This paper has to be cited as: Toms, R., Cuenca, A., Cano, M., Garca-Barba, J.

, A graphical approach
for Slope Mass Rating (SMR). Engineering Geology, 124, 67-76, 2012. The final publication is
available at Elsevier via: http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0013795211002572

A graphical approach for Slope Mass Rating (SMR)

R. Toms, A. Cuenca, M. Cano, J. Garca-Barba

Departamento de Ingeniera de la Construccin, Obras Pblicas e Infraestructuras Urbanas.

Escuela Politcnica Superior, Universidad de Alicante, P.O. Box 99, E-03080 Alicante, Spain.

roberto.tomas@ua.es

Abstract

Slope Mass Rating (SMR) is a commonly used geomechanical classification for the

characterization of rock slopes. SMR is computed adding to basic Rock Mass Rating (RMR)

index, calculated by characteristic values of the rock mass, several correction factors depending

of the discontinuity-slope parallelism, the discontinuity dip, the relative dip between discontinuity

and slope and the employed excavation method. In this work a graphical method based on the

stereographic representation of the discontinuities and the slope to obtain correction parameters

of the SMR (F1, F2 and F3) is presented. This method allows the SMR correction factors to be

easily obtained for a simple slope or for several practical applications as linear infrastructures

slopes, open pit mining or trench excavations.

Keywords: Geomechanical classification, SMR, basic RMR, stereographic projection

1
1. Introduction

Rock mass classification systems are a worldwide communication system for explorers,

designers and constructors that facilitate characterization, classification and knowledge of rock

mass properties. They provide quantitative data and guidelines for engineering purposes that

can improve originally abstract descriptions of rock mass from inherent and structural

parameters (Liu and Chen, 2007; Pantelidis, 2009) by a simple arithmetic algorithm (Romana,

1997). The main advantage of using a rock mass classification scheme is that it is a simple and

effective way of representing rock mass quality and of encapsulating precedent practice

(Harrison and Hudson, 2000). Nevertheless, rock mass classifications present some well-known

limitations. Hack (2002) stated that generally rock mass classifications consider parameters

related with slope geometry, intact rock strength, discontinuity spacing or block size and shear

strength along discontinuities, some of which are difficult or impossible to measure (e.g. water

pressure) or have a limited influence on slope stability (e.g. intact rock strength). Pantelidis

(2008) referred to these parameters as questionable, including those that: (a) are unsuitable

for use in slope stability problems, (b) are attributed into the systems in an erroneous manner,

(c) although, in practice, they play significant role regarding stability of slopes, they exert a

minor influence on the system, or, (d) present several major disadvantages related to their

definition. All the previous mentioned causes can introduce some uncertainties during the rock

mass characterization process that can affect the final computed indexes and the inferred

geomechanical quality and parameters. As a consequence, rock mass classifications on their

own should only be used for preliminary planning purposes or within the overall engineering

design process (Bieniawski, 1997).

Some of the existing geomechanical classifications for slopes are Rock Mass Rating (RMR,

Bieniawski, 1976;1989), Rock Mass Strength (RMS, Selby, 1980), Slope Mass Rating (SMR,

Romana, 1985), Slope Rock Mass Rating (SRMR, Robertson, 1988), Rock Mass Rating, Mining

Rock Mass Rating (MRMR, Laubscher, 1990), Mining Rock Mass Rating modified (MRMR

modified, Haines and Terbrugge, 1991), Chinese Slope Mass Rating (CSMR, Chen, 1995),

Natural Slope Methodology (NSM, Shuk, 1994), Modified Rock Mass Rating (M-RMR, nal,

1996), Slope Stability Probability Classification (SSPC, Hack, 1998; Hack et al., 2003), modified

Slope Stability Probability Classification (SSPC modified, Lindsay et al., 2001), Continuous

2
Rock Mass Rating (Sen and Sadagah; 2003), Continuous Slope Mass Rating (Toms et al.,

2007) and an alternative rock mass classification system proposed by Pantelidis (2010).

