Rock Slope Stability of Cliff End

Rock Slope
Stability of
Cliff End
University of East London
Nima Golzar Soufiani
U0737756
Acknowledgments
I would like to first of all thank my Mother and Father and sister for endlessly
supporting and believing in me even when I didn’t believe in myself. Without
their support, encouragement and belief, I would never be where I am today nor
would I be the man that I am today.
I would also like to thank Mr Richard Freeman for giving me the chance to take
part in this project and for giving me the chance to be supervised by him. Mr
Freeman’s advice as well as he’s encouragement and enthusiasm to help us in
any way possible was truly a source of inspiration for me to complete this
project to the best of my ability.
It is no exaggeration to say that without the help and advice from Mr Trevor
Rhoden, this project may not have been completed. He’s help, advice, and
patience with us in the laboratory tests was inspirational and for that I would like
to thank Mr Trevor Rhoden as well.
Last but not least I would like to thank all of my friends on my course, especially
Yosef Andom who from the foundation year shared the good and bad times with
me. Without the encouragement and inspiration from extraordinary friends like
Yosef Andom, Hassan Skaiky and Prajee Embogama as well as many others in
my class, this course would never have been as enjoyable. I feel honoured and
privileged to have had the chance to share this journey with them.
Thank you all.

Decleration
I confirm that no part of this coursework, except where clearly quoted and
referenced, has been copied from material belonging to other person.
Contents
List of figures ................................................................................................... 1
List of Table ..................................................................................................... 6
Equations ........................................................................................................ 8
Preface ............................................................................................................ 9
CHAPTER 1 - INTRODUCTION ....................................................................... 10
CHAPTER 2 – LITERATURE REVIEW ............................................................ 12
2.1 Discontinuities ......................................................................................... 12
2.2 Joints and Faults ..................................................................................... 14
2.3 Orientation ............................................................................................... 18
2.4 Stereographic analysis ............................................................................ 20
2.5 Slope instability mode identification ......................................................... 27
2.5.1 Wedge failure .................................................................................... 28
2.5.2 Plane failure ...................................................................................... 29
2.5.3 Toppling failure ................................................................................. 30
2.5.4 Circular failure ................................................................................... 31
2.6 Rock instability causes ............................................................................ 33
2.6.1 Weathering ....................................................................................... 33
2.6.2 Erosion and deposition ..................................................................... 34

2.6.3 Earthquake ....................................................................................... 36
2.7 Properties of the rock .............................................................................. 38
Driving force and Restoring force .................................................................. 40
2.8 Rock laboratory tests ............................................................................... 41
2.8.1 Point load test ................................................................................... 41
2.8.2 Slake durability test ........................................................................... 42
2.8.3 Pundit test ......................................................................................... 43
2.8.4 Undrained Triaxial test ...................................................................... 44
2.8.5 Consistency limit – penetrometer method ......................................... 45
2.9 Stabilisation of rock slope ........................................................................ 46
2.9.1 Rock bolt ........................................................................................... 47
2.9.2 Shotcrete .......................................................................................... 49
2.9.3 Anchored Wired mesh ...................................................................... 51
2.10 Site selection ......................................................................................... 52
2.11 Geology of Cliff End .............................................................................. 59
2.12 Travel log............................................................................................... 69
2.12.1 November 14th 2010 ....................................................................... 69
2.12.2 November 15th 2010 ....................................................................... 70
2.12.3 November 18th 2010 ....................................................................... 71
2.13 Petrology ............................................................................................... 78

CHAPTER 3 – LABORATORY/FIELD RESULTS ............................................. 79
3.1 Point load test.......................................................................................... 79
3.1.1 Results .............................................................................................. 84
3.1.2 Formulas used for calculations ......................................................... 84
3.2 Pundit test ............................................................................................... 85
3.3 Slake durability ........................................................................................ 86
3.3.1 Results .............................................................................................. 87
3.4 Consistency limit ..................................................................................... 88
3.4.1 Results .............................................................................................. 92
3.5 Undrained Triaxial test............................................................................. 93
3.6 Goodman and Bray Chart........................................................................ 94
CHAPTER 4 – STABILITY OF THE SITE ......................................................... 96
4.1 Stereographic projection.......................................................................... 97
CHAPTER 5 - Discussion ............................................................................... 104
5.1 Laboratory results .................................................................................. 104
5.2 Field results ........................................................................................... 105
5.3 Analysis of Stereographic projection. .................................................... 106

5.4 Comments on stability ........................................................................... 109
5.5 Slope stabilisation ................................................................................. 109
CHAPTER 6 - Conclusion ............................................................................... 111
Bibliography .................................................................................................... 112
CHAPTER 8 – APPENDIX .............................................................................. 115
Field data..................................................................................................... 115
Lab Data ...................................................................................................... 126

