Engineering Geology 124 (2012) 67–76

Contents lists available at SciVerse ScienceDirect

Engineering Geology
journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/enggeo

A graphical approach for slope mass rating (SMR)

R. Tomás ⁎, A. Cuenca, M. Cano, J. García-Barba
Departamento de Ingeniería de la Construcción, Obras Públicas e Infraestructura Urbana. Escuela Politécnica Superior, Universidad de Alicante, P.O. Box 99, E-03080 Alicante, Spain

a r t i c l e i n f o a b s t r a c t

Article history: Slope mass rating (SMR) is a commonly used geomechanical classification for the characterization of rock
Received 3 January 2011 slopes. SMR is computed adding to basic rock mass rating (RMR) index, calculated by characteristic values
Received in revised form 4 October 2011 of the rock mass, several correction factors depending of the discontinuity–slope parallelism, the discontinu-
Accepted 8 October 2011
ity dip, the relative dip between discontinuity and slope and the employed excavation method. In this work a
Available online 18 October 2011
graphical method based on the stereographic representation of the discontinuities and the slope to obtain
Keywords:
correction parameters of the SMR (F1, F2 and F3) is presented. This method allows the SMR correction factors
Geomechanical classification to be easily obtained for a simple slope or for several practical applications as linear infrastructures slopes,
SMR open pit mining or trench excavations.
Basic RMR © 2011 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.
Stereographic projection

1. Introduction purposes or within the overall engineering design process (Bieniawski,

Rock mass classification systems are a worldwide communication
system for explorers, designers and constructors that facilitate charac-
terization, classification and knowledge of rock mass properties. They
provide quantitative data and guidelines for engineering purposes
that can improve originally abstract descriptions of rock mass from in-
herent and structural parameters (Liu and Chen, 2007; Pantelidis,
2009) by a simple arithmetic algorithm (Romana, 1997). The main ad-
vantage of using a rock mass classification scheme is that it is a simple
and effective way of representing rock mass quality and of encapsulat-
ing precedent practice (Harrison and Hudson, 2000). Nevertheless, rock
mass classifications present some well-known limitations. Hack (2002)
stated that generally rock mass classifications consider parameters re-
lated with slope geometry, intact rock strength, discontinuity spacing
or block size and shear strength along discontinuities, some of which
are difficult or impossible to measure (e.g. water pressure) or have a
limited influence on slope stability (e.g. intact rock strength). Pantelidis
(2009) referred to these parameters as “questionable,” including those
that: (a) are unsuitable for use in slope stability problems, (b) are attrib-
uted into the systems in an erroneous manner, (c) although, in practice,
they play significant role regarding stability of slopes, they exert a
minor influence on the system, or, (d) present several major disadvan-
tages related to their definition. All the previous mentioned causes can
introduce some uncertainties during the rock mass characterization
process that can affect the final computed indexes and the inferred geo-
mechanical quality and parameters. As a consequence, rock mass classi-
fications on their own should only be used for preliminary planning
⁎ Corresponding author. Tel.:+34 9659034003093.
E-mail address: roberto.tomas@ua.es (R. Tomás).
1997).
Some of the existing geomechanical classifications for slopes are
rock mass rating (RMR, Bieniawski, 1976, 1989), rock mass strength
(RMS, Selby, 1980), Slope mass rating (SMR, Romana, 1985), slope
rock mass rating (SRMR, Robertson, 1988), rock mass rating, mining
rock mass rating (MRMR, Laubscher, 1990), mining rock mass rating
modified (MRMR modified, Haines and Terbrugge, 1991), Chinese
slope mass rating (CSMR, Chen, 1995), natural slope methodology
(NSM, Shuk, 1994), modified rock mass rating (M-RMR, Ünal,
1996), slope stability probability classification (SSPC, Hack, 1998;
Hack et al., 2003), modified slope stability probability classification
(SSPC modified, Lindsay et al., 2001), continuous rock mass rating
(Sen and Sadagah, 2003), continuous slope mass rating (Tomás et
al., 2007) and an alternative rock mass classification system proposed
by Pantelidis (2010).
Among all geomechanical classifications listed above, SMR is
universally used (Romana et al., 2001, 2003, 2005). It is derived
from the basic RMR (Bieniawski, 1989), initially created for tunnel-
ing applications, although its author also included proposals for
slope correction factors in order to take into account the influence
of the discontinuities orientation on slope stability. In practice,
RMR is difficult to apply to slopes as there is no exhaustive defini-
tion for the selection of correction factors. The detailed quantitative
definition of the correction factors (Irigaray et al., 2003) is one of
the most important advantages of SMR classification.
Both RMR and SMR are discrete classifications, computed by
assigning a specific rating to each parameter included, depending
on the value adopted by the variable that controls the parameter
under consideration.
The aim of this study is to propose a graphical method for the de-
termination of slope mass rating correction factors. The present work

