You are on page 1of 15

Engineering Geology 89 (2007) 129 – 143 www.elsevier.


A new approach for application of rock mass classification on rock slope stability assessment
Ya-Ching Liu ⁎, Chao-Shi Chen
Department of Resources Engineering, National Cheng Kung University, Tainan, 701, Taiwan Received 24 May 2005; received in revised form 21 March 2006; accepted 15 September 2006 Available online 21 November 2006

Abstract The objective of this paper is to present a new rock mass classification system which can be appropriate for rock slope stability assessment. In this paper an evaluation model based on combining the Analytic Hierarchy Process (AHP) and the Fuzzy Delphi method (FDM) was presented for assessing slope rock mass quality estimates. This research treats the slope rock mass classification as a group decision problem, and applies the fuzzy logic theory as the criterion to calculate the weighting factors. In addition, several rock slopes of the Southern Cross-Island Highway in Taiwan were selected as the case study examples. After determining the slope rock mass quality estimates for each cases, the Linear Discriminant Analysis (LDA) model was used to classify those that are stable or not, and the discriminant functions which can determine failure probability of rock slopes were carried out by the LDA procedure. Afterward, the results may be compared with slope unstable hazards occurring actually, and then the relation and difference between them were discussed. Results show that the proposed method can be used to assess the stability of rock slopes according to the rock mass classification procedure and the failure probability in the early stage. © 2006 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.
Keywords: Rock mass classification; Rock slope stability; AHP; LDA

1. Introduction Due to the complexity and uncertainty of geomechanical factors affecting underground construction, the empirical design method is still widely used in current engineering practices. In the 1970s, several rock mass classification systems were proposed for tunneling and underground excavation, which belonged to the empirical design methods with rudiments of the expert system. In the last decades, the rock mass classification concept

⁎ Corresponding author. Tel.: +886 6 275 7575x62840. E-mail address: (Y.-C. Liu). 0013-7952/$ - see front matter © 2006 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved. doi:10.1016/j.enggeo.2006.09.017

has been applied extensively in engineering design and construction such as tunnels, slopes and foundations for a long time. The main objective of rock mass classification is used to provide quantitative data and guidelines for engineering purposes that can improve originally abstract descriptions of geological formation. Until now for rock engineering, the most commonly used rock mass classification systems are the Rock Structure Rating, RSR (Wickham et al., 1972), the Rock Mass Rating, RMR (Bieniawski, 1973, 1975, 1979, 1989), and the NGI Q-system (Barton et al., 1974). However, these traditional classification systems, which ignored the regional and local geological features as well as rock properties, were constructed with the fixed weight for each rating factor.

1998) incorporate a systemic procedure to indicate slope stability in terms of a slope rock mass quality estimate. 1980. Saaty. Liu. thus rock property. Chen / Engineering Geology 89 (2007) 129–143 Moreover.-S. 1991. rock strength. This research treats rock classification as a group decision problem. initial rating systems such as the RMR were formulated for tunnel engineering but more recent methods (Selby. overburden. the main island of Taiwan is relatively young in geological terms and is situated at plate borders. 1991. 1. The main objective of this paper is to present a systemic procedure combined the Analytic Hierarchy Process (AHP. In addition. A flow chart of the proposed method. and applies the fuzzy logic theory on the criterion of weighting calculations. several rock slopes of the Southern Cross-Island Highway in Taiwan were selected as the case study examples. 1988) for assessing slope rock mass quality estimates. excavation span and groundwater and differ greatly from those in the area where the well-known rock mass classifications originated. Romana. 1980) and the Fuzzy Delphi method (FDM. Haines and Terbrugge. . Hack. The proposed procedure was applied to determine the rating of rock slope with the hierarchy and weighting factors that are modified for rock slopes.-C.130 Y. In this paper. it is necessary to start building up a new rock mass classification system. C. which can be suitable for determining the slope stability in Taiwan. Kaufmann and Gupta. After determining slope rock mass quality Fig. Therefore.

