Rock Mechanics, Fuenkajorn & Phien-wej (eds) 2007.

ISBN 978 974 533 613 1

Verifications of rock slope rating (RSR) and slope mass rating

(SMR) systems
S. Kamutchat
International Engineering Consultants Co., Ltd., Bangkok, Thailand
T. Sri-in & K. Fuenkajorn
Geomechanics Research Unit, Suranaree University of Technology, Thailand

Keywords: Rock slope, plane sliding, toppling, wedge failure, joint

ABSTRACT: A rock slope rating (RSR) system has been developed for use in the evaluation
of rock slope stability under a variety of geological conditions and engineering requirements.
The input parameters include site characteristics, groundwater, intact rock mechanical
properties, slope geometry, past failure, vegetation, ground vibration, excavation methods,
engineering requirements, design constraints, and project goals. The predictive capability in
term of probability of failure of the proposed system has been verified by comparing with the
actual slopes under stable and unstable conditions, and with the predicted results from the
slope mass rating (SMR) system. The predictions by both RSR and SMR systems agree
reasonably well with the actual observations.
1

INTRODUCTION

The slope mass rating (SMR) system has long been used as a tool to obtain a quick evaluation
of the stability conditions of rock slopes. It is an extension of the rock mass rating (RMR)
classification system (Bieniawski, 1989) to which appropriate sets of multiplying factors are
applied to classify the quality of slope mass, identify the modes of failure (if there is any) and
evaluate the probability of failure (Singh & Goel, 1999). Though the system is easy to use
with a certain degree of accuracy, it can not incorporate the safety requirements and some
factors that may have impact on the stability conditions.
The objective of this study is to develop a rating system for the evaluation of rock slope
stability. The proposed system, hereafter called rock slope rating (RSR) system, is intended
to be more comprehensive than the slope mass rating system proposed by Singh & Goel
(1999). The system development is based on the heuristic knowledge and numerous case
studies, and organized by inference procedure, rationale and logic. Several relevant factors
beyond those considered in the classical methods and SMR system have been explicitly
incorporated, e.g., slope history, slope shape, joint spacing and apertures, and existing
vegetation. Presented herein are the results of the system development. Verification of the
system performance is made by comparing the RSR prediction with those of the SMR system
and the actual slope conditions.

285

Verifications of rock slope rating (RSR) and slope mass rating (SMR) systems

SYSTEM DEVELOPMENT

RSR system evaluates the probability of failures for plane and wedge sliding and toppling
and circular failures. Probability of each mode of failure is determined individually. The
main categories for input parameters are summarized as follows.
Geologic features. There are six types of slope mass to which the RSR can be applied: 1)
massive rock, 2) blocky rock, 3) bedded rock, 4) heavily-jointed rock, 5) soft rock, and 6)
hard-soft inter-bedded rock, as shown in Figure 1.
Safety requirements. The system classifies the engineering applications of rock slope into
four levels of safety, based on the types of engineering structures (e.g., railroad, housing,
major highway, spillway, dam abutment, mined road, etc.). These safety requirements will be
discussed in the next section.
Groundwater conditions. The groundwater is classified in terms of its level as compared to
the slope height. The options are from completely dry to water level up to 25%, 50%, 75%,
or 100% of the slope height. If the condition is unknown, the system will further inquire the
climate where the slope is situated. Two options are available here: tropical and arid.
Slope geometry. The slope geometry includes the orientation, height, angle, and curvature.
Three slope shapes can be selected: convex, concave and straight faces.

Massive

Blocky Rock

Bedded Rock

Heavily Jointed

Soft Rock

Soft Rock
Soft
Rock

Hard Rock

Figure 1. Types of slope mass applicable for RSR system.

