Professional Documents
Culture Documents
International Journal of
Rock Mechanics & Mining Sciences
journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/ijrmms
art ic l e i nf o
a b s t r a c t
Article history:
Received 11 September 2014
Received in revised form
4 March 2015
Accepted 8 March 2015
An empirical system was developed to obtain a quality index for rock slopes in road infrastructures,
named Slope Quality Index (SQI), and it was applied to a set of real slopes. The SQI is supported in nine
factors affecting slope stability that contemplate the evaluation of different parameters. Consequently,
each factor is classied by the degree of importance and inuence by assigned weights. These weights
were established through a statistical analysis of replies to a survey that was distributed to several
experienced professionals in the eld.
The proposed SQI varies between 1 and 5, corresponding to slopes in very good and very bad
condition state, respectively. Besides the advantage linked to a quantitative and qualitative evaluation of
slopes, the SQI also allows identifying the most critical factors on the slope stability, which is a
fundamental issue for an efcient management of the slope network in the road infrastructure, namely
in the planning of conservation and maintenance operations.
& 2015 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
Keywords:
Slope stability
Slope quality index (SQI)
Rock slopes
Hazard evaluation
Exploitation stage
1. Introduction
The existing problems in road infrastructures networks are, in
most countries, directly or indirectly related to the lack of quality assessment systems that can provide to the management structures, tools
to assist in the planning of conservation and maintenance operations
proactively. As such, there is the necessity to mitigate this problem
through a constant search of innovative and effective techniques,
allowing optimizing the long-life cycle of these infrastructures. Among
all the elements that compose the road network, slopes are the ones
that are subjected to less normative rules when compared with
bridges, road pavement and electronic equipment for instance.
Nowadays, the diversity of methods and techniques for slope stability evaluation during the design stage is huge (for instance using
limit equilibrium methods, FEM, DEM, probabilistic approaches, etc.).
However, methods and techniques for this evaluation during the
exploitation stage, i.e. using mainly information of what was really
built and its actual state reported from visual inspections, monitoring
systems and indirect information (like climatic and seismic zoning),
are scarce. In the past, a number of quality/classication systems
applied to slopes have been proposed, though they normally consider
a limited number of the factors involved in slope stability and usually
Corresponding author.
E-mail address: marisamotapinheiro@gmail.com (M. Pinheiro).
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.ijrmms.2015.03.015
1365-1609/& 2015 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
are limited to the analysis of some failure modes. Despite the existence of these systems, a more complete one that is able to combine a
broader number of factors affecting the rock slope stability is still
lacking. Thereby, an innovative system named Slope Quality Index
(SQI) that integrates the evaluation of a broad range of internal and
external factors related to the slope quality and stability was developed. The SQI is based on the rock mass classication system
developed by Liu and Chen [1] that considers the rating of three
factors by their degree of importance (weights). To this system, a large
number of factors and parameters were added and several adaptations were made in order to improve it. Likewise, the methodology for
the weight assignment was the same used by Liu and Chen [1], which
is based in surveys made by experts in the eld of knowledge of slope
stability. Each one of the dened factors have a different weight resulting in SQI values ranging from 1 to 5, translating very good to very
bad slope quality conditions, respectively. Besides the classication of
the slopes and the identication of the ones in poorer conditions, the
SQI can support the development of hazard maps and aid in the
decision concerning the intervention plans. In other words, the SQI
system intends, not only to identify slopes in bad to very bad condition (extreme values), but also it is indented to be a tool to map the
overall condition of the slope network allowing a more rational
management of the network mainly in what concerns the planning
of short and long-term conservation and maintenance interventions
and also evaluate the evolution of the slopes in time (individually or at
more macro levels).
M. Pinheiro et al. / International Journal of Rock Mechanics & Mining Sciences 76 (2015) 182191
2.1. Concept
The main goal of the SQI system is the calculation of an index
based on nine factors directly or indirectly related to the stability of
the slope. As previously mentioned, the SQI contemplates other
evaluation subsystems to classify some of the nine factors. To obtain
the factors, a number of parameters have to be rstly evaluated in a
range between 1 and 5, the same as the SQI range for the sake of
consistency (Fig. 1). To obtain the nal value of the SQI the factors are
then weighted by their degree of importance. The computation of
each degree will be presented in Section 2.3. The range of SQI between
1 and 5 translate very good and very bad conditions, respectively.