1980) Intensity of importance 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Reciprocals of above Definition Equal importance Weak Moderate importance Moderate plus Strong importance Strong plus Very strong or demonstrated importance Very. Select and determine the rock mass parameters for different types of engineering projects (such as slopes). 1988) are that it can reduce the numbers of surveys to save time and cost and it also includes the individual attributes of all experts. That is the most important reason for LDA being utilized in this study. many of which are conflicting with some quantitative and some qualitative. the results may be compared with unstable slope hazards occurring actually. We called this type of decision-making as Multiple Criteria DecisionMaking (MCDM). its dominance demonstrated in practice – The evidence favoring one activity over another is of the highest possible order of affirmation A reasonable assumption Rational If consistency were to be forced by obtaining n numerical values to span the matrix . Rock mass quality evaluation analysis of slopes The major steps for evaluating slope rock mass quality are organized as follows: 1. A new and simplified approach is presented for the slope engineering.1. Thus that can effectively determine the weighting of each parameter with the variation of geological conditions based on only required two rounds of investigations and comprehensive discussions by a group of experts. 2. the same method can be applied to the problem of slope rock mass quality evaluation. 3. From the above-mentioned point. It is known that group decision-making is a very important and powerful tool to accelerate the consensus of various opinions from experts. we summarize the results to derive a slope rock mass classification system with the failure probability. In developing the analytical framework. the FDM was taken to synthesize their responses for the questionnaires. Finally. The main advantages of FDM (Kaufmann and Gupta. the Linear Discriminant Analysis (LDA) model was used to classify those are stable or not. Fig. 2. very strong Extreme importance If activity i has one of the above nonzero numbers assigned to it when compared with activity j. which are expressed briefly as follows: many decisions involve criteria and goals. Chen / Engineering Geology 89 (2007) 129–143 131 estimates for each case. In this section. two issues are addressed. another key point is that groups must make decisions. and the discriminant functions which can determine failure probability of rock slopes were carried out by the LDA procedure. which are experienced in practices. Define the problem and determine its goal (slope rock mass quality estimates) 2. Table 1 The fundamental scale of AHP (Saaty. One of the methods employed to support MCDM is the AHP. Results show that the proposed method can be used to assess the stability of rock slopes in the early stage. C. Liu. which usually contains the list of alternatives. Afterward.-C.Y. and then the relation and difference between them were discussed. The FDM is a methodology in which subjective data of experts are transformed into quasi-objective data using the statistical analysis and fuzzy operations. 1 illustrates the flow chart of this study. Methodology The objective of this paper is to introduce a different viewpoint to establish a rock mass quality evaluation model for slopes. then j has the reciprocal value when compared with i Ratios arising from the scale Explanation Two activities contribute equally to the objective – Experience and judgment slightly favor one activity over another – Experience and judgment strongly favor one activity over another – An activity is favored very strongly over another. Structure the hierarchy from the top (the objectives from a decision-maker's viewpoint) through the intermediate levels (criteria on which subsequent levels depend) to the lowest level.-S. In addition to MCDM.

e.-C. geological. Design the format of questionnaire items as to process according to the hierarchy in step 2. αij indicates the lower bound and γij indicates the upper bound. there are three main aspects for rock mass quality evaluation of slopes. (λmax − n). f f f f f Z i ¼ ½f aij N f ain Š1=n . Based on the findings of the field investigation. N . i = 1. …n. j ¼ 1.-S. n Or ð1. 1. Appendix A illustrates in detail. 2. d13 . λmax. we obtained a fuzzy ∼ positive reciprocal matrix A f f f f A ¼ ½ aij Š. 1=a23 Þ ð1. 1=a12 Þ ð1=g13 . The closer λmax is to n. 1=a13 Þ 2 3 ða13 . 1=d23 . Wi = (ω1. 2. (5). (1) Compute the triangular fuzzy numbers (TFNs) ãij as defined in Eq. N . CI ¼ ðkmax −nÞ=ðn−1Þ ð 1Þ optimistic estimate are used to represent the opinions of experts for each activity time. and environmental factors. βijk indicates the relative intensity of importance of expert k between activities i and j. n Where. 8i. literature review and collected assistant data. In this step. 1. (3) to Eq. the stage for factors and hierarchy decision is technically the most important one. And then collect the input by a pairwise comparison of decision elements. 2. If it does not. On the basis of the data obtained from the respondents through the questionnaires. f ð 2Þ a ¼ ða . i. The deviation of consistency is represented by the Consistency Index (CI). Among all stages of the above description. Then. The membership function of the Fuzzy Delphi Method. Liu. n gij ¼ Maxðbijk Þ. n  dij ¼ j bijk n ð 3Þ ð 4Þ ð 5Þ 1=n k ¼1 . d23 . αij. ω2. the symbol ⊗ here denotes the multiplication of fuzzy numbers and the symbol ⊕ here denotes the addition of fuzzy ∼ numbers. 1. a number. g23 Þ 5 ð1=g23 . geometric. 1Þ f A ¼ 4 ð1=g12 . the inconsistency of judgments through the matrix can be captured using the largest eigenvalue. g Þ ij ij ij ij aij ¼ Minðbijk Þ. the TFNs (shown as Fig. 16 parameters were found relevant to slope instability. Given an n × n square matrix. g12 Þ ð1. k ¼ 1. and Wi is a fuzzy weight of the ith factor.132 Y. we can define that the slope rock mass quality estimate is equal to the summation of total weights of the three main aspects. 6. 1Þ ða23 . αij ≤ δij ≤ γij. C. 9] and αij. 1] ∪ [1. N . k ¼ 1. (2).γij are obtained from Eq. Wi ¼ Z i ð Z i P N P Z n Þ−1 ð 7Þ Where ∼ a 1 ⊗∼ a 2 ≅ (α1 × α2. g13 Þ ða12 . Chen / Engineering Geology 89 (2007) 129–143 4. δ1 × δ2. Use the eigenvalue method to estimate the consistence index. Determine whether the input data satisfies a “consistence check”. 1=d13 . γ1 × γ2). In this work. go back to step 1 and redo the pairwise comparisons. The pair-wise comparisons are done in terms of which element dominates the other. …ωn). 1=d12 . the more consistent is the result. 5. N . aij  aji c1. construct a set of pairwise comparison matrices (size n × n) for each of the lower levels with one matrix for each element in the level immediately above by using the relative scale measurement which is the same as Saaty's scale (Table 1). which is defined as. The defuzzification is based on geometric average method. n is the number of experts in consisting of a group. d .γij ∈ [1/9. k ¼ 1.δij.δij. The 8. measures the deviation of the judgments from the consistent approximation. 2) that represent the pessimistic. d12 . Calculate the relative fuzzy weights of the decision elements using the following three steps based on the FDM and aggregate the relative fuzzy weights to obtain scores for the decision alternation. For our purposes. 1Þ ð6Þ (3) Calculate the relative fuzzy weights of the evaluation factors. (2) Following outlined above. moderate and Fig. 7. . Wi is a row vector in consist of a fuzzy weight ∼ of the ith factor.