Among all geomechanical classifications listed above, SMR is universally used (Romana et al.,

2001; 2003; 2005). It is derived from the basic RMR (Bieniawski, 1989), initially created for

tunnelling applications, although its author also included proposals for slope correction factors in

order to take into account the influence of the discontinuities orientation on slope stability. In

practice, RMR is difficult to apply to slopes as there is no exhaustive definition for the selection

of correction factors. The detailed quantitative definition of the correction factors (Itigaray et al.,

2003) is one of the most important advantages of SMR classification.

Both RMR and SMR are discrete classifications, computed by assigning a specific rating to

each parameter included, depending on the value adopted by the variable that controls the

parameter under consideration.

The aim of this study is to propose a graphical method for the determination of Slope Mass

Rating correction factors. The present work is devoted to define stereoplots that can be used in

rock mass slopes studies in order to easily interpret and compute SMR correction factors.

2. Slope Mass Rating (SMR) classification

The Slope Mass Rating (SMR) index, proposed by Romana (1985), is calculated by determining

four correction factors to the basic RMR (Bieniawski, 1989). These factors depend on the

existing relationship between discontinuities affecting the rock mass and the slope, and the

slope excavation method. It is obtained using expression (1).

SMR RMR b (F1 F2 F3 ) F4 (1)

where:

- RMRb is the basic RMR index resulting from Bieniawskis Rock Mass Classification without

any correction. Therefore, it is calculated according to RMR classification parameters

(Bieniawski, 1989).

- F1 depends on the parallelism (A in Table 1) between discontinuity dip direction, j, (or the

trend of the intersection line, i, in the case of wedge failure) and slope dip, s, (Table 1).

- F2 depends on the discontinuity dip, j, in the case of planar failure and the plunge of the

intersection line, i, in wedge failure (B in Table 1). For toppling failure, this parameter

3
 adopts the value 1.0. This parameter is related to the probability of discontinuity shear

strength (Romana, 1993).

Table 1. Correction parameters for SMR (modified from Romana (1985) by Anbalagan et al.

(1992)).

VERY VERY
UNFAVORAB
TYPE OF FAILURE FAVORAB FAVORABLE NORMAL UNFAVORAB
LE
LE LE
P |j-s|
||j-s|-
T A >30 30-20 20-10 10-5 <5
180|
W |i-s|
P/T/W F1 0.15 0.40 0.70 0.85 1.00
P/W B |j| |i| <20 20-30 30-35 35-45 >45
P/W 0.15 0.40 0.70 0.85 1.00
F2
T 1.00
P j-s
>10 10-0 0 0-(-10) <(-10)
W C i-s
T j+s <110 110-120 >120 - -
P/T/W F3 0 -6 -25 -50 -60

EXCAVATION METHOD (F4)

Natural slope +15 Blasting or mechanical 0
Presplitting +10 Deficient blasting -8
Smooth blasting +8

P: planar failure; T: toppling failure; W: wedge failure.

-

- F3 depends on the relationship (C in Table 1) between slope, s, and discontinuity, j, dips

(toppling or planar failure cases) or the plunge of the intersection line (wedge failure case)

(Table 1). This parameter retains the Bieniawski adjustment factors that vary from 0 to -60

points and express the probability of discontinuity outcropping on the slope face (Romana,

1993) for planar and wedge failure.

- F4 is a correction factor that depends on the excavation method used (Table 1).

Expression (1) can be rewritten as:

SMR RMR b ( F3 ) F4 (2)

Where F1F2 has been grouped in the same term () that varies from 0 to 1. This term can be

considered as the percentage of factor F3 mobilized.

As F4 parameter has an irreplaceable descriptive character and depends on the excavation

method, the method proposed in this work is only focused in the determination of the

4
geometrical terms and F3 in equation (2) using the stereographic projection of rock mass

slope discontinuities.

Figure 1. Proposed diagram for determination in planar failure case.

3. Stereographic diagrams proposed for Slope Mass Rating

One of the most important aspects of rock slope analysis is the systematic collection and

representation of geological data (Hoek and Bray, 1981). Field collected discontinuity

orientation data are analysed by the use of stereographic projection techniques that allows

graphical representation and interpretation of the discontinuity data by means of the great

circles or the poles to the planes. When huge amounts of discontinuity data are available the

presentation of a large number of great circles onto a single stereoplot makes the data difficult

to interpret. In these cases it is preferable to represent the inclination and azimuth of a plane by

means of the pole of the plane. The poles are presented in two dimensions by projecting them

onto the horizontal or equatorial reference plane. When a large number of measurements have

been plotted a recognition of pole concentrations and discontinuity patterns becomes evident

5
this may be assisted by the use of density contouring of the pole plots. This allows a

quantitative assessment of the influence of discontinuities on the behaviour of the rock mass

and will provide the necessary information for determining rock mass classification values and

failure mechanisms.