286

Rock Mechanics, Fuenkajorn & Phien-wej (eds) 2007. ISBN 978 974 533 613 1

Joint characteristics. The system requires detailed joint characteristics, including orientation,
average spacing, continuity, aperture, filling, and roughness of all joint sets.
Geomechanics parameters. Rock density, uniaxial compressive strength, and shear strength
of all joint sets are considered in the stability evaluation.
The system classifies each factors considered in the stability evaluation into small ranges or
sub-divisions, mainly to convert the input slope characteristics into quantitative form. The
classification scheme follows as much as practical the suggested methods by the International
Society of Rock Mechanics (ISRM - Brown, 1981). A set of rating is then assigned to these
parameters for each failure mode considered. Recognizing that these parameters can have
different impacts under different conditions of the rock mass, a set of influencing factors is
also defined as multiplying factors for the corresponding parameter. The probability of
failure P{f} in percent for each mode can then be calculated by
P{f} = {Rn In},

(1)

where Rn is the rating for each parameter, In is the influencing factor for the corresponding
parameter, and n represents type or number of the parameters considered for each slope
(varying from 1, 2, 3, 4..n). Tables 1 and 2 list the rates and influencing factors to
calculate the probability of the circular failure. The calculations of the probability of failure
for plane and wedge sliding use 12 parameters, and hence n is from 1 to 12. Detailed
classifications, rating, and influencing factors for the plane and wedge sliding and toppling
failure evaluation are given in Tables 3 through 8.
To correlate the probability of failure to the factor of safety, the system defines that the factor
of safety equals to 1.0 when P{f} is 50%. The system compares the calculated P{f} against
the degrees of safety required for four types of engineering application. For Type A where
the slope toe is nearby the residential structures or power plant facilities, P{f} should be less
than 10%. Type B is for the slopes along the main highways, railroads, and large bridges,
which requires the P{f} less than 30%. Type C is for the slopes along the small roads and
reservoirs, which requires the P{f} less than 50%. Type D requires P{f} less than 70% which
is defined for the temporary access or small roads in open pit mines.
SRS system also uses the probability of failure to classify the quality of slope mass as
follows:
P{f}
<20%
20%-40%
40%-60%
60%-80%
>80%

Slope Mass Quality

Highly Stable
Stable
Fair
Unstable
Highly Unstable

The RSR classification on the slope mass quality is similar to that of the SMR system. The
RSR explicitly calculates P{f} for each mode of failure based on the rating parameters and
influencing factors. The SMR system however uses inference technique to obtain a rough
estimation of the P{f} values.

287

Verifications of rock slope rating (RSR) and slope mass rating (SMR) systems

Table 1. Rating factors for evaluation of circular failure.

Slope height
(m)
5-7
7-10
10-15
15-20
>20

Slope face
Groundwater
angle
Degrees Rate
(%)
Rate
20-25
0
0
0
25-30
1
25
5
30-35
2
50
10
35-40
3
75
10
40-45
5
100
10
45-50
6
Unknown *5 or 10
50-55
8
55-60
9
60-65
9
65-70
10
>70
10
Number of
Vibration
discontinuity

Rate
1
5
8
10
10

Vegetation
Conditions
No
vegetation
Grass

Rate
10

(Sets)
2

Rate
1

Conditions
Near Blasting
sites, earthquake
Near main
highway
No vibration

Degree of weathering
Conditions
Fresh
Slightly
Moderately
Highly
Completely
Unknown

Rate
10

Grass with
5
10
4
small trees
Full grown
0
Unknown
5
Unknown
trees
Unknown
5
*5 for arid climate, 10 for tropical climate

Rate
2
4
6
8
10
5

Average
discontinuity
spacing
(mm)
Rate
< 20
10

20-60

60-200

>200

Unknown

Table 2. Influencing factors for evaluation of circular failure.

Rock grade

Slope height

Slope face angle

Groundwater

Degree of weathering

R0
R1
R2
Rock grade

2.0
1.7
0.1
Vegetation

3.1
2.2
1.2
Vibration

R0
R1
R2

0.5
1.1
2.0

2.0
1.8
0.1
Number of
discontinuity
0
0.4
1.2

0
0.2
0.4
Average discontinuity
spacing
0
2.1
4.9

288

2.4
0.5
0.1

Rock Mechanics, Fuenkajorn & Phien-wej (eds) 2007. ISBN 978 974 533 613 1

Table 3. Rating factors for evaluation of plane and wedge sliding.

