Upload
ngocong
View
240
Download
3
Embed Size (px)
Citation preview
SLOPE STABILITY BY CLASSIFICATION SSPC RMR GSI ROBERT HACK ENGINEERING GEOLOGY, ESA, ITC, FACULTY OF GEO-INFORMATION SCIENCE AND EARTH OBSERVATION, UNIVERSITY OF TWENTE, THE NETHERLANDS. PHONE:+31 (0)6 24505442; EMAIL: [email protected]
TU Delft, The Netherlands, 2 October 2012
Causes and triggers for in-stability of a slope
02/10/2012 Slope Stability by Classification - Hack 2
WHAT CAUSES IN-STABILITY OF A SLOPE ?
• Wrong design (e.g. too steep, too high) • Decrease in the future of ground mass properties (e.g. weathering, vegetation) • Changes in future geometry (e.g. scouring, erosion, human influence – road cut)
02/10/2012 Slope Stability by Classification - Hack 3
WHAT IS REQUIRED TO ANALYSE THE STABILITY OF A SLOPE ?
• ground mass properties • present and future geometry • present and future geotechnical behaviour of ground mass • external influences such as earthquakes, rainfall, etcetera
02/10/2012 Slope Stability by Classification - Hack 4
GROUND MASS PROPERTIES
In virtually all slopes is a considerable variation
02/10/2012 Slope Stability by Classification - Hack 5
Therefore: First divide the soil or rock mass in: homogene “geotechnical units”
02/10/2012 Slope Stability by Classification - Hack 6
HOMOGENE GEOTECHNICAL UNIT?
Is that possible ?
VARIATION
Heterogeneity of mass causes: • variation in mass properties
02/10/2012 Slope Stability by Classification - Hack 7
GEOTECHNICAL UNIT:
A “geotechnical unit” is a unit in which the geotechnical properties are the same.
02/10/2012 Slope Stability by Classification - Hack 8
GEOTECHNICAL UNITS ARE BASED ON THE EXPERIENCE AND EXPERTISE OF THE INTERPRETER
02/10/2012 Slope Stability by Classification - Hack 9
“No geotechnical unit is really homogene….”
A certain amount of variation has to be allowed as otherwise the number of units will be unlimited
02/10/2012 Slope Stability by Classification - Hack 10
“The allowable variation of the properties within one geotechnical unit depends on:
the degree of variability of the properties within a mass, the influence of the differences on engineering behaviour, and the context in which the geotechnical unit is used.
02/10/2012 Slope Stability by Classification - Hack 11
Smaller allowed variability of the properties in a geotechnical unit results in:
higher accuracy of geotechnical calculations less risk that a calculation or design is wrong
02/10/2012 Slope Stability by Classification - Hack 12
Smaller allowed variability of the properties in a geotechnical unit:
requires collecting more data and is thus more costly geotechnical calculations are more complicated and complex, and cost more time
02/10/2012 Slope Stability by Classification - Hack 13
HENCE:
the variations allowed within a geotechnical unit for a slope along a major highway is smaller the variations allowed within a geotechnical unit for a slope along a farmers road will be larger
02/10/2012 Slope Stability by Classification - Hack 14
EXAMPLES
What are the implications if the units are wrongly assumed in a design?
02/10/2012 Slope Stability by Classification - Hack 15
ORIGINAL SITUATION
02/10/2012 Slope Stability by Classification - Hack 16
DESIGN ERROR
02/10/2012 Slope Stability by Classification - Hack 17
OPTIONS FOR ANALYSING SLOPE STABILITY
Analytical Numerical Classification
02/10/2012 Slope Stability by Classification - Hack 18
SLOPE STABILITY
analytical: only in relatively simple cases possible for a discontinuous rock mass numerical: difficult and often cumbersome, (however, possible with discontinuous numerical rock mechanics programs such as UDEC & 3DEC)
02/10/2012 Slope Stability by Classification - Hack 19
NUMERICAL SLOPE STABILITY(1)
Extra work for deterministic numerical methods is justified if: Quantity and quality of input data is high, e.g.:
representative tests of discontinuity (i.e. joint) shear strength of each discontinuity family orientations of each discontinuity etcetera, etcetera.
