15 - Chapter 5 PDF

C hapter 5
ROCK SLOPE STABILITY ANALYSES

5.1 ROCK MASS CLASSIFICATION
In a mountainous region, construction of road corridor requires original and

modified slopes to be stable (Sharma et al. 2013). The improper extension of
activities on natural slope conditions for construction of roads and
modification of cut slopes for the purpose of widening of the road through
blasting and breakage, exposes inherent discontinuities and develops new
cracks, which further affects the stability of the rock slope (Singh et al.
2013). Hence, it is necessary to understand the geological and geotechnical
parameters before construction of any roads and even after construction to
prevent slope failure.
The stability of a slope can assess quickly and reliably through rock mass
classification systems (Taheri and Tani 2010). Rock mass classification is an
essential tool for the assessment of the behavior of rock cut slopes, on the
basis of most significant inherent and structural parameters (Pantelidis
2010). The main purpose of rock mass classification is used to present
quantitative data and guidelines (Liu and Chen 2007). The proposed
classification systems incorporated various parameters, which are favorably
affects the stability condition. The parameters include number of joint sets,
spacing of discontinuities, condition of discontinuities (discontinuity length,
separation, roughness, infilling, and weathering), orientation of
discontinuities, groundwater conditions and strength of the intact rock
material. The rock mass classification is an indirect method, which
quantitatively estimates the stability of a rock mass. The estimated stability
conditions of any classification system represented in the form of subjective
terms viz. very bad, bad, acceptable, good and very good. The resultant value
obtained through classification systems can be used to estimate the strength
of rock mass and necessary rock support.
100
5.2 METHODS
5.2.1 Rock Mass Rating (RMR) System
Bieniawski (1973) was first proposed a geomechanical classification or the

Rock Mass Rating (RMR) system at the South African Council of Scientific
and Industrial Research (CSIR), for the application of designing tunnels,
mines, dam, and underground excavations. The application of RMR system in
the assessment of slope stability of cut slopes was introduced by Bieniawski
(1976 & 1979). The Bieniawski’s (1973) classification has undergone several
modifications, from the time when the classification first proposed
(Bieniawski 2011). Changes in the classification system includes, reduction
of classification parameters from 8 to 6 in 1974, adjustment of ratings and
reduction of recommended support requirements in 1976, modification of
class boundaries to even multiples of 20 in 1979, adoption of ISRM (1978)
rock mass description, and so forth. (Singh and Goel 2011). Hence, it is
always necessary to mention which version is used when adopting the
system. In the present study, the 1989 version of classification system was
adopted. To apply the geomechanics of classification system, a given site
should be divided into a number of geological structural units in such a way
that each type of rock mass is represented by a separate geological
structural unit (Singh and Goel 1999). The RMR system (Bieniawski 1989)
classifies discontinuous of rock masses into five parameters as;
 Uniaxial Compressive Strength (UCS) of intact rock material

 Rock Quality Designation (RQD)
 Spacing of discontinuities
 Condition of discontinuities
 Groundwater conditions
The ratings of five parameters of the RMR system are given in Table 5.1.
Ratings for the individual parameters are summed to get the total RMR
value. The maximum value of RMR is 100. Based on RMR total value, the
rocks are classified into very poor rock (0-20), poor rock (21-40), fair rock
(41-60), good rock (61-80), and very good rock (81-100) as listed in Table 5.2.
101
Table 5.1 Rock Mass Rating (RMR) system
Parameters Range of Values

Point-load
For this low range Uniaxial
Strength >10 Mpa 4 – 10 MPa 2 – 4 Mpa 1 – 2 Mpa
Strength of compressive test is preferred
index
Intact Rock
1 Uniaxial
Material 5 – 25 1–5
compressive >250 Mpa 100 – 250 MPa 50 – 100 MPa 25 – 50 MPa <1 MPa
Mpa MPa
strength
Rating 15 12 7 4 2 1 0
Drill core Quality RQD 90% - 100% 75% - 90% 50% - 75% 25% - 50% <25%
2
Rating 20 17 13 8 3
Spacing of discontinuities >2 m 0.6 – 2.0 m 200 – 600 mm 60 – 200 mm <60 mm
3
Rating 20 15 10 8 5
Discontinuity
length <1 m 1–3 m 3 – 10 m 10 – 20 m >20 m
(persistence)
Rating 6 4 2 1 0
Separation
None <0.1 mm 0.1 – 1.0 mm 1 – 5 mm >5 mm
(aperture)
Condition of Rating 6 5 4 1 0
4
discontinuities Roughness Very rough Rough Slightly rough Smooth Slickensided
Rating 6 5 3 1 0
Infilling
None Hard filling <5 mm Hard filling >5 mm Soft filling <5 mm Soft filling >5 mm
(gouge)
Rating 6 4 2 2 0
Weathering Unweathered Slightly weathered Moderately weathered Highly weathered Decomposed
Ratings 6 5 3 1 0
Inflow per 10
m
None <10 10 – 25 25 – 125 >125
tunnel length
(l/m)
(Joint water
Ground water
5 press)/
0 <0.1 0.1 – 0.2 0.2 – 0.5 >0.5
(Major
Principal σ)
General
Completely dry Damp Wet Dripping Flowing
conditions
Rating 15 10 7 4 0
(after Bieniawski 1989)
102
Table 5.2 Rock mass classes and their engineering properties
Rock Mass Classes Determined From Total Ratings

Rating 100 <--- 81 80 <--- 61 60 <--- 41 40 <--- 21 <21
Class
I II III IV V
number
Very Very poor
Description Good rock Fair rock Poor rock
good rock rock
Meaning of Rock Classes
Class
I II III IV V
Number
Average
20 years of 1 year of 1 week for 10 hrs for 30 min for
Stand-up
15 m span 10 m span 5 m span 2.5 m span 1 m span
time
Cohesion of
rock mass (in >400 300 - 400 200 - 300 100 - 200 <100
kPa)
Friction
angle of
>45 35 - 45 25 - 35 15 - 25 <15
rock mass (in
degree)
(after Bieniawski 1989)
5.2.2 Slope Mass Rating (SMR) System
For the purpose of assessment of rock slope stability, Romana (1985)

derived SMR system from the studies of natural and cut slopes along the
roads. The Slope Mass Rating (SMR) system is an extension of RMR system
and it includes adjustment factors for orientation of discontinuity with slope
and the method of excavation (Jhanwar 2011). The detailed quantitative
description of the adjustment factors is one of the main advantages of SMR
classification (Irigaray et al. 2003). SMR is calculated using Eq. 5.1 by adding
correction factors of the joint-slope relationship (multiplication of F1, F2,
and F3) (Table 5.3) and method of excavation (F4) to the basic RMR
(Bieniawski 1989). The adjustment factor for the method of excavation (F4)
depends on whether one deals with a natural slope or one excavated by pre-
slitting, smooth blasting, mechanical excavation, or poor blasting (Table 5.4).
Slope Mass Rating (SMR) = RMR + (F1 F2 F3) + F4 (5.1)
Where,
 RMR is Rock Mass Rating

 F1 - depends on parallelism between joints and slope face strikes.
103
 F2 - refers to joint dip angle in the planar mode of failure.
 F3 - indicates the relationship between the slope face and joint dip.
Conditions are favorable when slope face and joints are parallel and
very unfavorable when the slope dips 10º more than joints.
 F4 - The adjustment factor for the method of excavation.
Table 5.3 Adjustment ratings for joints