Number of other
discontinuity
Sets
Rate
1
2
2
6
3
10
4
10
Unknown
8

Persistence
%
0-50
50-80
80-100
Unknown

Slope height
(m)
5-7
7-10
10-30
30-50
>50

Rate
1
2
4
8
10

JRC first set

Groundwater

Rate
0-2
10
2-4
10
4-6
9
6-8
7
8-10
6
10-12
4
12-14
2
14-16
0
16-18
0
18-20
0
Unknown
5
Slope shape

(%)
0

Rate
1

Shape
Concave

Rate
5

25

Straight

50

10

Convex

10

75

10

100
Unknown

Rate
0
2
10
5

Apertures of
the analyzed set
(mm)
Rate
<0.1
1
0.1-0.25
2
0.25-0.5
3
0.5-2.5
5
2.5-10
8
>10
10
Unknown
5
**
( p - )
Degrees
70-80
60-70
50-60
40-50
30-40
20-30
10-20
0-10
-10-0
<-10

Infilling of
the analyzed set
Type
Rate
Calcite
0
None
5
Sand, Silt
10
Clay
10
Unknown
5

Degree of
weathering
Rate
Conditions
Rate
10 Fresh
2
10 Slightly
5
8
Moderately
8
5
Highly
10
3
Completely
10
2
Unknown
8
1
1
0.5
0

Vegetation

Excavation

Conditions
No
vegetation
Grass

Rate
10

Grass &
small trees
Full grown
trees
Unknown

Methods
Blasting with
pre-splitting
Blasting
without presplitting
Backhoe

Unknown

10
* 5 or
10
**
p = sliding plane angle; = friction angle of joint

Rate
5
10
0
5

289

Verifications of rock slope rating (RSR) and slope mass rating (SMR) systems

Table 4. Influencing factors for evaluation of plane and wedge sliding.

Rock
grade
R2
R3
R4
R5
Rock
grade
R2
R3
R4
R5

Other
Slope
discontinuity height
0
2.1
0.4
1.8
1.3
0.8
1.3
0
Degree of
p -
weathering
3.0
1.0
2.5
0.6
1.8
0.3
1.5
0

Aperture
0
0.3
0.5
1.0
Groundwater
2.1
1.2
0.5
0

Infilling Persistence
0
0.9
1.3
1.8
Slope
shape
0.5
0.3
0.2
0

JRC first set

0
0.5
1.8
2.4
Vegetation

0
0.5
1.0
2.0
Excavation

0.7
0.5
0.3
0

0.6
0.5
0.2
0

Table 5. Rating factors for evaluation of toppling failure.

Number of other
discontinuity
Sets
Rate
1
0
2
5
3
10
4
10
Unknown
5

Persistence of
1st set
%
Rate
0-20
2
20-40
2
40-60
6
60-80
8
80-100
10
Unknown
6

290

Persistence
2nd & 3 rd sets
(%)
Rate
0-20
2
20-40
2
40-60
6
60-80
8
80-100
10
Unknown
6

Average
apertures
(mm)
Rate
<0.1
1
0.1-0.25
5
0.25-0.5
10
0.5-2.5
10
2.5-10
10
>10
10
Unknown
10
JRC of
Dip of
3 rd set
1st set
Rate Degrees Rate
0-2
10
80-90
3
2-4
10
30-80
10
4-6
9
0-30
10
6-8
5
8-10
5
10-12
5
12-20
2
Unknown
5

Infilling
3 rd set
Type
Calcite
None
Sand, Silt
Clay
Unknown

Rate
0
10
10
10
10

Degree
of weathering
Conditions
Rate
Fresh
2
Slightly
5
Moderately
8
Highly
10
Completely
10
Unknown
8

Rock Mechanics, Fuenkajorn & Phien-wej (eds) 2007. ISBN 978 974 533 613 1

Table 5. Rating factors for evaluation of toppling failure. (continue)

