Mine Geotechnical Engineering - Progress Report 2

Assessing Rock Slope Stability using
Rock Mass Classification and

Discontinuity Mapping
Mine Geotechnical Engineering 431 – Group Assignment
By: Liévin Siki Bangangba
Yan Zhang and
Chao Sun
Date: 21/09/2020
ROCK SLOPE STABILITY ANALYSIS ii
We declare that this group assessment item is our own work, except where acknowledged, and it has not
been submitted for academic credit elsewhere, and acknowledge that the assessor of this item may, for
purposes of assessing this item:
 Reproduce this assessment item and provide a copy to another member of the University; and/or
 Communicate a copy of this assessment item to a plagiarism checking service (which may then retain a
copy of the assessment item on its database for the purpose of future plagiarism checking).
We certify that we have read and understood the University Rules in respect of Student Rights and
Responsibilities - Academic Integrity & Plagiarism, details of which can be found at:
http://students.curtin.edu.au/administration/responsibilities.cfm
Student
Student Name Signature
Number
Liévin Bangangba,
14078091 LS
Siki
Chao Sun 14776395 CS
Yan Zhang 14451317 YZ
Mine Geotechnical Engineering 431 Group Assignment 2013

ROCK SLOPE STABILITY ANALYSIS iii
Abstract
The present report presents the outcome of the rock slope stability analysis conducted to assess the
wall stability of an abandoned dolerite quarry distant 10 km south of Kalgoorlie-Boulder, to ensure
that the wall of the quarry will remain safe once it is returned to service.
The critical step in rock slope stability analysis is the accurate and detailed determination of the
rock mass discontinuity properties (Pernito, 2008). However, this analysis was done using
geotechnical data collected through traditional discontinuity measurements; although, they are time
consuming, subjective, prone to errors and based mainly on the surface measurements of the
exposed discontinuities.
To assess of the quarry’s wall stability, two methods were used and involved the rock mass
classification system and the discontinuity mapping.
The rock mass classification systems use the rock mass rating (RMR) and the Q system to assess
the rock quality of the quarry wall; while, the mapping of the discontinuities in the wall helped
determine the orientation of major discontinuities in the rock of the quarry wall using DIPS
software; and then using these results, possibility block movement were interpreted with respect to
the orientation of the quarry wall.
Using the rock mass classification systems, these analyses found that the abandoned dolerite quarry
wall rock mass ranking, RMR is about 60%; that is the rock is classified as fair rock (Class III).
Alternatively, the Q system for all slopes faces ranges from 1.25 to 3.3 classifying the rock mass as
poor.
Second method, which the mapping of discontinuities that planar failure will occur on the
In conclusion, the study established...
The report also found that the study conducted has limitations; and major limitations were...

ROCK SLOPE STABILITY ANALYSIS iv
Table of Contents
Abstract..........................................................................................................................................................iii
List of Figures..................................................................................................................................................v
List of Tables..................................................................................................................................................vi
List of Symbols and Acronyms......................................................................................................................vii
1 Introduction..............................................................................................................................................1
2 Design and Methodology.........................................................................................................................2
3 Approach and Execution..........................................................................................................................3
3.1 Rock Slope stability Analysis Theories............................................................................................3
3.1.1 Rock Mass Classification System.............................................................................................3
3.1.2 Rock Mass Discontinuity Parameters.......................................................................................6
3.2 Data Gathering.................................................................................................................................9
3.2.1 Detailed field procedures..........................................................................................................9
3.2.2 Mapping of Orientation of Discontinuities.............................................................................10
3.2.3 Mapping of Conditions of discontinuity.................................................................................11
3.3 Data Processing and Analysis........................................................................................................13
3.3.1 Rock Mass Rating-RMR Calculation.....................................................................................13
3.3.2 Computing Slope Mass Rating-SMR.....................................................................................14
3.3.3 Q System................................................................................................................................20
3.3.4 Determination of Major Discontinuities Orientation..................................................................21
4 Results Analysis.....................................................................................................................................25
4.1 Assessment using Rock Mass Classification Systems....................................................................25
4.2 Assessing the Quarry Wall Stability...............................................................................................26
4.2.1 Discontinuity Mapping General Conditions...........................................................................26
4.2.2 Possibility of the Quarry Rock Block Movement...................................................................29
4.3 Discussion......................................................................................................................................29
5 Conclusions and Recommendations.......................................................................................................30
5.1 Conclusions....................................................................................................................................30
5.2 Recommendations for Further Work..............................................................................................30
6 References..............................................................................................................................................31
7 Appendices............................................................................................................................................33
7.1 Appendix A – Rock Mass Rating – RMR (After Bieniawski, 1989)..............................................33
7.2 Appendix B – Q System (after Hoek et al, 1995)...........................................................................34

ROCK SLOPE STABILITY ANALYSIS v
7.3 Appendix C – Q System.................................................................................................................37
List of Figures
Figure 1 Rock mass geometrical properties of discontinuities (After Hudson and Harrison, 1997).................6
Figure 2 Scanline mapping exposures of slope face 5 (After Siki, 2013).........................................................9
Figure 3 Measuring Dip direction using Brunton Compass (After Siki, 2013)..............................................10
Figure 4 Stereonet showing the strike and dip for each joint set (Slope face 1).............................................15
Figure 9 Orientation of joint sets with respect to the direction of the slope face 1.........................................22
Figure 10 Orientation of joint sets with respect to the direction of the slope face 2.......................................22
Figure 14 Example of a plane failure.............................................................................................................27
Figure 15 Example of a wedge failure...........................................................................................................28
Figure 16 Example of a toppling failure........................................................................................................28
Figure 17 Rock mass rating table (After Bieniawski, 1989)..........................................................................33
Figure 18 Q - system (after Hoek et al, 1995)................................................................................................34
Figure 19 system continued (after Hoek et al, 1995)......................................................................................35
Figure 20 Q – system continued (after Hoek et al, 1995)...............................................................................36
Figure 21 Stress reduction factor - SRF.........................................................................................................37

