To cite this paper: Int. J. Rock Mech. & Min. Sci. 34:3-4, paper No. 196.

Copyright © 1997 Elsevier Science Ltd

Copyright © 1997 Elsevier Science Ltd

Int. J. Rock Mech. & Min. Sci. Vol. 34, No. 3-4, 1997 ISSN 0148-9062
To cite this paper: Int. J. RockMech. &Min. Sci. 34:3-4, Paper No. 196

A T W O STAGE S Y S T E M F O R H I G H W A Y R O C K SLOPE RISK

ASSESSMENT
P. M c M i l l a n ; G.D. Matheson

Transport Research Laboratory, Livingston, West Lothian, EH54 5DU Scotland

ABSTRACT
Effective management of unstable rock slopes on a road network requires knowledge of their location
and the risk posed to the road user. Existing stability assessment and risk evaluation systems use variable
approaches and are dominated by subjective judgement. In addition they are usually undertaken on a
reactive basis, prompted by rock falls. As a consequence road users may be exposed to risk before
problems are addressed, comparison of results is difficult, budgetary problems arise as incidents are
largely unforeseen, and prioritisation of funds is impossible. In order to address these problems a two
stage approach to identifying and classifying rock slope risks has been developed and subjected to field
trials. The first stage derives a Rock Slope Hazard Index from rapid, standardised field data collection.
The second stage derives a Rock Slope Hazard Rating from detailed field surveys.
The trial of the Hazard Index involved assessing 179 rock slopes at a rate of 15 to 20 slopes per man day.
The results were used to classify the slopes according to the requirement for future action. The trial of the
Hazard Rating involved assessing six slopes and found a total of 75 plane, 27 wedge, 20 toppling
potential failures and widespread ravelling.
Copyright © 1997 Elsevier Science Ltd

KEYWORDS

R o c k S l o p e s • S l o p e Stability • H a z a r d s • R i s k A n a l y s i s • P r i o r i t i s a t i o n • M a n a g e m e n t • H i g h w a y s

INTRODUCTION
The uncontrolled use of bulk blasting techniques and application of "standard" designs have left a legacy
of many unstable highway rock slopes (Matheson 1995). Some unstable slopes pose a risk to the road
and road user and remedial action is therefore required. Effective management of these requires a
knowledge of the location of all unstable rock slopes and an indication of the level of risk posed to the
road user. It is then possible to prioritise future action.
At present rock slope stability assessment and risk evaluation are usually undertaken on a reactive basis,
often prompted by rock falls. Such a reactive approach does not address problems until after road users
have been exposed to the risk and presents considerable budgetary problems as incidents are inevitably
unforeseen. A proactive approach aims to minimise the risk to road users prior to incidents occurring and
allow effective priority based budgeting of maintenance funds. A standard, repeatable and rapid method
of rock slope risk assessment is required for such a proactive approach.
In 1993 a research project was commissioned by the Scottish Office Industry Department to investigate

ISSN 0148-9062
To cite this paper: Int. J. Rock Mech. & Min. Sci. 34:3-4, paper No. 196. Copyright © 1997 Elsevier Science Ltd

rock slope risk assessment and if necessary develop new methods of assessing rock slope risk. This paper
outlines the philosophy behind the new methods developed and describes the associated field trials.

DEFINITIONS
There are several definitions of risk and hazard as applied to geotechnics (Chowdhury 1992). To avoid
confusion with quantitative risk terminology, the assessment techniques described in this paper have
been termed the Hazard Index and Hazard Rating. A Hazard is defined as unstable rock which could be a
danger to the road or to road users. The Hazard Index and Hazard Rating provide a measure of the level
of risk of damage or injury and are defined as follows:-
Hazard Index = Potential for Failure x Consequences of Failure
Hazard Rating = Probability of Failure x Consequences of Failure