The hierarchy and the weights for evaluating slope rock mass. 3. Liu. 3. through one round of investigation papers responded to by 33 experts and through a series of comprehensive discussions. the assessment factors and fuzzy weights can be composed into a multidimensional questionnaire resulting in 16 variable groups as shown in Fig. The proposed rock mass quality evaluating system for slopes contains four layers of hierarchy as shown in Fig. Chen / Engineering Geology 89 (2007) 129–143 133 total weights were determined by the procedure described above.-C.Y. The Fig. C. The numbers listed in the brackets are the total weights of each factor. 3.-S. In this paper. .

4.-S. Liu. Chen / Engineering Geology 89 (2007) 129–143 Fig.134 Y. C. . The geological map of the study area (from Mei-Shan to Ya-Kou in Taiwan).-C.

results of the calculation for these slope ratings have been done completely using the weighted method. . higher values of the rating indicate higher degrees of slope instability.-C.2. Discriminant analysis (DA) Discrimination and classification are multivariate techniques concerned with separating distinct sets of objects (or observations) and with allocating new objects (or observations) to previously defined groups. By aggregating the relative weights and rating value interval for all parameters. As a separative procedure. – To assess the relative importance of the independent variables in classifying the dependent variable. based on training samples with known classes. Therefore. – To discard variables which are little related to group distinctions. Finally. using sequential discriminant analysis. 5. 2. C.Y. we have to collect the relevant information given in Wang (2001). – To investigate independent variable mean differences between groups formed by the dependent variable. – To determine the percent of variance in the dependent variable explained by the independents. Photos showing the failed slopes located in this study area. (Tao. Chen / Engineering Geology 89 (2007) 129–143 135 next step was to assess the evaluation of the rock mass quality. we adopt Fig. There are many possible techniques for classification of data. it is often employed on a onetime basis in order to investigate observed differences when causal relationships are not well understood. The LDA has been previously applied to sample classification of experiments data. slope rock mass quality estimates were calculated for each slope. 2003) – To classify cases into groups using a discriminant prediction equation. which can be adopted for assigning new objects. There are several purposes for the DA as shown in the following. Discriminant Analysis is rather exploratory in nature. – To test theory by observing whether cases are classified as predicted. Classification procedures are less exploratory in the sense that they lead to well-defined rules.-S. The Linear Discriminant Analysis (LDA) is a classical statistics approach for classifying samples of unknown classes. For this purpose. – To determine the percent of variance in the dependent variable explained by the independents over and above the variance accounted for by control variables. Liu. and then we can compute slope rock mass quality estimates combining the slope case records through an onsite survey and the algorithm introduced in this paper.