ROCK SLOPE STABILITY ANALYSIS vi
List of Tables
Table 1 Values of adjustment factor for method of excavation (F4)................................................................4
Table 2 Values of adjustment factors for different joints.................................................................................5
Table 3 Classification of discontinuity spacing (after Barry and Brady…)......................................................7
Table 4 Orientations of the slope face (After Halim, 2013)...........................................................................10
Table 5 In-situ mapping of discontinuities of the slope face..........................................................................11
Table 6 In-situ mapping of condition discontinuities.....................................................................................12
Table 7 In-situ mapping surface discontinuity used for the Q system assessment..........................................12
Table 8 Minimum average discontinuity spacing for rock mass raking.........................................................13
Table 9 Description of discontinuity surfaces rock mass raking....................................................................13
Table 10 Abandoned dolerite quarry’ wall rock mass rating..........................................................................14
Table 11 Trend and plunge of each intersection between joint sets...............................................................18
Table 12 Calculated values of adjustment factors for different joint orientations..........................................18
Table 13 Assessing case of slope failure for each face...................................................................................19
Table 14 SMR classification..........................................................................................................................19
Table 17 Values of parameters and Q index for each face of the quarry wall................................................21
Table 18 Australian competent rock masses (after Pack, 2000).....................................................................25
Table 19 Q Index for rock mass description (after Thompson, 2011)............................................................25
Table 20 Rock classification for each face of the quarry wall........................................................................26
Table 21 …....................................................................................................................................................29

ROCK SLOPE STABILITY ANALYSIS vii
List of Symbols and Acronyms

Rock mass raking RMR
Slope Mass Raking AN
Rock Quality Designation Index RQD
Planar failure P
Toppling failure T
Wedge failure W
Slope strike as
Joint strike aj
Plunge direction of line of intersection ai
Slope dip bs
Joint dip bj
Plunge of line of intersection bi

1 Introduction
The rock mass slope stability analysis is very important in assessing the safe and effective design of
a rock slope and, or analysing the equilibrium conditions of a natural slope. The analysis requires the
detailed information on the geometry of the exposed rock face; as well as, the definition and analysis
of discontinuity properties of the rock mass since these determine its geotechnical behaviour
(Bieniawski, 1989).
Traditional discontinuity measurements; such as, the scanline mapping, which is used for this
analysis, has several major disadvantages (Priest and Hudson, 1981; Priest, 1993; Hack, 1998). Not
only, this technique is time-consuming, prone to errors, hazardous but it is essentially based on
surface measurements of rock mass exposures and is very subjective. Orientation inaccuracies in
scanline survey, as revealed by Hack (1996), add up to the uncertainty of discontinuity
measurements.
However, how to assess rock slope stability using rock mass classification and discontinuity mapping
is the aim of this study, which is carried out in taking into account following steps:
First of all, the Rock Mass Rating - RMR, the SRM and the Q system are determined using the data
collect in situ; and then, the results are used to assess the rock quality of the quarry wall.
Furthermore, data from the mapping of the discontinuities in the quarry wall are input in DIPS
software to design the visual representation of the orientations of the slope faces; then, the results are
used to assess the possibility of block movement based on the orientation of major discontinuities as
regards to the orientation of the quarry wall.
Ultimately, this study aims to assess the stability of an abandoned dolerite quarry wall near
Kalgoorlie – Boulder to ensure that the quarry wall will remain safe once it is returned to service for
the extraction of building materials.
ROCK SLOPE STABILITY ASSIGNMENT 2
2 Design and Methodology

A field survey, in particular the face exposure scanline mapping was conducted on the dolerite
quarry wall to gather all data needed to be used for the analysis the stability of the quarry wall.
Therefore, to perform this assessment this study is divided into five parts, as follow:
Part one gives the general information consisting of the design and methodology, which are being
discussed.
Part two briefly discusses the theories relating to the rock mass classification systems, especially the
rock mass raking (RMR), the rock slope raking (RSR) and the Q system. Moreover, succinct
descriptions of rock mass geometrical properties of discontinuities and details on the field procedures
that were carried out as well as surveyed data are provided.
Part three presents the processing and analysis of the data; and this include the calculation of the rock
mass rating, the slope mass rating, which is derived as well as the Q system. These values are later
used to classified the rock mass and assess the quarry wall.
Part four gives the outcome of the design of the rock mass discontinuity mapping using DIPS
software. This includes detailed explanation on the procedure of the design and the results derived
from this process; and
In part five results of the study are discussed.
Finally, conclusion and recommendation are presented.