02/10/2012 Slope Stability by Classification - Hack 20
NUMERICAL SLOPE STABILITY(2)
High quality and quantity of data not only of the rock mass at the slope face but also in the slope! Hence:
excavate the site and rebuilt (then it is exactly known) or
many large-sized borehole samples required High quality and quantity of data of rock mass inside the slope rock mass are virtually never available because far too expensive to obtain
02/10/2012 Slope Stability by Classification - Hack 21
NUMERICAL SLOPE STABILITY(4)
Solution often used:
Use a numerical program and estimate or obtain the input parameters from literature In particular dangerous because: Users (i.e. the civil engineers) expect numerical calculation to be accurate (the result becomes the "truth")
02/10/2012 Slope Stability by Classification - Hack 22
NUMERICAL SLOPE STABILITY(5)
Alternative use rock mass classification for input data or use rock mass classification without numerical calculation
02/10/2012 Slope Stability by Classification - Hack 23
SLOPE CLASSIFICATION SYSTEMS
Classification systems are empirical relations that relate rock mass properties either directly or via a rating system to an engineering application, e.g. slope, tunnel
02/10/2012 Slope Stability by Classification - Hack 24
CLASSIFICATION SYSTEMS:
For underground (tunnel): • Bieniawski (RMR) • Barton (Q) • Laubscher (MRMR) • etcetera
For slopes: • Selby • Bieniawski (RMR) • Vecchia • Robertson (RMR) • Romana (SMR) • Haines • SSPC • etcetera
02/10/2012 Slope Stability by Classification - Hack 25
ROCK MASS RATING (RMR) (BIENIAWSKI)
one of the oldest still used systems (Bieniawski, 1989). developed in South Africa for underground mining but currently widely used in civil engineering as well excavation and support is determined by the RMR value and results in five different support classes. adjustment factors and refinements are possible
02/10/2012 Slope Stability by Classification - Hack 26
RMR (2) based on a combination of five parameters Each parameter is expressed by a point rating
02/10/2012 Slope Stability by Classification - Hack 27
(from De Mulder et al., 2012)
RMR(3)
addition of the points results in the RMR rating
reduction factors for: orientation, excavation damage, etc.
related (empirically) to rock mass cohesion, friction angle of the rock mass, and other rock mass properties 02/10/2012 Slope Stability by Classification - Hack 28
(from De Mulder et al., 2012)
)(sfactorreductionr)groundwateconditionspacingRQDRMR =(IRS
RMR - SLOPE MASS RATING (SMR) (Romana) (modified Bieniawski)
RMR rating multiplied with series of compensation factors
02/10/2012 Slope Stability by Classification - Hack 29
excavation of methodfor factor = dipity discontinu and face slope between relationfor factor =
angle dipity discontinufor factor = face slope and itiesdiscontinu of strikes theof mparallelisfor factor =
) si' Bieniawskas (same Rating Rock Mass= Rating MassSlope =
4321
FF
FF
RMRRMRSMR
F) + F * F * F- (SMR = RMR
4
3
2
1
RMR(5)
Advantages: Simple
Disadvantages: developed for tunneling in (generally) high surrounding stress environment
Cohesion and friction generally considered (far) too high for low stress environment (i.e. not suitable in slopes)
02/10/2012 Slope Stability by Classification - Hack 30
GEOLOGICAL STRENGTH INDEX (GSI)
The Geological Strength Index (GSI) is derived from a matrix describing the ‘structure’ and the ‘surface condition’ of the rock mass
02/10/2012 Slope Stability by Classification - Hack 31
GSI(2)
02/10/2012 Slope Stability by Classification - Hack 32 (from De Mulder et al., 2012)
‘structure’ is related to the block size and the interlocking of rock blocks ‘surface condition’ is related to weathering, persistence, and condition of discontinuities.
GSI(3)
The GSI is one of the constituents of the Hoek-Brown failure criterion. The failure criterion does not provide excavation or support recommendations but rather determines rock mass properties, such as rock mass cohesion and rock mass angle of friction (Hoek et al., 1998, Marinos & Hoek, 2000, Marinos et al., 2005).