W — west.5). E — east. B (7. D (2. C (5).-C.5) Criteria Inclined direction North — north. S — south The rating value interval NW A NE B SE C SW D . B (8). C (6). Liu.136 Y. Chen / Engineering Geology 89 (2007) 129–143 Table 2 The rating value interval for slope rock mass quality estimate 1-1 Geological factor — geological structure: A (10). E (2) Criteria Discontinuity sets The rating value interval Very few Non-conspicuous fracture A Very low N2 m A Close None A Strike Dip angle Very choppy A Few One B Lower 60 cm–2 m B Open Harder filling B N46–90W b 30 B Choppy irregular B Medium Two sets C Medium 20– 60 cm C Open Hard filling C N0–45W 31–45 C Choppy regular C More Three sets D High 6–20 cm D Open Soft filling D N0–45E 46–60 D Slightly rough D Much more Above four E Very high b 6 cm E Open Very soft E N46–90E N 61 E Smooth E Condition of fracture Joint filling Discontinuity orientation None None A Sliding surface roughness 1-2 Geological factor — formation Criteria Weathering The rating value interval Very low Fresh A Very high N 500 A Volcanic metamorphic rock A Lower Slightly weathered B High 350–500 B Sandstone B Medium Moderately weathered C Medium 200–350 C Combined layer C High Highly weathered D Lower 75–200 D Slate D Very high Decomposed E Very low b 75 E Shale E Rock strength Schmidt hardness. C.-S. N (kg/cm2) Rock type 2-1 Geometric factor — height of slope Criteria Height (m) The rating value interval Very low b 20 A Lower 21–40 B Medium 41–60 C High 61–80 D Very high N 81 E 2-2 Geometric factor — gradient Criteria Gradient (°) The rating value interval Very gradual 30 A Gradual 31– 45 B Medium 46– 60 C Steep 61–75 D Very steep 75– 90 E 2-3 Geometric factor — width of slope Criteria Width (m) The rating value interval Very narrow b 20 A Narrow 21– 40 B Medium 41– 60 C Wide 61– 80 D Very wide N 81 E 2-4 Geometric factor — inclined direction: A (10). D (4).

2.-S. There are prominent foliations in the argillite.-C.5) Criteria Orientation of the road cut The rating value interval Dip slope Slope N dip angle A Slope b dip angle B Escarpment slope C 137 Slanting slope D 3-1 Environmental factor — groundwater Criteria Surface with or without runoff The rating value interval N No trace A Completely dry A N Doubtful trace B Damp B N With C Wet C Yes Dripping D Dripping D Yes Flowing E Flowing E Surface with or without seepage 3-2 Environmental factor — vegetation Criteria Vegetation (condition and density) The rating value interval Perfect N 75% A Good 50–75% B Medium 25–50% C Poor 10–25% D Very poor b 10% E 3-3 Environmental factor — failure record Criteria Based on weather the slope failure happened A (10). The geological map of this area is shown in Fig. B (7. For instance. we can talk of assigning observations to populations or objects to class interchangeably (Johnson and Wichern. There are multiple discontinuity sets. and consequently. Description of field conditions In this section a total of 161 cases of rock slopes were carried out using the rock mass quality estimation method from the previous discussion. For example. the two slopes of phyllite originally with a gradient of about 64° to 80° (see Fig. Cases study 3. p associated random variables X′=[X1. These slopes under study in this paper are located at road cuts marked by A1–A80 (the failed sites) and B1–B81 (the stable sites) along the Southern Cross-Island Highway between Mei-shan and Ya-kou in Taiwan. This concept is introduced as follows: We consider the two classes labeled as Ω1 and Ω2.1. D (2. The objects are ordinarily separated or classified on the basis of measurements on. Chen / Engineering Geology 89 (2007) 129–143 Table 2 (continued ) 2-5 Geometric factor — orientation of the road cut: A (10). We can think of the totality of values from the fist class as being the population of X values for Ω1 and those from the second class as the population of X values for Ω2. The rating value interval Never A Ever E the LDA to classify which slope is stable or not and derive the discriminant functions. These are presumed to have low shear strength under the forceful erosion. Other features that may bear upon the slope stability are as follows: 1. There are several prominent and recurring discontinuity sets in these road cuts. 3. C (5).Y. 5. According to the records of the onsite investigation. many of which intersect each other. it can be found that the most probable mode of failure is wedge unstable.5).5). 1998). 3. Planar unstable and toppling are the . X2…Xp]. 5) are both unstable. Clay-rich weathering products are present in some well-developed discontinuity sets and shear zones. The observed values of X differ to some extent from one class to the other. Liu. C. These two populations can then be described by probability density functions f1( x) and f2( x). The common rock types are sedimentary rock and metamorphic rock. E (2. 4. 4. The problem we are concerned about in this paper is with separation and classification for two populations.