3 Approach and Execution
3.1 Rock Slope stability Analysis Theories
3.1.1 Rock Mass Classification System
The classification is defined as the action or process of classifying something according to shared
qualities or characteristics as putting them in different classes (Mine Geotechnical Engineering,
2013). Thus, the rock mass classification system aim is to establish the quality of a rock or it part by
assigning values to a set of rock parameters; and, this classification scheme is very ssubjective, as it
is based on someone’s experience. In this study two systems, which are the rock mass raking and the
Q system are used to assess the quarry wall stability and these discussed in the following.
Rock Mass Rating (RMR)
The rock mass rating (RMR) system was initially developed at the South African Council of
Scientific and Industrial Research (CSIR) by Bieniawski (1973). RMR uses five most important
parameters to assess the conditions of joints; and the subjectivity of the rock mass classification is
function of these parameters.
Bieniawski identified the aim of the RMR system, which is to:
 Identify the most significant parameters influencing the behaviour of a rock mass;
 Divide a particular rock mass formation into a number of rock mass classes of varying quantity;
 Provide a basis for understanding the characteristics of each rock mass;
 Derive quantitative data for engineering design; and
 Provide a common basis for communication between engineers and geologists.
To apply the RMR system, the following five primary parameters, which are later discussed in this
paper, are used to classify a rock mass:
1. Uniaxial Compressive Strength (UCS) of the intact rock material (A1) rating ranges from 0 to 15.
2. Rock Quality Designation (RQD), A2 rating ranges from 3 to 20;
3. Spacing of discontinuities, A3 rating ranges from 5 to 20;
4. Condition of discontinuities, A4 rating from 0 to 30;
5. Groundwater conditions, A5 rating from 0 to 15.

In the end, the Rock Mass Rating is assessed using the Equation 1, where values attributed to the
rock mass discontinuity parameters are input.
5
RMR = ∑ Ai + B (Equation 1)
1
Detailed calculation of the rock mass raking is found in Section…
Slope Mass Rating (SMR)
The slope mass rating or SMR is a rock mass classification scheme developed by Romana (1985) to
describe the strength of an individual rock outcrop or slope. The system is founded upon the more
widely-used RMR scheme (Bieniawski 1989), which is modified with quantitative guidelines to the
rate the influence of adverse joint orientations (e.g. joints dipping steeply out of the slope).
SMR uses the same first five ranking factors as RMR; besides, it uses a sixth parameter, which is an
adjustment factor or penalization for adverse joint orientations. This parameter is particularly
important for evaluating the competence of a rock slope. SMR provides quantitative guidelines to
evaluate this rating penalization in the form of four sub-categories (F1, F2, F3, F4), three (F1, F2,
F3) that describe the relative rock slope and joint set geometries and a fourth (F4) which accounts for
the method of slope excavation; and addresses both planar sliding and toppling failure modes, no
additional consideration is made for sliding on multiple joint planes. Adjusting factors are logged in
Table 1 and 2. The sum of the six scoring categories, using Equation 2 gives the final SMR rating
SMR=RMR + (F1 × F2 × F3) + F4 (Equation 2)
Detailed SRM calculations are presented in Section…
Table 1 Values of adjustment factor for method of excavation (F4)
Excavation Method Value of F4
Nature of slope + 15
Pre - split + 10
Smooth blasting +8
Normal blasting or mechanical excavation 0
Poor blasting -8

Table 2 Values of adjustment factors for different joints.
Case of Slope Failure Very Favourable Favourable Fair Unfavourable Very Unfavourable
P |αj - αs | > 30° 30 - 20° 20 - 10° 10 - 5° < 5°
T |αj – αs - 180° |
W |αi - αs |
P/W/T F1 0.15 0.40 0.70 0.85 1.00
P | βj | < 20° 20 - 30° 30 - 35° 35 - 45° > 45°
W | βi |
P/W F2 0.15 0.40 0.70 0.85 1.00
T F2 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0
P βj - βs > 10° 10 - 0° 0° 0 – (-10°) < - 10°
W βi- βs
T βj +βs <110° 110 - 120° > 120° - -
P/W/T F3 0 -6 - 25 - 50 - 60
Q System
One of the two methods being used in this study, to assess the quarry’s wall stability, is the
Tunnelling Quality Index (Q) known as the Q system.
This classification system is established by Barton for estimating rock support in tunnels. It is a
quantitative classification system based on numerical assessment of the rock mass quality
(Thompson, 2010).
The Q system uses six rock discontinuities properties or parameters, which are the:
1. Joint set number, J (n) is the number of joint sets in the rock mass;
2. Joint roughness numbers J (r) representing the roughness of the rock mass structural features;
3. Joint alteration number J (a) characterising the condition or degree of alteration of the rock mass
structures;
4. Joint water reduction factor J (w) and
5. Stress Reduction Factor, SRF.
Above parameters are attributed specific values, which are input in the Equation 3 and the numerical
value of Q index for each face of the quarry wall is calculated.
RDQ Jr J w
Q = × × (Equation 3)
Jn Ja SRF

3.1.2 Rock Mass Discontinuity Parameters
An evaluation of the rock mass discontinuity properties, for which details are shown in Figure 1 and
further discussed, is essential in any rock slope stability analysis. This is the decisive first stage in the
analysis from which will follow the necessity to determine if the orientation of the existing
discontinuity sets could lead to instability.
Figure 1 Rock mass geometrical properties of discontinuities (After Hudson and Harrison, 1997)
Rock
Rock engineers widely use the Uniaxial Compressive Strength (UCS) or Point Load Strength Index
of rock in designing surface and underground structures. The procedure for measuring this rock
strength has been standardised by both the American Society for Testing and Materials (ASTM) and
the International Society for Rock Mechanics (ISRM) (Kahraman 2001, 981).
For the present study, values of the uniaxial compressive strength (UCS) and the principal stress (σ 1)
of the dolerite quarry wall were provided and respectively equal to 170 MPa and 0.84 MPa.
Rock Quality Designation (RQD)
The Rock Quality Designation Index (RQD) is used to provide a quantitative estimate of rock mass
quality from drill core and is intended to represent the rock mass in-situ. It is defined as the
percentage of intact core pieces (Xi) longer than 10 cm in the total length of core (L), which is
measured along its centreline and its purpose and the theory was developed by Deere et al in 1967.