0013-7952/$ – see front matter © 2011 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.
doi:10.1016/j.enggeo.2011.10.004
68 R. Tomás et al. / Engineering Geology 124 (2012) 67–76

Table 1 2. Slope mass rating (SMR) classification

Correction parameters for SMR (modified from Romana (1985) by Anbalagan et al.
(1992)).
The slope mass rating (SMR) index, proposed by Romana (1985),
Type of failure Very Favorable Normal Unfavorable Very is calculated by determining four correction factors to the basic
favorable unfavorable RMR (Bieniawski, 1989). These factors depend on the existing rela-
P A | α j − α s| >30° 30–20° 20–10° 10–5° b5° tionship between discontinuities affecting the rock mass and the
T |αj−αs−180| slope, and the slope excavation method. It is obtained using Eq. (1).
W |αi − αs|
P/T/W F1 0.15 0.40 0.70 0.85 1.00

P/W B |βj| ó |βi| b 20° 20–30° 30–35° 35–45° >45° SMR ¼ RMRb þ ðF 1  F 2  F 3 Þ þ F 4 ð1Þ
P/W F2 0.15 0.40 0.70 0.85 1.00
T 1.00
where:
P C βj − βs >10° 10–0° 0° 0–(−10°) b(− 10°)
W βi − βs – RMRb is the basic RMR index resulting from Bieniawski's rock
T βj + βs b 110° 110–120° >120° – –
mass classification without any correction. Therefore, it is calculat-
P/T/W F3 0 −6 − 25 − 50 − 60
ed according to RMR classification parameters (Bieniawski, 1989).
Excavation method (F4) – F1 depends on the parallelism (A in Table 1) between discontinu-
Natural slope + 15 Blasting or mechanical 0 ity dip direction, αj, (or the trend of the intersection line, αi, in the
Presplitting + 10 Deficient blasting −8 case of wedge failure) and slope dip, αs (Table 1).
Smooth blasting +8
– F2 depends on the discontinuity dip, βj, in the case of planar failure
P: planar failure; T: toppling failure; W: wedge failure. αj: dip direction of the and the plunge of the intersection line, βi, in wedge failure (B in
discontinuity; αs: dip direction of the slope; αi: dip direction of the intersection line
Table 1). For toppling failure, this parameter adopts the value
of two sets of discontinuities; βj: discontinuity dip; βi: angle of plunge of the
intersection line of two sets of discontinuities; βs: slope dip. 1.0. This parameter is related to the probability of discontinuity
shear strength (Romana, 1993).
– F3 depends on the relationship (C in Table 1) between slope, βs,
and discontinuity, βj, dips (toppling or planar failure cases) or
the plunge of the intersection line (wedge failure case)
(Table 1). This parameter retains the Bieniawski adjustment fac-
is devoted to define stereoplots that can be used in rock mass slopes tors that vary from 0 to − 60 points and express the probability
studies in order to easily interpret and compute SMR correction of discontinuity outcropping on the slope face (Romana, 1993)
factors. for planar and wedge failure.