02/10/2012 Slope Stability by Classification - Hack 33
SLOPE STABILITY PROBABILITY CLASSIFICATION (SSPC)
three step classification system based on probabilities independent failure mechanism assessment
02/10/2012 Slope Stability by Classification - Hack 34
SSPC - THREE STEP CLASSIFICATION SYSTEM (1)
02/10/2012 Slope Stability by Classification - Hack 35
river
old road
proposed new road cut slightly
weathered
moderately weathered
1
2
3
Reference Rock Mass
fresh
1: natural exposure made by scouring of river, moderately weathered; 2: old road, made by excavator, slightly weathered; 3: new to develop road cut, made by modern blasting, moderately weathered to fresh.
THREE STEP CLASSIFICATION SYSTEM
02/10/2012 Slope Stability by Classification - Hack 36
EXPOSURE ROCK MASS (ERM) Exposure rock mass parameters significant for slope stability:
Material properties: strength, susceptibility to weathering Discontinuities: orientation and sets (spacing) or single Discontinuity properties: roughness, infill, karst
REFERENCE ROCK MASS (RRM) Reference rock mass parameters significant for slope stability:
Material properties: strength, susceptibility to weathering Discontinuities: orientation and sets (spacing) or single Discontinuity properties: roughness, infill, karst
SLOPE ROCK MASS (SRM) Slope rock mass parameters significant for slope stability:
Material properties: strength, susceptibility to weathering Discontinuities: orientation and sets (spacing) or single Discontinuity properties: roughness, infill, karst
Exposure specific parameters: Method of excavation Degree of weathering
Slope specific parameters: Method of excavation to be used Expected degree of weathering at end of engineering life-time of slope
SLOPE GEOMETRY Orientation
Height
SLOPE STABILITY ASSESSMENT
Factor used to remove the influence of the method excavation and degree of weathering
Factor used to assess the influence of the method excavation and future weathering
SSPC
Excavation specific parameters for the excavation which is used to characterize the rock mass:
Degree of weathering Method of excavation
02/10/2012 Slope Stability by Classification - Hack 37
SSPC
Rock mass Parameters:
Intact rock strength Spacing and persistence discontinuities Shear strength along discontinuity:- Roughness - large scale
- small scale - tactile roughness
- Infill - Karst Susceptibility to weathering
02/10/2012 Slope Stability by Classification - Hack 38
SSPC
Slope specific parameters for the new slope to be made:
Expected degree of weathering at end of lifetime of the slope Method of excavation to be used for the new slope
02/10/2012 Slope Stability by Classification - Hack 39
SSPC
Intact rock strength (IRS) By simple means test:
hammer blows, crushing by hand, etcetera
02/10/2012 Slope Stability by Classification - Hack 40
SSPC
Spacing and persistence of discontinuities: Determine block size and block form by:
visual assessment, followed by: quantification (measurement) of the characteristic spacing and orientation of each set
02/10/2012 Slope Stability by Classification - Hack 41
SSPC
Shear strength based on a combination of:
roughness (persistence) infill presence of karst
02/10/2012 Slope Stability by Classification - Hack 42
SSPC
Roughness is a combination of:
large scale roughness (Rl) small scale roughness & tactile roughness (Rs)
02/10/2012 Slope Stability by Classification - Hack 43
SSPC
Shear strength roughness large scale
02/10/2012 Slope Stability by Classification - Hack 44
slightly wavy
curved slightly curved straight
(i-angles and dimensions only approximate)
amplitude roughness:wavy
i = 14 - 20
i = 9 - 14
i = 2 - 4
i = 4 - 8
5 – 9 cm
5 – 9 cm
3.5 – 7 cm
1.5 – 3.5 cm
1 m
SSPC
Shear strength roughness small scale
02/10/2012 Slope Stability by Classification - Hack 45
stepped
undulating
planar
0.20 m
amplitude roughness > 2 - 3 mm
(dimensions only approximate)
amplitude roughness > 2 - 3 mm
SSPC
Shear strength roughness tactile
Three classes:
rough
smooth
polished
02/10/2012 Slope Stability by Classification - Hack 46
SSPC
Infill (In):
- cemented
- no infill
- non-softening (3 grain sizes)
- softening (3 grain sizes)
- gauge type (larger or smaller than roughness amplitude)
- flowing material
02/10/2012 Slope Stability by Classification - Hack 47
SSPC
Karst (Ka):
karst or no karst
02/10/2012 Slope Stability by Classification - Hack 48
SSPC
Shear strength - condition factor Discontinuity condition factor (TC) is a multiplication of the ratings
for:
small-scale roughness large-scale roughness infill karst
02/10/2012 Slope Stability by Classification - Hack 49
SSPC
02/10/2012 Slope Stability by Classification - Hack 50
CONDITION OF DISCONTINUITY factor
Roughness large scale (Rl)
(visual area > 0.2 x 0.2 and < 1 x 1 m2)
wavy slightly wavy curved slightly curved straight
1.00 0.95 0.85 0.80 0.75
Roughness small scale (Rs)
(tactile and visual on an area of
20 x 20 cm2)
rough stepped/irregular smooth stepped polished stepped rough undulating smooth undulating polished undulating rough planar smooth planarpolished planar
0.95 0.90 0.85 0.80 0.75 0.70 0.65 0.60 0.55
Infill material (Im)
cemented/cemented infill no infill - surface staining
1.07 1.00
non softening & sheared material, e.g. free of clay, talc, etc.