RQD is determined from drill core and is calculated using Equation 4:
RQD=
∑ xi (Equation 4)
L
RQD may be also estimated from the number of discontinuities per unit volume when discontinuity
traces are visible in surface exposures or exploration adits using the Equation 5.
RQD=115-3.3 J v (Equation 5)
The sum of the number of joints are symbolised by J (v).
However, the rock quality designation (RQD) value, for this analysis, was provided and equals 50%.
Orientation of the discontinuities:
It is the attitude of the discontinuity in space and is described by the dip and dip direction.
The dip is defined as the maximum inclination of the discontinuity to the horizontal, (angle ψ);
while the dip direction or dip azimuth, of a discontinuity, defines the direction of the horizontal trace
of the line of dip, measured clockwise from the north (angle α) (Ducan and Mah, 2004).
Discontinuity Spacing:
The discontinuity spacing is a factor used in rock mass classification to quantify the rock mass
schemes; and the terminology used by the ISRM commission found in Table 3 was as well used in-
situ to assess the quarry rock mass (Also refer to Appendix- A: Rock Mass Raking).
Table 3 Classification of discontinuity spacing (after Barry and Brady…)
Description Spacing (mm)
Extremely close spacing < 20
Very close spacing 20 - 60
Close spacing 60 - 200
Moderately spacing 200 - 600
Wide spacing 600 - 2000
Very Wide spacing 2000 - 6000
Extremely wide spacing > 6000

Persistence:
It is the term used to describe the regional range or size of the discontinuity within a plane. In-situ
survey, persistence was crudely quantified by observing the trace lengths of discontinuities of
exposed surface.
Roughness:
This factor is the measure of the inherent surface unevenness and waviness of the discontinuity
relative to its mean plane; and so discontinuities’ wall roughness has in theory a very important
impact of its shear strength, in case of un-displaced and interlocked features. Roughness significance
declines with increasing aperture, filling thickness or previous shear displacement.
Aperture
It is the perpendicular distance separating the adjacent rock walls of an open discontinuity in which
the intervening spaces is filled with air or water.
Filling
This term is used to describe material separating the adjacent rock walls or discontinuities (calcite,
chlorite, clay…), which have a major influence on the shear strength of the discontinuities.
Filled discontinuities will generally have lower shear strength than clean and closed discontinuities;
with the exception of those filled with strong materials like quartz, calcite and pyrite (Barry and
Brady …).
Groundwater Conditions
Since rock behaviour may be determined by it hydrological environment, it is crucial to take into
account this parameter as the implication of the effect of groundwater on rock mass strength are
important for mining practice.
Joint Water Reduction factor, J w, represents the groundwater conditions.
Figure 2 illustrates the rock mass geometrical properties of discontinuities for the slope face 5.

Figure 2 Scanline mapping exposures of slope face 5 (After Siki, 2013)
3.2 Data Gathering
3.2.1 Detailed field procedures
Details of the rock mass discontinuities of the slope faces were gathered in-situ using exposure
mapping method; in particular, the scanline mapping.
In brief, scanline survey is the basic technique used in mapping surface or underground exposures. It
is set on the surface of the rock mass, and the survey consists of recording data for all discontinuities
that intersect the scanline along its length; and explanation of the survey method was done in-situ by
Dr Adrian Halim as shown in Figure 3.

Figure 3 Measuring Dip direction using Brunton Compass (After Siki, 2013)
3.2.2 Mapping of Orientation of Discontinuities
For this study, orientations (Dip and dip direction), of the slope face, were provided and are recorded
in Table 4.
Table 4 Orientations of the slope face (After Halim, 2013)
Face 1 Face 2 Face 3 Face 4 Face 5
Dip/Dip direction Dip/Dip direction Dip/Dip direction Dip/Dip direction Dip/Dip direction
90/310 65/300 60/250 75/300 75/300

However, dip and dip direction of discontinuities were recorded during the survey and are logged in
Table 5.
Table 5 In-situ mapping of discontinuities of the slope face
No Face 1 Face 2 Face 3 Face 4 Face 5
01 51/237 51/030 84/190 45/249 55/184
02 59/258 38/236 56/192 54/233 59/217
03 73/269 39/205 59/242 71/040 33/220
04 80/279 74/035 53/160 59/260 58/222
05 81/039 27/235 58/257 62/268 54/225
06 63/300 51/237 55/246 54/190 67/256
07 39/230 58/223 57/250 60/210 54/245
08 72/291 46/209 60/247 90/238 54/255
09 55/032 39/210 63/253 55/205 54/257
10 77/058 40/198 54/252 56/208 70/320
11 - 44/207 62/297 - 72/275
12 - 36/200 58/253 - -
3.2.3 Mapping of Conditions of discontinuity
Rock discontinuities properties excluded the uniaxial compressive strength (UCS) of the intact rock
material, the principal stress (σ1) and the quality designation index (RQD) that were provided, other
rock parameters were surveyed and logged in Table 6 and 7; and are later on used for the Rock Mass
Raking or the Q system to assess the rock quality of the quarry wall.