After ascertaining the parameters in use. many of the classification parameters for the different rock mass classifications considered are similar. and groundwater. 3. Result and discussion of slope rock mass evaluation By aggregating the relative weights and the rating value interval (see Table 2) for all parameters. 6 shows the correlation between the observed behaviors (failed or stable) and the slope rock mass quality estimates.5 8 8 2 A30 2 8 2 10 4 8 10 8 8 6 8 5 2. These unstable slopes present a potential hazard to passing motorists. These could be computed on the basis of Eqs. The slope rock mass quality estimate (shown as Table 4) for A27 and B57 are 50. (9): EstimateP A27 ¼ 0:3525  ½0:6024  ð0:1598  2 þ 0:216  2 þ 0:1364  2 þ 0:265  10 þ 0:2228  6Þ þ 0:3796  ð0:2403  4 þ 0:2966  4 þ 0:4631  2ފ þ 0:3403  ½0:0999  8 þ 0:2914  8 þ 0:0625  6 þ 0:3335  5 þ 0:2127  2:5Š þ 0:3072  ½0:3844  6 þ 0:265  8 þ 0:3506  2Š ¼ 50:1 ð 8Þ EstimateP B57 ¼ 0:3525  ½0:6024  ð0:1598  4 þ 0:216  8 þ 0:3164  4 þ 0:265  10 þ 0:2228  10Þ þ 0:3796  ð0:2403  4 þ 0:2966  4 þ 0:4631  8ފ þ 0:3403  ½0:0999  6 þ 0:2914  6 þ 0:0625  6 þ 0:3335  7:5 þ 0:2127  2:5Š þ 0:3072  ½0:3844  9 þ 0:265  10 þ 0:3506  10Š ¼ 73:9 ð 9Þ All case records are partially listed in Table 3 and plotted in scattering Fig.2 and a welldefined peak (standard deviation 5. Through one round of investigation papers. results of the calculation for these slope ratings have been done completely using the weighted method. the weighting hierarchy structure for slope rock mass quality evaluating is obtained as shown in Fig. More details of the geological properties of slopes are illustrated in the Master's thesis of Wang (2001). Moreover in order to avoid any slope instability risk.4) of values.5 7 8 2 A29 2 6 8 10 6 8 8 8 8 6 10 5 2. 3. 3.2.138 Y. (8). the slope rated value below 55 points should be taken to support or to prevent a possible instability in the foreseeable future. 7. the statistical analysis presents the spread and variability of the ratings for the failed and the stable group. In contrast. Liu. Fig. To clarify the description. Chen / Engineering Geology 89 (2007) 129–143 other two possible modes of failure. the statistical analysis tool is used and the related results are summarized as follows. In general. C. Discontinuity sets Condition of fracture Joint filling Discontinuity orientation Sliding surface roughness Rock type Rock strength Weathering Height of slope Gradient of slope Width of slope Inclined direction of slope Orientation of the road cut Ground water Vegetation Failure record A27 2 2 2 10 6 4 4 2 8 8 6 5 2.1 and 73. with a mean of 51. the most important point. an example is given as follows: Take case number A-27 and B-57 (see Table 3) as example. Among them. The stable group exhibits a wide range (78. the main proposed procedure was carried out. the failed group presents a narrower range (66. with a mean of 68.1) of values. however.9.5 6 8 2 A28 2 4 2 3 8 6 6 6 6 6 4 2.5 2. is the information of the intact rock strength. Data acquirement and questionnaire investigation A total of 161 slopes are examined for the rock mass quality evaluating and the results are used to assess the stability of existing road cut slopes located in the research area. The empirically found limit value range Table 3 Partial case records of slope site investigation in this study (numbers in the table present the score for the parameters) Case no.9–39.5 9 10 10 B58 4 8 2 5 10 4 4 6 6 8 2 5 7. From the results as shown in Table 4.9–58.4 and a flat peak (standard deviation 5. The total weights of parameters are listed in the brackets. discontinuity conditions. In this paper we take various parameters generated from the opinion of experts and the previous literature to determine the slope rock mass quality estimates. which are smaller than the slope angle of most cut slopes in this region marked by 110 K to 146 K along the highway. To proceed further into an analysis of the results.5 7.3.-C.-S.5 6 8 2 B57 4 8 4 10 10 4 4 8 6 6 6 7. The maximum safe angles range from 25° to 60°. The distribution can be seen in Fig. Initial rough analysis shows that the stable slope rock mass must be rated over 65 points.2).5 6 10 10 . 6. etc.81).

2 74. Table 5 gives means and standard deviations for the two groups. .-S. To proceed further into a definition of the best criterion to classify the two slope groups in this study. Chen / Engineering Geology 89 (2007) 129–143 Table 4 The slope rock mass estimates partly listed Case no. That is. Site (km) Estimate A1 110. The ratings of two slope groups were determined by the proposed procedure.05 77. (b) stable slopes. the software used in LDA was SPSS Standard Version 12. The t-test suggests that the two groups are significantly different with respect to slope rock mass quality estimates at a significance level of 0.3 50.5 49. As mentioned above. 7 indicates a histogram for the both groups. Using an independent sample t-test (see Table 6) can assess the differences in the means of the two groups.96 A13 112. Fig. The correlation between the observed behaviors (failed or stable) and the slope rock mass quality estimate. These two groups and the data corresponding required to the factor were analyzed by means of the DA to obtain a linear model.9 139 B81 146. No slope has been rated as slope rock mass quality estimated below 39 points in this study. The linear discriminant analysis (LDA) model The data given in Table 4 are used for discussing the analytical approach to the DA. Approach to classify rock slopes stability 4.37 A3 110. The t-value for testing equality of the means of the two groups is − 19. The histogram for two group slopes: (a) failed slopes.05.1. C.0 for the relevant calculations.69 A27 122.Y. 6.95 66. In the next stage. slope rock mass quality estimate does discriminate between the two groups and consequently will be used to create the discriminant function. The SPSS uses the statistical decision theory method for Fig. we have to construct a model for classifying the failed slope group and the stable one.66 of slope rating for whether unstable or not is 55 to 65 points. 4. In this section.45 for slope rock mass quality estimates. we present the LDA model and the corresponding results. 7. Fig.1 A2 110. Liu.3 46.1 A30 117.52 B57 133.-C. we will make use of the DA.2 73.8 59.