In the case of SMR, once the different discontinuity sets have been identified and rock mass

has been fully characterized, Table 1 can be used to compute F1, F2 and F3 correction

parameters. An alternative graphical method for F1, F2 and F3 parameters calculus is proposed

using stereographical projection stereoplots.

Figure 2. Proposed diagram for determination in wedge failure case.

3.1. Graphical determination of parameter

Figures 1, 2 and 3 show the stereographic diagrams proposed for determination associated to

each type of failure, planar, wedge and toppling respectively. These diagrams are obtained

considering the combined values of F1 and F2 proposed by Romana (1985) that depend on the

6
parallelism between discontinuity dip direction (or the trend of the intersection line in the case of

wedge failure) and slope dip direction and the discontinuity dip that conditions the radial lines

and the concentric areas respectively drawn onto the stereoplots.

For the use of these diagrams the slope and the discontinuities (or the intersection line for

wedge failure) have to be represented in equiangular projection over the lower hemisphere

using tracing paper. The tracing paper is superimposed to the Figures 1, 2 or 3, depending of

the mode of failure, and rotated around the point O to match the slope dip direction to the

direction indicated in the figures. The pole position of each discontinuity set indicates the type of

failure and the corresponding values.

Figure 3. Proposed diagram for determination in toppling failure case.

3.2. Graphical determination of F3 parameter

F3 depends on the relationship between slope and discontinuity dips or the intersection line

plunge (Table 1). Because this parameter depends on slope dip, a specific stereoplot has to be

7
used for each slope dip value. The construction of the stereoplot is easy and also depends on

the type of failure mechanism.

Figure 4 shows the construction of the F3 parameter for planar failure. As it can be seen, once

the slope plane has been represented onto stereographic projection, a semicircle with a radius

OPS from the centre O has to be drawn in the upper part of the projection diagram, where PS is

the slope plane pole. Posteriorly, two concentric semicircles to OPS one at a 10 has to be

drawn using the graduated diameter of the graphic. The four obtained areas provide the F3

values that vary from 0 to -60 points. Figure 4 shows the location of the areas with the

correction values that grow towards the centre (O) of the diagram.

Figure 4. Graphical construction of the stereoplot used for the determination F3 parameter for

planar failure case. PS is the slope pole.

Figure 5 corresponds to the stereoplot used for F3 determination for wedge failure cases. In

order to define the punctuation sectors a semicircle from the centre O and with a radius OQ

8
must be drawn. Q is the pole projection of the line of maximum dip (l.m.d. in Figure 5) of the

slope, S. Finally, two new concentric semicircles have to be drawn at 10 using the axis

graduation. Notice that the punctuation decreases outward of the diagram varying between 0

and -60 points.

Figure 5. Graphical construction of the stereoplot used for the determination F 3 parameter for

wedge failure case. PS is the slope pole and s is the slope dip. L.m.d.: Line of maximum dip.

When toppling is the compatible failure, the stereoplot shown in Figure 6 has to be used. This

stereoplot can be easily drawn scribing an arc, radius OPS, from the centre (O) of the diagram to

intersect the graduated diameter at point M. From this point we have to measure 110 and 120

over the graduated diameter in the direction of the centre O obtaining S and T points. Taking

the distances OS and OT and scribing an arc from centre O the different punctuation sectors

are defined. F3 values increase towards the centre of the diagram varying from 0 to -25 points.

9
As it was previously mentioned, the stereoplots for F3 determination depend on the slope dip

and as a consequence different stereoplots have to be drawn for each slope dip value.

However, once the stereoplot has been built for a particular dip it can be used for the

determination of F3 correction parameter of other slopes with the same dip.

For the exploitation of the above defined stereoplots, we proceed the same way as with the

stereoplots proposed for correction parameter.