Fig. 1. Proposed diagram for ψ determination in planar failure case.

 R. Tomás et al. / Engineering Geology 124 (2012) 67–76 69

Fig. 2. Proposed diagram for ψ determination in wedge failure case.

Fig. 3. Proposed diagram for ψ determination in toppling failure case.

70 R. Tomás et al. / Engineering Geology 124 (2012) 67–76

Fig. 4. Graphical construction of the stereoplot used for the determination F3 parameter for planar failure case. PS is the slope pole.

Fig. 5. Graphical construction of the stereoplot used for the determination F3 parameter for wedge failure case. PS is the slope pole and βS is the slope dip. L.m.d.: line of maximum dip.
 R. Tomás et al. / Engineering Geology 124 (2012) 67–76
Fig. 6. Graphical construction of the stereoplot used for the determination F3 parameter for toppling failure case. PS is the slope pole.
– F4 is a correction factor that depends on the excavation method
used (Table 1).
Eq. (1) can be rewritten as:
SMR ¼ RMRb þ ðψ  F 3 Þ þ F 4
where F1 × F2 has been grouped in the same term (ψ) that varies
from 0 to 1. This term can be considered as the percentage of factor
F3 mobilized.
As F4 parameter has an irreplaceable descriptive character and de-
pends on the excavation method, the method proposed in this work is
only focused in the determination of the geometrical terms ψ and F3
in Eq. (2) using the stereographic projection of rock mass slope
discontinuities.
3. Stereographic diagrams proposed for slope mass rating
One of the most important aspects of rock slope analysis is the sys-
tematic collection and representation of geological data (Hoek and
Bray, 1981). Field collected discontinuity orientation data are ana-
lyzed by the use of stereographic projection techniques that allow
graphical representation and interpretation of the discontinuity data
by means of the great circles or the poles to the planes. When huge
amounts of discontinuity data are available the presentation of a
large number of great circles onto a single stereoplot makes the
data difficult to interpret. In these cases it is preferable to represent
the inclination and azimuth of a plane by means of the pole of the
plane. The poles are presented in two dimensions by projecting
them onto the horizontal or equatorial reference plane. When a
71
large number of measurements have been plotted a recognition of
pole concentrations and discontinuity patterns becomes evident;
this may be assisted by the use of density contouring of the pole
plots. This allows a quantitative assessment of the influence of dis-
continuities on the behavior of the rock mass and will provide the
ð2Þ
necessary information for determining rock mass classification values
and failure mechanisms.
In the case of SMR, once the different discontinuity sets have been
identified and rock mass has been fully characterized, Table 1 can be
used to compute F1, F2 and F3 correction parameters. An alternative
graphical method for F1, F2 and F3 parameters calculus is proposed
using stereographical projection stereoplots.
3.1. Graphical determination of ψ parameter
Figs. 1, 2 and 3 show the stereographic diagrams proposed for ψ
determination associated to each type of failure, planar, wedge and
toppling respectively. These diagrams are obtained considering the
combined values of F1 and F2 proposed by Romana (1985) that
depend on the parallelism between discontinuity dip direction (or
the trend of the intersection line in the case of wedge failure) and
slope dip direction and the discontinuity dip that conditions the ra-
dial lines and the concentric areas respectively drawn onto the
stereoplots.
For the use of these diagrams the slope and the discontinuities (or
the intersection line for wedge failure) have to be represented in
equiangular projection over the lower hemisphere using tracing
paper. The tracing paper is superimposed to the Figs. 1, 2 or 3,