35 Mean 2 68.249 P 0.00000 93.35 0.247 − 77.08 66. Table 6 The independent sample t-test result for distinguishing between the differences in the means of the two groups T-tests: grouping: category (total score) Group 1:1 Variable Group 2:2 Mean 1 Rock mass estimate 51.689 50.20 F-ratio 1. Observations are assigned to the group with the largest classification score. Table 8 shows the output generated by the DA procedure in SPSS.68 39.24 t-value − 19.503 1.324 St. G_2:2 p=.-C. error 1 (failed) 80 51. meant the prior probability for the group) Group Classification matrix (total score) Rows: observed classifications Columns: predicted classifications Percent Correct G_1:1 G_2:2 Total 90.81 St. Liu.449 df 159 p 0.d 2 5.354 (d) Classification matrix (p = .20 8. We can see the correct classification rate is 91.311 Y(X ) and Z(X ) are referred to as Fisher's linear discriminant function and X1 is the slope rock mass quality estimate. SPSS computes the classification functions of Fisher's linear discriminant function mode as follows: The function equation for the failed slope is d1 : Y ðX Þ ¼ −44:11 þ 1:6909X1 The function equation for the stable slope is d2 : Z ðX Þ ¼ −77:3622 þ 2:2472X1 ð11Þ ð10Þ (c) Classification function coefficients Group 1 Rock mass estimate 1.93%.85 2 (stable) 81 68.82716 91. 49.0 Valid N1 80 Valid N2 81 St. How good is this classification rate? Huberty (1984) has proposed approximate test statistics 72 5 77 8 76 84 that can be used to evaluate the statistical and the practical significance of the overall classification rate given. which separate the two groups in the best way.92 5.86 5.92547 G_1:1 p=.d 1 5.24 0.58 67.76 58.140 Y.81 7. deviation Interquartile range Statistic Std.000 161 0 0 161 Table 5 The descriptive statistics of the slope rock mass quality estimates for two groups Failed or not Group Valid N Mean Median Minimum Maximum Std. This method minimizes misclassification errors that are taking into account prior probabilities and misclassification costs. .104 Fisher's linear discriminant functions 2 2.76 classifying sample observations into various groups.d: Standard deviation.-S. Assign the observation to group d1 if Y(X ) N Z(X ) and to group d2 if Y(X ) b Z(X ).000 161.691 Constant − 44. df: degrees of freedom. Our method achieves a statistically significant result with respect to the current situation.65 50. From results of SPSS shown in Table 7. C.40 78.000 81.000 80 81 161 Weighted 80. it can be seen that this model is a linear combination of the slope rock mass quality estimates and the constant item. Chen / Engineering Geology 89 (2007) 129–143 Table 7 The summarized results of LDA by SPSS (a) Classification processing summary Processed Excluded Missing or out-of-range group codes At least one missing discriminating variable Used in output (b) Prior probabilities for groups Group Prior Case used in analysis Unweighted 1 2 Total .497 .

On the basis of our earlier discussion we could conclude that this new proposed method can be used to judge the stability problems Fig. 2004).53% 5 111.5 1 99. The probability of slope failure (Lin.-S.2472 141 4. Substituting Eq. C.98% 7 111. Liu. the failure probability and the procedure to deal with during the monitoring period.41% 4 111 1 86.6909 Stable (d2) − 77.12% 8 111. 4.-C.6 2 6. The results are obtained from the failure probability analysis. a probabilistic approach using the DA functions was applied in the analysis to quantify the slope stability. Chen / Engineering Geology 89 (2007) 129–143 Table 8 Result of the LDA model Failed (d1) X0 X1 Constant Slope rock mass quality estimate − 44. (12). class II (IIA. A second result of this paper presents that the LDA model can be applied to distinguish between the failed and stable slope group. 8 indicates that the cases considered in this study are extreme examples (failed or stable).3 1 99.03% 2 110.16% 6 111. Results roughly show that it can be used to determine the rock mass quality estimates of slopes as a simple safety assessment method. The stability classification of rock slope As previously discussed. The calculation of the failure probability of a slope with the new method developed in this study gives a more distinctive differentiation between failed and stable conditions than with existing rock mass classification systems for slopes (Kentli and Topal. The proposed method can be successfully applied to determine the rock mass quality estimates for rock slopes.8 2 47. a proposed classification as shown in Table 10 can be categorized according to their slope rock mass quality estimates.3.5 1 99. we can take the ratings of the two slope groups into account the failure probability for each slope.69% 3 110. Eq. (12) to calculate the failure probability P(%) of rock slopes based on linear discriminant functions obtained in previous analysis is introduced in the following. IIB. IIC. To summarize our interpretation of the results. And this analysis also assesses to establish the discriminant functions to evaluate the failure probability of the slopes. Where Y is the linear discriminant function of the failed slopes and Z is the linear discriminant function of the stable slopes. Table 9 partially shows the failure probability of slopes and the category. The failure probability distribution as shown in Fig.3622 2.03% . which are used to classify the stability of rock slopes. (10) and Eq.Y. eY P¼ Y ð e þ eZ Þ ð12Þ There are three types of class I. we can obtain P¼ ðe−44:11þ1:6909X1 e−44:11þ1:6909X1 þ e−77:3622þ2:2472X1 Þ ð13Þ Now that the equation is derived.87% 9 111.2. (11) into Eq.2 2 0. The first is that the proposed method has provided a useful basis for introducing quantitative rock mass assessment into rock slope engineering. 5. where there are numerous potential failure locations and several different failure cases at the Southern Cross-Island Highway in Taiwan.8 2 0. The failure probability distribution.1100 1. 2001) In this paper an equation. IID) and class III. Table 9 Partially showing the probability of slope failure and the category Case number Marked (km) Category Failure probability 1 110. 8. Conclusions The main results of this paper are twofold.2 2 15.