Figure 6. Graphical construction of the stereoplot used for the determination F3 parameter for

toppling failure case. PS is the slope pole.

4. Application example

The proposed graphical methodology is applied for the determination of the SMR correction

factors of a rocky slope and compared with the original values obtained from Romanas (1985)

discrete classification.

10
The studied slope (S) has a 210 and 60 dip direction and dip respectively. This slope is

affected by four discontinuities sets that are represented in Figure 7 by means of their great

circles (J1 to J4) and their respective poles (P1 to P4) whose orientations (dip direction and dip)

are: J1 (60/70), J2 (235/40), J3 (150/80) and J4 (16/10).

Figure 7. Poles diagram (Px) and great circles of the discontinuities (Jx) affecting the slope (S).

When the discontinuity sets and the slope have been represented in equiangular projection the

obtained stereographic diagram has to be superimposed to the stereoplots and oriented in order

to match the slope (S) dip direction with the dip direction of the stereoplot. As it is well known,

for this purpose tracing paper can be used in order to represent and to overlay the

discontinuities representation to the stereoplots. The analysis of the position of the poles of the

discontinuities or the intersection lines of the wedges allows identifying the feasible type of

failure mechanism and the punctuation corresponding to every case (Figures 8 and 9).

Figure 8a corresponds to planar failure case. The overlay of the discontinuity sets shows than

only P2 and P3 poles are compatible with planar failure (they are contained in shadow area).

11
values are deduced from the position of the P2 and P3 poles respecting the defined sectors and

its values are 2=0.34 and 3=0.15 respectively. Analysing Figure 8b we can infer that only J1-

J2 and J2-J3 discontinuity combinations are feasible wedges cinematically compatible with slope

geometry (are contained in shadow area). For these intersection lines 12=0.02 and 23=0.34

values are computed. Toppling failure correction factors are obtained from Figure 8c. As it can

be seen in Figure 8c only J1 and J4 are cinematically compatible with toppling failure (are

contained in shadow area). The values for these discontinuity sets are determined by the

location of the poles J1 and J4 in the stereoplot and adopt the values 1=0.15 and 4=0.70

respectively.

Once values have been determined for all discontinuity sets and for the wedges intersection

lines, next step is the determination of F3 correction parameter. Although stereoplots are

independent of the slope geometry the stereoplots proposed for F 3 determination depends on

the slope dip and as a consequence an ad hoc construction has to be performed following the

process explained in previous section. When stereoplots have been drawn for the 60 dip slope

of the studied example and discontinuities have been overlapped and rotated to match the

slope dip direction with the direction indicated in the stereoplot we only have to determine the

position of the discontinuity poles and the intersection lines poles of the wedges to know the

value of the correction parameters (Figures 9a to c). F3 values for planar failure cases (J2 and

J3) are -60 and 0 points respectively (Figure 9a). For wedges J1-J2 and J2-J3 the F3 correction

parameter adopts values of -60 points in both cases (Figure 9b). When the considered

compatible failure mechanism is toppling, F3 acquire the values of -25 and 0 points for J1 and J4

discontinuity sets respectively (Figure 9c).

12
Figure 8. Determination of (F1xF2) for a 60 dip slope affected by Figure 7 discontinuities sets:

(a) planar failure, (b) wedge failure y (c) toppling failure.

13
Figure 9. Determination of F3 for a 60 dip slope (S) affected by Figure 7 discontinuities sets (J 1,

J2, J3 y J4): (a) planar failure, (b) wedge failure y (c) toppling failure.

14
Graphically calculated and F3 correction parameters are summarized in Table 2. Conventional

parameters of F1, F2 and F3 computed numerically from Romanas (1985) SMR classification

(Table 1) are also included in Table 2. Notice that the resulting corrections are equal except for

the J1-J2 wedge where the values obtained by graphical and analytical methods differs 0.1

points due to the rounding of the assigned scores for each sector in Figure 1 and 2 that are

obtained by multiplying F1 by F2 original parameters proposed by Romana (1985).

5. Some interesting applications of graphical Slope Mass Rating approach

Some practical applications of proposed approach for the SMR calculus are presented.