depending of the mode of failure, and rotated around the point O to
72 R. Tomás et al. / Engineering Geology 124 (2012) 67–76
Fig. 7. Poles diagram (Px) and great circles of the discontinuities (Jx) affecting the slope (S).
match the slope dip direction to the direction indicated in the figures.
The pole position of each discontinuity set indicates the type of failure
and the corresponding ψ values.
3.2. Graphical determination of F3 parameter
F3 depends on the relationship between slope and discontinuity
dips or the intersection line plunge (Table 1). Because this parameter
depends on slope dip, a specific stereoplot has to be used for each
slope dip value. The construction of the stereoplot is easy and also de-
pends on the type of failure mechanism.
Fig. 4 shows the construction of the F3 parameter for planar failure.
As it can be seen, once the slope plane has been represented onto ste-
reographic projection, a semicircle with a radius OPS from the center
O has to be drawn in the upper part of the projection diagram, where
PS is the slope plane pole. Posteriorly, two concentric semicircles to
OPS one at a ±10° has to be drawn using the graduated diameter of
the graphic. The four obtained areas provide the F3 values that vary
from 0 to −60 points. Fig. 4 shows the location of the areas with the cor-
rection values that grow towards the center (O) of the diagram.
Fig. 5 corresponds to the stereoplot used for F3 determination for
wedge failure cases. In order to define the punctuation sectors a semi-
circle from the center O and with a radius OQ must be drawn. Q is the
pole projection of the line of maximum dip (l.m.d. in Fig. 5) of the
slope, S. Finally, two new concentric semicircles have to be drawn at
±10° using the axis graduation. Notice that the punctuation decreases
outward of the diagram varying between 0 and −60 points.
When toppling is the compatible failure, the stereoplot shown in
Fig. 6 has to be used. This stereoplot can be easily drawn scribing an
arc, radius OPS, from the center (O) of the diagram to intersect the
graduated diameter at point M. From this point we have to measure
110° and 120° over the graduated diameter in the direction of the
center O obtaining S and T points. Taking the distances OS and OT
and scribing an arc from center O the different punctuation sectors
are defined. F3 values increase towards the center of the diagram
varying from 0 to − 25 points.
As it was previously mentioned, the stereoplots for F3 determination
depend on the slope dip and as a consequence different stereoplots
have to be drawn for each slope dip value. However, once the stereoplot
has been built for a particular dip it can be used for the determination of
F3 correction parameter of other slopes with the same dip.
For the exploitation of the above defined stereoplots, we proceed the
same way as with the stereoplots proposed for ψ correction parameter.
4. Application example
The proposed graphical methodology is applied for the determi-
nation of the SMR correction factors of a rocky slope and compared
with the original values obtained from Romana's (1985) discrete
classification.
The studied slope (S) has a 210° and 60° dip direction and dip re-
spectively. This slope is affected by four discontinuities sets that are
represented in Fig. 7 by means of their great circles (J1 to J4) and
their respective poles (P1 to P4) whose orientations (dip direction
and dip) are: J1 (60/70), J2 (235/40), J3 (150/80) and J4 (16/10).
When the discontinuity sets and the slope have been represented
in equiangular projection the obtained stereographic diagram has to
be superimposed to the stereoplots and oriented in order to match
the slope (S) dip direction with the dip direction of the stereoplot.
As it is well known, for this purpose tracing paper can be used in
 R. Tomás et al. / Engineering Geology 124 (2012) 67–76 73