coarse medium fine
0.95 0.90 0.85
soft sheared material, e.g. clay, talc, etc.
coarse medium fine
0.75 0.65 0.55
gouge < irregularities gouge > irregularities flowing material
0.42 0.17 0.05
Karst (Ka) none karst
1.00 0.92
SLIDING CRITERION
TC is related to friction along plane by:
02/10/2012 Slope Stability by Classification - Hack 51
0113.0*KaImRl*Rs*
anglesliding
SLIDING CRITERION (EXAMPLE)
bedding plane description factor large scale straight 0.75small scale & tactile rough stepped 0.95infill fine soft sheared 0.55karst none 1.00
02/10/2012 Slope Stability by Classification - Hack 52
degrees3501130001550950750
01130Im
..*.*.*.
.*KaRl*Rs*
anglesliding
SSPC
Orientation dependent stability Stability depending on relation between slope and discontinuity
orientation For example:
Plane and wedge sliding Toppling
02/10/2012 Slope Stability by Classification - Hack 53
SSPC
Orientation dependent stability Discontinuity related shear strength failure
Plane sliding Conditions: - discontinuity must daylight - downward stress > shear strength along discontinuity plane
02/10/2012 Slope Stability by Classification - Hack 54
SSPC
Orientation dependent stability Discontinuity related shear strength failure Wedge sliding Conditions: - intersection line must daylight - downward stress > shear strength along discontinuity planes
02/10/2012 Slope Stability by Classification - Hack 55
Orientation dependent stability Sliding if:
02/10/2012 Slope Stability by Classification - Hack 56
APTC *0113.0TC = discontinuity condition factor AP = apparent discontinuity dip in direction of slope dip
SSPC
Orientation dependent stability Sliding probability
02/10/2012 Slope Stability by Classification - Hack 57
AP (deg)
TC (c
ondi
tion
of d
iscon
tinui
ty)
1.00
0.80
0.60
0.40
0.20
0.00 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90
5 % 30 % discontinuity stable with respect to sliding
discontinuity unstable with respect to sliding
70 % 50 % 95 %
SSPC
Orientation dependent stability Discontinuity related shear strength failure Toppling
02/10/2012 Slope Stability by Classification - Hack 58
SSPC
Orientation dependent stability Toppling criterion
02/10/2012 Slope Stability by Classification - Hack 59
itydiscontinudipAPTC 90*0087.0
TC = discontinuity condition factor AP = apparent discontinuity dip in
direction of slope dip DIPdiscontinuity = dip of discontinuity
SSPC
Toppling probability
02/10/2012 Slope Stability by Classification - Hack 60 - 90 - AP + slope dip (deg)
TC (c
ondi
tion
of d
iscon
tinui
ty) (
-)
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90
1.00
0.80
0.60
0.40
0.20
0.00
70 %
5 %
95 % discontinuity stable
with respect to toppling
discontinuity unstable with respect to toppling
50 % 30 %
Orientation independent stability
02/10/2012 Slope Stability by Classification - Hack 61
SSPC
Orientation independent stability Slope instability not dependent on the orientation of discontinuities in relation with the slope orientation
E.g. in situations:
• No discontinuities • Too high stress for the soil or rock intact material strength (e.g.