The proposed stereoplots for determination (Figures 1 to 3) are independent of the slope

geometry and as a consequence they are valid for all slopes cases. In contrast, F3 stereoplots

(Figures 4 to 6) have to be drawn for a specific slope because they depend on the slope dip.

One of the advantages of the proposed graphical method is the possibility of easily compute

SMR correction factors for different slope orientations affected by the same sets of

discontinuities. This fact is usually presented in linear infrastructures (roads, railways, channels,

etc.) and open pit mining where the slopes excavated over wide rock masses present the same

dip but different strikes that change along the infrastructure or the exploitation sector. An

example of the firstly referred case is showed in Figures 10a and 10b that corresponds to a

linear infrastructure excavated trough a rock mass affected by a family of discontinuities with a

dip direction and a dip equals to 235 and 40 respectively. As seen, once the stereoplots have

been drawn, SMR correction parameters can be easily determined by rotating the stereoplot to

match the dip direction of the stereoplot with the dip direction of the dip direction of the

stereoplot. Figure 10c shows the position of the discontinuity poles for the different slope strikes

of the linear infrastructure. Notice that the punctuations for each slope orientation and the

changes of punctuations are immediately determined by rotating the stereoplot in order to

match the slope and the stereoplot dip directions. The different positions of the discontinuity

pole (PJ) for the whole slope strikes describe its geometric path that allows to easily

understanding how correction parameters (and consequently SMR) changes with the slope

15
orientation. The knowledge of the joint pole geometric path can be very useful for identifying the

critical slope orientation that corresponds to the higher combination of and F3 correction

parameters.

Figure 10. Practical application of SMR graphical approach for the determination of correction

parameters in a linear infrastructure.

For trench excavation, where the slopes have the same direction and dip but opposite dip

direction, the graphical method can be effortlessly applied simply rotating the stereoplot 180 to

determine and F3 correction parameters that are immediately determined by simple

measurement of the position of the discontinuity (or the line of intersection for wedge failure)

(Figures 10b and 10c).

The previously presented applications of this methodology use a representative dip and dip

direction of each discontinuity set for the SMR calculus. However, this graphical methodology

can provide another interesting application that consists of representing the poles of all the

discontinuities measured at field (Figure 11) in order to take into account the dispersion of the

16
discontinuities orientation to determine the maximum, minimum, mode and other simple

statistics for and F3 values. Notice that Figure 11 only includes planar cases simply for

clearness of the figure. Nevertheless toppling and wedge failure cases can be also taken into

account by representing the discontinuity poles and the great circles of all discontinuities field

measurements respectively using the corresponding stereoplots.

Figure 11. Application of SMR graphical methodology using field discontinuity measures for the

determination of parameter for planar failure mode.

17
Table 2. SMR correction factors computed using original discrete (D) function proposed by

Romana (1985) and graphical method (G) proposed in this paper. j and s: joint and slope dip

direction; j and s: joint and slope dip direction; A: parallelism between discontinuity dip

direction (or the trend of the intersection line in the case of wedge failure) and slope dip

direction; T: Toppling; P: Planar; W: Wedge; NFW: Non feasible wedge.

F1 F2 F3
= F1 F2
j-s

METHOD
FAILURE
TYPE OF

i-s
SET

j j s s A F1 F2 F3
j+
s

G - - 0.15 -25 -3.7

J1 T 60 70 210 60 30 130
D 0.15 1.00 - -25 -3.7
G - - 0.34 -60 -20.4
J2 P 235 40 210 60 25 -20
D 0.40 0.85 - -60 -20.4
G - - 0.15 0 0
J3 P 150 80 210 60 60 20
D 0.15 1.00 - 0 0
G - - 0.70 0 0
J4 T 16 10 210 60 14 70
D 0.70 1.00 - 0 0
G - - 0.02 -60 -1.2
J1-J2 W 149 3 210 60 61 -57
D 0.15 0.15 - -60 -1.3
G - - - - -
J1-J3 NFW 86 68 210 60 56 -
D - - - - -
G - - - - -
J1-J4 NFW 333 7 210 60 57 -
D - - - - -
G - - 0.34 -60 -20.4
J2-J3 W 232 40 210 60 22 -20
D 0.40 0.85 - -60 -20.4
G - - - - -
J2-J4 NFW 319 5 210 60 71 -
D - - - - -
G - - - - -
J3-J4 NFW 61 7 210 60 31 -
D - - - - -