FACTORS INFLUENCING ROCK SLOPE FAILURE AND RISK

The likelihood of failure from a particular rock slope and the risk to a road and road users are dependent
on a number of factors which fall into four broad groups:-
Geotechnical Factors include discontinuity properties, rock material properties and groundwater. These
factors contribute to the type, size and severity of potential failures.
Geometric Factors include slope height, angle, profile, position and size of berms, angle of natural slope
above cutting, rock trap, carriageway width, sight lines, cutting type, the proximity of open water,
buildings, steep slopes and services. These factors influence the consequences of failure.
Remedial Work Factors are associated with existing remedial works present on a rock slope. The
influence of these on hazard is dependant on the coverage and effectiveness of the works.
Traffic Factors are associated with the volume and behaviour of traffic on a road. These influence the
consequences of a rock fall in terms of the likelihood of a vehicle incident.
Evaluating the risk posed by rock slopes is complex, given the large number of factors influencing rock
slope failure and consequent risk and the likely complex relationships that exist between many of these
factors. It is not possible within the scope of this paper to describe how such relationships have been
evaluated. However the logic underlying the methods of risk assessment is summarised in the sections
which follow.

THE T W O STAGE A P P R O A C H TO R O C K S L O P E R I S K A S S E S S M E N T
The first stage derives the Rock Slope Hazard Index from a rapid field assessment. This acts as a coarse
sift, eliminating slopes with a low risk potential from a later, detailed assessment stage. The second stage
involves detailed assessment to derive the Rock Slope Hazard Rating and can be carried out on a priority
basis as budgets allow. The Hazard Rating can be used to prioritise and optimise remedial works. The
two stage approach is outlined in Figure 1.
Consistent data collection is an essential feature of any assessment system. In an attempt to achieve this,
standard forms are used in the data collection procedures.

THE R O C K S L O P E H A Z A R D I N D E X

ISSN 0148-9062
To cite this paper: Int. J. Rock Mech. & Min. Sci. 34:3-4, paper No. 196. Copyright © 1997 Elsevier Science Ltd

The Hazard Index is a relatively simple estimate of the potential for failure on highway rock slopes and
the risks posed, and is derived from rapid field data collection procedures followed by parametric
analyses. The results of these analyses are used to prioritise future action through classification of slopes
into four categories as follows:-
Rock Slope Hazard Action Category
Index Value
<1 No Action
1-10 Review in Five Years
1 0 - 100 Detailed Inspection
> 100 Urgent Detailed Inspection
The Hazard Index is intended to act as a course sift. Slopes with an Index of less than 1 are unlikely to
present a risk to the road or road user and therefore require No Action. An Index of between 1 and 10
indicates that conditions on a rock slope are such that risks may develop. These slopes therefore require a
Review in Five Years. Rock slopes with an Index of greater than 10 could present a risk to the road and
road users and therefore require further investigation. Prioritisation of this investigative action is
achieved by sub-dividing these slopes into the two categories of Detailed Inspection and Urgent Detailed
Inspection.

Data Collection
There are three standard data collection forms, one each for geotechnical, geometric and remedial work
data. Almost all data are visually estimated and recorded by choosing from a set of options for each
parameter. This is a rapid process and even in a geotechnically complex rock slope can be carried out in
less than 30 man minutes.
An important part of the Hazard Index survey is numbering and referencing the location of each rock
slope. For the Scottish Trunk Road Network, this was done by referencing each slope to the Trunk Road
Link and Section reference system to facilitate follow up action. All rock slopes were also photographed.