Therefore, the calculation of the SQI is performed according to
n
X
Table 1
SQI system for rock slopes: qualitative, quantitative and risk level classication.
SQI
Slope state
Risk level
[1; 1.4]
[1.5; 2.4]
[2.5; 3.4]
[3.5; 4.2]
[4.3; 5]
Very good
Good
Medium
Bad
Very bad
Very low
Low
Medium
High
Very high
SQI
183
W i Xi
i1
n
X
W 0i X 0i
i1
Level 1
SQI=[1;5]
Level 2
W=[0;1]
Level 3
X=[1;5]
Parameter 1
Factor A
Parameter 2
Parameter n
SQI
Factor N
The original Rockfall Rating System (RHRS) comprise the evaluation of 10 different categories that are scored through an exponential
scale that ranges from 3 to 81, where higher values correspond to
higher risks. In [2] the authors presented some changes to this
method adding three categories and removing other three with the
aim of turning the system more tted to roadways and simplifying
their use (Table 2). The 10 categories of this modied version, the
RHRSm, are shown in the following paragraphs.
(a) Slope height: the risk is directly related to the slope height [2].
(b) Ditch effectiveness: this category evaluates the ability to
prevent a falling rock from reaching the road, so with a high
effectiveness this probability is reduced [8]. Some factors to
consider in this evaluation are: (a) height and slope angle;
(b) ditch sizes (height, width and depth).
(c) Average risk: the value for Average vehicle risk is obtained by
AVR
ADT SL 100%
PSP
where AVR means Average Vehicle Risk and represents the spatial
probability of appearing a vehicle in the zone of rockfall hazard;
ADT means Average Daily Trafc, i.e., the average trafc per day
(vehicle/day); SL is the length of hazard zone (km) and PSP is the
speed limit of the roadway (km/h). An AVR higher than 100%
means that at any moment more than one vehicle is present
within the hazard zone [9].
(d) Decision sight distance (DSD): the weight of this parameter is
obtained according to the slope location. The risk of an accident
due to a falling rock is smaller when the visual distance of the driver concerning an obstacle increases [8,9].
(e) Roadway width: constant value measured along the road [8].
(f) Slope Mass Rating (SMR): the structural behavior of the rock
mass seems to have a high inuence in this global evaluation.
Hence, the presence of discontinuities, their orientation and
184
M. Pinheiro et al. / International Journal of Rock Mechanics & Mining Sciences 76 (2015) 182191
Table 2
RHRSm system (adapted from [2]).
Category
Slope height
Ditch effectiveness
Roadway width
Slope Mass Rating (SMR)
Block size
Boulder volume
Volume of rockfall per event
Rockfall history
AVR
Decision sight distance
Annual rainfall and freezing
periods
9 Points
27 Points
81 Points
7.5 m
Good catchment
21.5 m
80
0.3 m
26 dm3
2.3 m3
1 per 10 years
25%
Adequate
100%
h 300 mm or no freezing
periods
15 m
Moderate catchment
15.5 m
40
0.6 m
0.21 m3
4.6 m3
3 per year
50%
Moderate
80%
h 600 mm or short freezing
periods
22.5 m
Limited catchment
9.5 m
27
0.9 m
0.73 m3
6.9 m3
6 per year
75%
Limited
60%
h 900 mm or long freezing
periods
4 30 m
No catchment
3.5 m
20
1.2 m
1.74 m3
9.2 m3
9 per year
100%
Very limited
40%
h 1200 mm or long freezing
periods
Table 3
Resume of the RHRSm2 system and the corresponding scale on the SQI.
SQI
RHRSm2 score
Hazard degree
Intervention
o 54
54162
163324
325486
4487
Very low
Low
Medium
High
Very high
Medium term
Short term
Urgent
Instant
1
2
3
4
5
M. Pinheiro et al. / International Journal of Rock Mechanics & Mining Sciences 76 (2015) 182191
185
Table 4
RHRSm2 system.