order to represent and to overlay the discontinuities representation

to the stereoplots. The analysis of the position of the poles of the dis-
continuities or the intersection lines of the wedges allows identifying
the feasible type of failure mechanism and the punctuation corre-
sponding to every case (Figs. 8 and 9).
Fig. 8a corresponds to planar failure case. The overlay of the dis-
continuity sets shows that only P2 and P3 poles are compatible with
planar failure (they are contained in shadow area). ψ values are de-
duced from the position of the P2 and P3 poles respecting the defined
sectors and its values are ψ2 = 0.34 and ψ3 = 0.15 respectively. Ana-
lyzing Fig. 8b we can infer that only J1–J2 and J2–J3 discontinuity com-
binations are feasible wedges cinematically compatible with slope
geometry (which are contained in shadow area). For these intersec-
tion lines ψ12 = 0.02 and ψ23 = 0.34 values are computed. Toppling
failure correction factors are obtained from Fig. 8c. As it can be seen
in Fig. 8c only J1 and J4 are cinematically compatible with toppling
failure (which are contained in shadow area). The ψ values for these
discontinuity sets are determined by the location of the poles J1 and
J4 in the stereoplot and adopt the values ψ1 = 0.15 and ψ4 = 0.70
respectively.
Once ψ values have been determined for all discontinuity sets
and for the wedges intersection lines, next step is the determination
of F3 correction parameter. Although ψ stereoplots are independent
of the slope geometry the stereoplots proposed for F3 determination
depends on the slope dip and as a consequence an ad hoc construc-
tion has to be performed following the process explained in previ-
ous section. When stereoplots have been drawn for the 60° dip
slope of the studied example and discontinuities have been over-
lapped and rotated to match the slope dip direction with the direc-
tion indicated in the stereoplot we only have to determine the
position of the discontinuity poles and the intersection lines poles
of the wedges to know the value of the correction parameters
(Fig. 9a to c). F3 values for planar failure cases (J2 and J3) are − 60
and 0 points respectively (Fig. 9a). For wedges J1–J2 and J2–J3 the
F3 correction parameter adopts values of − 60 points in both cases
(Fig. 9b). When the considered compatible failure mechanism is
toppling, F3 acquires the values of − 25 and 0 points for J1 and J4 dis-
continuity sets respectively (Fig. 9c).
Graphically calculated ψ and F3 correction parameters are summa-
rized in Table 2. Conventional parameters of F1, F2 and F3 computed nu-
merically from Romana's (1985) SMR classification (Table 1) are also
included in Table 2. Notice that the resulting corrections are equal ex-
cept for the J1–J2 wedge where the values obtained by graphical and an-
alytical methods differ 0.1 points due to the rounding of the assigned
scores for each sector in Figs. 1 and 2 that are obtained by multiplying
F1 by F2 original parameters proposed by Romana (1985).

5. Some interesting applications of graphical slope mass

rating approach

Some practical applications of proposed approach for the SMR cal-

culus are presented.
The proposed stereoplots for ψ determination (Figs. 1 to 3) are
independent of the slope geometry and as a consequence they are
valid for all slopes cases. In contrast, F3 stereoplots (Figs. 4 to 6)
have to be drawn for a specific slope because they depend on the
slope dip.
One of the advantages of the proposed graphical method is the
possibility to easily compute SMR correction factors for different
slope orientations affected by the same sets of discontinuities. This
fact is usually presented in linear infrastructures (roads, railways,

Fig. 8. Determination of ψ (F1 × F2) for a 60° dip slope affected by Fig. 7 discontinuities
sets: (a) planar failure, (b) wedge failure and (c) toppling failure.
74 R. Tomás et al. / Engineering Geology 124 (2012) 67–76

2channels, etc.) and open pit mining where the slopes excavated
over wide rock masses present the same dip but different strikes
that change along the infrastructure or the exploitation sector. An
example of the firstly referred case is showed in Fig. 10a and b
that corresponds to a linear infrastructure excavated through a
rock mass affected by a family of discontinuities with a dip direction
and a dip equals to 235° and 40° respectively. As seen, once the
stereoplots have been drawn, SMR correction parameters can be
easily determined by rotating the stereoplot to match the dip direc-
tion of the stereoplot with the dip direction of the dip direction of
the stereoplot. Fig. 10c shows the position of the discontinuity
poles for the different slope strikes of the linear infrastructure.
Notice that the punctuations for each slope orientation and the
changes of punctuations are immediately determined by rotating
the stereoplot in order to match the slope and the stereoplot dip
directions. The different positions of the discontinuity pole (PJ) for
the whole slope strikes describe its geometric path that allows to easily
understand how correction parameters (and consequently SMR)
change with the slope orientation. The knowledge of the joint pole
geometric path can be very useful for identifying the critical slope
orientation that corresponds to the higher combination of ψ and F3
correction parameters.
For trench excavation, where the slopes have the same direction
and dip but opposite dip direction, the graphical method can be ef-
fortlessly applied by simply rotating the stereoplot 180° to determine
ψ and F3 correction parameters that are immediately determined by
simple measurement of the position of the discontinuity (or the line
of intersection for wedge failure) (Fig. 10b and c).
The previously presented applications of this methodology use a
representative dip and dip direction of each discontinuity set for the
SMR calculus. However, this graphical methodology can provide an-
other interesting application that consists of representing the poles
of all the discontinuities measured at field (Fig. 11) in order to take
into account the dispersion of the discontinuities orientation to deter-
mine the maximum, minimum, mode and other simple statistics for ψ
and F3 values. Notice that Fig. 11 only includes planar cases simply for
clearness of the figure. Nevertheless toppling and wedge failure cases
can be also taken into account by representing the discontinuity poles
and the great circles of all discontinuities field measurements respec-
tively using the corresponding stereoplots.