Table 6 In-situ mapping of condition discontinuities
Parameter Face 1 Face 2 Face 3 Face 4 Face 5
Spacing of
0.5mm 0.5mm 0.5mm 0.4mm 0.5mm
discontinuities (mm)
Discontinuity length
15.00m 20.00m 11.00m 25.00m 10 - 15m
(Persistence)
Separation (Aperture) 1 - 5mm 1 - 5mm 1 - 5mm 1 - 5mm 1 - 5mm
Slightly
Roughness Slightly rough Slightly rough Slightly rough Slightly rough
rough
Soft filling < Soft filling < Soft filling < Soft filling < Soft filling <
Infilling
5mm 5mm 5mm 5mm 5mm
Moderately Moderately Highly Moderately Moderately

Weathering
weathered weathered weathered weathered weathered
Table 7 In-situ mapping surface discontinuity used for the Q system assessment
Joint Slope face Survey characteristics

Joint Alteration Number, J a Joint Roughness Number, J r Joint Set Number, J n
Face 1 One joint set plus random

Face 2 One joint set plus random
Face3 One joint set plus random
Face 4 Three joint sets plus random
Face 5 Two joint sets plus random
Face 1 Smooth undulating

Face 2 Rough or regular, planar
Face 3 Smooth / Slickensided undulating
Face 4 Slickensided undulating
Face 5 Slickensided undulating
Slightly altered joint walls, non-softening mineral coatings,

Face 1
sandy particles, clay – free disintegrated rock, etc…
Face 2 Unaltered joint walls, surface staining only
Face 3
Face 4

Face 5

Joint Water Reduction, J w

Face 1 Dry excavation or minor inflow, i.e. < 5 l/m locally
3.3 Data Processing and Analysis

3.3.1 Rock Mass Rating-RMR Calculation
The Rock Mass Rating is calculated using the Appendix – A: Rock Mass Rating table.
To begin with, values are attributed to RMR parameters 1,2,3,4 and 5 to rank them; then, there are
input in the Equation 1 to allow the calculation of the Unadjusted RMR.
Next, the sixth factor, B related to the discontinuity orientation is added to get the final adjusted
RMR, which is afterwards used as input for the SRM calculation.
Before the minimum average discontinuity spacing (A 3) is input in the RMR calculation. The sum
of its measured values of each face is divided by the number of discontinuities on each face; then it is
ranked. Details of this process are found in Table 8.
Table 8 Minimum average discontinuity spacing for rock mass raking
RMR (A 3) Face 1 Face 2 Face 3 Face 4 Face 5

The total spacing of each face (mm) 7000 5000 6000 11500 6700
Discontinuities of each face (mm) 15 11 12 28 13
Spacing of Discontinuities (mm) 467 455 500 411 515
Rating (A3) 10 10 10 10 10
Same as the value of the condition of discontinuities (A 4) for each face is ranked according to the
survey and using of the Appendix A – RMR. Condition of discontinuity ranking for each slope face
are recorded in Table 9
Table 9 Description of discontinuity surfaces rock mass raking
RMR (A 4) Face 1 Face 2 Face 3 Face 4 Face 5

Discontinuity length
15m 20m 15m 25m 15m
(Persistence)
Rating (E1) 1 1 1 0 1
Separation (Aperture) 1 - 5mm 1 - 5mm 1 - 5mm 1 - 5mm 1 - 5mm
Rating (E2) 1 1 1 1 1

Slightly Slightly
Roughness Slightly rough Slightly rough Slightly rough
rough rough
Rating (E3) 3 3 3 3 3
Soft filling < Soft filling < Soft filling < Soft filling < Soft filling <
Infilling
5mm 5mm 5mm 5mm 5mm
Rating (E4) 2 2 2 2 2
Moderately Moderately Highly Highly Moderately
Weathering
weathered weathered weathered weathered weathered
Rating (E5) 3 3 1 1 3
Condition of
10 10 8 7 10
discontinuities (A4)
Finally, the RMR can be derived and the results are logged in Table 10.
Table 10 Abandoned dolerite quarry’ wall rock mass rating
A - Rock Mass Rating, RMR Face 1 Face 2 Face 3 Face 4 Face 5

Intact Rock Material UCS (A1) 12 12 12 12 12
Rock Quality Designation, RQD (A2) 13 13 13 13 13
Spacing of Discontinuities (mm) (A3) 10 10 10 10 10
Condition of discontinuities (A4) 10 10 8 7 10
Ground water (A5) 15 15 15 15 15
RMR 60 60 58 57 60
3.3.2 Computing Slope Mass Rating-SMR
The slope mass raking, SMR value is computed using the adjustment factor values for different joint
orientations found in in Table 1 and 2 of the section 3.1.1 of this study.
 F1 depends upon parallelism between joints and slope face strikes. It ranges from 0.15 to 1.0. It is
0.15 when the angle between the critical joint plane and the slope face is more than 30° and the
failure probability is very low; it is 1.0 when both are near parallel.
 F2 refers to joint dip angle (bj) in the planar failure mode. Its values also vary from 0.15 to 1.0. It
is 0.15 when the dip of the critical joint is less than 20 degrees and 1.0 for joints with dips greater
than 45 degrees. For the toppling mode of failure, F2 remains equal to 1.
 F3 refers to a probability of joints “day-lighting” in the slope face. Conditions are called “fair”
when the slope face and the joints are parallel. If the slope dips 10 degrees more than the joints,
the condition is termed “very unfavourable.”
 F4 pertains to the adjustment for the method of excavation. It includes the natural slope, or the cut
slope excavated by pre-splitting, smooth blasting, normal blasting, poor blasting, and mechanical
excavation. (Engineering Rock Mass Classification)
Following explanation was suggested by Halim (2013):