6. Conclusions

A graphical method for Slope Mass Rating F1, F2 and F3 correction parameters determination is

proposed based on stereographical projection. F4 parameter has an irreplaceable descriptive

character and as a consequence it keeps its original way of being computed. For obtaining the

SMR correction parameters the discontinuity sets represented on equiangular stereographical

projection have to be superimposed to the proposed stereoplots and rotated to match the slope

dip direction with the stereoplot dip direction. Subsequently, the numerical values of the

correction parameters are directly obtained from stereoplots determining the position of the

discontinuity pole (for planar and toppling failure modes) or the intersection lines poles (for

wedge failure mode).

F1 and F2 parameters are grouped into a parameter named that represents the percentage of

F3 mobilized and that are easily computed by representing the discontinuity sets into the

18
proposed stereoplots for each type of failure mode, valid for all slopes regardless of the

orientation of the slope and discontinuity studied.

Moreover, the proposed stereoplots for F3 parameter depend of the type of failure. However,

these stereoplots also depends on the slope dip and as a consequence a different stereoplot

should be used for each slope dip.

The main advantage of this methodology is the possibility to be used for easily calculating the

correction parameters of SMR in cases where all the slopes have the same dip with different

strike as in linear infrastructures and open pit mining. Another significant improvement of this

methodology is the possibility of working with the field measurements of all discontinuities (of

the poles of the intersection lines for wedge failure cases) in order to determine the distribution

of the correction parameters values.

Acknowledgements

Authors thank anonymous reviewers and A. Singleton (University of Glasgow) for their useful

comments and the review of the paper. This work was partially funded by the University of

Alicante under the projects vigrob-157 uausti1018, uausti1111 and gre0940 and by the

Generalitat Valenciana within project gv/2011/044.

References

Anbalagan R., Sharma S., Raghuvanshi T.K., 1992. Rock Mass Stability Evaluation Using

Modified SMR Approach, in: Jha, P.C. (Ed.), Rock mechanics proceedings of the Sixth National

Symposium on Rock Mechanics, pp. 258-268.

Bieniawski, Z.T., 1976. Rock mass classification in rock engineering, in: Bieniawski, Z.T. (Ed.),

Exploration for rock engineering, Proceedings of the Symposium Expl. Rock Engineering,

Johannesburg, pp. 97-106.

Bieniawski, Z.T., 1989. Engineering Rock Mass Classification. Wiley, Chichester, 251 pp.

Bieniawski, Z.T., 1997. Quo Vadis Rock Mass classifications. Felsbau 15, 177-178.

Chen, Z., 1995. Recent developments in slope Stability Analysis. Keynote lecture, in: Fujii, T.

(Ed), Proc. 8th Int. Cong. Rock Mech., vol. 3, pp. 1041-1048.

19
Hack, H.R., 1998. Slope Stability Probability Classification. ITC Delf Publication, ITC Enschede,

Netherlands, 273 pp.

Hack, R., Price, D., Rengers, N.A., 2003. A new approach to rock slope stability - a probability

classification (SSPC). B. Eng. Geol. Environ. 62, 167-184.

Hack. H.R., 2002. An evaluation of Slope Stability Classification, in: Dinis da Gama, C. and

Ribeira e Sousa, L. (Eds.), Keynote Lecture, Proc. ISRM EUROCK2002, Publ. Sociedade

Portuguesa de Geotecnia, Lisboa, Portugal. pp. 3 32.

Haines, A., Terbrugge, P.J., 1991. Preliminary estimation of rock slope stability using rock mass

classification system, in: Wittke, W. (Ed.), Proceedings 7th Congress on Rock Mechanics, ISRM,

Rotterdam, pp. 887-892.

Harrison, J.P., Hudson, J.A., 2000. Engineering Rock Mechanics: Illustrative Worked Examples,

Elsevier Science, Oxford. 530 pp.

Hoek, E., Bray, J.W., 1981. Rock slope engineering. The Institution of mining and metallurgy.

Taylor and Francis. 353 pp.