Derivation o f the Rock Slope Hazard Index

This involves attributing values to parameters that influence the risk posed by rock slope instability and
using these values in a standard calculation procedure (Figure 2). The parameters used are listed below:-
Evaluated Failure potential (based on Rock trap size and shape
Matheson 1983)
Factor of safety for failure Slope profile and berms
Discontinuity principle spacing, trace Carriageway width
length and dilation
Observations of potential failure Road sight lines
Potential failure size and position on Cutting type and associated hazards
rock slope
Rock material strength and weathering Remedial works
Ground water Traffic volume

ISSN 0148-9062
To cite this paper: Int. J. Rock Mech. & Min. Sci. 34:3-4, paper No. 196. Copyright © 1997 Elsevier Science Ltd

A range of values is determined for each parameter to reflect the range of influence of the parameter on
the level of risk. This is done with reference to published relationships, where available, and from
experience and specialist knowledge. In general, each data input category is allocated a parameter value.
However some parameter values are calculated from more complex relationships. Parameter values also
reflected their relative importance in influencing the level of risk. The complete set of parameter values is
referred to as the Parameter Library.
There are two types of parameter used to derive the Hazard Index: Primary parameters and Secondary
parameters. Primary parameters establish the potential for failure and Secondary parameters influence the
likelihood, severity and consequences of failure. The three sets of Primary parameters used in calculating
the Hazard Index are those related to evaluated failure potential, observed potential failures and the
potential for failure on the natural slopes above the rock face. Primary parameters act independently and
influence derivation of the Hazard Index by summation.
Secondary parameters influence derivation of the Hazard Index proportionally. Parameter values of unity
indicate a neutral effect, whilst values greater than unity increase the Index, and values less than unity
decrease the Index.

THE ROCK SLOPE HAZARD RATING

The Rock Slope Hazard Rating is a more detailed and comprehensive measure of the risk posed by an
unstable rock slope and is derived from the sum of the individual risks posed by all of the potential
failures on that slope. It is a semi-probabilistic method based on the principles of quantitative risk
analysis.
Hazard Rating calculations employ conventional deterministic failure models for calculating Factor of
Safety (FoS) in probabilistic analyses. Such analyses estimate the probability of failure for each potential
failure on a rock slope. These are then factored to account for remedial works, slope geometry, trap
geometry, road geometry and traffic to give an estimate of the probability of a vehicle incident and then
combined to give the slope Hazard Rating. The Rock Slope Hazard Rating results can be used to
prioritise and optimise remedial work.

Data Collection
The Hazard Rating requires data to be collected from all potential failures on each rock slope. There are
six types of data collection forms to facilitate this, one each for plane, wedge, toppling, two for ravelling
and one for discontinuity data. The Rating requires many measurements to be made from each potential
failure and is therefore time consuming and requires access to the slopes, usually achieved using rope
techniques.

Derivation of the Rock Slope Hazard Rating

The Hazard Rating calculations use a combination of the following field measurements and parameter
values:-
Plane, Wedge and Toppling Failures Ravelling Failures
Potential failure discontinuity Number, size, height on face, face
properties profile, trap details
Rock strength and weathering Remedial Treatment

ISSN 0148-9062
To cite this paper: Int. J. Rock Mech. & Min. Sci. 34:3-4, paper No. 196. Copyright © 1997 Elsevier Science Ltd

Failure mechanism
Potential failure dimensions Rock Slope
Rock face dip and azimuth Discontinuity mapping
Dip of upper slope
Height of potential failure on face Road
Profile of face below potential failure Carriageway width
Berms on face below potential failure Traffic volume
Rock trap details
Sight lines
Remedial Treatment
Derivation of the Hazard Rating involves using field measurements and parameters values in a series of
calculations for each type of failure. The structure of the calculations reflects the logic of how the
parameters influence the level of hazard present. The calculation process is summarised in Figure 3 and
discussed in the following sections.

Probabilistic calculations
Established, deterministic methods of calculating factor of safety (FoS) for plane, wedge and toppling
failure are used in these calculations. By executing the FoS calculation a large number of times and
varying the input values according to statistical distributions, it is possible to carry out a
semi-probabilistic analysis. Each calculation derives an FoS result, which can be greater or less than
unity. The ratio of the number of results equal to or less than unity to the total number of results can be
used as a measure of the probability of failure. These calculations are carried out for each potential plane,
wedge and toppling failure.
As there is currently no established deterministic model for ravelling failure, no probabilistic calculations
are carried out and an assumed probability of failure is used in subsequent calculations. It is the intention
to address this problem in future research.