slope too high) • So many discontinuities in so many directions that there is always
a failure plane (comparable to a soil mass)
02/10/2012 Slope Stability by Classification - Hack 62
SSPC
Orientation independent stability
In SSPC based on:
• Intact rock strength • Block size and form • Condition of discontinuities
02/10/2012 Slope Stability by Classification - Hack 63
SSPC
02/10/2012 Slope Stability by Classification - Hack 64
1
0.1
10
0.0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1.0
5 % 10 % 30 % 50 %
95 % 90 %
70 % probability to be stable > 95 %
probability to be stable < 5 %
(example)
’mass / slope dip
Hm
ax /
Hsl
ope
Dashed pr obability lines indi cate that the number of sl opes used for the devel opment of the SSPC sys tem for these sec tions of the graph is limited and the pr obability lines may not be as certai n as the pr obability lines dr awn with a conti nuous line.
Probability orientation independent failure
SSPCCOMPARISON BETWEEN SSPC AND OTHER CLASSIFICATION SYSTEMS
02/10/2012 Slope Stability by Classification - Hack 65
SSPC stability probability (%)
num
ber o
f slo
pes (
%)
< 5 7.5 15 25 35 45 55 65 75 85 92.5 > 95 0
20
40
60
80 visually estimated stability
stable (class 1) unstable (class 2) unstable (class 3)
Romana's SMR (points)
num
ber o
f slo
pes (
%)
5 15 25 35 45 55 65 75 85 95 0
20
40
60
80 visually estimated stability
stable (class 1) unstable (class 2) unstable (class 3)
Haines' slope dip - existing slope dip (deg)
num
ber o
f slo
pes (
%)
-45 -35 -25 -10 -5 5 15 25 35 45 0
20
40
60
80 visually estimated stability
stable (class 1) unstable (class 2) unstable (class 3)
Percentages are from total number of slopes per visually estimated stability class.
visually estimated stability: class 1 : stable; no signs of present or future slope failures (number of slopes: 109) class 2 : small problems; the slope presently shows signs of active small failures and has the potential for future small failures (number of slopes: 20) class 3 : large problems; The slope presently shows signs of active large failures and has the potential for future large failures (number of slopes: 55)
unstable stable stable unstable
a: SSPC b: Haines
c: SMR
Haines safety factor: 1.2
completely unstable completely
stable partially stable unstable stable
'tentative' describtion of SMR classes:
EXAMPLES
02/10/2012 Slope Stability by Classification - Hack 66
02/10/2012 Slope Stability by Classification - Hack 67
POORLY BLASTED SLOPE
POORLY BLASTED SLOPE
New cut (in 1990): Visual assessed: extremely poor; instable. (SSPC stability < 8% for slope height 13.8 m high, dip 70°, rock mass weathering: 'moderately' and 'dislodged blocks' due to blasting). Forecast in 1996: SSPC final stability: slope dip 45 . In 2002: Slope dip about 55 (visually assessed unstable). In 2005: Slope dip about 52
02/10/2012 Slope Stability by Classification - Hack 68
SABA - DUTCH ANTILLES - LANDSLIDE IN HARBOUR
02/10/2012 Slope Stability by Classification - Hack 69
SABA - GEOTECHNICAL UNITS
02/10/2012 Slope Stability by Classification - Hack 70
SABA
02/10/2012 Slope Stability by Classification - Hack 71
Pyroclastic deposits Calculated SSPC Laboratory / field Rock mass friction 35° 27° (measured)
Rock mass cohesion 39kPa 40kPa (measured) Calculated maximum possible height on the
slope
13m 15m (observed)
FAILING SLOPE IN MANILA, PHILIPPINES
02/10/2012 Slope Stability by Classification - Hack 72
FAILING SLOPE IN MANILA (2)
volcanic tuff layers with near horizontal weathering horizons (about every 2-3 m) slope height is about 5 m SSPC non-orientation dependent stability about 50% for 7 m slope height unfavourable stress configuration due to corner
02/10/2012 Slope Stability by Classification - Hack 73
BHUTAN
Widening existing road in Bhutan (Himalayas)
02/10/2012 Slope Stability by Classification - Hack 74
BHUTAN
Method of excavation
02/10/2012 Slope Stability by Classification - Hack 75
BHUTAN
02/10/2012 Slope Stability by Classification - Hack 76
BHUTAN
Above road level:
Various units Joint systems (sub-) vertical Present slope about 21 m high, about 90° or overhanging (!) Present situation above road highly unstable (visual assessment)
Below road level: Inaccessible – seems stable
02/10/2012 Slope Stability by Classification - Hack 77
BHUTAN
Above road level:
Following SSPC system about 12 – 27 m for a 75° slope (depending on unit) (orientation independent stability 85%)
Below road level: Inaccessible – different unit ? – and not disturbed by excavation method
02/10/2012 Slope Stability by Classification - Hack 78
FUTURE DEGRADATION OF SOIL OR ROCK DUE TO WEATHERING, RAVELLING, ETC.
