Professional Documents
Culture Documents
Int. J. Rock Mech. Min. Sci. Vol. 35, No. 2, pp. 219233, 1998
# 1998 Elsevier Science Ltd. All rights reserved
Printed in Great Britain
0148-9062/98 $19.00 + 0.00
INTRODUCTION
220
Fig. 1. Eect of scale on rock strength and possible mechanisms of failure in rock slopes.
221
sent paper think that the above mentioned rating system is still questionable. First of all, Singh and
Gahrooee [16] did not change the values of ratings
which can reach up to 60 points out of 100. As discussed before, such an adjustment is not applicable in
practice. Secondly, in a closely jointed rock mass, the
most probable mode of failure occurs in the form of a
circular shape regardless of discontinuity orientation.
Consequently, only one denition namely ``one possible mode of failure'' is considered to be more logical,
and a single adjustment of 5 for discontinuity orientation is more realistic for slope failures in closely
jointed rock masses.
Some factors such as method of excavation, major
planes of weakness or change in stress are treated as
local features which have inuenced the rock mass at a
particular location and are not rock mass constants.
These have been discussed by Laubscher [9],
Romana [10] and Kendorski et al. [17]. The greatest
inuence of the method of excavation will be on the
spacing of discontinuities. Depending of the blasting
damage, blasted slopes may have closer discontinuity
spacing than natural slopes. Therefore, in order to
compensate for the inuence of such local factors,
necessary adjustments [1, 9, 17] are taken into consideration in rock mass classication for the slope failures
in closely jointed rock masses investigated in this
study.
On the other hand, during a classication process,
serious diculties are encountered in determining or
describing some of the rock mass parameters, particularly in poor quality rock masses [1820]. Due to such
uncertainties, the calculated rock mass rating may
erroneously aect the constants and shear strength
parameters derived from the non-linear rock mass failure criterion. The most reliable way to obtain a mean
value of the constants m and s employed by the
HoekBrown failure criterion in an extended slope is
by back-calculation and by comparison of the results
of back-calculation with the available data derived
from the HoekBrown criterion [21]. However, in
some cases it is unlikely that an accurate assessment of
the true strength parameters for a given rock mass will
ever be available due to limitations, so RMR values
cannot be precisely determined. Because the results of
back-analysis provide a range of combinations of
apparent friction angle and cohesion, the problem of
parameter selection becomes dicult in such cases.
The procedure presented herein is to perform a
back-analysis of failed slopes cut in jointed rock
masses to estimate the rock mass rating and shear
strength parameters mobilized at the time of failure.
The main philosophy of the method recognizes that it
is unlikely that an accurate assessment of the value of
RMR and shear strength parameters for a given rock
mass will ever be available. A detailed description of
the procedure which can be readily incorporated into
the conventional back analysis of a slope failure in a
jointed rock mass, where only a single cross-section is
222
available, is presented with a computer solution developed for the purpose. The proposed method is also
applied to failure case histories in jointed rock masses
at three open pit mines located in Turkey to check its
performance.
METHOD OF ANALYSIS
work for the redesign of failed slopes and for new projects in similar types of material. Therefore, it is considered that back analyses are an integral part of the
slope design.
The shear strength parameters of a failed slope have
been back calculated by geotechnical engineers and engineering geologists in the following procedures:
(a) Assuming the value of the angle of internal friction f or of the cohesion c to calculate another [22]
(Fig. 2(a)).
(b) Utilizing a main cross-section of a failed slope
and another cross-section near the main one in the
same failed slope or utilizing two cross-sections in two
failed slopes which have similar geological and hydrogeological conditions to establish two equations and
then evaluate the values of c and f (single solution;
Fig. 2(b)).
(c) Because of the variations in the mechanical properties of the same material in dierent places, utilizing
Fig. 2. Basic back analysis approaches applied for the slope forming materials obeying linear failure envelopes: (a) derived
range of c and f and determination of c from an assumed f; (b) single solution for two slides with dierent geometry; (c)
multiple solutions for four slides with dierent geometry; and (d) multiple solutions with a comparison with laboratory derived strength test results.
RMR 100
s exp
6
1b
RMR 100
9
223
where RMR: rock mass rating (m and s are the material constants), GW: groundwater conditions prevailing in the slope, G: geometry of the slope and the
failure surface.
