Slope Stability Classification Systems

General
Classification of rock mass is another important approach to assess the engineering behaviour
of a rock mass. Empirical relations between rock mass properties and the behaviour of the rock
mass in relation to a particular engineering application are combined to give a method of
designing engineering structures in or on a rock mass. In a classification system empirical
relation between rock mass properties and the behaviour of the rock mass in relation to a
particular engineering application are combined to give a method of engineering structure
design. Rock mass classification has been applied successfully for many years in tunneling and
underground mining. Some rock mass classification systems developed originally for
underground excavations have been modified for slope stability application.

Classification systems in slope stability analysis

A number of classification system are available for analysis of slope stability. Some of the most
commonly referred classification system are :
Slope Mass Rating (SMR)
Chinese Slope Mass Rating System (CSMR)
Rock slope rating (RSR)
Slope stability rating (SSR) classification system, and
Dump mass rating
Slope Mass Rating (SMR)
Slope mass rating is a system of classification developed by Romana ()as an extension of
Bieniawski's rock mass rating approach for application to rock slopes. RMR is widely used in
tunnels and it is not suitable for slopes due to the fact that joints are a more governing
parameter for stability in slopes. Some parameters are introduced to include the attitude of
discontinuities to assess slope stability
The proposed Slope Mass Rating (SMR) is obtained from RMR by subtracting a factorial
adjustment factor depending on the joint-slope relationship and adding a factor depending on
the method of excavation.

SMR = RMR + (F1 . F2 . F3) + F4

The RMR is computed according to Bieniawskis 1979 proposal, adding rating values for five
parameters:

(i) Strength of intact rock;

(ii) RQD (measured or estimated);

(iii) Spacing of discontinuities;

(iv) Condition of discontinuities; and

(v) Water inflow through discontinuities

RMR has a total range of 0 - 100. The adjustment rating for joints is the product of three factors
(F1*F2*F3) as follows:

F1 depends on the parallelism between joints and slope face strike. It ranges from 1 (when both
are near parallel) to 0.15 (when the angle between them is more than 30 degrees and the failure
probability is very low). These values are found to match approximately the relationship:

where, A is the angle between strike of the slope face and the joint.
F2 is related to joint dip angle in the planar mode of failure. It is a measure of the joint shear
strength. Its value varies from 1 (for joints dipping more than 45 degrees) to 0.15 (for joints
dipping less than 20 degrees). It has been found to match approximately the relationship:
(B)

where, B denotes joint dip angle. For toppling mode of failure, F2 remains 1.

F3 reflects the relationship between the slope face and the joint dip.

F4 is a factor for the method of excavation and its adjustment factor has been fixed empirically
as follows: (Table 2.1).
Table 2.1: Adjustment ratings for method of excavation (after Romana, 1995)

Method of Natural Pre-splitting Smooth Blasting or Deficient

excavation slope blasting mechanical Blasting

F4 +15 +10 +8 0 -8
Chinese Slope Mass Rating System (CSMR)

Chinese slope mass rating system (CSMR system) is developed by Romana and Zuyu(.).
They introduced two coefficients and and modified slope mass rating (SMR) formula as
follows.
CSMR = ( * RMR ) + [ * F1*F2*F3 + F4 ]

Where, represents the slope height factor and represents the discontinuity factor. These
factors are included in the system because there are several slope failures for which SMR
indicates stable slopes. Therefore, these two factors are included to improve the classification
system.

F1, F2, F3 and F4 are the adjustment factors from SMR.

The factor is applicable only for heights greater than 40 m. However, this is an accepted
system of classification in Chinese condition only, and needs a number of corrections and
modifications before using at any other place.

