B. Indraratna, C.

Rujikiatkamjorn and J S Vinod (editors)

The proposed “Slope Stability Rating” (SSR) is obtained from modified Geological Strength
Index (GSI) (Figure 1), by adding five additional parameters whose are effective on the stability
of fractured rock slopes (Table 1).
SSR=GSImodified+P1+ P2+ P3+ P4+ P5 (1) Where:
P1 refers to uniaxial Compressive Strength (UCS) of intact rock. Since the intact rock strength
has a positive effect on the stability of rock slopes, positive values are considered for the rating.
P2 depends on rock type (lithology) and may be obtained from Table 2. In this table, the rock
quality improves with an increase in the rock group number. Therefore, similar to the UCS
parameter, positive rating values are considered for this parameter.
P3 is a parameter which is related to
slope excavation method, which has
considerable influence on rock mass
conditions and on the stability of
rock slopes. In particular, the spacing
of discontinuities will be strongly
affected in that, depending on the
blasting damage, blasted slopes may
have closer discontinuity spacing
than natural slopes. This parameter is
chosen almost similar to the
previously discussed F4 factor for
SMR system (Romana 1985). It may
appear obvious that natural slopes
are more stable than excavated
slopes. Then, presplitting method
and smooth blasting, if correctly
performed, can be considered as
provoking limited damage to the
slope. Normal blasting with sound
methods may not reduce
significantly the slope stability
either. On the other hand, poor
Figure 1. Modified GSI (Sonmez & Ulusay 2002) blasting with too much explosives
and no detonation timing tends to
reduce largely the slope stability while it is known that in case of spoil piles with high
proportion of rock pieces, the stability of a completely disturbed rock mass condition is very
low. Accordingly, positive or negative ratings are assigned to each excavation method.
P4 is groundwater condition in the fractured rock slope. Water triggers instabilities in rock
cuttings either acting solely or in combination with other (triggering) factors, such as
earthquakes and diurnal temperature changes. Since the stability of rock slopes decreases in
presence of groundwater, a negative rating is assigned to this parameter.

P5 is a parameter representing earthquake force. In seismically active regions, earthquakes are a

major trigger for instability of natural and excavated slopes. Therefore, seismic effects are
essential design considerations for slope stability .Similar to P4, the earthquake force has adverse

2
 International Conference on Ground Improvement and Ground Control (ICGI 2012)

effects on the stability of surface structures. Thus, negative ratings are assigned to this
parameter.
The SSR value of a given rock slope is obtained after summation of the rating values of
all the parameters, as illustrated in Table 1.

Table 1. SSR (Slope Stability Rating) rock mass classification system

Parameter Range of values

Modified GSI (See Fig 1)
Rating 0 - 100
Uniaxial compressive strength (MPa) 0 -10 10 -25 25 - 50 50 - 100 100 - 150 150 - 200
Rating (P1) 0 7 18 28 37 43

Rock type (See Table 2) Group 1 Group 2 Group 3 Group 4 Group 5 Group 6
Rating (P2) 0 4 9 17 20 25

Waste Poor Normal Smooth Natural

Slope excavation method Presplitting
damp blasting blasting blasting slope
Rating (P3) -11 -4 0 6 10 24

Groundwater level from

Ground- bottom of the slope 0 – 20 20 – 40 40 – 60 60 - 80 80 – 100
*100 Dry
water Slope height % % % % %
Rating (P4) 0 -1 -3 -6 -14 -18

Earthquake Horizontal
0 0.15 g 0.20 g 0.25 g 0.30 g 0.35g
force acceleration
Rating (P5) 0 -11 -15 -19 -22 -26