Forecasting future geotechnical properties of soil or rock mass
02/10/2012 Slope Stability by Classification - Hack 79
FUTURE DEGRADATION
02/10/2012 Slope Stability by Classification - Hack 80
FUTURE DEGRADATION
Reduction in slope angle due to weathering, erosion and ravelling (after Huisman)
02/10/2012 Slope Stability by Classification - Hack 81
1.0
1.5
2.0
2.5
3.0
3.5
7.0 7.5 8.0 8.5 9.0 9.5
y [m]
z [m
]
Excavated 1999 May 2001 May 2002
FUTURE DEGRADATION
Main processes involved in degradation:
Loss of structure due to stress release Weathering (In-situ change by inside or outside influences) Erosion (Material transport with no chemical or structural changes)
02/10/2012 Slope Stability by Classification - Hack 82
02/10/2012 Slope Stability by Classification - Hack 83 Slope Stability by Classification - Hack 83
CINDARTO SLOPE: VARIATION IN CLAY CONTENT IN INTACT ROCK CAUSES DIFFERENTIAL WEATHERING
bedding planes
Slightly higher clay content
April 1990
02/10/2012 Slope Stability by Classification - Hack 84 Slope Stability by Classification - Hack 84
CINDARTO SLOPE VARIATION IN CLAY CONTENT IN INTACT ROCK CAUSES DIFFERENTIAL WEATHERING
April 1992
mass slid
SIGNIFICANCE IN ENGINEERING
When rock masses degrade in time, slopes and other works that are stable at present may become unstable
02/10/2012 Slope Stability by Classification - Hack 85
02/10/2012 Slope Stability by Classification - Hack 86 86
02/10/2012 Slope Stability by Classification - Hack 87
IMPACT OF WEATHERING
02/10/2012 Slope Stability by Classification - Hack 88
From: De Mulder, E.J.F., Hack, H.R.G.K., Van Ree, C.C.D.F., 2012. Sustainable Development and Management of the Shallow Subsurface. The Geological Society, London. ISBN: 978-1-86239-343-1. p. 192.
The susceptibility to weathering is a concept that is frequently addressed by “the” weathering rate of a rock material or mass. Weathering rates may be expected to decrease with time, as the state of the rock mass becomes more and more in equilibrium with its surroundings.