Groundwater
(%)
Rate
0
1

Vegetation
Conditions Rate
No
10
vegetation

Excavation
Methods
Rate
Blasting with
5
pre-splitting
10

25

Grass

50

75

Grass &
small trees
Full grown
trees
Unknown

Blasting
without presplitting
Backhoe

Unknown

100
Unknown

Vibration
Conditions
Rate
Near Blasting
10
sites,
earthquake
Near main
5
highway
No vibration

10
5
*5 or
10
* 5 for arid climate, 10 for tropical climate
Table 6. Influencing factors for evaluation of toppling failure.
Rock
grade
R2
R3
R4
R5
R6
Rock
grade
R2
R3
R4
R5
R6

Other
Persistence Average of Infilling Persistence of JRC of
3 rd set
1st set
3 rd set
discontinuity 2nd & 3 rd sets apertures
0.8
0.5
0.9
0.1
0.5
0.2
1.0
0.6
0.8
0.2
0.6
0.3
1.2
0.7
0.7
0.2
0.7
0.4
1.3
0.8
0.6
0.3
0.9
0.5
1.4
1.0
0.5
0.4
1.0
0.7
Dip of
Degree of Groundwater Vegetation Excavation Vibration
1st set
weathering
3
1.1
0.6
1.0
0.6
0.7
3
0.9
0.4
1.0
0.4
0.8
3
0.7
0.3
0.9
0.3
0.9
3
0.4
0.2
0.8
0.2
1.0
3
0
0.2
0.5
0.1
1.2

291

Verifications of rock slope rating (RSR) and slope mass rating (SMR) systems

Table 7. Rating factors for evaluation of hard / soft interbedded rock.

Slope height
(m)
5-7
7-10
10-15
15-20
>20

Slope face angle

Rate
2
5
8
8
10

Degrees
20-25
25-30
30-35
35-40
40-45
45-50
50-55
55-60
>60
Average discontinuity
spacing of hard rock
(mm)
Rate
<20
10
20-60
8
60-200
6
200-600
5
600-2000
4
2000-6000
3
>6000
2
Unknown
5

Groundwater
(%)

Rate

Completely dry

Rate
2
3
4
6
7
8
8
9
10

Number of discontinuities
Set
1
2
3
4
Unknown

Conditions
No vegetation

(m)
0.3-0.6
0.6-0.9
0.9-1.2
1.2-1.5
1.5-1.7
1.7-2.0
> 2.0

Rate
3
3
4
5
6
7
10

ap

q
Degrees
0-10
10-20
20-30
30-40
40-50
50-60
60-70
70-110
110-120
120-130
130-140
140-150
150-160
160-170
170-180
Vegetation

Rate
2
5
7
10
5

Soft rock thickness

Rate
10
9
8
7
6
5
4
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10

Degrees
0-10
10-30
30-50
>50

Rate
0
2
5
10

Vibration
Rate
10

Conditions
Near blasting sites /
Earthquake
Near main highway
No vibration
Unknown

Rate
10

25
5
Grass
7
5
50
7
Grass & small trees
6
0
75
8
Full grown trees
5
5
100
10 Unknown
*5 or 10
Unknown
10
* 5 for arid climate, 10 for tropical climate
q = Oblique angle between dip direction of slope face and dip direction of hard formations
ap = Apparent dip angle of hard formations along dip direction of slope face

292

Rock Mechanics, Fuenkajorn & Phien-wej (eds) 2007. ISBN 978 974 533 613 1

Table 8. Influencing factors for evaluation of hard / soft interbedded rock.