6. Conclusions

A graphical method for slope mass rating F1, F2 and F3 correction

parameters determination is proposed based on stereographical pro-
jection. F4 parameter has an irreplaceable descriptive character and as
a consequence it keeps its original way of being computed. For obtain-
ing the SMR correction parameters the discontinuity sets represented
on equiangular stereographical projection have to be superimposed to
the proposed stereoplots and rotated to match the slope dip direction
with the stereoplot dip direction. Subsequently, the numerical values
of the correction parameters are directly obtained from stereoplots
determining the position of the discontinuity pole (for planar and
toppling failure modes) or the intersection lines poles (for wedge
failure mode).
F1 and F2 parameters are grouped into a parameter named ψ that
represents the percentage of F3 mobilized and that is easily computed
by representing the discontinuity sets into the proposed stereoplots
for each type of failure mode, valid for all slopes regardless of the
orientation of the slope and discontinuity studied.
Moreover, the proposed stereoplots for F3 parameter depend of
the type of failure. However, these stereoplots also depend on the

Fig. 9. Determination of F3 for a 60° dip slope (S) affected by Fig. 7 discontinuities sets
(J1, J2, J3 and J4): (a) planar failure, (b) wedge failure and (c) toppling failure.
 R. Tomás et al. / Engineering Geology 124 (2012) 67–76 75

Table 2
SMR correction factors computed using original discrete (D) function proposed by Romana (1985) and graphical method (G) proposed in this paper. A: parallelism between dis-
continuity dip direction (or the trend of the intersection line in the case of wedge failure) and slope dip direction; B: discontinuity dip or angle of plunge of the intersection line
of two sets of discontinuities; C: discontinuity (or intersection line) dip and slope dip relationship. T: toppling; P: planar; W: wedge; NFW: non feasible wedge.

Set Type of failure αj βj αs βs A B C Method F1 F2 Ψ = F1 × F2 F3 F1 × F2 × F3

J1 T 60 70 210 60 30 70 130 G – – 0.15 − 25 − 3.7

D 0.15 1.00 – − 25 − 3.7
J2 P 235 40 210 60 25 40 − 20 G – – 0.34 − 60 − 20.4
D 0.40 0.85 – − 60 − 20.4
J3 P 150 80 210 60 60 80 20 G – – 0.15 0 0
D 0.15 1.00 – 0 0
J4 T 16 10 210 60 14 10 70 G – – 0.70 0 0
D 0.70 1.00 – 0 0
J1–J2 W 149 3 210 60 61 3 − 57 G – – 0.02 − 60 − 1.2
D 0.15 0.15 – − 60 − 1.3
J1–J3 NFW 86 68 210 60 56 68 – G – – – – –
D – – – – –
J1–J4 NFW 333 7 210 60 57 7 – G – – – – –
D – – – – –
J2–J3 W 232 40 210 60 22 40 − 20 G – – 0.34 − 60 − 20.4
D 0.40 0.85 – − 60 − 20.4
J2–J4 NFW 319 5 210 60 71 5 – G – – – – –
D – – – – –
J3–J4 NFW 61 7 210 60 31 7 – G – – – – –
D – – – – –