= 0.57+0.43*80/H
where, H is the height of slope in meters
and,
= 1 for faults, long weak seams filled with clay
= 0.8 to 0.9 for bedding planes, large scale joints with gauge
= 0.7 for joints, tightly interlocked bedding planes
and
Rock slope rating (RSR)
A rock slope rating (RSR) system has been developed for evaluation of rock slope stability
under a variety of geological conditions and engineering requirements. RSR system evaluates
the probability of failures for plane and wedge sliding and toppling and circular failures.
Probability of each mode of failure is determined individually. The main categories for input
parameters are summarized as follows.
1. Geological features: Various types of slope mass to which the RSR can be applied:
massive rock, blocky rock, bedded rock, heavily-jointed rock, soft rock, and hard-soft
inter-bedded rock.
2. Safety requirements: The system classifies the engineering applications of rock slope
into four levels of safety, based on the type of engineering structures (e.g., railroad,
housing, major highway, spillway, dam abutment, mined road, etc.).
3. Groundwater conditions: The groundwater condition is classified in terms of its level as
compared to the slope height. The options are from completely dry to water level up to
25%, 50%, 75%, or 100% of the slope height. If the condition is unknown, the system
makes further inquiry about the climate where the slope is situated. Two options are
available: tropical and arid.
4. Slope geometry: Slope geometry includes orientation, height, angle, and curvature.
Three slope shapes can be selected: convex, concave and straight faces.
5. Joint characteristics: The system requires detailed joint characteristics, including
orientation, average spacing, continuity, aperture, filling, and roughness of all joint sets.
6. Geo-mechanics parameters: Rock density, uni-axial compressive strength, and shear
strength of all joint sets are considered in the stability evaluation.

The system classifies each factor considered in the stability evaluation into small ranges or sub-
divisions, mainly to convert the input slope characteristics into quantitative form. A set of rating
is then assigned to these parameters for each failure mode considered. Recognizing that these
parameters can have different impacts under different conditions of the rock mass, a set of
influencing factors is also defined as multiplying factors for the corresponding parameter. The
probability of failure P{f} in percent for each mode can then be calculated by:
P{f} = {Rn In}
where Rn is the rating for each parameter, In is the influencing factor for the corresponding
parameter, and n represents type or number of the parameters considered for each slope
 (varying from 1, 2, 3, 4..n). Probability of failure to classify the quality of slope mass is
expressed as follows:

Table 2.4. Probability of failure to slope mass quality

P{f}, % Slope Mass Quality

<20 Highly stable

20-40 Stable

40-60 Fair

60-80 Unstable

80-100 Highly Unstable

Table 2.5: Rating factors for evaluation of circular failure.

Slope height Slope face angle Ground water Degree of weathering

(m) Rate Degree Rate (%) Rate Condition Rate

5-7 1 20-25 0 0 0 Fresh 2

7-10 5 25-30 1 25 5 Slightly 4

10-15 8 30-35 2 50 10 Moderately 6

15-20 10 35-40 3 75 10 Highly 8

>20 10 40-45 5 100 10 Completely 10

45-50 6 Unknown *5 or 10 Unknown 5

50-55 8

55-60 9

60-65 9
 65-70 10

>70 10

Vegetation Number of Vibration Average discontinuity

discontinuity spacing

Condition Rate (Sets) Rate Conditions Rate (mm) rate

No 10 2 1 Near 10 <20 10
vegetation blasting
sites

Grass 7 3 8 Near Main 5 20-60 7

highway

Grass n 5 4 10 No vibration 0 60-200 5

small tree

Full grown 0 Unknown 5 Unknown 5 >200 0

tree

Unknown 5 Unknown 5

*5 for arid climate, 10 for tropical climate

The probability of failure is determined by summing the multiplied products between the rating
and the corresponding influencing factor. The proneness of failure predicted by the RSR system
are finer than those from the SMR system because RSR actually calculates the P{f} values
while SMR uses inference method to estimate. RSR takes into consideration the slope shape,
i.e., convex, concave or straight whereas RSR explicitly considers the strength of intact rock,
which has different degrees of impact on the stability under different modes of failure and joint
characteristics. Further, RSR can handle the slope mass containing inter-bedding of soft and
hard rock.
Slope stability rating (SSR) classification system
SSR considers five additional parameters whose relative effects on the stability of fractured rock
slopes were precisely examined based on data retrieved from different rock slope sites. An
overall rating for the rock mass is obtained from the summation of the individual ratings of each
parameter. In this method data was collected from different mine sites to get the information of
Dry unit weight, GSI, Intact rock properties (Youngs modulus, UCS and Reduced mass
???) and final designed geometry (Disturbance factor, slope height and slope angle).