Category
Slope height
Slope angle
Bench width
Ditch effectiveness
Inuence zone
Roadway width
Structural Condition
Weathering degree
Erosion
Block size
Volume of Rockfall per
event
Block quantity
Face irregularity
Water presence
Rockfall history
AVR
Decision sight distance
Climate
3 Points
9 Points
27 Points
81 Points
7.5 m
o 301
Z4 m
Good catchment
Far
21.5 m
Discontinuous joints, favorable
orientation
Small W1
Small
0.3 m
2.3 m3
7.522.5 m
301401
23 m
Moderate catchment
Medium
15.5 m
Discontinuous joints, random
orientation
Moderate W23
Moderate
0.6 m
4.6 m3
22.530 m
40501
r1 m
Limited catchment
Close
9.5 m
Discontinuous joints, adverse
orientation
Large W34
Large
0.9 m
6.9 m3
430 m
4501
No catchment
Very close
3.5 m
Continuous joints, adverse
orientation
Extreme W5
Extreme
1.2 m
9.3 m3
None
Low
Dry
Few falls
1/10 year
25%
Adequate
100%
Low rainfall
o 1000
Few
Medium
Humid
Occasional falls
3/year
50%
Moderate
80%
Moderate rainfall
10002000
Some
High
Dripping
Many falls
6/year
75%
Limited
60%
High rainfall
4 2000
Many
Very high
Fluid
Constant falls
9/year
100%
Very limited
40%
Table 5
Factors and parameters considered in the SQI system.
Factor
Parameter
Geometry
Geological
Drainage system
Inspections
Monitoring
Surroundings
Historical
Protection
Environmental/trafc
186
M. Pinheiro et al. / International Journal of Rock Mechanics & Mining Sciences 76 (2015) 182191
such, this division allowed, not only weigh the answers according to
the level of knowledge, but also analyze the existing differences in the
answers between each level.
A total of 31 answers were obtained from the survey showing a
great variety of answers from the three levels of knowledge. To analyze the results, the calculation methodology proposed by Liu and
Chen [1] was used. In Fig. 2, the weights of each factor are presented
divided by level of knowledge. It is possible to observe that there are
no signicant differences between the weights assigned by professionals with different levels of knowledge, aside from the monitoring
and visual inspections factors that are more valued by the Expert level.
To obtain the nal weights three different scenarios were considered: (1) same importance in the answers for the different knowledge levels; (2) increase in 20% the importance of the answers from
the Expert level and decrease in the same proportion the answers
from the professionals with Regular level of knowledge (Fig. 3); (3) the
same as in the previous case but considering a 30% variation (Fig. 3).
It was concluded that the differences between scenarios are rather
small. For practical purposes when applying the SQI users can adjust
these weights according to their experience and specic cases. In this
work the weights given in scenario 2 were adopted (Table 6).
Different weights were also assign for the different parameters
within the factors. The authors based on their experience and
discussion with other experts directly assigned these values. The
importance of all the factors and parameters regarding the SQI are
presented in Appendix A (the values placed below each name of
factor/parameter).
As already referred, the information concerning the factors and
parameters of the slope can be limited in some cases. As such, it is
recommended that in these cases, the weight of the missing factor/
parameter should be proportionality distributed by the remaining
ones in order that the outcome of the system still varies from 1 to 5.
Regular
18
17
16
3. SQI application
The SQI system was applied to a randomly chosen group of 17 rock
slopes located in the Beira Alta e Litoral highway Concession managed
by Ascendi and located in the west coast of Portugal. The overall result
for the 17 rock slopes are presented and for one specic slope the
calculation of SQI is presented in detail. For this set of slopes a score
equal or higher than 3.5 (Bad and Very Bad state) was dened to
activate the security alert that can result in monitoring systems
placement or even an emergency intervention for the worst cases.
In this group of slopes there were no monitoring data therefore the
weight of this factor (W0.11) was proportionally distributed by the
remaining eight factors. Furthermore the information concerning the
empirical systems (RMR, Q or SMR) was absent, so their weights were
distributed by the remaining parameters of the geological factor
proportionally. Given the existing information it was possible to apply
the RHRSm2 system to all the 17 slopes.