(after Romana 1985)
Very Very
CASE Favorable Fair Unfavorable
Favorable Unfavorable
P |α -α |
>30 30 - 20 20 - 10 10 - 5 <5
W |α -α |
T |α -α -180|
P/T/W F1 0.15 0.40 0.70 0.85 1.00
|β |
P/W <20 20 - 30 30 - 35 35 - 45 >45
|β |
P/W F2 0.15 0.40 0.70 0.85 1.00
T F2 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
P β -β
>10 10 - 0 0 0 - (-10) <-10
W β -β
T β +β <110 110 - 120 >120 --- ---
P/T/W F3 0 -6 -25 -50 -60
(P: Planar failure; W: Wedge failure T: Toppling failure; : Dip direction Joint;
α : Plunge direction of line of intersection of two discontinuities; : Dip
direction of slope; : Inclination of Slope; : Dip of Joint; : Plunge of line of
intersection of two discontinuities)
Table 5.4 Adjustment ratings for methods of excavation of slopes
Natural Smooth Blasting or Deficient

Method Pre-splitting
Slope Blasting Mechanical Blasting
F4 +15 +10 +8 0 -8
(after Romana 1985)
On the basis of the values of slope mass rating the stability of rock slopes
classified (Romana 1985), as fully stable (81 - 100), stable (61 - 80), partially
stable (41 - 60), unstable (21 - 40) and very unstable (<20) as given in Table
5.5. Accordingly the very unstable cut slope may require re-excavation,
unstable slope may need extensive corrective measures, partially stable
slopes may have to be supported with systematic supports such as rock
104
bolts, and rock anchors and stable to fully stable slopes may need occasional
to no supports.
Table 5.5 Various stability classes as per SMR values
Class No V IV III II I
SMR 0-20 21-40 41-60 61-80 81-100
Description Very Bad Bad Normal Good Very Good
Completely Partially Completely
Stability Unstable Stable
Unstable Stable Stable
Probable Planar or
Big Planar or Planar or
Type of many Blocks None
Rotational Big Wedge
Failure Wedges
Important
Systematic Occasional
Support Re-excavation corrective None
supports supports
measures
(after Romana 1985)
5.2.3 Factor of Safety
Since the RMR and SMR assessment did not rate stability in terms of factor
of factor of safety (F), detailed stability analysis of critical rock slope
sections was carried out for plane, wedge, and topple mode of failures. The
determination of factor of safety for critical rock slope sections is based on
the Hoek and Bray (1981) method. In this method, the stereoplots of all the
critical sections have been used as effective tool to identify the potential
slope problem (Markland 1972). The factor of safety is less than 1 is
indicating the unstable condition.
5.2.3.1 Plane Failure in Rock Slopes
Plane failure occurs when a geological discontinuity strikes parallel to the

slope face and dips into the excavation at an angle greater than the angle of
friction (Hoek and Bray 1981). The different geometry of slope with tension
crack in the case of planar failure is shown in Figure 5.1 (a & b).
a) A slope having tension crack in its upper surface.

b) A slope with a tension crack in its face.
105
Figure 5.1 (a) Geometry of slope with tension crack in upper slope surface
– Planar Analysis (after Hoek and Bray 1981)
Figure 5.1 (b) Geometry of slope with tension crack in slope face
– planar Analysis (after Hoek and Bray 1981)
The transition from one case to another occurs when the tension crack
coincides with the slope crest (Eq. 5.2), i.e. When the tension crack position
and depth are unknown, the only reasonable procedure is to assume that the
tension crack is coincident with the slope crest and that is water-filled. In
this case the z/H can be estimated using the Eq. 5.2.
z/H = (1 − Cotψ . Tanψ ) (5.2)
The following general conditions must be satisfied, for the sliding

phenomenon on a single plane (Figure 5.2):
106
a. The plane on which sliding occurs must strike parallel or nearly
parallel to the (within approximately ±20°) to the slope face.
b. The dip of the failure plane must ‘daylight’ in the slope face i.e. the dip
must be lesser than the dip of the slope face (ψ > ψ ).
c. The dip of the failure plane must be greater than the angle of friction
of this plane i.e. ψ > ϕ.
d. Release surfaces which provide negligible resistance to sliding must be

present in the rock mass to define the lateral boundaries of the slide.
e. To simplify the computation, it is usual to consider a slice of unit

thickness at right angles to the slope face.
Figure 5.2 Geometry shows conditions of plane failure

(Source: Hoek and Bray 1981)
The assumptions for plane failure analysis are
a) The failure surface and tension crack strike parallel to slope face.
b) The tension crack is vertical and assumed that it is filled with water to
a depth z
c) Water enters into the sliding surface along the base of the tension
crack and percolates all along the sliding surface
d) The forces W (weight of the sliding block), U (uplift force due to water
pressure on the sliding surface) and V (force due to water pressure in
the tension crack) all act through the centroid of the sliding mass
(Figure 5.1), that means the failure is not due any other moments.
107
e) The shear strength of the sliding surface is defined by cohesion (c) and
a friction angle (ϕ) which are related by the Eq. 5.3 (Mohr Coulomb
failure criterion).
τ = c + Tan ϕ (5.3)
f) It is assumed that release surfaces are present at the lateral

boundaries of the failure.
The factor of safety of this slope condition is given by the total force
resisting sliding to the total force tending to induce sliding as;
. .
F= (5.4)
. .
Where, from Figure 5.1
A = (H − z). Cosecψ (5.5)
U = γ . z (H – z). Cosecψ (5.6)
V = γ .z (5.7)
W= γH ((1 – (z/H) ) Cotψ – Cotψ ) (5.8)
For the case: tension crack in the upper slope surface (Figure 5.1 a)
W = γH ((1 − z/H) Cotψ . (Cotψ . Tanψ – 1)) (5.9)
For the case: tension crack in the upper slope surface (Figure 5.1 b)
In order to simplify the calculations, Eq. 5.4 can be rearranged in the

following dimensionless form:
( / ). . ( )
F= . .
(5.10)
Where
P = (1 − z/H). Cosecψ (5.11)
When the tension crack is in the upper slope surface
Q = ((1 − (z/H) Cotψ − Cotψ ) Sinψ (5.12)
When the tension crack is in the slope face

108
Q = ((1 − (z/H) Cotψ (Cotψ . Tanψ − 1)) (5.13)
ZW
R= . . (5.14)
S= . . Sinψ (5.15)
The P, Q, R and S are all dimensionless ratios.
5.2.3.2 Wedge Failure in Rock Slopes
The wedge failure is concerned with the failure of slopes in which structural
features upon which sliding can occur strike across the slope crest and
where sliding takes place along the line of intersection of two such planes
(Hoek and Bray 1981). The general geometry of wedge failure, which is
considered for present analysis, is given in Figure 5.3. The geometry showing
the numbering of intersection lines and planes is given in Figure 5.4. The
geometry of wedge used for stability analysis including the influence of
cohesion and of water pressure on the failure surfaces is shown in Figure
5.5. The water pressure distribution assumed for this analysis is based upon
the hypothesis that the wedge itself is impermeable and that water enters
the top of the wedge along lines of intersection 3 and 4 and leaks from the
slope face along lines of intersection 1 and 2. The resulting pressure
distribution is shown in Figure 5.5, the maximum pressure occurring along
the line of intersection 5 and the pressure being zero along lines 1, 2, 3 and
4. This water pressure distribution is believed to be representative of the
extreme conditions which could occur during very heavy rain.
The numbering of the lines of intersection of the various planes involved in

this problem is of extreme importance since total confusion carries in the
analysis if these numbers are mixed-up. The numbering used throughout the
analysis is as follows:
1 – Intersection of plane A with the slope face

