Failed, 50-55

325 Failed, >70
300 Stable, <30
275 Stable, 30-35
Height (m)

250 Stable, 35-40

225
Stable, 45-50
200
175 Stable, 50-55
150 Stable, 60-70
125 Stable, 70-80
100
75
50
25
30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 110 120 130 140
SSR

Fig. 8 Comparison of failed 400

slope cases with SSR design 30 35 40 45 50 55 60 65 70
375
chart (FS = 1.0) 350 Slope angle<30
325 Slope angle,35-40
300 Slope angle, 40-45
275
Slope angle, 45-50
Height (m)

250
Slope angle, 50-55
225
200 Slope angle >70 Slope angle
175
150
125
100
75
50
25
15 20 25 30 35 40 45 50 55 60 65 70 75 80 85 90 95 100
SSR

123
330 A. Taheri, K. Tani

400 400
(a) 375 30 35 (b) 375 35 40
350 Failed,<30 350 Failed, 35-40
325 325
300 Failed, 35-40 300 Stable, 30-35

Height (m)
Height (m)

275 275
250 250 Stable, 35-40
Stable, <30 30-35 35-40
225 225
200 Stable, 30-35 200
175 175
150 150
125 125
100 100
75 75
50 50
25 25
15 20 25 30 35 40 45 50 55 60 65 70 75 80 85 90 95 100 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 50 55 60 65 70 75 80 85 90 95 100

SSR SSR

400
(c) 400
40 45
(d) 375 45 50
375 350 Failed, 40-45
350 Failed, 35-40 325
325 Failed, 45-50
Failed, 40-45 300
300
Height (m)

Height (m)
275
275 Failed, 45-50 Failed, 50-55
250
250
225 Stable, 35-40 40-45 225 45-50
Stable, 45-50
200 200
Stable, 45-50 175
175
150 150
125 125
100 100
75 75
50 50
25 25
15 20 25 30 35 40 45 50 55 60 65 70 75 80 85 90 95 100 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 50 55 60 65 70 75 80 85 90 95 100

SSR SSR

400
400
50 55
(e) 375 (f) 375 55 70
350 Failed, 45-50 350 Failed, 50-55
325 325
300 Failed, 50-55 Failed, >70
300
Height (m)
Height (m)

275 275
250 Stable, 45-50 50-55 Stable, 50-55 55-70
250
225 225
Stable, 50-55 Stable, 60-70
200 200
175 175 Stable, 70-80
150 150
125 125
100 100
75 75
50 50
25 25
15 20 25 30 35 40 45 50 55 60 65 70 75 80 85 90 95 100 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 110 120 130 140

SSR SSR

Fig. 9 Original (solid) and modified (dotted) SSR design charts including data from the 46 case studies considered and grouped by similar slope
angles (FS = 1.0)

design charts based on case studies. First, it is very groundwater and the effects of other failure mechanisms
difficult for any stability analysis methods to take into may be responsible for the discrepancy. Secondly, it is
account all the parameters, which may influence the known that the determination of rock mass shear
stability of rock slopes. The original design curves are strengths by the non-linear Hoek–Brown failure criterion
based on stability analysis by limit equilibrium using GSI values may lead to overestimate design.
method, where the material is assumed to have a Thirdly, the original SSR system was calibrated based on
soil-like behavior and to develop a circular slip failure rock slope cases from Iran, whose geotechnical condi-
mode, while the water table is taken as the indicator of tions could differ from those of the enlarged database
groundwater. Although these assumptions may be comprising mostly open pit mines cases from Australia.
acceptable in design of large-scale non-structurally con- Therefore, in order to include much more various
trolled rock slopes, the absence of parameters describing slope stability problems involving a much wider range of
the effects of discontinuities on the shape and position of rock properties, some modifications can be deemed
the failure surface, the softening/weakening effects of necessary.

123
Assessment of the Stability of Rock Slopes by SSR System 331

Table 6 Summary of slope data from case studies in Australia

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

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

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

Figure 12a–d show the modified SSR design charts, i.e.,
the sets of slope height–SSR relationships according to the
slope angle and for different factors of safety, respectively,
1.0, 1.2, 1.3 and 1.5. The relationships were extrapolated
toward higher values of slope height (up to 400 m.) com-
pared to Figs. 10 and 11; while the same translation of the
original relationships with higher values of factor of safety
(Fig. 6) was maintained. In other words, it was assumed
that the same differences, observed for FS = 1 between the
original and modified slope height–SSR relationships,
would apply for other factors of safety.
Finally, it must be stressed that the newly proposed SSR
system is not valid if the slopes are obviously structurally
controlled. Therefore, the SSR-based slope stability
assessment should be considered only once when the
potential structurally controlled failures are investigated.

123
332 A. Taheri, K. Tani

Fig. 10 Modified SSR design 400

curves (FS = 1.0) 375
350
325

30-35
300

35-40
40-45

50-55

55-70
45-50
275

Height (m)
250
225
200 Slope angle
175
150
125
100
75
50
25
15 20 25 30 35 40 45 50 55 60 65 70 75 80 85 90 95 100
SSR

Fig. 11 Comparison between 400

modified and original SSR 375 30 35 40 45 50 55 60 65 70
design curves (FS = 1.0) 350
325 Slope
300 angle

55-70
30-35

35-40

40-45
45-50
275

50-55
Height (m)