Fig. 10. Practical application of SMR graphical approach for the determination of correction parameters in a linear infrastructure.
76 R. Tomás et al. / Engineering Geology 124 (2012) 67–76
Fig. 11. Application of SMR graphical methodology using field discontinuity measures
for the determination of ψ parameter for planar failure mode.
slope dip and as a consequence a different stereoplot should be used
for each slope dip.
The main advantage of this methodology is the possibility to be
used for easily calculating the correction parameters of SMR in cases
where all the slopes have the same dip with different strike as in lin-
ear infrastructures and open pit mining. Another significant improve-
ment of this methodology is the possibility of working with the field
measurements of all discontinuities (of the poles of the intersection
lines for wedge failure cases) in order to determine the distribution
of the correction parameters values.
Acknowledgements
Authors thank anonymous reviewers and A. Singleton (University
of Glasgow) for their useful comments and the review of the paper.
This work was partially funded by the University of Alicante under
the projects vigrob-157 uausti10–18, uausti11–11 and gre09–40 and
by the Generalitat Valenciana within project gv/2011/044.
References
Anbalagan, R., Sharma, S., Raghuvanshi, T.K., 1992. Rock mass stability evaluation using
modified SMR approach. In: Jha, P.C. (Ed.), Rock Mechanics Proceedings of the
Sixth National Symposium on Rock Mechanics, pp. 258–268.
Bieniawski, Z.T., 1976. Rock mass classification in rock engineering. In: Bieniawski, Z.T.
(Ed.), Exploration for Rock Engineering, Proceedings of the Symposium Expl. Rock
Engineering, Johannesburg, pp. 97–106.
Bieniawski, Z.T., 1989. Engineering Rock Mass Classification. Wiley, Chichester. 251 pp.
Bieniawski, Z.T., 1997. Quo vadis rock mass classifications. Felsbau 15, 177–178.
Chen, Z., 1995. Recent developments in slope stability analysis. In: Fujii, T. (Ed.), Key-
note Lecture: Proc. 8th Int. Cong. Rock Mech, vol. 3, pp. 1041–1048.
Hack, H.R., 1998. Slope Stability Probability Classification. ITC Delf Publication, ITC En-
schede, Netherlands. 273 pp.
Hack, R., Price, D., Rengers, N.A., 2003. A new approach to rock slope stability—a prob-
ability classification (SSPC). Bulletin of Engineering Geology and the Environment
62, 167–184.
Hack, H.R., 2002. An evaluation of slope stability classification. In: Dinis da Gama, C., L.,
Ribeira e Sousa (Eds.), Keynote Lecture, Proc. ISRM EUROCK'2002. Publ. Sociedade
Portuguesa de Geotecnia, Lisboa, Portugal, pp. 3–32.
Haines, A., Terbrugge, P.J., 1991. Preliminary estimation of rock slope stability using
rock mass classification system. In: Wittke, W. (Ed.), Proceedings 7th Congress
on Rock Mechanics. ISRM, Rotterdam, pp. 887–892.
Harrison, J.P., Hudson, J.A., 2000. Engineering Rock Mechanics: Illustrative Worked Ex-
amples. Elsevier Science, Oxford. 530 pp.
Hoek, E., Bray, J.W., 1981. Rock Slope Engineering. The Institution of Mining and Met-
allurgy. Taylor and Francis. 353 pp.
Irigaray, C., Fernández, T., Chacón, J., 2003. Preliminary rock–slope–susceptibility as-
sessment using GIS and the SMR classification. Natural Hazards 30, 309–324.
Laubscher, D.H., 1990. A geomechanical classification system for the rating of rock mass
in mine design. Journal of the South African Institute of Mining and Metallurgy 90,
257–273.