3 Guidelines for SSR Evaluation

3.1 Geological Strength Index (GSI)
The Geological Strength Index (GSI) was developed by Hoek and Brown (1997) based upon
the visual impression on the rock mass structure. To provide a more quantitative numerical
basis for evaluating the GSI, this classification system was modified by Sonmez and Ulusay
(1999). Then, this quantitative GSI chart was slightly modified by Sonmez and Ulusay
(2002). In this latest version of the quantitative GSI chart, a top row of ‘‘intact or massive’’
rock was included into the system (Figure 1) as previously suggested by Marinos and Hoek
(2000). To address the lack of parameters to describe surface condition of the discontinuities
and the rock mass structure, the quantitative GSI chart (Sonmez and Ulusay 2002) considers
two terms, namely, the ‘‘structure rating, SR’’ and the ‘‘surface condition rating, SCR’’, as
shown in Figure 1. This GSI chart shown this figure is employed as a parameter to determine
SSR value.

3.2 Strength of Intact Rock

The compressive strength of rock can be measured on core samples, or from index tests
applied to outcrops in the field. The point load test is an appropriate method to estimate the
compressive strength for rock slope design. The equipment is portable, and tests can be
carried out quickly and inexpensively in the field on both core and lump samples. If no
equipment is available to measure the compressive strength, simple field observations can be

3
 International Conference on Ground Improvement and Ground Control (ICGI 2012)

Groundwater condition Rating

5 Case Records
0
To establish the SSR classification system, 9 slope case
Fully drained or Dry studies in Iran from 5 open pit mines and a dam
construction project and 37 cases histories from 13 open
pit mines in Australia (Douglas 2002) were considered.
-1
Figure 4 summarizes the SSR values obtained from the 46
0-20 % saturated case studies with the SSR design chart for a factor of
safety equal to 1.0. Note that a total of 28 slopes actually
-3 failed and the failure modes were non-structural i.e.
thoroughly fractured rock mass. It may be seen from the
20-40 % saturated Figure that the case records mostly agree with the design
curves.
-6
6 Application of SSR
40-60 % saturated
RMR and SMR classification systems which generally
-14 apply in rock slope stability problems have some
limitations. In particular, limitations arise from their
60-80 % saturated
applications to closely jointed rock masses and from
the lack of suitable design charts to estimate the stable
Fully saturated
or subjected to
-18 angle of the required slope. SSR classification system
heavy surface with its relevant design charts can be applied as a
recharge
useful empirical tool to evaluate the stability of
Figure 2. Ground water conditions in heavily jointed and/or large-scale rock slopes prior to
SSR classification system
the application of more sophisticated design methods.
It is worth noting that, SSR classification system is not valid if the slopes are obviously
structurally controlled. Therefore, the SSR-based slope stability assessment should be
considered only once potential structurally controlled failures are investigated. Furthermore,
as SSR system mostly concerns overall or large-scale rock slope stability, it should be used
only in cases where some minor local instabilities are acceptable.

References
Douglas, K.J. (2002). The shear strength of rock masses. Ph.D. Thesis, The University of New South Wales,
Australia.
Hamilton, W.R. Woolley, A.R. and Bishop, A.C. (1977). The Larousse Guide to Minerals, Rocks and
Fossils, Larousse and Co. Inc., New York.
Hoek, E. and Bray, J. (1981). Rock Slope Engineering, 3rd ed., Inst. Mining and Metallurgy, London, UK.
Hoek, E., Brown, E.T. (1997). Practical estimates of rock mass strength. International Journal of Rock
Mechanics and Mining Science, 3(8): 1165-1186.
International Society of Rock Mechanics (ISRM) (1981). Rock Characterization, Testing and Monitoring;
ISRM Suggested Method. Pergamon Press, Oxford, UK.
Marinos, P. and Hoek, E. (2000). A geologically friendly tool for rock mass strength estimation. in Proc.
International Conference on Geotechnical and Geological Engineering (GeoEng2000): 1422–1440.
Pough, F.H. and Peterson, R. T. (1998). A Field Guide to Rocks and Minerals, Houghton Mifflin Co.,
Boston.
Romana, M. (1985). New adjustment ratings for application of Bieniawski classification to slopes. in Proc.