2 – Intersection of plane B with the slope face
3 – Intersection of plane A with upper slope surface
4 – Intersection of plane B with upper slope surface
5 – Intersection of planes A and B
109
It is assumed that sliding of the wedge always takes place along the line of
intersection numbered 5.
Figure 5.3 Wedge failure geometry
Figure 5.4 Geometry of wedge showing the numbering of intersection

used for stability analyses
110
Figure 5.5 Geometry of wedge used for stability analysis including the influence of
cohesion and of water pressure on the failure surfaces
The factor of safety of this slope is derived from the detailed analysis of this
problem published by Hoek et al. 1973.
F= (c . X + c . Y) + A − . X Tanϕ + B − . Y Tanϕ (5.16)
Where,
c and c are the cohesive strengths of planes A and B

ϕ and ϕ are the angles of friction on planes A and B
γ is the unit weight of the rock
γ is the unit weight of water
H is the total height of the wedge
X= .
(5.17)
Y= .
(5.18)
– . .
A= .
(5.19)
.
111
– . .
B= .
(5.20)
.
X (Eq. 5.17), Y (Eq. 5.18), A (Eq. 5.19), and B (Eq. 5.20) are dimensionless
factors which depend upon the geometry of the wedge.
Where,
ψ and ψ are the dips of planes A and B respectively and
ψ is the dip of the line of intersection 5.
The angles required for the solution of these equations can conveniently be
measured on a stereoplot of the data which defines the geometry of the
wedge and the slope (Figure 5.6).
Figure 5.6 Stereoplot of data required for wedge stability analysis
112
5.3 SLOPE STABILITY ANALYSES OF ROCK SLOPES
The detailed slope stability analyses were carried out over moderate and
high hazard zones (facets) identified through LHEF rating scheme (BIS 1998).
For this detailed study, three facets were selected respectively fall in
moderate hazard (facet 2) and high hazard zone (facet 3 & 4) along Ghat
road of Kolli hills. In these three sections, six potential rock slope sections
(Table 5.6 & Figure 5.7) were identified for Rock Mass Rating (RMR), Slope
Mass Rating (SMR) and factor of safety analyses.
Table 5.6 Location details of rock slope sections
Facet Section ID Longitude Latitude Land Mark

Facet 2 RS-1 7820’21”E 1119’38”N at 14/70 HPB
Facet 3 RS-2 7820’28”E 1119’31”N at 25/70 HPB
Facet 3 RS-3 7820’31”E 1119’32”N at 26/70 HPB
Facet 3 RS-4 7820’27”E 1119’25”N at 29/70 HPB
Facet 4 RS-5 7820’29”E 1119’21”N at 35/70 HPB
Facet 4 RS-6 7820’30”E 1119’23”N at 37/70 HPB
(HPB-Hairpin Bend)
5.3.1 Compressive Strength - Point Load Lump Strength Index
The strength of rock specimens can be characterized by widely used tests

viz., unconfined and confined compression tests, shear tests, and direct and
indirect tension tests (Goodman 1989).
The minimum load at which the rock fails is an important measure in all
geotechnical investigations. In the present work, the rock samples were
collected in the field for the purpose of determination of strength of intact
rock material. The sizes of the lumps were chosen based on the criteria
given in (BIS 8764: 1998). The standard thicknesses of the lumps were taken
as 5 cm. The point load test was carried out using AIM-206-1 testing machine
(Plate 5.1).
0.3 W < D < W (5.21)
Where, W = Minimum width of the specimen in cm. If the size is not even,
then ‘W’ is obtained from W1, W2 and W3 as follows:
W = (W1+W2+W3)/3 (5.22)
113
Figure 5.7 Locations selected for RMR, SMR, and Factor of Safety analyses
114
D = Minimum cross sectional thickness of specimen in cm.
The initial load of about 2 KN was applied and the dial reading was set to
zero. The load was applied continuously by pumping the handles of the
machine till failure.
Point load strength index was calculated using the Eq. 5.23. The results of
compressive strength index of rock samples are shown in Table 5.7.
(5.23)
Where,
IL (50) =Point load lump strength index;

P=Load at failure in kgf;
D=Mean cross sectional thickness of specimen in cm;
W=Mean width of specimen in cm;
D=Standard size of lump = 5 cm.
Plate 5.1 Showing point load test instrument with sample placed
115
Table 5.7 Results of compressive strength index of rock samples
Point Load Strength Index (in Mpa)

Overall
Mean Mean Compressive
Rock Point Load Point Load
Sample Peak Load Failure Diameter Width Strength
Section Index Index
No (in kgf) (D) (W) of Rock
ID (in kgf/cm2) (in Mpa)
(cm) (cm) Section
(in Mpa)
Sample 1 2855.2054 5.875 7.625 73.74228054 7.232
RS – 1 Sample 2 6271.2547 8.125 8.425 117.8486138 11.557 9.659
Sample 3 4231.8223 6.75 7.10 103.9012632 10.189
Sample 1 7138.0135 5.83 8.43 171.9769590 16.865
RS – 2 Sample 2 7596.8858 8.875 10.60 112.4721313 11.030 13.416
Sample 3 6475.1980 8.17 8.00 125.9748979 12.354
Sample 1 3925.9074 8 6.40 91.72813868 8.995
RS – 3 Sample 2 4537.7371 4.75 8.20 130.1588602 12.764 12.278
Sample 3 6857.5915 9.33 5.80 153.7108000 15.074
Sample 1 4945.6236 4.83 11.33 109.9267227 10.780
RS – 4 Sample 2 3008.1628 7.5 8.33 60.53919470 5.937 7.360
Sample 3 2294.3615 6.5 7.67 54.68841037 5.363
Sample 1 1784.5034 7.5 7.00 40.91785824 4.013
RS – 5 7.646
Sample 2 3823.9358 4.875 7.50 115.0134623 11.279
Sample 1 3772.9500 7.8 9.25 68.15830706 6.684
Sample 2 2039.4324 9.5 9.83 30.36102823 2.977
RS – 6 Sample 3 2549.2905 8.5 6.50 56.25810757 5.517 4.599
Sample 4 1988.446615 6.33 7.875 47.40107917 4.648
Sample 5 2013.939521 8.67 9.75 32.30677725 3.168
116
5.3.2 Collection of Field Data
The RMR and SMR parameters were determined for each structural unit in
the field for all the rock slope sections and recorded in data sheet (Table 5.8
to 5.13).
5.3.2.1 Rock Quality Designation (RQD) index
The Rock Quality Designation (RQD) index was proposed by Deere et al.
(1967), which provides a quantitative estimate of rock mass quality from
drill core logs. Palmstrom (1982) were given the method of estimation of
RQD through visible discontinuity traces on surface. In this method, the RQD
may be estimated by volumetric joint count method i.e. sum of the number
of joints per metre cube (unit volume) for all joint sets. The method
recommended a relationship for clay-free rock masses as given in Eq. 5.24.
RQD = 115 − 3.3 Jv (5.24)
Where, Jv is the sum of the number of joints per metre cube for all joint
(discontinuity) sets.
5.3.2.2 Spacing of discontinuities
Discontinuities are common features in rock masses. The term discontinuity