2a
2b
224
225
allel to the normal faults crossing the Tertiary deposits. Excepting local deviations, three dominant joint
sets dipping 758858 NE and SW were identied. Their
persistence is high and reaches up to 8 m in some
places. The presence of cross joints, faults and at
lying bedding planes result in a closely jointed rock
mass. The groundwater level rises above the coal seam
into the compact marls and where seepage occurs it
tends to decline toward the compact marlcoal seam
boundary. Thus, the failed part of the investigated
slope was dry.
In the strip coal mine, the overburden rocks composed of the compact marls were evaluated based on
Bieniawski's 1989 classication [1]. The data required
for rock mass rating determinations were obtained
from the geotechnical logs recorded and the scanline
surveys carried out in accordance with the procedure
suggested by ISRM [26]. Values of RMR for the rock
mass were determined for a number of individual sections from seven fully cored geotechnical boreholes
considering drill-run lengths ranging between 1 to 3 m.
In addition, a total of seven scanline sections were also
evaluated. Joint systems show negative exponential distribution. Mean joint spacing (x) and the average number of joints per meter (l) of the rock mass were
calculated as 0.386 m and 2.59 m1, respectively. In the
compact marls overlying the coal, excepting occasional
laminated levels, spacing between bedding planes ranged 0.3 to 1 m. Discontinuity surfaces observed on the
faces of the benches were normally dry. However,
moisture appeared in some places when the surfaces
were scraped by a geologist hammer. The ranges of
the ve main parameters employed in the determination of RMR values are tabulated in Table 1. As
explained in the rst section, the adjustment rating for
discontinuity orientation was quantied on the basis of
rating with regard to the number of possible modes of
failure [16]. In this study, only one mode of failure, circular failure through the rock mass, was considered
for discontinuity orientation adjustment. Mining applications include dynamic processes. In the studied pit a
controlled blasting with a slight damage to loosen the
overburden, compact marls, is made. For this condition, a blasting damage adjustment of 0.94 [17] to
the RMR values of the compact marls was assigned.
Using the statistical methods, individual RMR values
were assessed and then RMR values ranging between
50 and 62 with a mean value of 53 were obtained. Due
to light blasting carried out in the compact marls to
loosen the overburden, disturbed rock mass condition
is considered and the value of mi (9.87) for intact rock
was calculated by linear regression analysis on the
measured triaxial data pairs from the intact rock, and
the constants m and s were found to be 0.344 and
0.0004, respectively [14]. To assess the various controls
on slope movements, the development of mobilized
shear strength and the failure mechanism under the inuence of the loads exerted by the spoil pile were
investigated by Ulusay and Aksoy [21] using determi-
226
Fig. 5. The ow chart for the proposed method of analysis code HOBRSLP.
nistic and numerical (FEM) methods. For this purpose, available monitoring record, structural data and
groundwater information were examined, and a rock
mass shear strength envelope was derived from the
HoekBrown criterion in conjunction with rock mass
classication for the highwall material. Ulusay and
Aksoy [21] back analyzed the failure utilizing four
cross-sections and indicated that the updated Hoek
Brown failure criterion used with rock mass classication gives strength values equal to those obtained by
the mobilized strength curve, and results of the back
analyses conrm the applicability of the loaded slope
model proposed for the case.
The procedure presented herein was applied to the
case summarized above. Taking into consideration the
loaded slope model (symmetrical vertical triangular
external
loading
condition),
the
program
HOBRSLP [14] was modied by the authors to incorporate external loading conditions (Fig. 8).
Considering that the predicted (based on the site observations and monitoring data) surfaces were conrmed by the calculated failure surfaces [21], four
failure surfaces given in Fig. 9 were employed in the
227
Fig. 7. Initiation of the slide in the highwall externally loaded by a spoil pile (Case 1).
228
Parameter
Groundwater
Adjustment for discontinuity
orientation
Blasting damage adjustment
Adjustment for major plane of
weakness
Adjusted RMR'76
Adjusted RMR'89
Range (mean)/description
case 1
case 2
case 3
1.146.41 (4.15)
4.206.15 (5.2)
35.444.3 (40.2)
3798
0
joints: 250410 (386) bedding: 300
3040
1000
aperture 01 mm; very thin soft
aperture 13 mm; soft inlling;
coating; planar-smooth surfaces;
slickensided surfaces; highly
fresh/slightly weathered; high
weatered; high persistence
persistence
dry-damp
one mode of failure 5
dry
one mode of failure 5
not determined
5062 (53)
9095
310390 (370)
apertures <1 mm and 15 mm
between bedding and joint planes,
respectively; soft coating <1 mm;
smooth-slightly rough surfaces;
fresh to slightly weathered; high
persistence
dry
one mode of failure 5
fair blasting 0.90
not determined
4047 (43)
Fig. 8. The model with the parameters for the slope under the inuence of a symmetrical vertical triangular spoil loading used in the
back analysis (Case 1).