02/10/2012 Slope Stability by Classification - Hack 89
02/10/2012 Slope Stability by Classification - Hack 90
log 1appinit WEWE t WE R t
WE(t) = degree of weathering at time t WEinit = (initial) degree of weathering at time t = 0 Rapp
WE = weathering intensity rate WE as function of time, initial weathering and the weathering intensity rate
02/10/2012 Slope Stability by Classification - Hack 91 Slope Stability by Classification - Hack 91
WEATHERING RATES
Middle Muschelkalk near Vandellos (Spain)
•Material: Gypsum layers Gypsum cemented siltstone layers
SSPC system with applying weathering intensity rate:
- original slope cut about 50º (1998) - in 15 years decrease to 35º
02/10/2012 Slope Stability by Classification - Hack 92
KOTA KINABALU, MALAYSIA
02/10/2012 Slope Stability by Classification - Hack 93 93
10 years old
(after Tating, Hack, & Jetten, 2011)
KOTA KINABALU
Side road (dip 45°, 5 years old) sandstone: slightly weathered SSPC stability: Sandstone: stable (92%) Shale: unstable (< 5%)
02/10/2012 Slope Stability by Classification - Hack 94
KOTA KINABALU
Main road (dip 30°, 10 years old): sandstone: moderately weathered SSPC stability: Sandstone: stable (95%) Shale: ravelling (<5%)
02/10/2012 Slope Stability by Classification - Hack 95
10 years old
KOTA KINABALU
time [years]
dip [degrees]
SSPC visual SSPC probability
unit RM friction RM cohesion
[degrees] [kPa]
shale
slightly 5 45 4 2.4 in stable
moderately 10 30 2 1.1 in stable
sandstone
slightly 5 45 20 10.0 stable
moderately 10 30 11 6.3 stable
02/10/2012 Slope Stability by Classification - Hack 96
SSPC system in combination with degradation forecasts gives:
reasonable design for slope stability with minimum of work and in a short time (likely a reasonable tool to forecast susceptibility to weathering)
02/10/2012 Slope Stability by Classification - Hack 97
REFERENCES De Mulder, E.J.F., Hack, H.R.G.K., Van Ree, C.C.D.F., 2012. Sustainable Development and Management of the Shallow Subsurface. The Geological Society, London. ISBN: 978-1-86239-343-1. p. 192. Hack, H.R.G.K., 2002. An evaluation of slope stability classification; Keynote lecture. In: Dinis Da Gama, C., Ribeira E Sousa, L. (Eds) ISRM EUROCK 2002, Funchal, Madeira, Portugal. Sociedade Portuguesa de Geotecnia, Av. do Brasil, 101, 1700-066 Lisboa, Portugal, pp. 3–32. Hack, H.R.G.K., Price, D.G., Rengers, N., 2003. A new approach to rock slope stability : a probability classification SSPC. Bulletin of Engineering Geology and the Environment. 62 (2). DOI: 10.1007/s10064-002-0155-4. pp. 167-184. Hack, H.R.G.K., Price, D., Rengers, N., 2005. Una nueva aproximación a la clasificación probabilística de estabilidad de taludes (SSPC). In: Proyectos, U.D., Minas, E.T.S.I. (Eds), Ingeniería del terreno : ingeoter 5 : capítulo 6. Universidad Politécnica de Madrid, Madrid. ISBN: 84-96140-14-8. p. 418. (in Spanish) Hoek, E., Marinos, P., Benissi, M., 1998. Applicability of the geological strength index (GSI) classification for very weak and sheared rock masses. The case of the Athens Schist Formation. Bulletin of Engineering Geology and the Environment. 57 (2). DOI: 10.1007/s100640050031. pp. 151-160. Huisman, M., Hack, H.R.G.K., Nieuwenhuis, J.D., 2006. Predicting Rock Mass Decay in Engineering Lifetimes: The Influence of Slope Aspect and Climate. Environmental & Engineering Geoscience. 12 (1). DOI: 10.2113/12.1.39. pp. 39-51. Marinos, P., Hoek, E., 2000. GSI: A geologically friendly tool for rock mass strength estimation. In: Drinan, J., Geom Australian (Eds) GeoEng2000 - International Conference on Geotechnical & Geological engineering, Melbourne, 19-24 November 2000. Technomic Publishing Co, Lancaster, PA, USA, pp. 1422–1446. Marinos, V., Marinos, P. & Hoek, E. 2005. The geological strength index: applications and limitations. Bull. of Engineering Geology and the Environment 64/1, doi: 10.1007/s10064-004-0270-5, 55-65. Price, D.G., De Freitas, M.H., Hack, H.R.G.K., Higginbottom, I.E., Knill, J.L., Maurenbrecher, M., 2009. Engineering geology : principles and practice. De Freitas, M.H. (Ed.). Springer-Verlag, Berlin, Heidelberg. ISBN: 978-3-540-29249-4. p. 450. White, A.F., Blum, A.E., Schulz, M.S., Vivit, D.V., Stonestrom, D.A., Larsen, M., Murphy, S.F., Eberl, D., 1998. Chemical Weathering in a Tropical Watershed, Luquillo Mountains, Puerto Rico: I. Long-Term Versus Short-Term Weathering Fluxes. Geochimica et Cosmochimica Acta. 62 (2). DOI: 10.1016/s0016-7037(97)00335-9. pp. 209-226.
02/10/2012 Slope Stability by Classification - Hack 98