Lindsay, P., Campbell, R.N., Fergusson, D.A., Gillard, G.R., Moore, T.A., 2001. Slope stabil-
ity probability classification, Waikato Coal Measures, New Zeland. International
Journal of Coal Geology 45, 127–145.
Liu, Y., Chen, C., 2007. A new approach for application of rock mass classification on
rock slope stability assessment. Engineering Geology 89, 129–143.
Pantelidis, L., 2009. Rock slope stability assessment through rock mass classification
systems. International Journal of Rock Mechanics and Mining Sciences 46,
315–325.
Pantelidis, L., 2010. An alternative rock mass classification system for rock slopes. Bul-
letin of Engineering Geology and the Environment 69, 29–39.
Robertson, A.M., 1988. Estimating weak rock strength. In: Sastry, K.V.S. (Ed.), Proceed-
ings of the SME Annual Meeting. Society of Mining Engineering, Phoenix, pp. 1–5.
Romana, M., 1985. New adjustment ratings for application of Bieniawski classification
to slopes. Proceedings of the International Symposium on the Role of Rock Me-
chanics in Excavations for Mining and Civil Works. International Society of Rock
Mechanics, Zacatecas, pp. 49–53.
Romana, M., Serón, J.B., Montalar, E., 2003. SMR geomechanics classification: applica-
tion, experience and validation. In: Merwe, J.N. (Ed.), Proceedings of the 10th Con-
gress of the International Society for Rock Mechanics, ISRM 2003—Technology
Roadmap for Rock Mechanics. South African Institute of Mining and Metallurgy,
pp. 1–4.
Romana, 1997. El papel de las clasificaciones geomecánicas en el estudio de la estabil-
idad de taludes. In: Alonso, E., Corominas, J., Chacón, J., Oteo, C., Pérez, J. (Eds.), Pro-
ceedings of the IV Simposio Nacional sobre taludes y laderas inestables, Granada,
Spain, 3, pp. 955–1011 (in Spanish).
Romana, M., 1993. A geomechanical classification for slopes: slope mass rating. In:
Hudson, J.A. (Ed.), Comprehesive Rock Engineering. Pergamon Press, Oxford, pp.
575–599.
Romana, M., Serón, J.B., Jordá, L., Vélez, M.I., 2005. La clasificación geomecánica SMR
para taludes: Estado actual, aplicación y experiencia internacional. In: Corominas,
J., Alonso, E., Romana, M., Hürlimann, M. (Eds.), Proceedings of the VI Simposio
Nacional sobre taludes y laderas inestables, Valencia, pp. 239–250 (in Spanish).
Romana, M., Serón, J.B., Montalar, E., 2001. La clasificación geomecánica SMR: aplica-
ción experiencias y validación. In: CEDEX, UPM (Eds.), Proceedings of the V Simpo-
sio Nacional sobre taludes y laderas inestables. Centro de publicaciones, Secretaria
General Técnica. Ministerio de Fomento, CEDEX, Madrid, pp. 393–404 (in Spanish).
Selby, M.J., 1980. A rock mass strength classification for geomorphic purposes: with
test from Antarctica and New Zealand. Zeitschrifts für Geomorphologie 24, 31–51.
Sen, Z., Sadagah, H., 2003. Modified rock mass classification system by continuous rat-
ing. Engineering Geology 67, 269–280.
Shuk, T., 1994. Key elements and applications of the natural slope methodology (NSM)
with some emphasis on slope stability aspects. Proceedings of the 4th South Amer-
ican Congress on Rock Mechanics, 2. ISRM, Balkema, Rotterdam, pp. 955–960.
Tomás, R., Delgado, J., Serón, J.B., 2007. Modification of slope mass rating (SMR) by con-
tinuous functions. International Journal of Rock Mechanics and Mining Sciences 44,
1062–1069.
Ünal, E., 1996. Modified rock mass classification: M-RMR system. In: Bieniawski, Z.T.
(Ed.), Milestones in rock engineering, The Bieniawski Jubilee Collection. Balkema,
pp. 203–223.