covers joints, beddings or foliations, shear zones, minor faults, or other
surfaces of weakness (Devkota et al. 2009). Discontinuity spacing is an
important parameter used in classification schemes, which measures the
distance between two adjacent discontinuities should be measured for all
sets of discontinuities (Wines and Lilly 2002). In the Ghat road section,
mostly 3 set of joints were identified. The average discontinuity spacing of
each joint set were measured and listed in the Tables.
5.3.2.3 Condition of discontinuities
Discontinuity condition measures the discontinuity length, separation,

roughness, infilling, and weathering condition of the wall rock or plane of
weakness for all set of joint sets were measured in the field.
117
5.3.2.4 Groundwater condition
If actual water pressure data are available, these should be stated and
expressed in terms of the ratio of the seepage water pressure to the major
principal stress (Singh and Goel 2011). A general groundwater conditions can
be described for a particular slope are completely dry, damp, wet, dripping
and flowing. It is very much desirable to take field data soon after the
monsoon season to estimate the field condition on the basis of the nature of
surface indications (Anbalagan 1992).
5.3.2.5 Orientation of discontinuities
It refers to the direction and dip of discontinuities. The direction should be

measured with reference to magnetic north. The dip angle is the angle
between the horizontal and discontinuity plane taken in a direction in which
the plane dips. The influence of the direction and dip of discontinuities is
considered with respect to the slope face orientation (Singh and Goel 2011).
The slope orientation (slope direction and slope dip amount) and
discontinuity orientation (direction and dip amount) for all the rock section
were measured in the field (Plate 5.2) using Brunton compass (Table 5.14). In
rock slope sections, the huge boulders are temporarily protected by bushes
and trees along slope (Plate 5.3).
5.3.3 Estimation of Rock Mass Rating (RMR)
Based on the parameters observed in the field and point load test, the
ratings of individual RMR parameter for each structural unit were assigned
according to the Rock Mass Rating (Bieniawski 1989). The total RMR value
for a rock section is calculated by means of algebraic sum of all the RMR
parameter ratings. The area depicts class II (RS-1, 2 & 6) and class III (RS-3, 4,
& 5) of RMR classes. The cohesion (c) and angle of internal friction (Φ) for
every rock mass have been determined from the rock mass rating values.
The RMR values, ratings of observed parameters and their class description,
cohesion of rock mass, and angle of internal friction of rock mass of selected
rock sections are given in Table 5.15.
118
Plate 5.2 Geometrical measurement of structural parameters at Rock Section - 3
near 26/70 hairpin bend, Kolli hills Ghat road
Plate 5.3 Huge rock boulder along slope in a critical stage of slide, being
temporarily protected by bushes at rock section – 6 (35/70 Hairpin Bend)
119
Table 5.8 RMR and SMR parameters for Rock Section (RS-1)
ROCK SECTION (RS-1)

Section ID RS – 1
Landmark Exact Point at 14/70 HPB
Latitude/Longitude 1119’38”N 7820’21”E
Rock Type Charnockite
Slope Height (in m) 8.0 m
Orientation of Slope Direction N 315
Slope Slope Inclination 44
Cut Slope Dip Amount 80

Root Penetration, Highly fractured zone, well grown trees can be seen
Description
over the rock mass, dry scrub can be visible
Excavation Method Blasting
ROCK MASS RATING (RMR) PARAMETERS
PARAMETERS MEASUREMENTS
1 STRENGTH OF INTACT ROCK (MPa) 9.659
2 ROCK QUALITY DESIGNATION
88.6
(RQD in %)
3 SPACING OFDISCONTINUITIES Joint Set - 1 Joint Set – 2 Joint Set - 3
0.4 m 0.6 m 0.9 m
4 CONDITION OF DISCONTINUITIES Joint Set - 1 Joint Set – 2 Joint Set - 3

(i) Discontinuity Length 3-10 m 3-10 m 3-10 m
(ii) Separation <0.1 mm to None 1-5 mm to >5 mm None
(iii) Roughness Slightly Rough Slightly Rough Slightly Rough
Hard Filling <5 mm to Soft Filling >5 mm to

(iv) Infilling None
None <5mm
Slightly to Moderately to Slightly Weathered
(v) Weathering
Unweathered Slightly Weathered to Unweathered
5 GROUNDWATER CONDITIONS WET
SLOPE MASS RATING (SMR) PARAMETERS
6 ADJUSTMENT FACTOR
Joint Set - 1 Joint Set - 2 Joint Set - 3
ORIENTATION OF DISCONTINUITIES
 
Strike N 75 N 155 N 290
 
Dip Direction N 165 N245 N 20
 
Dip Amount 88 16 70
120
ROCK SECTION (RS-2)

Section ID RS – 2
Highly fractured zone with root penetration, layer of 2m soil cover
Description can be seen at top layer, high & well grown trees can be seen, scrub
present
95.2
(RQD in %)
3 SPACING OF Joint Set - 1 Joint Set – 2 Joint Set - 3
DISCONTINUITIES
0.8 m 1m 0.75 m

(ii) Separation None >5mm None
(iv) Infilling None Soft Filling >5mm None
(v) Weathering Unweathered Highly Weathered Unweathered
5 GROUNDWATER CONDITIONS Flowing

6 ADJUSTMENT FACTOR
 
Strike N 155 N 250 N 290
Dip Direction N 260 
N340 
N 205
Dip Amount 80 16 16
121
ROCK SECTION (RS-3)

Section ID RS – 3
Slope Height (in m) 14 m
The rock mass intersected by 3 set of joints highly fractured zone, A
Description layer of weathered boulders can be seen, root penetration, top layer
covered by short to medium trees, scrub can be seen
32.5
(RQD in %)
3 SPACING OF Joint Set - 1 Joint Set – 2 Joint Set - 3
DISCONTINUITIES
0.5 m 0.5 m 0.18 m

(ii) Separation None to 1-5 mm None to 1-5 mm None
(iv) Infilling None None None
(v) Weathering Slightly Weathered Slightly Weathered Slightly Weathered

6 ADJUSTMENT FACTOR
Strike N 125 N 150 N 210
Dip Direction N 215 N 240 N 300
122
ROCK SECTION (RS-4)

Section ID RS – 4
Slope Height (in m) 13 m (8+5 above rock mass)


Root Penetration, Medium height trees, scrubs, a thick layer of soil
Description cover over rock mass, highly weathered boulders can be seen,
bamboo trees existed
Sample No
16
(RQD in %)
0.36 m 0.35 m 0.27 m

(ii) Separation >5 mm None None
Smooth to slightly
(iii) Roughness Slightly Rough Slightly Rough
Rough
(iv) Infilling Soft Filling >5 mm None None
(v) Weathering Highly Weathered Slightly Weathered Slightly Weathered

6 ADJUSTMENT FACTOR
 
Strike N 245 N 120 N 40
N 210 
N 130
 
Dip Amount 54 29 65
123
ROCK SECTION (RS-5)

Section ID RS – 5
Slope Height (in m) 16 m

Highly fractured large rock mass with root penetration, scrub present,
Description soil material deposited over rock mass which is transported from
other places, scrub exists.
32.5
(RQD in %)
3 SPACING OFDISCONTINUITIES Joint Set - 1 Joint Set - 2 Joint Set - 3 Joint Set - 4
0.7 m 0.27 m 0.31 m 0.45 m
4 CONDITION OF DISCONTINUITIES Joint Set - 1 Joint Set - 2 Joint Set - 3 Joint Set - 4
(i) Discontinuity Length 3-10 m 1-3 m 1-3 m 10-20 m
(ii) Separation None None None >5 mm
(iii) Roughness Slightly Rough Slightly Rough Slightly Rough Slightly Rough
(iv) Infilling None None None None
Slightly Slightly Slightly Moderately