Remedial work calculations

If it is assumed that the probability of failure is reduced directly in proportion to the amount of a
potential failure treated by remedial works and the effectiveness of those works, it is possible to estimate
the probability of failure despite the presence of those works.

Rock trap calculations

The rock trap parameter values are estimates of the probability that a failure will breach the rock trap. An
estimate of the probability of a failure reaching the road (Pf) can be calculated by multiplying rock trap
parameter values by the results of the remedial work calculations.

Road geometry and traffic calculations

These calculations estimate the probability that a failed rock mass will cause a vehicle incident. A
rigorous calculation of this requires data on driver reaction to rock falls. This data is not currently
available and in its absence a less rigorous method of taking account of road geometry and traffic is

ISSN 0148-9062
To cite this paper: Int. J. Rock Mech. & Min. Sci. 34:3-4, paper No. 196. Copyright © 1997 Elsevier Science Ltd

required. The method adopted uses traffic volume data, speed flow relationships, sight lines and basic
assumptions as follows:-
. The probability of failure is independent of time of day.
• The one way traffic flow is half the two way traffic flow.
• A vehicle will hit a block if it comes into sight within 40m or less.
• A block on the road will first be noticed by a driver at a distance of 100m.
• The likelihood of hitting a block at different sight line distances is as follows:-
Sight lines Likelihood values
40 - 60m 0.75
60- 100m 0.3
> 100m 0.05
These data and assumptions are used to develop expressions that estimate the probability of vehicle
incidents (Pvi) from the probability of rock fall and the probability that the fallen rocks can be avoided by
a vehicle. The calculations do not take into account detailed traffic behaviour such as queuing and
overtaking, the probabilities of vehicles avoiding failures by swerving, or other vehicles colliding with
the vehicle that collided with the block.

Calculation of Hazard Rating values

The final calculations in deriving the Hazard Rating involve combining the Pvi values derived from the
traffic calculations for all potential failures to give an estimate of the probability that there will be at least
one vehicle incident at the rock slope (Pvi slope)" This is then divided by the slope length to remove the
possibility of long relatively low risk rock slopes giving greater Pvi slope values than short high risk rock
slopes. The values derived from this division are invariably very small. The final calculation in deriving
the Hazard Rating is, therefore, to multiply by 10,000 to give more user friendly values.

F I E L D T R I A L OF T H E R O C K S L O P E H A Z A R D I N D E X
A field trial to evaluate the performance of the Rock Slope Hazard Index was undertaken during July
1994. A 50Km (30 mile) section of Trunk Road in the Scottish Western Highlands was chosen for this
trial. Field work was carried out in two stages.
Initially all rock slopes (179) were surveyed using the standard data collection procedure. It proved
possible for a two man team to survey between 30 and 40 rock slopes per day. Traffic data for the study
section were obtained from the Highland Region, Regional Traffic Flow Plan, 1993. Subsequently an
independent expert carried out subjective hazard assessments for a randomly selected number (34) of
rock slopes within the study area. This expert was not involved in either the first phase of the field work
or deriving the Rock Slope Hazard Indices. The results of this survey provided a reference against which
the Rock Slope Hazard Index results were compared.
Analysis of the results of the Hazard Index survey revealed that 90 slopes (50.3%) required no action, 64
slopes (35.8%) required a review in 5years, 22 slopes (12.3%) required a detailed inspection and 3
slopes (1.7%) required an urgent detailed inspection (Figure 4).

ISSN 0148-9062
To cite this paper: Int. J. Rock Mech. & Min. Sci. 34:3-4, paper No. 196. Copyright © 1997 Elsevier Science Ltd

Comparison of the action categories derived from the Hazard Index values with those derived from the
subjective hazard assessment shows 79% agreement (Table 1).