1Þ ð1=5.6%– 46.5. f a31 f a32 f a33 Š1=3 ¼ ½0:2733. 7Þ ð1. ã31 = (1/7. 1Þ f 4 A ¼ ð0:2.-C.3. Z 3 ¼ ½f Xf Z i ¼ ½0:9030. we obtained a fuzzy positive reciprocal matrix à 2 ð1. f Z 2 ¼ ½f a21 f a22 f a23 Š1=3 ¼ ½0:3420. B134 = 6. 0:969667. n In all acceptable responses for matrix 1. 7Þ 3 ð1=6. δij.1. 15 ij ij ij ij III 100% Fully unstable of rock slopes according to the proposed procedure and the failure probability. f Z 1 ¼ ½f a11 f a12 f a13 Š1=3 ¼ ½0:2877.749887 b 6 thus ã21 = (0. d .3. B325 = 3.3.3. aij . 1=d12 . Appendix A. 0:66205. 5Þ ð1=7. B314 = 1/6. 6Þ ð1=7. a23 ¼ MinðB23k Þ ¼ 1=5  15 1=15 ¼ 1:333534.1/3.1 %– 72.1/5. 6) In the same way.6. 0:8806. 1. 7Þ 5 ð1=7.1. Thus from Appendix Table C-1. take matrix 1 as an exemplification. The ij subscript notation here represents that i is 1 to 3 and j is 1 to 3. 1. 3:2711Š. Derived from above description. B211 = 6. 0:749887. 0:8992.1. 9Š 9 f a21 ¼ ð1=a12 . B124 = 4. C.3. γij) According Eq. g23 ¼ MaxðB23k Þ ¼ 7 According  the à positive reciprocal rule.…etc.9% N 93% Fully stable Stable Tend to be unstable More unstable Unstable Recommended treatment None Usual monitoring Up frequent measure Add support to wall or concrete Protection technique needed and very often revise support used Re-excavation and design 1. Liu. 0:2Þ Because 0. 5Þ ð1. 6Þ.1. gij ϵ 1 . dij . k ¼ 1.3. 0:749887.3.5. 0. N . The weighting factors determination Among the 33 survey respondents.1.9% 89. Compute the triangular fuzzy numbers (TFNs) ãij = (αij.4. 1Þ 3. 1 [ ½1.5. 1:031282. f a32 ¼ ð1=7. B214 = 1/4.1/5) 1 a12 ¼ MinðB12k Þ ¼ 1=6. 7) f a21 ¼ ð0:2. n is equal to 15 (the other 8 responses were under the mark and rejected. 1:2629.1/5. aij Vdij Vgij . Referred to the article described in Section 2. 3.-S. 1/2. 0:749887.1.7. 1:031282. 1/3.1) (1/4.1.66205. 10:0182Š Positive reciprocal Positive reciprocal . 4 were from university professor in geological engineering area and 29 were from government.749887. a13 ¼ MinðB13k Þ ¼ 1=7. 1:510459.1. 0.2 b 0.3.7. we can obtain the triangular fuzzy numbers (TFNs) f a ¼ ða .1/3. N . 3:4760Š. (3)–Eq. Based on the survey responses.2.142 Y. Table A-1 All acceptable responses for the matrix 1 Geological Geometric factor factor Geological factor Geometric factor Environmental factor 1 (1/6. Calculate the relative fuzzy weights of the evaluation factors. 1:333534. g Þk ¼ 1. 5Þ 2.5. The weighting factors for each criterion listed in this study hierarchy were presented in the following explanation. 1=5Þ ¼ ð6. Following outlined above.3) 1 Positive reciprocal Environmental factor (1/7.1. (5) aij ¼ MinðBijk Þ. g13 ¼ MaxðB13k Þ ¼ 7. 1=1:333534.1. B235 = 1/3. the proposed method was applied and evaluation model was constructed.1/6. d13 ¼ 1:510459. 1/3.6.1. 1. engineering consultants companies and the other organizations. we could know B121 = 1/6. Comments by two anonymous reviewers are greatly acknowledged. Chen / Engineering Geology 89 (2007) 129–143 Table 10 The slope stability classified based on slope quality estimate and failure probability Class FDAHP rock mass estimate I II A II B II C II D 78–100 61–77 59–60 56–58 42–55 41–0 Failure Stability probability class 0% b 15% 60.3.1/5. Acknowledgments This study is supported by the research project of Taiwan National Science Council through contract number NSC-91-2211-E-006-049.3. d12 ¼ j B12k k ¼1  15 1=15 ¼ 0:969667 d23 ¼ j B23k k ¼1 g12 ¼ MaxðB12k Þ ¼ 5. 3:2711Š. 1=g12 Þ ¼ ð6. 3:0427.