Soft rock &
Hard rock
R1 & R4
R1 & R3
R2 & R5
R2 & R4
R3 & R5
Soft rock &
Hard rock
R1 & R4
R1 & R3
R2 & R5
R2 & R4
R3 & R5
3

Slope
height
1.8
1.8
1.2
1.0
0.9
q
1.0
0.8
0.7
0.7
0.6

Slope face
Number of
Average discontinuity
angle
discontinuity
spacing of hard rock
2.1
0
0.2
2.0
0.7
0.5
2.0
1.3
1.3
1.5
2.0
1.9
1.3
2.5
2.5
Groundwater Vegetation
Vibration
ap
1.2
1.2
1.0
0.9
0.8

1.3
1.2
1.0
0.8
0.7

0.4
0.4
0.3
0.2
0.2

1.0
0.6
0.5
0.4
0

SYSTEM VERIFICATIONS

The predictive capability of the RSR system has been assessed by comparing the calculated
probability of failure with 15 actual slope conditions (Table 9). Kamutchat (2003) provides
detailed description of the field measurements and failure observations of these actual slopes.
Figure 2 compares the actual observations with the predicted results from the RSR and SMR
systems. The comparison suggests that for the observed stable slopes (left side of Figure 2)
most of the predicted P{f} values from both systems indicate that the probabilities of failure
are less than 50%, except for Case no. 7 where both systems give P{f} higher than 50%. This
is probably because both systems are intended to be relatively conservative in terms of the
predicted P{f} values. For the observed unstable slopes (right side of Figure 2) RSR system
predicts the failure conditions fairly well (see also Table 9) all predicted P{f} values are
over 50%. RSR classifies this set of slopes as fair to highly unstable. For most failing slope
cases the SMR predictions agree well with the actual conditions, except for Case nos. 7, 13
and 14 where the estimated probabilities of failure are only 40%. At P{f} = 40% SMR
classifies the slope mass as partially stable. In general the RSR system seems to be more
sensitive to the slope characteristics and yields finer values of probability of failure than does
the SMR system. For these 15 slopes RSR performs slightly better than does SMR system.
4

DISCUSSIONS AND CONCLUSIONS

Both RSR and SMR systems predict the failure conditions of the 15 actual slopes reasonably
well. Probabilities of failure predicted by the RSR system are finer than those from the SMR
system because RSR actually calculate the P{f} values while SMR uses inference method to
estimate the P{f}. The main advantages of the SRS system over the SMR system are as follows.
(1) RSR can incorporate the upper slope face angle.
(2) RSR takes into consideration the slope shape, i.e., convex, concave or straight.
(3) RSR explicitly considers the strength of intact rock which has different degrees of
impact on the stability under different modes of failure and joint characteristics.
(4) RSR can explicitly evaluate the probability of circular failure.
(5) RSR can handle the slope mass containing soft rock-hard rock inter-bedding.
293

Verifications of rock slope rating (RSR) and slope mass rating (SMR) systems

Table 9. Comparisons between actual slope observations and RSR and SMR predictions.
Case No.
(Locations)
Case 1
(Km 70-71 on
Chum Phae-Lom
Sak highway)

Case 2
(Km 70-71 on
Chum Phae-Lom
Sak highway)

Case 3
(Km 20-21 on
Chum Phae-Lom
Sak highway)

Case 4
(Km 22-23 on
Chum Phae-Lom
Sak highway)

Case 5
(Km 36+300 on
Chum Phae-Lom
Sak highway)

Case 6
(Km 37 on Chum
Phae-Lom Sak
highway)

294

Slope
Characteristics
H = 18 m
f = 205
f = 76
J1 = 168/32
J2 = 345/63
J3 = 233/67
Saturated
H = 19 m,
f = 20
f = 76,
J1 = 168/32
J2 = 345/63;
J3 = 233/67,
Saturated
H = 30 m
f = 314
f = 62
J1 = 80/40
J2 = 291/50
J3 = 164/62
Saturated
H = 16 m
f = 30
f = 48
J1 = 309/42
J2 = 182/72
J3 = 47/78
Saturated
H = 20 m
f = 51
f = 52
J1 = 21/55
J2 = 114/70
J3 = 294/89
Saturated
H = 15 m
f = 30
f = 55
J1 = 21/55
J2 = 114/70
J3 = 294/89
Saturated