(v) Weathering
Weathered Weathered Weathered Weathered
5 GROUNDWATER CONDITIONS Wet
6 ADJUSTMENT FACTOR
Joint Set - 1 Joint Set - 2 Joint Set - 3 Joint Set - 4
  
Strike N 185 N 205 N 125 N 60
N 120 
N 230 
N 325
  
Dip Amount 41 64 11 83
124
ROCK SECTION (RS-6)

Section ID RS – 6


Highly fractured zone with criss-cross joints, scrub exist, medium to
Description
low height trees.
Sample No
82
(RQD in %)
0.4 m 0.51 m 0.32 m

(ii) Separation None None 1 to 5 mm
(iv) Infilling None None None
(v) Weathering Slightly Weathered Slightly Weathered Slightly Weathered
5 GROUNDWATER CONDITIONS Wet

6 ADJUSTMENT FACTOR
 
Strike N 160 N 80 N 60
Dip Direction N 65 N 185 N 325
125
5.3.4 Estimation of Slope Mass Rating (SMR)
The structural values (Table 5.14) of selected rock slope and their
discontinuities were plotted on the stereo-net plot (Figure 5.8 & 5.9), to find
out the type of failure and plunge of discontinuity for each rock slope
section. The relationship between the slope and discontinuities were made to
determine the adjustment ratings for F1, F2, and F3. In the study area, the
cut slopes are formed by mechanical excavation of slopes, and is often
combined with some preliminary blasting. The method of excavation neither
increases nor decreases slope stability, so the adjustment factor for F4 is
given as 0. These F1, F2, F3, and F4 values were added with the RMR basic
value to find out the Slope Mass Rating (SMR) values (Table 5.16). Slope mass
rating were calculated using Eq. 5.1 for six rock sections located in facet 2, 3,
& 4. The procedure for calculation is explained in the following pages.
Table 5.14 Geometry of structural discontinuities at various rock slopes
Orientation Orientation of Discontinuities

Rock
of Slope (Direction & Dip Amount)
Section
Direction/
No. Joint Set – 1 Joint Set – 2 Joint Set – 3 Joint Set – 4
Inclination
RS–1 N 315 / 44 N 165 / 88 N 245 / 16 N 20/ 70 -
RS–2 N 330/ 48 N 260 / 80 N 340 / 16 N 205/ 16 -
       
RS–3 N 325 / 31 N 215 / 10 N 240 / 22 N 300 / 21 -
       
RS–4 N 265 / 58 N 335 / 54 N 210 / 29 N 130 / 65 -
RS–5 N 285 / 62 N 92 / 41 N 120 / 64 N 230 / 11 N 325 / 83
RS–6 N 270 / 68 N 65 / 30 N 185 / 42 N 325 / 42 -
126
Table 5.15 Estimated Rock Mass Rating (RMR) for Rock Sections
ROCK MASS RATING (RMR)

Rating
Rock Stren- ϕ
Condition Ground RMR C
Section Rock Type gth of Spacing of Description Class (in
RQD of water Value (in kPa)
No. Intact Discontinuity degree)
Discontinuity Condition
Rock
RS-1 Charnockite 12 17 11.67 20.33 7 68.00 Good Rock II 333.48 39.00
RS-2 Charnockite 15 20 15 17.67 0 67.67 Good Rock II 331.77 38.83
31.17
RS-3 Charnockite 15 4 12.67 20.66 0 52.33 Fair Rock III 256.94
RS-4 Charnockite 12 3 10 16.33 0 41.33 Fair Rock III 202.68 25.67
RS-5 Charnockite 10.5 8 11.25 20.25 7 57.00 Fair Rock III 279.49 33.50
RS-6 Charnockite 12 17 10 21 7 67.00 Good Rock II 328.53 38.50
127
Figure 5.8 Stereonet plots of rock section 1, 2 and 3 show slope and discontinuity relationship
128
Figure 5.9 Stereonet plots of rock section 4, 5 and 6 show slope and discontinuity relationship
129
5.3.4.1 Slope Mass Rating Calculation for Rock Section (RS-1)
The analysis made through stereo-net plot shows that, the most unfavorable
condition is the result of intersection formed by the discontinuities J2 & J3.
Hence, it is a case of probable wedge failure.
Direction and Inclination of J2=N 245/16


α – Direction of line of intersection of two discontinuities=N 294

β – Direction of slope inclination=N 315
α – Plunge of line of intersection of two discontinuities=10
α– Inclination of Slope=44
F1= |α -α | = 21
F2 = |β | = 10
F3= |β -β | = -34
F4= 0
RMR = 68
Calculation of SMR = RMR + (F1 F2 F3) + F4
= 68 + (0.40 0.15 (-60)) + 0
SMR = 68 – 3.6 = 64.40




α – Plunge of line of intersection of two discontinuities=16
F1= |α -α | = 17
F2 = |β | = 16
F3= |β -β | = -32
F4= 0
RMR = 67.67
= 68 + (0.70 0.15 (-60)) + 0
SMR = 67.67 – 3.6 = 61.37
130
condition is the result of J2 discontinuities. Hence, it is a case of probable
planar failure.


α – Dip Direction of Joint=N 340

β – Dip of Joint=16
α – Direction of Slope Inclination= N 330
β– Inclination of Slope=48
F1= |α -α | = 17
F2 = |β | = 16
F3= |β -β | = -32
F4= 0
RMR = 67.67
= 67.67 + (0.85 0.15 (-60)) + 0
SMR = 67.67 – 7.65 = 60.02
condition is the result of J3 Discontinuity. Hence, it is a case of probable
planar failure.



α – Direction of Slope Inclination=N 325
F1= |α -α | = 25
F2 = |β | = 21
F3= |β -β | = -10
F4= 0
RMR = 52.33
= 52.33 + (0.40 0.40 (-50)) + 0
SMR = 52.33 – 8 = 44.33
131



α – Plunge of line of intersection of two discontinuities=20 
F1= |α -α | = 5
F2 = |β | = 20
F3= |β -β | = -38
F4= 0
RMR = 41.33
= 41.33 + (1.0 0.40 (-60)) + 0
SMR = 41.33 – 24 = 17.33
condition is the result of J4 Discontinuity. Hence, it is a case of probable
planar failure.