FIELD TRIAL OF THE R O C K SLOPE H A Z A R D RATING

A trial of the Rock Slope Hazard Rating was carried out on slopes from the same section of road on
which the Hazard Index survey had been conducted. Six slopes which had been earlier classified as
requiring Urgent Detailed Inspection were involved. The objectives of the trial were to test the Hazard
Rating system with field data and identify problems. Data collection was carried out by two engineering
geologists in a four week period early in 1996. The geometry of the slopes and position of some of the
potential failures necessitated the use of rope access to obtain the necessary data.
The calculations involved in deriving the Hazard Rating were automated by combining an MS ACCESS
database (©Microsoft 1994) and calculation templates in MS EXCEL (©Microsoft 1994) via a series of
macros. The calculation templates and macros used CRYSTAL BALL ( ©Decisioneering 1993) to
perform the probabilistic elements of the calculations.
The survey revealed that potential plane, wedge, toppling and ravelling failures were present on the trial
rock slopes. The numbers of each type of potential failure and the Hazard Rating values are given in
Table 2.
In addition to Hazard Rating values, the data analysis also produced estimates of the probability of
vehicle incidents associated with each potential plane, wedge and toppling failure and of vehicle
incidents associated with ravelling. It was also possible to evaluate the relative level of risk posed by
each type of failure on the trial slopes (Figure 5). This illustrated that ravelling failure presented the
greatest risk to the road user.
One of the original aims of the Hazard Rating was to derive a value that could be calibrated to indicate
the need for, and urgency of, remedial action. However it was found that although Rating values could be
used to prioritise remedial action they could not be used to establish a threshold value below which no
remedial action was necessary. This is illustrated by considering a slope that has many potential failures
representing a very low risk and one or two that represent a high risk. The overall risk to the road user
from the slope is low and therefore the Hazard Rating will be low, but action is still required for those
individual potential failures that present a high level of risk.
There are, however, other attributes of the Hazard Rating that make it a useful risk management tool,
particularly for planning and evaluating remedial works. Deriving the Rating requires consideration of
each type of failure separately. It is therefore possible to rapidly evaluate which type of failure presents
the greatest risk on one or more rock slopes. This can greatly assist in formulating a remedial works plan.
It is also possible to evaluate the effect of remedial work on the level of risk to the road user before work
is actually carried out. This is accomplished by entering the intended remedial work characteristics into
the Rating calculations and evaluating the outcome. The results can be used to optimise risk reduction
per unit cost of remedial works. The Rating can also be used to evaluate the risk reduction benefits of a
remedial work strategy both in terms of individual slopes and in terms of sections of a route.

S U M M A R Y AND C O N C L U S I O N S
Improved methods of identifying and classifying the risk from unstable rock slopes are required to allow
more effective management of highway rock slopes. Existing methods employ variable approaches to

ISSN 0148-9062
To cite this paper: Int. J. Rock Mech. & Min. Sci. 34:3-4, paper No. 196. Copyright © 1997 Elsevier Science Ltd

data collection and use different scales and nomenclature for presenting results. These make comparison
of the results almost impossible.
A new two stage approach to rock slope risk assessment, involving the calculation of a Hazard Index and
a Hazard Rating, has been developed using a standardised approach.
A trial of the first stage, the Rock Slope Hazard Index, illustrated that the field work and analyses could
be carried out rapidly and that results were compatible with those arrived at by an independent expert
using subjective judgement. The Rock Slope Hazard Index could therefore be applied as a management
tool to prioritise further action.
A trial of the second stage, the Rock Slope Hazard Rating, showed that it was possible to evaluate the
failure potential on rock slopes in terms of the probability of vehicle incidents. Detailed information on
the potential failures, the geometry of the slope and adjacent road, and the traffic characteristics are
however required. The Rating values can be used to prioritise remedial action, evaluate the effect of
different remedial options, and assist formulation and evaluation of a maintenance strategy. The Rock
Slope Hazard Rating could therefore be used as the basis of a risk management system for rock slopes.