Among the number of parameters that may influence the stability of jointed rock masses
besides the discontinuities condition (reflected by the GSI value), the following five parameters
have been retained:
1. Uni-axial Compressive Strength (UCS) of intact rock
2. Rock type (Lithology)
3. Slope excavation method
4. Saturation of slope
5. Horizontal earthquake acceleration

The final SSR value of a given rock mass is obtained on the basis of rating values of all the
parameters, as illustrated in Table 2.7.

Table 2.7 SSR (Slope Stability Rating) rock mass classification system for preliminary
evaluation of slope stability
Parameters

1 UCS (In Mpa) 0-10 10-25 25-50 50-100 100-150

0 7 18 28 37

2 Rock type Group1 Group 2 Group 3 Group 4 Group 5 Group6

0 4 9 17 20 25
3 Slope excavation Waste Poor Normal Smooth presplitting Natural
method damp blasting blasting blasting slope

-11 -4 0 6 10 24

4 Ground water Dry 0-20% 20-40% 40-60% 60-80% 80-100%

rating
0 -1 -3 -6 -14 -18

5 Earthquake force 0 0.15g 0.20g 0.25g 0.30g 0.35g

rating
0 -11 -15 -19 -22 -26

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. The system was additionally
reviewed and subsequently modified on those case studies.

Mine dump slope classification

Rahul (2010) proposed a dump classification system for coal mine waste dump slope.
The parameters which have been taken for the classification are overall dump height,
overall slope angle, number of benches, density of dumped material, cohesion, angle of
internal friction, foundation type, slope of foundation, degree of confinement, method
of construction, piezometric and climatic condition and seismicity. Numerical modeling
and limit equilibrium methods are used to establish the classification system. DSR value
of a given rock mass is obtained after summation of the rating values of all the
parameters, as illustrated in Table 4.7.
Explain the basis of these rating values
Whether DSR performance has been validated?
Table: 4.1 Proposed DSR system for coal mine
 Key factors Range of conditions and description Rating
affecting stability

Up to 40m 20

Overall dump height, 41-80 m 15

m
81-120 m 10

121-160m 5

>160m 0

<18 30

Overall slope 18 22 25

angle(), degree 20
22 26

26 30 15

30 34 10

34 37 5

>37 0

2-4 5

Number of Benches >4 10

Most No groundwater table is generated

Favourable
15

Ground water table is up to 15% of

overall height of dump
Favourable 10

Intermediate Ground water table up to 15 to 30 %

of overall height of dump.
Hydrological 5
condition
Ground water table up to 30 to 40 %
 Unfavourable of overall height of dump. 0

Most Ground water table is more than 40%

unfavourable of overall height of dump.
-5

Dump material quality

Cohesion
Rating= +3

Internal angle of
friction
Rating= 0.5 Internal angle of friction 7.5
 Dumps are divided into dump stability classes on the basis of calculated factor of safety
and DSR value of dump. Table 4.2 shows which type of failure hazard is expected in
which dump stability class. It also explains the level of investigation required by
particular class and the design and construction of the dump slope.
Table: 4.2 Dump stability classes and recommendations
Dump Failure Range of dump Recommended level of effort for
stability hazard rating investigation, design and
class construction

Minimum lab testing is

A Negligible
B Low
C Moderate
required
>75 Minimal restriction on
construction
Visual monitoring is
sufficient
Thorough site investigation
Limited lab index testing
Basic stability analysis is
required
61-75 Limited restrictions on
construction
Routine visual and
instrumental monitoring
Detailed site investigation
Undisturbed samples may be
required
Detailed lab testing,
including shear strength and
durability test
Detailed stability analysis is
46-60
required including
parametric study
Moderate restriction on
construction
Detailed instrumental
monitoring is required
 Detailed and phased site
investigation
Undisturbed sampling
probably required
Detailed stability analysis is
required, including
parametric studies and full
D High <45
evaluation of alternatives
Severe restrictions on
construction
Detailed and continuous
instrument monitoring is
required