Looking at the explanation of F1 factor, if the strike of the joint sets is greater than 30° from the
strike of the slope face (which is what have been found in DIPS), then the failure probability is very
low and F1 is 0.15.
For F2, consider joint set that has the steepest dip, i.e. the one that will produce unfavourable/very
unfavourable factor.
For F3, consider joint set that has the gentlest dip, i.e. the one that will produce unfavourable/very
unfavourable factor.
For F4, many of you took pictures of the slope and therefore you can guess the excavation method.
This should be obvious. The paper also contains explanations of each excavation method.
In this assessment, three types of failures; especially, the plan failure, the wedge failure and the
toppling failure need to be considered.
Using the DIPS software, value of F1, F2, F3, and F4 can be retrieved
As a result, the stereonet for each face shown in Fig 4, 5, 6, 7, and 8 obtained from the manipulation
of DIPS software, assist in identifying from these pictures the strike and dip for each joint set.
Figure 4 Stereonet showing the strike and dip for each joint set (Slope face 1)



In the same
was, the trend and the plunge of each intersection between joint sets, which are logged in Table 11
are identified from DIPS operation.
Table 11 Trend and plunge of each intersection between joint sets
Description Plunge Trend
Face 1 90 310
Intersection 1 and 2 59 340
Face 2 65 300
Intersection1 and 2 37 235
Face 3 60 250
Face 4 75 300
Face 5 75 300
Therefore, the parameters which determine the values of adjustment factors for different joint
orientations can be calculated and are sum up in Table 12.
Table 12 Calculated values of adjustment factors for different joint orientations
as 310 300 250 300 300
aj 295 231 249 264 252

ai 340 235 239 230 247
bs 90 65 60 75 75
bj (steepest) 76 41 64 60 57
bj (gentlest) 44 37 58 57 54
bi (steepest) 59 37 57 55 54
bi (gentlest) 37 37 45 55 54
Then, using Table 1 and 2 of adjustment values of factors for different joint found in section 3.1.1
case of slope failure can be quantified for each face as shown in Table 13.
Table 13 Assessing case of slope failure for each face
Case of Slope Failure Face 1 Face 2 Face 3 Face 4 Face 5
F1 P |αj - αs | 15 69 1 36 48
T |αj – αs - 180° | 195 249 181 216 228
W |αi - αs | 30 65 11 70 53
F2 P | βj | 76 41 64 60 57
W | βi | 59 37 57 55 54
F3 P | βj - βs | -46 -28 -2 -18 -21
W | βi- βs | -53 -28 -15 -20 -21
T | βj +βs | 134 102 118 132 129
For plane failure:
Table 14 SMR classification
Slope Mass Rating,

SMR
F1
Rating
F2
Rating
F3
Rating
Normal Normal Normal Normal Normal
F4
blasting blasting blasting blasting blasting
Rating 0 0 0 0 0
SMR value
(F1*F2*F3)+F4
RMR
SMR

For wedge failure:

Slope Mass Rating,

SMR
F1
Rating
F2
Rating
F3
Rating
F4
Rating 0 0 0 0 0
SMR value
(F1*F2*F3)+F4
RMR
SMR
For toppling failure:
Slope Mass Rating,

SMR
F1
Rating
F2
Rating
F3
Rating
F4
Rating 0 0 0 0 0
SMR value
(F1*F2*F3)+F4
RMR
SMR

3.3.3 Q System
The rock mass discontinuities properties are assessed in-situ and they are attributed values using data
of the Appendix B.
Since RQD were provided, the Stress Reduction Factor can be estimated using the graph of the
Appendix C after the ratio of UCS and Principal stress (σ c / σ 1) is calculated.
σc 170
= = 202
σ1 0.84
Using the graph previously mentioned, the ratio of UCS and Principal Stress is greater than 200;
thereby, the value of SRF ranges from 2.5 to 5. Therefore by interpolation, for the ratio of UCS and
Principal Stress equals to 202, SRF equals 2.5.
All values of rock mass discontinuities properties are input in the Equation 3 and the numerical value
of Q index for each face of the quarry wall is calculated.
Table 17 displays the values assigned to parameters, for each face of the quarry wall, used as input in
Q index as well as the value of Q for each face, which retrieved.
Table 17 Values of parameters and Q index for each face of the quarry wall
Q System Face 1 Face 2 Face 3 Face 4 Face 5
Rock Quality Design, RQD 50 50 50 50 50
Joint Set Number, Jn 9 9 9 12 6
Joint Roughness Number, Jr 2 1.5 1.5 1.5 1.5
Joint Alteration Number, Ja 2 1 2 2 2
Joint Water Reduction, Jw 1 1 1 1 1
Stress Reduction Factor, SRF (UCS = σc) 2.5 2.5 2.5 2.5 2.5
Q System Value 2.2222 3.333 1.667 1.25 2.5
3.3.4 Determination of Major Discontinuities Orientation

Graphic representation using DIPS software:
The aim of using DIPS is to determine orientation of all joint sets with respect to the direction of the
slope wall; and then these are used to assess slope stability.
In the following, details of the manipulation of DIPS software are illustrated by Figure 9, 10, 11, 12,
and 13.