229
Fig. 9. Slope proles, and the predicted and calculated failure surfaces employed in the back analyses for the loaded highwall case (Case 1).
rock mass shear strength values obtained from the failure surface yielding F = 1 are plotted on the original
st curve derived from the updated HoekBrown criterion utilizing an RMR value of 21 (Fig. 14(b)).
These results indicate that the back calculated RMR
value and the mobilized shear strength plots match the
RMR derived from site investigations, and the original
Fig. 10. Back analysis plots illustrating the derivation of RMRsRMRm pairs satisfying the limit equilibrium condition for
the slope proles examined (Case 1).
230
Fig. 11. (a) Comparison between the rock mass shear strength
obtained from the back analysis and the failure envelope derived
with the HoekBrown criterion considering the average RMR value
(53) for the rock mass; (b) failure envelopes based on empirical failure criterion for mean and lower bound RMR values derived from
the proposed method (Case 1).
Fig. 13. Slope geometry before and after failure and circular slip surface in closely jointed schist rock mass (Case 2).
Fig. 12. A view from the schist rock mass heavily broken by closely spaced joints and schistosity planes at a barite open pit
mine (Case 2).
231
Fig. 14. (a) Back analysis plots illustrating the derivation of RMRs
RMRm pairs satisfying the limit equilibrium condition for the failure
in the schist; (b) comparison between the rock mass shear strength
obtained from the back analysis and the failure envelope derived
with HoekBrown criterion utilizing the RMR value (21) determined
from the site investigation (Case 2).
Fig. 15. (a) Cross-section illustrating the geometry of the failed slope
and the position of the strata; (b) RMR histogram for the marly
rock mass (Case 3).
232
Material
Marl rock mass
Soft clay
40.2
mi
cp (kPa)
cr (kPa)
fp (8)
fr (8)
9.04
17.7
14.9
21
18
CONCLUSIONS
Fig. 16. (a) Back analysis plots; (b) comparison between the back
analyzed shear strength and the failure envelope derived with the
HoekBrown criterion for an RMR value of 43 (Case 3).
REFERENCES
1. Bieniawski, Z. T., Engineering Rock Mass Classication. John
Wiley, 1989, 237 pp.
2. Barton, N. R., Lien, R. and Lunde, J., Engineering classication
of rock masses for the design of tunnel support. Rock Mech.,
1974, 6, 189239.
3. Grimstad, E. and Barton, N. R., Updating the Q-System for
NMT. Proc. Int. Symp. on Sprayed Concrete Modern use of
wet mix sprayed concrete for underground support, Fagernes, ed.
Kompen, Opsahl and Berg. Oslo, Norwegian Concrete Assoc.,
1993.
4. Hoek, E. and Brown, T., Underground Excavations in Rock. Inst.
Min. Metall. Stephen Austin and Sons, London, 1980.
5. Hoek, E. and Brown, E. T., Empirical strength criterion of rock
masses. J. Geotech. Eng. Div. Am. Soc. Civil Eng. , 1980, 106,
10131035.
6. Hoek, E. and Brown, T., The HoekBrown failure criterion a
1988 update. Proc. 15th Canadian Rock Mech. Symp. Univ. of
Toronto, 1988, pp. 3138.
7. Hoek, E., Wood, D. and Shah, S., A modied HoekBrown criterion for jointed rock masses. Proc. Eurock'92, ed. J. A.
Hudson. Thomas Telford, 1992, pp. 209213.
8. Hoek, E., Kaiser, P. K. and Bawden, W. F., Support of
Underground Excavations in Hard Rock. A. A. Balkema,
Rotterdam, 1995.
9. Laubscher, D. H., A geomechanics classication system for the
rating of rock mass in mine design. J. South Afr. Inst. Miner.
Metall., 1990, 90(10), 257273.
10. Romana, M., A geomechanical classication for slopes: Slope
Mass Rating. in Comprehensive Rock Engineering, Vol. 3, Ch.
22, ed. J. A. Hudson. Pergamon Press, London, 1993, pp. 575
599.
233