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
The authors would like to thank the Network Management Division within the Roads Directorate of the
Scottish Office Industry Department, Highland Regional Council for their co-operation, and Mr A.R.
Blair for assistance with field work. The research reported in this paper is part of a project for the
Scottish Office Industry Department. The paper is published by permission of the Director of Roads,
Scottish Office and the Chief Executive, TRL.

FIGURES

ISSN 0148-9062
To cite this paper: Int. J. Rock Mech. & Mm. Sci. 34:3-4, paper No. 196. Copyright © 1997 Elsevier Science Ltd

Paper 196, Figure 1.

S)'~t_emlatic, rapid assessmenl using

the I I ~ r d Index System

ll~¢k Slopell~Lard Index Valu~

[ LInsl'eCtianJ
............... ~ .......... - ..... { ........ t ..........
I Detailed Inspeelio~s usiJlg the ]
,~t~,e .[I H~z~ ,nt,. Pat mg System
. .!.._

f
[ Pri~n'itlse anLd opllnals¢ ]
L r eraed~aL wor~,
J

Figure 1. The Two Stage Approach to Rock Slope Risk Assessment

ISSN 0148-9062
To cite this paper: Int. J. Rock Mech. & Me. Sci. 34:3-4, paper No. 196. Copyright © 1997 Elsevier Science Ltd

Paper 196, Figure 2.

L','a.lui,te~.J Vaih~l~ PoteIIII++,I l

Plane
• [
Ob+¢r-,ed Pt~tcntial ['aillar+..
Wedge -iol+pl,i,,.~ J [Plume_ Wedge "t'oppliag ll~vellinl~J
1
.Multiply [
[ l,'aet'or ofs~fet.v I
MLflLiply L M Lttrj])l.~
DJsconli~uJt v p~pet'lJes -] Pt+teatial failure pe~itio~
+ ...... M.IJlr,Ill,r"~ " { ~ + Muldp]~ . .i
I P°t~+]i-t-ialfail"r+Presmt °n +LoPe [ i Potenti,l failuresi,m
J ~ll.
: ~:,~i~,_~l~,r
L------ ,.J%._ddj'
~.-- --• -- -[ . -., , I.l l -. . . . . . . . . . . .
- P --~ : : : : : : : : : : : . . . . . . . .
------ p ,Il "
I

R~.ck ste~tlZt[t ~nd welatb,+ring 1

.... --~ [ ~aCLlral u.ppcr
[ _v ~:,..,+.,,+_
c.oo.,....*°r ....
I .
I ..+.,+
I

I-- ~++kt,-,p I
I .Kt~ekslope pnffile and lJerms

t I~a~l ~','Jdth and sight line

I ~:,.,.~..! I 1
l Cutting l.+l~
+ ,,:'",,+!.~+ +.. +
I A s~irwiaI~_'dh a.~ards

I Tr ~ffie J
] Rock Slope ' !
•,-~ H a z a r d Inde~'J

Figure 2. Calculation of the Rock Slope Hazard Index

ISSN 0148-9062
To cite this paper: Int. J. Rock Mech. & Mm. Sci. 34:3-4, paper No. 196. Copyright © 1997 Elsevier Science Ltd

Paper 196, Figure 3.

IAs+m m,N p~]+ ~.llilily~l

of ravelling failure J
Pi+kne ~cd~" l'oppling . ~
NTut'ldl~ly ....
[ Pnlb~hilil~i~ of flitu~
') ~ Number°fpetenti"
..... L~VeUinj~f ~ s
1
Mu]ti~[5, L
iI Iteme+.lJal ,+'ork p ttram etcr ,valu~ )
"'I"uIt ~PIV [ M~JItil:t5' [

R~:k ( ~ p pa+'~meter'+-aluem
J
_]
Pmb:+t+ilitiu+ cf fail. res +~.aellin£ road
I 3
-1--- ._l_. I 1 I
Tr~fli¢ probaMI]t}' CakLILzt[Ck,lS )
~{ulqipb

...... 1 ........
..... P~ib~biiJ;iit5 o1 vehicle in ¢ide.l-+
L]
1 1 1 I

M~L1il:,l.',I~,y
.' !0.£,0,,0l---
['--R;citSiope Hazard [~ting__ 3

Figure 3. The Rock Slope Hazard Rating calculation process.