α – Direction of Slope Inclination=N 285
F1= |α -α | = 40
F2 = |β | = 83
F3= |β -β | = 21
F4= 0
RMR = 57.00
= 57.00 + (0.15 1.0 (0)) + 0
SMR = 57 – 0 = 57
132



α – Plunge of line of intersection of two discontinuities=17 
F1= |α -α | = 14
F2 = |β | = 17
F3= |β -β | = -49
F4= 0
RMR = 67
= 67 + (0.70 0.15 (-60)) + 0
SMR = 67 – 6.3 = 60.70
133
Table 5.16 Results of Slope Mass Rating (SMR) for Rock Sections RS-1 to RS-6
Rock
RS–1 RS–2 RS-2 RS–3 RS–4 RS–5 RS–6
Section ID
Critical
J2 & J3 J1 & J2 J2 J3 J1 & J2 J4 J2 & J3
Sections
Class No II II II III I III II
SMR 64.40 61.37 60.02 44.33 17.33 57 60.70
Description Good Good Good Normal Very Bad Normal Good
Partially Completely Partially
Stability Stable Stable Stable Stable
Stable Unstable stable
Probable Planar Big Planar Planar or
Block Block Block Block
Type of or or many
Failure Failure Failure Failure
Failure many Wedges Rotational wedges
Occasional Occasional Occasional Systematic Systematic Occasional
Support Re-excavation
supports supports supports support support supports
134
5.3.5 Estimation of Factor of Safety (F)
The rock slope sections considered for the RMR and SMR study is taken for
the factor of safety analyses. There are six rock sections were considered
and studied for the analysis of slope stability along Ghat road section of
Kolli hills. Structural readings (slope and joint set), cohesion and friction
angle values were plotted in the stereonet and made analysis to find out the
possible failure modes i.e. type of failure. The possible critical failure modes
from all the sections were identified and given in the Table 5.17.
Table 5.17 Identified critical sections for factor of safety analyses
Mode of Failure Section ID Joint Sets

Rock Section – 2 Joint set 2
Planar Failure
Rock Section – 3 Joint set 3
Rock Section – 1 Joint set 2 & Joint set 3
Wedge Failure
135
5.3.5.1 Planar Failure Analysis of Rock Section 2 (Joint set 2)
Locality: Hairpin Bend 25/70, Kolli hills Ghat road section, Highly Jointed
Charnockite. RMR = 67.67 (Class II, Good Rock), SMR value = 60.02 (Class
II, Good, Stable).
Three sets of joints are observed in this slope section. The slope (N 330º/48º )
and joint orientations (J1: N 260/80; J2: N 340/16; J3: N 205 /16 ) were
measured in the field and plotted in the streoplot (Figure 5.10). The cut
slope amount is 78 and the height of the slope 28.22 ft (8.60 m). The angle
of friction ϕ=32.5 (taken from discontinuity parameters). The analyses of
stereoplot indicate that the Joint 2 (N 340/16) is found close (approximately
parallel) to the slope direction. Hence, it is considered as planar failure
condition and factor of safety was calculated as per Hoek and Bray Eq. 5.10
(Table 5.18). The tension crack position and depth are unknown, hence it is
assumed that the tension crack is coincident with the slope crest and that is
water-filled (Hoek and Bray 1981). Hence, the z/H is calculated using the Eq.
5.2. The calculated factor of safety for Joint set 2, when, z ⁄z = 1 i.e. the
tension crack is completely filled with water was 1.46.
Figure 5.10 Stereonet plot for planar stability analysis – Rock Section – 2
136
Table 5.18 Planar Stability Calculation Sheet - Rock Section 2
Section Input Data Function Value Calculations using Formula Results

ID
Rock ψ = 16 Cosec ψ = 3.6280 z/H = (1-Cotψ . Tanψ ) = (1-0.2126 x 0.2867) z/H =0.939
Section 2 ψ = 78 
Cot ψ = 3.4874
P = (1 – z/H).Cosecψ = (1 – 0.939) 0.3.6280 P = 0.2213
– Joint 2 γ = 165.434 lb/ft3 Cot ψ = 0.2126
γ = 62.5 lb/ft3 Sin ψ = 0.2756 Q = ((1 – (z/H)2) Cotψ – Cotψ ) Sinψ
c = 5632.65 lb/ft2 Cos ψ = 0.9613 Q = ((1 – (0.939)2) 3.4874 – 0.2126) 0.2756 Q = 0.0551
H = 28.22 ft Tan ψ = 4.7046 Q = (0.1999) 0.2756 = 0.0551
ϕ = 32.5 Tan ψ = 0.2867

When, zW/z = 1; R = γW/γ . zW/z . z/H
Tan ϕ = 0.6371 R = 0.3548
= (0.3778)(1)(0.939)
γ ⁄γ = 0.3778
z ⁄z = 1
When, zW/z = 1; S = zW/z . z/H . SinΨp
z⁄H = 0.939 S = 0.2588
= (1)(0.939)(0.2756)
2c⁄γH = 2.4134
When, Z /z = 1 (i.e.) The tension crack is completely filled with water (z= Z ), the Factor of Safety (F) = 1.46
F = (2c/H).P + (Q.cotψ – R(P+S)) Tan / Q + R.S cotψ
F = (2.4134)0.2213 + (0.0551 x 3.4874 – 0.3548(0.2213 + 0.2588))0.6371 / 0.0551 + 0.3548 x 0.2588 x 3.4874
F = 0.5341 + (0.1922 – 0.1703) 0.6371 / 0.0551 + 0.3202
F = 0.5341 + 0.0134 / 0.0551 + 0.3202 = 0.5475 / 0.3753 = 1.46
137
5.3.5.2 Planar Analysis – Rock Section 3 (Joint set 3)
Locality: Hairpin Bend 26/70, Kolli Hills Ghat road section, Highly Jointed
Charnockite. RMR = 52.33 (Class III, Fair Rock), SMR value = 44.33 (Class
III, Normal, Partially stable).
Three sets of joints are observed in this slope. The slope (N 325/31) and
joint orientations (J1: N 215/10; J2: N 240 /22 ; J3: N 300/21) were
measured in the field and plotted in streoplot (Figure 5.11). The cut slope
amount is 85 and the height of the slope 45.93 ft (14 m). The angle of
friction ϕ=30.5 (taken from discontinuity parameters). The analyses of
stereoplot indicate that the Joint 3 (N 300/21) is found close (approximately
parallel) to the slope direction. Hence, it is considered as planar failure
(Table 5.19). The tension crack position and depth are unknown, hence it is
assumed that the tension crack is coincident with the slope crest and that is
water-filled (Hoek and Bray 1981). Hence, the z/H is calculated using the Eq.
5.2. The calculated factor of safety for Joint set 3, when, z ⁄z = 1 i.e. the
tension crack is completely filled with water was 0.22.
Figure 5.11 Stereonet plot for planar stability analysis – Rock Section – 3
138
Table 5.19 Planar Stability Calculation Sheet - Rock Section 3
Section ID Input Data Function Value Calculations using Formula Results

Rock Section 3 ψ = 21 Cosec ψ = 2.7904 z/H = (1-Cotψ . Tanψ ) = (1-0.0875 x
z/H =0.966
– Joint 3 ψ = 85 Cot ψ = 2.6051 0.3839)
γ = 165.434 lb/ft3 Cot ψ = 0.0875 P = (1 – z/H). Cosecψ P = 0.0949
γ = 62.5 lb/ft3 Sin ψ = 0.3584 P = (1 – 0.966). 2.7904 = 0
c = 5223 lb/ft2 Cos ψ = 0.9336 Q = ((1 – (z/H)2) Cotψ – Cotψ ) Sinψ Q = 0.0311
H = 45.93 ft Tan ψ = 11.4301 Q = ((1 – (0.966)2) 2.6051 – 0.0875) 0.3584
ϕ = 30.5 Tan ψ = 0.3839 Q = (0.0866) 0.3584 = 0.6689
Tan = 0.5890 When, zW/z = 1; R=γW/γ.zW/z.z/H R = 0.3650