Figure 9 Orientation of joint sets with respect to the direction of the slope face 1


4 Results Analysis
4.1 Assessment using Rock Mass Classification Systems
Different types of the stability analyses were conducted on the basis of geotechnical data and scan
line exposure mapping.
The main result of the rock mass classification systems found in Table was ... were carried out to
assess the quarry wall rock quality. The rock mass rating
Finally, using the Australian competent rock masses ( after Pack, 2000) and the Q index for rock
mass description found in respectively in Figure 18 and Table 19, rock masses for each face of the
quarry wall is classified and the results are summarised in Table 20.
Table 18 Australian competent rock masses (after Pack, 2000)
Table 19 Q Index for rock mass description (after Thompson, 2011)
Q Value Rock Mass Description
0.001 ~ 0.01 Exceptionally Poor
0.01 ~ 0.1 Extremely Poor
0.1 ~ 1 Very Poor
1~4 Poor
4 ~ 10 Fair

10 ~ 40 Good
40 ~ 100 Very Good
100 ~ 400 Extremely Good
400 ~ 1000 Exceptionally Good
Table 20 Rock classification for each face of the quarry wall
Q System Face 1 Face 2 Face 3 Face 4 Face 5
Q System Value 2.22 3.33 1.67 1.25 2.50
Rock Classification Poor Poor Poor Poor Poor
4.2 Assessing the Quarry Wall Stability
4.2.1 Discontinuity Mapping General Conditions

These conditions if satisfy, a rock block movement could occur; and so; they were provided (Mine
Geotechnical, 2013) to serve as a guide for the assessment of possible movement in the quarry wall
based on the orientation of the major discontinuities established using DIPS software with respect to
the orientation of the quarry wall.
Plane failure
It occurs when the:
 Dip of the sliding plane (joint) is greater than the friction angle.
 Dip of the sliding plane is less than the dip of the slope face.
 Strike of the sliding plane is no greater than 20 degree from the strike of the slope face or dip
direction of the sliding plane is no greater than 20 degree from the dip direction of the slope
face.
If any of these is not met, then a plane failure will not occur. Plane failure will occur on Joint Set 2
but not on Joint Set 1 as it is shown in Fig 14.

Figure 14 Example of a plane failure
Wedge failure:
This type of failure occurs when the:
 Plunge of the line of intersection of two sliding planes is greater than the friction angle.
 Plunge of the line of intersection of two sliding planes is less than the dip of the slope face.
 Trend of the line of intersection of two sliding planes is no greater than 20 degree from the dip
direction of the slope face.
If any of these is not met, then a wedge failure will not occur, As it is shown in Fig 15, wedge failure
will occur caused by Joint Set 2 & 3 but not by Joint Set 1 & 3.

Figure 15 Example of a wedge failure
Toppling failure
Dip direction of the joint set is opposing the dip direction of the slope face as it illustrated in Fig 16.
If this condition is met, then a toppling failure is likely to occur, regardless of the dip of the joint.
Mine Geotechnical Engineering 431 Figure 16 Example of a toppling failure Group Assignment 2013
4.2.2 Possibility of the Quarry Rock Block Movement
The block movement is assessed based on the orientation of major discontinuities with respect to
orientation of the quarry wall.
Table 21 …
Class No V IV III II I
SRM value 0 – 20 21 – 40 41 – 60 61 – 80 81 - 100
Rock Mass
Very bad Bad Normal Good Very good
Description
Completely Completely
Stability Unstable Partially stable Stable
unstable stable
Planar along some Some
Big planar or soil – Planar or big
Failures joints and many block No failure
like or circular wedges
wedges failure
Failure
0.9 0.6 0.4 0.2 0
Probability
4.3 Discussion
Looking at Table… it is seen that…

…
In fact values were recorded …
…
For this reason,
…
Results of the analyses demonstrate …

5 Conclusions and Recommendations
5.1 Conclusions
5.2 Recommendations for Further Work

6 References
Bieniawski, Z. T. 1973. Engineering Classification of Jointed Rock Masses. Transactions of the
South African Institution of Civil Engineers, 15(12), 335–344.
Bieniawski, Z.T. 1989. Engineering Rock Mass Classifications. John Wiley and Sons: New York.
Brady, B. H. G and Brown, E. T. 2006. Rock Mechanics for Underground Mining. 3th ed. Springer.
Netherlands: Dordrecht.
Brawner, C. O., V. Milligan.1971.Slopes (Soil mechanics), Strip mining: Conference Proceedings

.Society of Mining Engineers of the American Institute of Mining, Metallurgical, and
Petroleum Engineers. New York
Duncan, C. W., and C. W., Mah.2004. Rock slope engineering: civil and mining. 4th ed. Spon Press.
270 Madison Avenue, New York.
Hack, H.; and D.G; Price.1995. Determination of discontinuity friction by rock mass classification.
Processing 8th Congrs on Rock Mechanics, ISRM, Tokyo, Japan. Belkema, Rotterdam, pp 23
- 27
Halim, A.2013. Mine Geotechnical Engineering: Rock Slope Stability; Lecture notes. Curtin
University; Western Australia: Kalgoorlie
Hudson, J. A., J. P. Harrison.1997.Engineering rock mechanics: an introduction to the principles .1st

ed. Tarrytown, New York: Pergamon
Hustrulid, W. A., and G. A. Johnson.1990.Rock Mechanics Contribution and Challenges;