0:2955. 335–344. 43–64. ISRM. 43. 1989. B. The geomechanics classification in rock engineering application... Selby. Balkema. In: Wittke.. Kaufmann. Germany... Lin. 1973. Haines. p.. Wang. Germany. 589. Skinner. 1980.. Master's thesis in Taiwan (in Chinese). SMR Classification. Topal.. 2. ITC Delft Publication. Aachen. C.J. Lunde. pp.K. Johnson. Rotterdam. 74 pp.. 3:6226Š À Á1=3 Therefore.T.. Netherlands. 887–892.. Z. Engineering Rock Mass Classifications. Wichern. Using discriminant analysis for multi-class classification. W.J. Engineering classification of rock masses for the design of tunnel support.3287. Psychological Bulletin 95 (1). Z. Y. 1972.W. 3:8496Š. Bieniawski. Enschede.3072).-S.. 2001. P. Balkema. Bieniawski. Conf. pp. . New York. Proceedings Fourth Congress of the International Society for Rock Mechanics.. W. Z. 0:4151. Slope Stability Probability Classification. H. Wickham. 1998.-C. Prentice-Hall. Englewood Cliffs. 1991. Terbrugge. Bieniawski.998. Proc. 251 pp. R. New York. geometrical factor (0. Saaty. Assessment of rock slope stability for a segment of the Ankara–Pozanti motorway. 189–236.. The Analytic Hierarchy Process.. Support determination based on geologic predictions. vol. Lien. C. E.3525). T.). D. Proc.J. North-Holland. (Ed. Applied Multivariate Statistical Analysis. Tiedemann. M..C. 1991.R. Master's thesis in Taiwan (in Chinese). Z. 1988.. T. 73–90.T. 273 pp. A.E.. N. R. Case studies: prediction of rock mass behavior by the geomechanics classification. A rock mass strength classification for geomorphic purposes: with tests from Antarctica and New Zealand. Preliminary estimation of rock slope stability using rock mass classification systems. Brisbane.A. Liu. Zeitschrift für Geomorphologie 23. 3:6226Š f W 2 ¼ ½0:0341. Proc 7th Congr on Rock Mechanics 2. 0:2894. pp.T. 1975.T. 1980. Chen / Engineering Geology 89 (2007) 129–143 143 ˜i = [0. Kentli. 0.J. H. W1 ¼ j3 ¼ 0:3525. Bieniawski.. vol. Wiley. Gupta. 1974.). Proc 7th Congr on Rock Mechanics 2. Rock Mechanics 6 (4). 179 pp. (Ed. 31–51. In: Wittke. Rotterdam. Application of Discriminate Functions on Evaluating Failure Probability of Slopes.G. f W 3 ¼ ½0:0273. Hack. 36–41. Issues in the use and interpretation of discriminant analysis. pp. 2003. Huberty. Tao. 955–960...M. i¼1 xj W3 ¼ 0:3072 The weighting factors for three aspects are: geological factor (0. Analysis of the engineering geological parameters in highway rock slope stability assessment by field investigation. McGraw-Hill International Book Company. Engineering Geology 74. G.R. vol.1075] Reciprocal ∑Z f f f f f W 1 ¼ Z 1 ð Z 1 P Z 2 P Z 3 Þ−1 ¼ ½0:0287.3403) and environmental factor (0. References Barton. 156–171. 41–48.. M. A. 2nd Australia–New Zealand Conference Geomechanics. pp. J. Fuzzy Mathematical Models in Engineering and Management Science. 1. Romana. Rapid Excavation and Tunneling.L. Third IEEE International Conference on Data Mining.Y.. N. 2004. Li.R. Transactions of the South African Institution of Civil Engineers 15 (12). W2 ¼ 0:3403. 11.H. Aachenm. 1979. 1984. 1998.. 2001. Amsterdam. Engineering classification of jointed rock masses. M.. J. ISRM. Turkey.