γ ⁄γ = 0.3778 R=(0.3778)(1)(0.966)
z ⁄z = 1 When, zW/z=1; S=zW/z.z/H.Sinψ S = 0.3462
z⁄H = 0.966 S=(1)(0.966)(0.3584)
2c⁄γH = 1.3748
When, Z /z = 1 (i.e.) The tension crack is completely filled with water (z=Z ), the Factor of Safety (F) = 0.22
F = (2c/H).P + (Q.cotψ – R(P+S)) Tanϕ / Q + R.S cotψ
F = (1.3748)0.0949 + (0.0311 x 2.6051 – 0.3650(0.0949 + 0.3462))0.5890 / 0.0311 + 0.3650 x 0.3462 x 2.6051
F = 0.1305 + (0.0810 – 0.1610) 0.5890 / 0.0311 + 0.3292
F = 0.1305 + (-0.04712) / 0.0551 + 0.3202 = 0.08338/0.3753 = 0.22
139
5.3.5.3 Wedge failure case – Rock Section 1 (Joint set 2 & Joint set 3)
Charnockite. RMR = 68 (Class II, Good Rock), SMR value = 64.40 (Class II,
Good, Stable).
joint orientations (J1: N 165/88; J2: N 245/16; J3: N 20/70) were
measured in the field and plotted in streoplot (Figure 5.12). The cut slope
amount is 80. The analyses of stereoplot indicate that the plunge
(N 294/10) formed due to intersection of J2 & J3 is found close
(approximately parallel) to the slope direction. Hence, it is considered as
wedge failure condition and factor of safety was calculated as per Hoek and
Bray Eq. 5.16 (Table 5.20). The calculated factor of safety for the intersection
of J2 & J3 was 11.31.
Figure 5.12 Stereonet plot for wedge stability analysis – Rock Section – 1
Input Data from stereonet: Intersections 1=15; 2=70; 3=16; 4=44; 5=11; Pole of
Plane A( N )=74; Pole of Plane B( N )=20; θ . =82; θ =40; θ =36; θ =13; θ =50;
θ . =28; θ . =16; ϕ =37; ϕ =42; γ=165.434 lb/ft3; γ ⁄2γ =0.1889; γ =62.5 lb/ft3;
c = 6503.15 lb/ft2; c = 7527.26 lb/ft2 and H = 26.2467 ft (8.00 m).
140
Table 5.20 Wedge Stability Calculation Sheet - Rock Section 1
Input Data Function Value Calculations using formula Results

ψ = 16 Cos ψ = 0.9613 A = Cosψ − Cosψ . Cosθ . ⁄Sinψ . Sin θ . A = 4.8835
ψ = 70 Cos ψ = 0.3420 A = 0.9613 − 0.3420 x 0.1392⁄0.1908 x 0.9806
ψ = 11 Sin ψ = 0.1908
Cos θ . = 0.1392 B = Cosψ − Cosψ . Cosθ . ⁄Sinψ . Sin θ . B = 1.1128
θ . = 82
Sin θ . = 0.9903 B = 0.3420 − 0.9613 x 0.1392⁄0.1908 x 0.9806
θ = 40 Sin θ = 0.6428 X = 1.1376
X = Sinθ ⁄Sinθ . Cosθ .
θ = 36 Sin θ = 0.5878
X = 0.6428⁄0.5878 x 0.9613
θ . = 16 Cos θ . = 0.9613
θ = 13 Sin θ = 0.2250 Y = Sinθ ⁄Sinθ . Cosθ . Y = 0.3327
θ = 50 Sin θ = 0.7660 Y = 0.2250⁄0.7660 x 0.8829
θ . = 28 Cos θ . = 0.8829
ϕ = 37 Tan ϕ = 0.7536 F = ((3c ⁄γH). X + (3c /γH). Y) + (A − (γ /2γ). X). Tanϕ F= 11.3054
ϕ = 42 Tan ϕ = 0.9004 + (B − (γ /2γ). Y). Tanϕ
γ = 165.434 lb/ft3 γ ⁄2γ = 0.1889
γ = 62.5 lb/ft3 3c /γH = 4.4931 F = (4.4931 x 1.1376) + (5.2007 x 0.3327) + (4.8835 − 0.2149) x 0.7536
c = 6503.15 lb/ft2 3c /γH = 5.2007 + (1.1128 − 0.0628) x 0.9004
c = 7527.26 lb/ft2
H = 26.2467 ft F = 5.1114 + 1.7303 + 3.5183 + 0.9454
141
Charnockite. RMR value (basic) = 67.67 (Class II, Good Rock), SMR value =
61.37 (Class II, Good, Stable).
measured in the field and plotted in Stereoplot (Figure 5.13). The cut slope
amount is 78. The analyses of stereoplot indicate that the plunge (N
347/16) formed due to intersection of J1 & J2 is found close (approximately
parallel) to the slope direction. Hence, it is considered as wedge failure
condition and factor of safety was calculated as per Hoek and Bray equation
5.16 (Table 5.21). The calculated factor of safety for the intersection of J1&
J2 was 6.54.
Input Data from stereonet: Intersections 1=03; 2=77; 3=4; 4=48; 5=16; Pole of Plane
A( N )=75; Pole of Plane B( N )=10; θ . =78; θ =33; θ =32; θ =3; θ =69; θ . =22;
θ . =28; ϕ =33; ϕ =42; γ=165.434 lb/ft3; γ ⁄2γ=0.1889; γ =62.5 lb/ft3; c = 5632.65 lb/ft2;
c = 7476.06 lb/ft2 and H = 28.2152 ft (8.60 m).
142

ψ = 80 Cos ψ = 0.1736 A = 0.9613 − 0.1736 x 0.2079⁄0.2756 x 0.9568
ψ = 16 Sin ψ = 0.2756
Cos θ . = 0.2079 B = Cosψ − Cosψ . Cosθ . ⁄Sinψ . Sin θ . B = -0.0997
θ . = 78
Sin θ . = 0.9781 B = 0.1736 − 0.9613 x 0.2079⁄0.2756 x 0.9568
θ = 33 Sin θ = 0.5446 X = 1.1641
θ = 32 Sin θ = 0.5299
X = 0.5446⁄0.5299. 0.8829
θ . = 28 Cos θ . = 0.8829
θ = 69 Sin θ = 0.9336 Y = 0.0523⁄0.9336 x 0.9272
θ . = 22 Cos θ . = 0.9272
ϕ = 42 Tan ϕ = 0.9004 + (B − (γ /2γ). Y). Tanϕ
γ = 165.434 lb/ft3 γ ⁄2γ = 0.1889
γ = 62.5 lb/ft3 3c /γH = 3.6201 F = (3.6201 x 1.1641) + (4.8049 x 0.0604) + (3.5086 − 0.2199) x 0.6494
c = 5632.65 lb/ft2 3c /γH = 4.8049 + (−0.0997 − 0.0114) x 0.9004
c = 7476.06 lb/ft2
H = 28.2152 ft F = 4.2142 + 0.2902 + 2.1357) + (−0.1000)
143
Charnockite. RMR value (basic) = 41.33 (Class III, Fair Rock), SMR value =
17.33 (Class I, Very Bad, Completely Unstable).
measured in the field and plotted in Stereoplot (Figure 5.14). The cut slope
amount is 68. The analyses of stereoplot indicate that the plunge (N
260/20) formed due to intersection of J1 & J2 is found close (approximately
parallel) to the slope direction. Hence, it is considered as wedge failure
(Table 5.22). The calculated factor of safety for the intersection of J1 & J2
was 3.11.
θ . =34; ϕ =30; ϕ =21; γ=165.434 lb/ft3; γ ⁄2γ=0.1889; γ =62.5 lb/ft3; c = 5018.18 lb/ft2;
c = 3277.18 lb/ft2 and H = 42.6509 ft (13 m)
144