To validate the SQI results, an evaluation was performed through a
panel of experts. This panel of experts was composed by a part of
professionals involved in the surveys with a high level of knowledge
in slope evaluation. It was asked to this panel to assign a quality to the
slopes in a range from 1 to 5 after an in situ inspection. It is important
to point out that the goal of this system is allowing experts and nonexperts (with a basic knowledge in slope stability) the application of
High
15 15
15
14
14
14
13
12
Weight (%)
Expert
17
12
12
11
11
11
10
10
10
10
10
10
9
8
9
8
8
6
6
4
2
0
Geometry
Geological
Drainage system
Inspections
Monitoring
Surroundings
Historical
Protection
Environmental/
Traffic
Scenario 2
Scenario 3
25
Weight (%)
20
20
17
16
16
14 14
15
10
10
11 11
12
13 13
11 11 11
8
9
7
10 10
7
5
0
Geometry
Geological
Drainage system
Inspections
Monitoring
Surroundings
Historical
Protection
Environmental/
Traffic
Fig. 3. Comparative analysis between scenario 1, 2 and 3: factor weights considering a difference of 20% and 30% between the 3 levels of knowledge.
M. Pinheiro et al. / International Journal of Rock Mechanics & Mining Sciences 76 (2015) 182191
the system in a systematic way (since normally in this kind of infrastructures a very high number of slopes need to be assessed) and in a
less user-dependent mode achieving a slope quality evaluation similar
to the one that could result from an expert evaluation. This validation
allows concluding that the systematic application of the SQI will lead
to a classication not far from the one that an expert would provide.
Since the availability of experts may be scarce this is an important
asset of the system. The panel of experts assigned this value without
knowing the result of the SQI. Table 7 presents the SQI and the expert
MAD
Table 6
Factor weights adopted for the SQI system considering scenario 2.
Factor
Weight
Geometry
Geological
Drainage system
Inspections
Monitoring
Surroundings
History
Protection
Environmental/trafc
0.17
0.14
0.11
0.13
0.11
0.09
0.07
0.10
0.08
SQI
Expert evaluation
Value
2.54
2.99
2.89
2.85
2.11
2.76
2.92
2.93
2.70
2.60
2.85
2.35
3.27
2.25
2.84
3.03
2.91
Value
Medium
Medium
Medium
Medium
Good
Medium
Medium
Medium
Medium
Medium
Medium
Good
Medium
Good
Medium
Medium
Medium
State
3.00
3.00
3.50
2.50
2.50
3.00
3.80
3.00
2.50
3.00
2.80
2.50
3.50
2.00
3.00
2.90
2.80
Medium
Medium
Bad
Medium
Medium
Medium
Bad
Medium
Medium
Medium
Medium
Medium
Bad
Good
Medium
Medium
Medium
Table 8
Confusion matrix between the SQI values and the experts evaluation.
Expert evaluation
State
SQI value
S2
S3
S4
S2
S3
S4
1 (100%)
0
0
2 (15%)
11 (85%)
0
0
3 (100%)
0
1,00
0,90
0,80
Absolute difference
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
State
N
1 X
jSQI Ej
N i1
where N denotes the number of examples, SQI the obtained value for
the index and E the expert evaluation values. Values of 0.35 and 0.28
were obtained, respectively. These values corroborate the previous
conclusion of a good match between the SQI and expert evaluation.
Fig. 4 presents the absolute deviations between both assessments
for the 17 slopes. With the exception of two slopes, the absolute
difference is always lower than 0.5, which means that the SQI results
are in line with the expert evaluation and conrms its reliability. It
should also be noted that in all cases the error is lower than 1.
The calculation of the confusion matrix allows a better understanding of the SQI accuracy. This matrix compares the slopes in the
different states resulting from expert evaluation (columns) and the
SQI values (rows). For this set of slopes, only three states are
represented, the Good (S2), the Medium (S3) and the Bad (S4). As
such, the confusion matrix presents a 3 3 dimension (Table 8).
The overall accuracy of the SQI system in comparison with the
expert evaluation is higher than 70% in what concerns the
prediction of the slope state. In the cases the prediction is not
the same, the difference is of only one state (Good to Medium for
instance) with a tendency from the experts to be more cautious in
their evaluations.
In order to clarify the SQI application the overall process is
presented for slope 13 (Fig. 5). The score obtained by the application
of the RHRSm2 system for this slope was 432 translating a SQI
Table 7
SQI results and experts evaluation.
Slope
187
0,70
0,60
0,50
0,40
0,30
0,20
0,10
0,00
10
11
12
13
14
Slope number
Fig. 4. Absolute deviations between the SQI and the experts assessments for the 17 slopes.