250
225
200
175
150
125
100
75
50
25
15 20 25 30 35 40 45 50 55 60 65 70 75 80 85 90 95 100
SSR

Furthermore, as the proposed rating system mostly con-
cerns overall or large-scale rock slope stability, it should be
used only in cases where some minor local instabilities are
acceptable.
6 Conclusions
From this study, the following conclusions are drawn:
(1) The rock mass classification systems as developed in
the recent years for slope stability problems suffer
some limitations, in particular in the analysis of slope
stability of closely jointed or crushed rock masses.
(2) In the context of non-structurally controlled failures, a
new rock mass rating system SSR is proposed. This
system incorporates the modified GSI as well as five
additional parameters, namely, the UCS of intact
rock, the rock type (or lithology), the slope excava-
tion method, the groundwater condition and the
earthquake force (i.e., horizontal acceleration).
(3) The SSR value is obtained by summation of the
individual rating of each parameter, whose relative
weight was calibrated based on a number of case
studies from Iran.
(4) The system was additionally reviewed and subse-
quently modified based on a large number of rock
slope case studies from Iran and Australia.
(5) A number of design charts are provided, which
describe the relationships between the rock slope
height and the SSR value versus the stable slope
angle, for different factors of safety: 1.0; 1.2; 1.3 and
1.5. The appropriate stable angle of the rock slope can
be obtained accordingly.

123
Assessment of the Stability of Rock Slopes by SSR System 333

(a)
400
375
References
350 30 35 40 45 50 55 60 65 70
325
300
Barton NR, Lien R, Lunde J (1974) Engineering classification of rock
275 Slope angle masses for the design of tunnel support. Rock Mech 6(4):189–
Height (m)

250 236
225
200 Bieniawski ZT (1973) Engineering classification of jointed rock
175 masses. Trans S Afr Inst Civ Eng 15:335–344
150
125
Bieniawski ZT (1989) Engineering rock mass classification. Wiley,
100 Chichester
75 Douglas KJ (2002) The shear strength of rock masses. Ph.D. Thesis,
50
25 University of New South Wales, Australia
35 40 45 50 55 60 65 70 75 80 85 90 95 100 105 Douglas KJ, Mostyn G (1999) Strength of large rock masses—field
SSR verification. Rock Mechanics for Industry, Balkema, pp 271–275
400 Haines A, Terbrugge PJ (1991) Preliminary estimation of rock slope
(b) 375 stability using rock mass classification systems. In: 7th Interna-
350 30 35 40 45 50 55 60 65 70
325
tional Congress on Rock Mechanics Proceedings ISRM, Aachen,
300 vol 2, pp 887–892
275 Slope angle Hoek E, Brown ET (1997) Practical estimates of rock mass strength.
Height (m)

250
225 Int J Rock Mech Min Sci 3(8):1165–1186
200 Hoek E, Carranza-Torres CT, Corkum B (2002) Hoek–Brown failure
175
150
criterion-2002 edition. In: Fifth North American rock mechanics
125 sym. proc., vol 1, pp 267–273
100 Hunger Geotechnical Research Inc (1988) CLARA user’s manual
75
50
Marinos P, Hoek E (2000) A geologically friendly tool for rock
25 mass strength estimation. In: International conference on geo-
30 35 40 45 50 55 60 65 70 75 80 85 90 95
technical and geological engineering (GeoEng2000) proceed-
SSR ings, pp 1422–1440
400 Palmstrom A (1996) Characterizing rock masses by the Rmi for use in
(c) 375
practical rock engineering, part 1. Tunnelling and underground.
350 30 35 40 45 50 55 60 65 70
325 Space Technol 11(2):175–188
300 Ramamurthy T, Arora VK (1992) Strength and modulus for
275
Slope angle
Height (m)

250 classification of jointed rocks. In: Regional symposium on rock

225 slopes, India
200
175
Riedmuller G, Schubert W (1999) Rock mass modeling in tunneling
150 versus rock mass classification using rating methods. Rock
125 Mechanics for Industry, Balkema
100
75 Romana R (1993) A geomechanical classification for slopes: slope
50 mass rating. Comprehensive rock engineering, John A. Hudson,
25
40 45 50 55 60 65 70 75 80 85 90 95 100 105 110
Editor-in-Chief, pp 575–600
SSR Rzhevsky V, Novik G (1967) The physics of rock. Russian edition
Singh B, Goel RK (1999) Rock mass classification. Elsevier,
400
(d) 375 Amsterdam
350 30 35 40 45 50 55 60 65 70 Sonmez H, Ulusay R (1999) Modification to the geological strength
325 index (GSI) and their applicability to stability of slopes. Int J
300
275 Slope angle Rock Mech Min Sci 36:743–760
Height (m)

250 Sonmez H, Ulusay R (2002) A discussion on the Hoek–Brown failure

225 criterion and suggested modification to the criterion verified by
200
175 slope stability case studies. Yerbilimleri (Earthsciences) 26:77–
150 99
125
Sonmez H, Gokceoglu C, Ulusay R (2003) An application of fuzzy
100
75 sets to the geological strength index (GSI) system used in rock
50 engineering. Eng Appl Artif Intell 16:251–269
25
45 50 55 60 65 70 75 80 85 90 95 100 105 110 115
Sonmez H, Gokceoglu C, Ulusay R (2004) Indirect determination of
SSR the modulus of deformation of rock masses based on the GSI
system. Int J Rock Mech Min Sci 41:849–857
Fig. 12 Modified rock slope design chart based on SSR classification Terzaghi K (1946) Rock defects and loads on tunnel support. In:
Proctor RV, White TL (eds) Rock tunneling with steel supports,
vol 1. Commercial Shearing and Stamping Company, Young-
Acknowledgments The authors wish to thank Dr. Antoine Duttine town, pp 17–99
for reading the paper and his helpful suggestions to improve the
manuscript.

123