ψ = 54 Cos ψ = 0.5878 A = 0.8746 − 0.5878 x 0.2924⁄0.3420 x 0.9145
ψ = 20 Sin ψ = 0.3420
θ . = 73
Sin θ . = 0.9563 B = 0.5878 − 0.8746 x 0.2924⁄0.3420 x 0.9145
θ = 12 Sin θ = 0.2079 X = 0.3429
θ = 47 Sin θ = 0.7314
X = 0.2079⁄0.7314 x 0.8290
θ . = 34 Cos θ . = 0.8290
θ = 60 Sin θ = 0.8660 Y = 0.1392⁄0.8660 x 0.8910
θ . = 27 Cos θ . = 0.8910
ϕ = 21 Tan ϕ = 0.3839 + (B − (γ /2γ). Y). Tanϕ
γ = 165.434 lb/ft3 γ ⁄2γ = 0.1889
γ = 62.5 lb/ft3 3c /γH = 2.1336 F = (2.1336 x 0.3429) + (1.3934 x 0.1804) + (2.2468 − 0.0648) x 0.5774
c = 3277.18 lb/ft2 3c /γH = 1.3934 + (2.2924 − 0.0341) x 0.3839
c = 5018.18 lb/ft2
H = 42.6509 ft F = 0.7316 + 0.2514 + 1.2599 + 0.8670
145
Charnockite. RMR value (basic) = 67 (Class II, Good Rock), SMR value = 60.70
(Class II, Good, Stable).
joint orientations (J1: N 65/30; J2: N 185/42; J3: N325/42) were measured
in the field and plotted in Stereoplot (Figure 5.15). The cut slope amount is
76.The analyses of stereoplot indicate that the plunge (N 256/17) formed
due to intersection of J2 & J3 is found close (approximately parallel) to the
slope direction. Hence, it is considered as wedge failure condition and factor
of safety was calculated as per Hoek and Bray Eq. 5.15 (Table 5.23). The
calculated factor of safety for the intersection of J2 & J3 was 4.50.
θ . =14; ϕ =39; ϕ =38; γ=165.434 lb/ft3; γ ⁄2γ =0.1889; γ =62.5 lb/ft3; c = 6964 lb/ft2;
c = 6656.76 lb/ft2 and H = 27.8871 ft (8.5 m)
146

ψ = 42 Cos ψ = 0.7431 A = 0.7431 − 0.7431 x 0.2250⁄0.2924 x 0.9494
ψ = 17 Sin ψ = 0.2924
θ . = 77
Sin θ . = 0.9744 B = 0.7431 − 0.7431 x 0.2250⁄0.2924 x 0.94 94
θ = 7 Sin θ = 0.1219 X = 0.1307
θ = 74 Sin θ = 0.9613
X = 0.1219⁄0.9613 x 0.9703
θ . = 14 Cos θ . = 0.9703
θ = 52 Sin θ = 0.7880 Y = 0.1045⁄0.7880 x 0.8746
θ . = 29 Cos θ . = 0.8746
ϕ = 38 Tan ϕ = 0.7813 + (B − (γ /2γ). Y). Tanϕ
γ = 165.434 lb/ft3 γ ⁄2γ = 0.1889
γ = 62.5 lb/ft3 3c /γH = 4.5311 F = (4.5311 x 0.1307) + (4.3312 x 0.1516) + (2.0745 − 0.0247) x 0.8098
c = 6964 lb/ft2 3c /γH = 4.3312 + (2.0633 − 0.0286) x 0.7813
c = 6656.76 lb/ft2
H = 27.8871 ft F = 0.5922 + 0.6566 + 1.6599 + 1.5897
147
5.4 SYNTHESIS
The RMR and SMR values were calculated using point load strength, rock
quality designation, groundwater condition, discontinuity conditions,
spacing, and orientation. Six potential rock slope sections were identified for
RMR, SMR, and factor of safety estimation. The total RMR values ranges from
41.33 to 68. The SMR values ranges from 17.33 to 64.40. The factor of safety
values for planar and wedge failure modes were determined using Hoek and
Bray method.
148

15 - Chapter 5 PDF

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

15 - Chapter 5 PDF

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

C hapter 5

ROCK SLOPE STABILITY ANALYSES

In a mountainous region, construction of road corridor requires original and

5.2.1 Rock Mass Rating (RMR) System

Bieniawski (1973) was first proposed a geomechanical classification or the

 Uniaxial Compressive Strength (UCS) of intact rock material

Parameters Range of Values

Rock Mass Classes Determined From Total Ratings

5.2.2 Slope Mass Rating (SMR) System

For the purpose of assessment of rock slope stability, Romana (1985)

Slope Mass Rating (SMR) = RMR + (F1 F2 F3) + F4 (5.1)

 RMR is Rock Mass Rating

Table 5.3 Adjustment ratings for joints

Natural Smooth Blasting or Deficient

(after Romana 1985)

Table 5.5 Various stability classes as per SMR values

5.2.3 Factor of Safety

5.2.3.1 Plane Failure in Rock Slopes

Plane failure occurs when a geological discontinuity strikes parallel to the

a) A slope having tension crack in its upper surface.

z/H = (1 − Cotψ . Tanψ ) (5.2)

The following general conditions must be satisfied, for the sliding

d. Release surfaces which provide negligible resistance to sliding must be

e. To simplify the computation, it is usual to consider a slice of unit

Figure 5.2 Geometry shows conditions of plane failure

The assumptions for plane failure analysis are

f) It is assumed that release surfaces are present at the lateral

Where, from Figure 5.1

A = (H − z). Cosecψ (5.5)

U = γ . z (H – z). Cosecψ (5.6)

W= γH ((1 – (z/H) ) Cotψ – Cotψ ) (5.8)

W = γH ((1 − z/H) Cotψ . (Cotψ . Tanψ – 1)) (5.9)

In order to simplify the calculations, Eq. 5.4 can be rearranged in the

P = (1 − z/H). Cosecψ (5.11)

When the tension crack is in the upper slope surface

Q = ((1 − (z/H) Cotψ − Cotψ ) Sinψ (5.12)

When the tension crack is in the slope face

The P, Q, R and S are all dimensionless ratios.

5.2.3.2 Wedge Failure in Rock Slopes

The numbering of the lines of intersection of the various planes involved in

1 – Intersection of plane A with the slope face

Figure 5.3 Wedge failure geometry

Figure 5.4 Geometry of wedge showing the numbering of intersection

F= (c . X + c . Y) + A − . X Tanϕ + B − . Y Tanϕ (5.16)

c and c are the cohesive strengths of planes A and B

H is the total height of the wedge

ψ is the dip of the line of intersection 5.

Figure 5.6 Stereoplot of data required for wedge stability analysis

Table 5.6 Location details of rock slope sections

Facet Section ID Longitude Latitude Land Mark

5.3.1 Compressive Strength - Point Load Lump Strength Index

The strength of rock specimens can be characterized by widely used tests

0.3 W < D < W (5.21)

IL (50) =Point load lump strength index;

Point Load Strength Index (in Mpa)

5.3.2.1 Rock Quality Designation (RQD) index

RQD = 115 − 3.3 Jv (5.24)

5.3.2.2 Spacing of discontinuities

Discontinuities are common features in rock masses. The term discontinuity

5.3.2.3 Condition of discontinuities

Discontinuity condition measures the discontinuity length, separation,

5.3.2.5 Orientation of discontinuities

It refers to the direction and dip of discontinuities. The direction should be