15
16
17
188
M. Pinheiro et al. / International Journal of Rock Mechanics & Mining Sciences 76 (2015) 182191
Weight
Parameter
Slope
Rating
Geometric
0.19
Geological
0.16
Drainage system
0.14
Visual inspections
0.12
History
0.08
Environmental/trafc
0.09
Protection
0.11
Surroundings
0.11
Height
Slope angles
Bench angle
Bench width
Type of formation
Formationweathering degree
Formationfaults
BlocksRHRSm2
Empirical systemQ, RMR or SMR
Surface drainagemaintenance state
Surface drainageconservation state
Surface drainagepresence
Deep drainagepresence
Bench drainage
Conservation state
Maintenance state
Accidents on sloperockfall
Accidents on slopeplane
Accidents on slopewedge
Accidents on slopecircular
Interventions
Seismic zonetype 1
Seismic zonetype 1
Annual rainfall (mm)
Trafcmaximum speed (km/h)
TrafcTMD
Surface protection
Vegetal cover
Overload
Surroundings vibrations
22 m
561
Correct
3m
Schist and greywacke
W3W4
Yes
432
2
1
Yes
No
None
4
2
Active
None
Active
None
Yes-Level 2
1.6
2.4
1700 mm
120 km/h
21,800 Vehicles
o 25%
None
None
None
3
4
1
2
4
4
5
4
?
2
1
1
5
5
4
2
4
1
4
1
3
1
2
4
5
4
5
5
1
1
4. Conclusion
In this paper a new system for rock slope stability analysis during
the exploitation stage called Slope Quality Index (SQI) system was
M. Pinheiro et al. / International Journal of Rock Mechanics & Mining Sciences 76 (2015) 182191
ve slope classes are represented in the results, the authors belief that
considering a great amount of information as input and the very good
behavior for this set of 17 slopes, the SQI should perform at least
acceptably in the remaining classes. Moreover, the SQI also allows the
identication of the most critical and important factors contributing
for the overall condition of the slope, which provides an important aid
in the decision making process and planning of interventions.
In conclusion, the SQI system has a signicant interest for
companies and institutions that have to manage a great number of
slopes in the scope of transportation infrastructures since it
provides a realistic evaluation of slopes not only to identify the
slopes in bad and very bad condition (extreme values) but also to
allow mapping the overall condition of the slopes network. This
mapping can result in a more rational management in the
planning of short and long-term interventions and analyze the
189
Acknowledgements
The authors would like to thank AdIInnovation Agency, for the
nancial support awarded through POFC program, for the R&D project
SustIMSSustainable Infrastructure Management Systems (FCOMP01-0202-FEDER-023113).
Appendix A
See Table A1.
Table A1
SQI table.
Factors
Parameters
Geometry 0.17
o 10
Very low
1
o 30
Very gradual
1
Correct2
1020
Low
2
3040
Gradual
2
Incorrecta
2030
Medium
3
4150
Medium
3
3040
High
4
5160
Inclined
4
440
Very high
5
460
Too inclined
5
127
01
457
12
23
34
44
5
I
4
II
3
III
2
IV
1
V
1
Unweatered
(W 1)
2
Slightly
(W 2)
3
Moderately
(W 3)
4
Highly
(W 4)
5
Decomposed
(W 5)
1
Exist
457
o 51
51153
153333
333459
4459
1
401000
2
1040
3
410
4
14
5
0.0011
1
10081
2
8061
3
6041
4
4021
5
200
1
10081
2
8061
3
6041
4
4021
5
200
1
Very good
2
Good
3
Medium
4
Bad
5
Very bad
1
Good
2
Medium
3
Bad
1
Yes
2
No
127
Yes
457
No
127
Yes
457
No
127
Very good
1
Good
1
457
Good
2
Medium
2
Medium
3
Bad
3
Bad
4
Very bad
5
Geological 0.14
0.50
Blocks
0.20
Empirical systems
0.30
Drainage system 0.11
Surface drainage
0.60
Deep drainage
0.20
Bench drainage
0.20
Rating
Visual inspections 0.13 Conservation state
0.60
Maintenance state
0.40
Typeb
0.40
Rating
Weathering degree
(W)c
0.30
Rating