Proceedings of the 31st US Symposium, Balkema, Netherlands: Rotterdam
Kahraman, S. 2001. Evaluation of Simple Methods for Assessing the Uniaxial Compressive Strength
of Rock. International Journal of Rock Mechanics and Mining Sciences, 38(7), 981-994.
http://www.sciencedirect.com.dbgw.lis.curtin.edu.au/science/article/pii/S1365160901000399
(Access.../04/2013)
Kliche, C. A.1999.Rock slope stability Littleton, CO: Society for Mining, Metallurgy, and
Exploration.
Romana, M. 1985. New Adjustment Ratings for Application of Bieniawski Classification to Slopes.
Proc. Int. Symp. on the Role of Rock Mechanics: 49-53.

Engineering Rock Mass Classification,

http://www.sciencedirect.com.dbgw.lis.curtin.edu.au/science/article/pii/B9780123858788000
185

7 Appendices
7.1 Appendix A – Rock Mass Rating – RMR (After Bieniawski, 1989)
Figure 17 Rock mass rating table (After Bieniawski, 1989)

7.2 Appendix B – Q System (after Hoek et al, 1995)
Figure 18 Q - system (after Hoek et al, 1995)

Q System continued…
Figure 19 system continued (after Hoek et al, 1995)
Q
System continued…

Figure 20 Q – system continued (after Hoek et al, 1995)

7.3 Appendix C – Q System
Figure 21 Stress reduction factor - SRF


Mine Geotechnical Engineering - Progress Report 2

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

Mine Geotechnical Engineering - Progress Report 2

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Assessing Rock Slope Stability using

Rock Mass Classification and

Mine Geotechnical Engineering 431 – Group Assignment

By: Liévin Siki Bangangba

Yan Zhang and

Mine Geotechnical Engineering 431 Group Assignment 2013

In conclusion, the study established...

Mine Geotechnical Engineering 431 Group Assignment 2013

Mine Geotechnical Engineering 431 Group Assignment 2013

7.3 Appendix C – Q System.................................................................................................................37

Figure 2 Scanline mapping exposures of slope face 5 (After Siki, 2013).........................................................9

Figure 14 Example of a plane failure.............................................................................................................27

Figure 15 Example of a wedge failure...........................................................................................................28

Figure 16 Example of a toppling failure........................................................................................................28

Figure 17 Rock mass rating table (After Bieniawski, 1989)..........................................................................33

Figure 18 Q - system (after Hoek et al, 1995)................................................................................................34

Figure 19 system continued (after Hoek et al, 1995)......................................................................................35

Figure 20 Q – system continued (after Hoek et al, 1995)...............................................................................36

Figure 21 Stress reduction factor - SRF.........................................................................................................37

Mine Geotechnical Engineering 431 Group Assignment 2013

Table 2 Values of adjustment factors for different joints.................................................................................5

Table 3 Classification of discontinuity spacing (after Barry and Brady…)......................................................7

Table 4 Orientations of the slope face (After Halim, 2013)...........................................................................10

Table 5 In-situ mapping of discontinuities of the slope face..........................................................................11

Table 6 In-situ mapping of condition discontinuities.....................................................................................12

Table 8 Minimum average discontinuity spacing for rock mass raking.........................................................13

Table 9 Description of discontinuity surfaces rock mass raking....................................................................13

Table 10 Abandoned dolerite quarry’ wall rock mass rating..........................................................................14

Table 11 Trend and plunge of each intersection between joint sets...............................................................18

Table 12 Calculated values of adjustment factors for different joint orientations..........................................18

Table 13 Assessing case of slope failure for each face...................................................................................19

Table 14 SMR classification..........................................................................................................................19

Table 15 SMR classification..........................................................................................................................20

Table 16 SMR classification..........................................................................................................................20

Table 18 Australian competent rock masses (after Pack, 2000).....................................................................25

Table 19 Q Index for rock mass description (after Thompson, 2011)............................................................25

Table 20 Rock classification for each face of the quarry wall........................................................................26

Mine Geotechnical Engineering 431 Group Assignment 2013

List of Symbols and Acronyms

Slope Mass Raking AN

Rock Quality Designation Index RQD

Plunge direction of line of intersection ai

Plunge of line of intersection bi

Mine Geotechnical Engineering 431 Group Assignment 2013

2 Design and Methodology

In part five results of the study are discussed.

Finally, conclusion and recommendation are presented.

Mine Geotechnical Engineering 431 Group Assignment 2013

3 Approach and Execution

3.1 Rock Slope stability Analysis Theories

3.1.1 Rock Mass Classification System

Rock Mass Rating (RMR)

Bieniawski identified the aim of the RMR system, which is to:

Mine Geotechnical Engineering 431 Group Assignment 2013

Detailed calculation of the rock mass raking is found in Section…

Slope Mass Rating (SMR)

SMR=RMR + (F1 × F2 × F3) + F4 (Equation 2)

Detailed SRM calculations are presented in Section…

Table 1 Values of adjustment factor for method of excavation (F4)

Excavation Method Value of F4

Normal blasting or mechanical excavation 0

Mine Geotechnical Engineering 431 Group Assignment 2013

Table 2 Values of adjustment factors for different joints.