Actual
Observations
1) plane failure
along J1 & J3

1) plane failure along

J1 & J3 : Pf = 34%

planar along some

joint failure :
SMR = 52.7 :
Pf = 40%

1) plane failure
along J2

1) plane failure along

J2 : Pf = 34%

planar along some

joint failure :
SMR = 50 :
Pf = 40%

1) circular failure
plane failure
along : J2
2) wedge failure
between J1 &
J2, J2 & J3

1) circular failure :
Pf = 65%
2) plane failure along
: J2 : Pf = 68%
2) wedge failure
between J1 & J2,
J2 & J3 : Pf = 71%

planar or big
wedges failure :
SMR = 30 :
Pf = 60%

RSR System

SMR System

1) circular failure 1) circular failure :

2) wedge failure
Pf = 70%
between J1 & J3 2) wedge failure
between J1 & J3 :
Pf = 60%

big wedges failure :

SMR = 26.7 :
Pf = 60%

1) wedge failure
between J1 &
J2, J2 & J3

1) wedge failure
between J1 & J2,
J2 & J3 : Pf = 75%

big planar or soil

like or circular
failure : SMR = 10 :
Pf = 90%

1) wedge failure
between J1 &
J2, J2 & J3

1) wedge failure
between J1 & J2,
J2 & J3 : Pf = 75%

big planar or soil

like or circular
failure : SMR = 10 :
Pf = 90%

Rock Mechanics, Fuenkajorn & Phien-wej (eds) 2007. ISBN 978 974 533 613 1

Table 9. Comparisons between actual slope observations and RSR and SMR predictions.
(continue)
Case No.
(Locations)
Case 7
(Khao Somphoad
Temple,
Chibadan district,
Lopburi province)

Case 8
(Khao Somphoad
Temple,
Chibadan district,
Lopburi province)

Case 9
(Khao Somphoad
Temple,
Chibadan district,
Lopburi province)

Case 10
(Km 17+200 on
Tak-Maesod
highway)

Case 11
(Km 68+200 on
Tak-Maesod
highway)

Case 12
(Km 31-32 on
Tak-Maesod
highway)

Slope
Characteristics
H = 50 m
f = 161
f = 71
J1 = 27/24
J2 = 138/77
J3 = 78/84
J4 = 211/78
Saturated
H = 30 m
f = 240
f = 70
J1 = 27/24
J2 = 138/77
J3 = 78/84
J4 = 211/78
Saturated
H = 30 m
f = 84
f = 80
J1 = 27/24
J2 = 138/77
J3 = 78/84
J4 = 211/78
Saturated
H = 16 m
f = 215
f = 79
J1 = 54/33
J2 = 154/80
J3 = 241/75
Saturated
H = 12 m
f = 280
f = 45
J1 = 47/34
J2 = 240/60
J3 = 177/51
Saturated
H = 40 m
f = 220
f = 60
J1 = 344/03
J2 = 224/81
J3 = 190/70
Saturated

Actual
RSR System
Observations
1) wedge failure
1) wedge failure
between J3 & J4
between J3 & J4 :
Pf = 53%

SMR System
big wedge failure :
SMR = 32 :
Pf = 60%

1) wedge failure
between J1 &
J4

1) wedge failure
between J1 & J4 :
Pf = 48 %

planar along some

joint and many
wedges failure :
SMR = 49.5 :
Pf = 40%

1) plane failure
along : J1 & J2
2) wedge failure
between J1 &
J2, J2 & J3, J3
& J4

1) plane failure along

: J1 & J2 : Pf =
56%
2) wedge failure
between J1 & J2,
J2 & J3, J3 & J4 :
Pf = 56%

planar along some

joint and many
wedges failure :
SMR = 58 :
Pf = 40%

1) plane failure
along : J3
2) wedge failure
between J2 &
J3

1) plane failure along

: J3 : Pf = 54%
2) wedge failure
between J2 & J3 :
Pf = 54%

planar or big
wedges failure :
SMR = 26 :
Pf = 60%

1) wedge failure
between J1 &
J2

1) wedge failure
between J1 & J2 :
Pf = 46%

planar along some

joint and many
wedges failure :
SMR = 44.7 :
Pf = 40%

1) circular failure
2) wedge failure
between J1 &
J3

1) circular failure:
Pf = 78%
2) wedge failure
between J1 & J3 :
Pf = 62%

planar or big
wedges failure :
SMR = 28.7 :
Pf = 60%

295

Verifications of rock slope rating (RSR) and slope mass rating (SMR) systems

Table 9. Comparisons between actual slope observations and RSR and SMR predictions.
(continue)
Case No.
(Locations)
Case 13
(Km 21-22 on
Tak-Maesod
highway)