ISSN 0148-9062
To cite this paper: Int. J. Rock Mech. & Mm. Sci. 34:3-4, paper No. 196. Copyright © 1997 Elsevier Science Ltd

Paper 196, Figure 4.

1~33
90
88
70
h-
#

k
=m
40
E

20
10
0
No A~tkm ~ ~.~ %:~~r-' L 1_3etalLed L:.r'6erLt
5 "gem Inspeu&[ea D~ta,le&
l~s peclio,~
j'~etian Cal~£~ ~-y.

Figure 4. Distribution of Rock Slopes according to Action Categories

Paper 196, Figure 5.

20.
1N ....
ld
13,5
t4 .....
12

6
4
2
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .............. ].....m .......

0 i

P~veLling PI:,,~ ToppIL'~8 Wedge

F milur~ M L ~ h a r ~ m

Figure 5. Relative risk from the different types of failure identified in the Hazard Rating trial (Risk from potential
wedge failure used as the base level)

ISSN 0148-9062
To cite this paper: Int. J. Rock Mech. & Mm. Sci. 34:3-4, paper No. 196. Copyright © 1997 Elsevier Science Ltd

TABLES

P a p e r 196, T A B L E 1.

TABLE 1

C O M P A R I S O N OF H A Z A R D I N D E X A N D S U B J E C T I V E A C T I O N CATEGOR1F.S

slope RockSlo~ ""S~mave Sk~ RackSk~ Subjective S~ ~ S~ Subjeatve

No. I-lazard~ Caleg~ No. Iqam~ Index Caegory
Category Categ~
6 1 1 69 1 1 125 2 2
15 1 1 70 1 I 127 1 1
25 2 2 71 4 4 137 2 2
28 1 1 72 1 1 140 1 I
32 2 1 73 4 4 142 2 2
41 1 l 74 3 3 144 2 2
42 2 1 75 4 4 147 2 1
43 3 3 80 3 3 159 1 2
46 3 3 98 1 1 169 1 1
48 3 3 101 2 1 172 2 3
53 3 3 106 2 3
66 2 1 123 3 3

ISSN 0148-9062
To cite this paper: Int. J. Rock Mech. & Min. Sci. 34:3-4, paper No. 196. Copyright © 1997 Elsevier Science Ltd

P a p e r 196, T A B L E 2.

TABLE 2.

POTENTIAL FAILURES IDENTIFIED ON THE TRIAL SLOPES

AND HAZARD RATING VALUES

Failure No. of potential f ~ r e s m each slope

Type Slope 49 Slope 55 Slope 100 Slope 104 Slope 117 Slope 121
Plane 14 20 14 8 13 6
Wedge 14 6 4 0
Toppling 10 8 0 0 1 1
Total 38 il I J Lt I I
30 18 9 15
! tl I w I i i I
10
IU I P II I |ill i i i

Rating 21.0 28.7 7,4.7 17.9 8.0 4.1

Values

References

References
Chowdhury R.N. 1992. Probabilistic risk analysis in geomechanics and water engineering. In Geomechanics
and Water Engineering in Environmental Management. AA Balkema, Rotterdam.
Matheson G.D. 1983. Rock Stability Assessment in Preliminary Site Investigations. TRRL LR 1039, Dept. of
the Environment, Dept. of Transport, Transport and Road Research Laboratory, Crowthorne.
Matheson G D. 1995. Aspects of Highway Rock Engineering in the UK. In Engineering Geology of
Construction. Geological Society Engineering Geology Special Publication No. 10, pp 169-187.

ISSN 0148-9062