Faultsd
0.30
Rating
RHRSm2
1.00
Rating
Q
0.33
Rating
RMR
0.34
Rating
SMR
0.33
Rating
Conservation state
0.35
Rating
Maintenance state
0.45
Rating
Presence
0.20
Rating
Presence
1.00
Rating
Classication
Rating
Classication
Rating
190
M. Pinheiro et al. / International Journal of Rock Mechanics & Mining Sciences 76 (2015) 182191
Table A1 (continued )
Factors
Parameters
Monitoringe 0.11
Load cells
0.25
Inclinometers
0.25
Rating
Intervals
Piezometers
0.25
Topographic marks
0.25
Historical 0.07
Rating
Intervals
Rating
Rockfall
0.25
Rating
Plane
0.25
Rating
Wedge
0.25
1
[020%]
1
1
[0%20%]
1
1
[020%]
1
1
[020%]
1
None
2
[2040%]
2
2
[20%40%]
2
2
[2040%]
2
2
[2040%]
2
Inactive
3
[4060%]
3
3
[40%60%]
3
3
[4060%]
3
3
[4060%]
3
Some
4
[6080%]
4
4
[60%80%]
4
4
[6080%]
4
4
[6080%]
4
Active
5
[80100%]
5
5
[80%100%]
5
5
[80100%]
5
5
[80100%]
5
Very activef
1
None
2
Inactive
3
Some
4
Active
5
Very active
1
None
2
Inactive
3
Some
4
Active
5
Very active
1
None
2
Inactive
3
Some
4
Active
5
Very active
1
Level 3
2
Level 2
3
Level 1
127
2.1
3
2.2
457
2.3
2.4
2.5
5
1.1
4
1.2
3
1.3
2
1.4
1
1.51.6
5
o100
4
100500
3
5001000
2
10002000
1
42000
1
5060
2
6070
3
7090
4
90100
5
100120
1
o18,000
2
18001900
3
19002000
4
20002200
5
422,000
1
o25%
2
[2550%]
3
50%
4
[5075%]
5
[75100%]
5
Non exist
4
Punctual
3
Uniform
5
Yes
43i
No
127
5
Yes
1
No
0.70
Rating
Circular
0.25
Rating
Environmental/trafc
0.08
Interventionsg
0.30
Rating
Seismic zoneh
0.30
Type 2
0.60
Rating
Type 1
0.40
Rating
0.20
Protection 0.10
Maximum speed
(km/h)
0.50
Rating
Average daily trafc
(TMD)
(Vehicles)
0.50
Rating
Surface protection
0.80
Rating
Vegetal cover
0.20
Rating
Overload
0.60
Rating
Surrounding vibrations
0.40
Rating
Surroundings 0.09
Type
II
III
IV
Formations
description
Metamorphic:
Gneiss, quartzite,
and Anbolite
Migmatite;
igneous:
Granite,
Granodiorite,
Diorite and
Gabbro
Metamorphic: Cornean;
Sedimentary: Conglomerate;
Igneous: Andesite, Norite, Obsidian
and Dolerite
M. Pinheiro et al. / International Journal of Rock Mechanics & Mining Sciences 76 (2015) 182191
191
Table A1 (continued )
Table A1 (continued)
Level
Group
Surface protection
Drainage system
Block stability
Support structures
Interventions
description
For a Correct rating the angle of the bench should be opposed to the slope angle.
The rock types were set based on the groups dened by Naghadehi et al. [17] and can be modied and adapted according to the typical types of formations existing
in situ where the SQI would be implemented.
c
The weathering degree was established in Bieniawski [20].
d
This parameter should only be scored if faults present an unfavorable orientation for slope stability. If faults do not exist, this parameter should not be considered and
the corresponding weight should be distributed for the remaining parameters.
e
The monitoring factor aims to evaluate, using percentage ranges, the ratio between the measured value in each instrument and the threshold dened in the
design phase.
f
None: No registered accident; Inactive: small/medium scale accident in a 10 years time space; Some: small/medium scale accident in a 5 years time space; Active: small/
medium scale accident in a 3 years time space and large accidents in a 1 year time space; Very Active: small, medium and large scale accidents in a 1 year time space.
g
The following actions and corresponding levels were dened according to the company responsible for the highway concession in study.
h
The ranges of values were dened for each seismic action and zones using the information existing in Eurocode 8NA-3.2.1 (2).