Slope
Characteristics
H = 15 m
f = 105
f = 70
J1 = 107/87
J2 = 273/78
J3 = 48/66
Saturated

H = 20 m
f = 150
f = 75
J1 = 116/76
J2 = 360/83
J3 = 279/76
Saturated
H = 16 m
Case 15
(Ubonrat dam f = 110
KhonKaen
f = 72
province)
J1 = 116/76
J2 = 360/83
J3 = 279/76
Saturated
H = Slope Height
f = Dip Angle of Slope Face
f = Dip Direction of Slope Face
Case 14
(Ubonrat dam
KhonKaen
province)

Actual
Observations
1) plane failure
along : J3
2) wedge failure
between J1 &
J3

1) plane failure along

: J3: Pf = 53%
2) wedge failure
between J1 & J3 :
Pf = 59%

planar along some

joint and many
wedges failure :
SMR = 56.5 :
Pf = 40%

1) wedge failure
between J1 &
J2, J1 & J3

1) wedge failure
between J1 & J2,
J1 & J3 : Pf = 79%

planar along some

joint and many
wedges :
SMR = 43.4 :
Pf = 40%

1) wedge failure
between J1 &
J2

1) wedge failure
between J1 & J2 :
Pf = 79%

planar or big
wedges failure :
SMR = 38 :
Pf = 60%

RSR System

SMR System

Pf = Probability of Failure
J1, J2, J3 and J4 = Joint Set Number (dip direction / dip angle)

Admittedly RSR system still needs a more comprehensive calibration and verification to test
and enhance its predictive capability. Field observations and measurements on the actual
slope characteristics and behavior are required to further modify or refine the rating
parameters and influencing factors. To truly assess the performance of the RSR system
rigorous and diverse slope characteristics are highly desirable.
A rock slope rating (RSR) system has been developed for evaluating the stability conditions.
The considering factors include site characteristics, geological and hydrological conditions,
mechanical properties, slope geometry, past failure, vegetation, ground vibration and
engineering requirements. Specific sets of rating and influencing factors are assigned to these
parameters for each rock condition and each failure mode considered. The sets of influencing
factors are classified by the strength of intact rocks. The probability of failure is determined
by summing the multiplied products between the rating and the corresponding influencing
factor. The predicted results agree reasonably well with the observations from the actual
slopes.
ACKNOWLEDGEMENT
The research was funded by Suranaree University of Technology. Permission to publish this
paper is gratefully acknowledged.

296

Rock Mechanics, Fuenkajorn & Phien-wej (eds) 2007. ISBN 978 974 533 613 1

Figure 2. Probabilities of failure calculated by RSR and SMR systems for actual slopes.
Numbers next to data point indicate the case no. referred to in Table 9.

REFERENCES
Bieniawski, Z.T., 1989. Engineering Rock Mass Classification. John Wiley & Sons, New
York.
Brown, E.T., 1981. Rock Characterization Testing and Monitoring. ISRM Suggested
Methods, Pergamon Press, Oxford.
Goodman, R.E. (1989) Introduction to Rock Mechanics, John Wiley and Sons, Inc.,
Singapore.
Hoek, E. & Bray, J.W., 1981. Rock Slope Engineering, Institution of Mining and Metallurgy,
London.
Kamutchat, S., 2003. Rock Slope Design Using Expert System. M.S. Thesis, Suranaree
University of Technology, Nakhon Ratchasima, Thailand.
Singh, B. & Goel, R.K., 1999. Rock Mass Classification: A Practical Approach in Civil
Engineering. Elsevier, Amsterdam.

297