Irigaray, C., Fernndez, T., Chacn J., 2003. Preliminary Rock-Slope-Susceptibility assesment

using GIS and the SMR classification. Nat. Hazard 30, 309-324.

Laubscher, D.H., 1990. A geomechanical classification system for the rating of rock mass in

mine design. J. S. Afr. Inst. Min. Metall. 90, 257-273.

Lindsay, P., Campbell, R.N., Fergusson, D.A., Gillard, G.R., Moore, T.A., 2001. Slope stability

probability classification, Waikato Coal Measures, New Zeland. Int. J. Coal Geol. 45, 127-145.

Liu, Y., Chen, C., 2007. A new approach for application of rock mass classification on rock

slope stability assessment. Eng. Geol. 89, 129143.

Pantelidis, L., 2009. Rock slope stability assessment through rock mass classification systems.

Int. J. Rock. Mech. Min. 46, 315-325.

Pantelidis, L., 2010. An alternative rock mass classification system for rock slopes. B. Eng.

Geol. Environ. 69, 29-39.

Robertson A.M., 1988. Estimating weak rock strength, in: Sastry, K.V.S. (Ed.), Proceedings of

the SME Annual meeting, Society of Mining Engineering, Phoenix, pp. 1-5.

20
Romana M. (1985). New adjustment ratings for application of Bieniawski classification to slopes,

in: Proceedings of the International Symposium on the Role of Rock Mechanics in Excavations

for Mining and Civil Works. International Society of Rock Mechanics, Zacatecas, pp. 49-53.

Romana M., Sern J.B., Montalar, E., 2003. SMR Geomechanics classification: Application,

experience and validation, in: Merwe, J.N. (Ed.), Proceedings of the 10th Congress of the

International Society for rock mechanics, ISRM 2003Technology roadmap for rock mechanics,

South African Institute of Mining and Metallurgy, pp. 1-4.

Romana, 1997. El papel de las clasificaciones geomecnicas en el estudio de la estabilidad

de taludes, in: Alonso, E., Corominas, J., Chacn, J., Oteo, C., Prez, J. (Eds.), Proceedings of

the IV Simposio Nacional sobre taludes y laderas inestables, Granada, Spain, 3, pp. 955-1011

(in Spanish).

Romana, M. (1993). A geomechanical classification for slopes: Slope Mass Rating, in: Hudson,

J.A. (Ed.), Comprehesive Rock Engineering, Pergamon Press, Oxford, pp. 575599.

Romana, M. Sern, J.B., Jord, L., Vlez, M.I. (2005). La clasificacin geomecnica SMR para

taludes: Estado actual, aplicacin y experiencia internacional, in: Corominas, J., Alonso, E.,

Romana, M., Hrlimann, M. (Eds.), Proceedings of the VI Simposio Nacional sobre taludes y

laderas inestables, Valencia, pp. 239-250 (in Spanish).

Romana, M., Sern, J.B., Montalar, E., 2001. La clasificacin geomecnica SMR: Aplicacin

experiencias y validacin, in: CEDEX and UPM (Ed.), Proceedings of the V Simposio Nacional

sobre taludes y laderas inestables, Centro de publicaciones, Secretaria General Tcnica.

Ministerio de Fomento, CEDEX, Madrid, pp. 393-404 (in Spanish).

Selby, M.J., 1980. A rock mass strength classification for geomorphic purposes: with test from

Antarctica and New Zeland. Zeitschrifts fr Geomorphologie 24, 31-51.

Sen, Z., Sadagah, H., 2003. Modified rock mass classification system by continuous rating.

Eng. Geol. 67, 269-280.

Shuk, T., 1994. Key elements and applications of the natural slope methodology (NSM) with

some emphasis on slope stability aspects, in: Proceedings of the 4 th South American Congress

on Rock Mechanics 2, ISRM, Balkema, Rotterdam, 955-960.

Toms, R., Delgado, J., Sern, J.B., 2007. Modification of Slope Mass Rating (SMR) by

continuous functions. Int. J. Rock. Mech. Min. 44, 1062-1069.

21
nal, E., 1996. Modified rock mass classification: M-RMR system, in: Bieniawski, Z.T.,

Milestones in rock engineering, The Bieniawski Jubilee Collection, Balkema, pp. 203-223.

22