I
The ratings are presented by range of values with the purpose of better reect the subjectivity inherent of this evaluation. The user should be able to decide if to a
specic parameter should be attributed the maximum rating (5), or if the same parameter do not have a high inuence on the SQI that justies a so high rating.
b
References
[1] Liu YC, Chen CS. A new approach for application of rock mass classication on
rock slope stability assessment. Eng Geol 2007;89:12943.
[2] Budetta P. Assessment of rockfall risk along roads. Nat Hazards Earth Syst Sci
2004;4:7181.
[3] Pierson LA, Davis SA, Van Vickle R. Rockfall hazard rating system implementation manual. In: Report FHWA-OR-EG-90-01. Federal Highway Administration,
US Department of Transportation; 1990. p. 80.
[4] Franklin JA, Senior SA. The Ontario Rockfall Hazard Rating System. In:
Proceedings of the international conference on engineering, geology and the
environment, Balkema, Rotterdam; 1997. p. 64756.
[5] Youssef A, Maerz NH, Fritz MA. A risk-consequence Rockfall hazard rating
system for Missouri highways. In: Proceedings 54th highway geology symposium, Burlington, Vermont; 2426 September 2003. p. 17595.
[6] Alejano LR, Stockhausen HW, Alonso E, Bastante FG, Ramirz Ovanguren P.
ROFRAQ: a statistics-based empirical method for assessing accident risk from
rockfall in quarries. Int J Rock Mech Min Sci 2008;45:125272.
[7] Romana M. (1985). New adjustment ratings for application of Bieniawski
classication to slopes. In: Proceedings of the international symposium on
the role of rock mechanics. ISRM, Zacatecas, Mexico; 1985. p. 4953.
[8] Nunes A, Guedes P, Cardoso A. Instability analysis in excavation rock slopes in
road environmental. Case study on EN22 road between Regua and Ponte de
Batedeiras. III Portuguese highway congress, Portugal; 2004. p.10. (in
Portuguese).
[9] Budetta P, Nappi M. Comparison between qualitative rockfall risk rating
systems for a road affected by high trafc intensity. Nat Hazards Earth Syst
Sci 2013;13:164353.
[10] Pina L. Quantitative risk assessment of rockfall hazard in the amal coastal
road. Barcelona, Spain: Politechnique University of Catalua; 2008. p. 90.
[11] Terzaghi K. Mechanism of landslides. Harvard University, Department of
Engineering; 1950. p. 41.
[12] Estradas de Portugal S.A. Contract document for work type, Volume VIII:
Chapter 15.06/07 Bridges construction Overpasses and intersections type
of works; 2009. (in Portuguese).
[13] Carvalho CS, Macedo ES, Ogura AT. Mapping hazards in slopes and riverbanks.
Brasilia, Brazil: Institute for Technological Research- IPT; 2007. p. 176 in
Portuguese.
[14] Gao Y, Zhang Y, Jiang L, Huang Z. Researches on index system of rock slope
safety evaluation for open pit mine. Procedia Eng 2011;26:16927.
[15] Lindsay P, Campbell RN, Fergusson DA, Gillard GR, Moore TA. Slope stability
probability classication, Waikato Coal Measures, New Zealand. Int J Coal Geol
2001;45:12745.
[16] Pantelidis L. Rock slope stability assessment through rock mass classication
systems. Int J Rock Mech Min Sci 2009;46:31525.
[17] Naghadehi MZ, Jimenez R, Khalokakaie R, Mohammad S, Jalali E. A new openpit mine slope instability index dened using the improved rock engineering
systems approach. Int J Rock Mech Min Sci 2013;61:114.
[18] McMillan P, Matheson GD. A two-stage system for highway rock slope risk
assessment. Int J Rock Mech Min Sci 1997;34(3-4):196.
[19] Bieniawski ZT. Engineering rock mass classications. New York, NY: Wiley;
1989. p. 1989.
[20] Barton N, Lien R, Lunde J. Engineering classication of rock masses for the
design of tunnel support. Rock Mech 1974;6:189236.
[21] Saaty TL. The analytic hierarchy process. New York, NY: McGraw-Hill; 1980.