List of figures
Figure 1.1 - Greece Fatal Rockfall ........................................................... 10
Figure 1.2 - Rockfall at Pennington Point ................................................. 11
Figure 2.1 – Main discontinuity according to size..................................... 13
Figure 2.2 – Joints ................................................................................... 14
Figure 2.3 – Joint sets at St Mary’s Chapel ............................................. 15
Figure 2.4 – Joint example ....................................................................... 17
Figure 2.7 – Diagram showing discontinuity orientation ........................... 19
Figure 2.8 – Compass.............................................................................. 19
Figure 2.9 – Inclinometer ......................................................................... 19
Figure 2.10 – equatorial and polar projections ......................................... 20
Figure 2.11 – Polar Stereonet .................................................................. 21
Figure 2.12 – Equatorial Stereonet .......................................................... 22
Figure 2.13 – Geological data on tracing paper ....................................... 23
Figure 2.14 – Polar Stereonet example ................................................... 23
Figure 2.15 – Polar Stereonet example ................................................... 24
Figure 2.16 – Equatorial stereonet example ............................................ 24
Figure 2.17 – Stereonet ........................................................................... 25
Figure 2.18 – Stereonet with great circle ................................................. 26
Figure 2.19 – Stereonet with 2 great circles ............................................. 26
1
Figure 2.20 – Diagram of wedge failure ................................................... 28
Figure 2.21 – Wedge failure on stereonet ................................................ 28
Figure 2.22 – Diagram of Plane failure .................................................... 29
Figure 2.23 – Plane failure on stereonet .................................................. 29
Figure 2.24 – Diagram of toppling failure ................................................. 30
Figure 2.25 – Diagram of circular failure .................................................. 31
Figure 2.26 – Circular failure on stereonet ............................................... 31
Figure 2.27 – Stereonet with great circles and angle of friction ............... 32
Figure 2.28 – Coastal chemical weathering ............................................. 33
Figure 2.29 – Mechanical weathering ...................................................... 33
Figure 2.30 – Wave erosion ..................................................................... 34
Figure 2.31 – Mushroom rock pinnacle .................................................... 35
Figure 2.32 – Earthquake ........................................................................ 36
Figure 2.33 – Formation of mountain range ............................................. 36
Figure 2.34 – Formation of a fault ............................................................ 37
Figure 2.35 – Shear displacement vs shear stress ................................. 38
Figure 2.36 – Mohr plot of peak strength ................................................. 39
Figure 2.37 – Driving and Resisting force ................................................ 40
Figure 2.38 – Point load test .................................................................... 41
Figure 2.39 – Slake durability test ........................................................... 42
Figure 2.40 – PUNDIT test ....................................................................... 43
Figure 2.41 – Triaxial test ........................................................................ 44
Figure 2.42 – Sample for Triaxial test ...................................................... 44

2
Figure 2.43 – Cone penetrometer ............................................................ 45
Figure 2.44 – Rebound Hammer.............................................................. 45
Figure 2.45 – Rockfall in Canada ............................................................. 46
Figure 2.46 – Typical rock bolt configuration ........................................... 47
Figure 2.47 – Application of rock bolts and anchoring ............................. 48
Figure 2.48 – Shotcrete example ............................................................. 50
Figure 2.49 – Shotcrete/fibrecrete and rockbolt ....................................... 50
Figure 2.50 – Anchored wire mesh .......................................................... 51
Figure 2.51 – Map of site ......................................................................... 53
Figure 2.52 – Photos of Hastings ............................................................. 54
Figure 2.53 – Map of Fairlight .................................................................. 55
Figure 2.54 – Access to Cliff End site ...................................................... 55
Figure 2.55 – Cliff End site ....................................................................... 56
Figure 2.58 – Satellite view of Cliff End site ............................................. 58
Figure 2.59 – Sketch of Cliff End site ....................................................... 59
Figure 2.60 – Submerged forest .............................................................. 60
Figure 2.61 – Submerged forest .............................................................. 60
Figure 2.62 – Topographical features of Hastings area ........................... 61
Figure 2.63 – Structural geology of Hastings area ................................... 62
Figure 2.64 – Sketch of Cliff section ........................................................ 63

3
Figure 2.68 – Edina Digimap.................................................................... 67
Figure 2.69 – Stratigraphical column ....................................................... 68
Figure 2.70 – First day at Cliff End site .................................................... 69
Figure 2.71 – Second day at Cliff End site ............................................... 70
Figure 2.72 – Third day at Cliff End site ................................................... 71
Figure 2.73 – Topographical survey......................................................... 72
Figure 2.74 – Satellite imagery of Cliff End site ....................................... 72
Figure 2.75 – Taking the angle of friction ................................................. 73
Figure 2.76 – Schmidt hammer chart ...................................................... 74
Figure 2.77 – Bed layers .......................................................................... 76
Figure 2.78 – Geological strength index for jointed rocks ........................ 77
Figure 2.79 – Hard Sandstone ................................................................. 78
Figure 2.80 – Rock mass with layers of Sandstone and Clay .................. 78
Figure 3.1 – Liquid Limit ........................................................................... 90
Figure 3.2 – Soil classification.................................................................. 91
Figure 3.3 – Mohr’s Circles ...................................................................... 93
Figure 3.4 – Clay sample failure .............................................................. 93
Figure 3.5 – Goodman and Bray chart ..................................................... 95
Figure 4.1 – Topographical Survey .......................................................... 96
Figure 4.2 – Satellite view of Cliff End ..................................................... 96
Figure 4.3 – Stereonet with every discontinuity data plotted .................... 97

4
Figure 4.4 – Stereonet without face ......................................................... 98
Figure 4.5 – Analysis of Face 1................................................................ 99
Figure 4.6 – Analysis of Face 2................................................................ 99
Figure 4.7 – Analysis of Face 3.............................................................. 100
Figure 4.10 – Analysis of Face 6............................................................ 101
Figure 4.14 – Analysis of Face 10.......................................................... 103
Figure 5.1 – Soil and bits of rock on the base of the cliff ........................ 109
Figure 5.2 – Rock mass ......................................................................... 110
Figure 5.3 – Bits of rock on the shore .................................................... 110
Figure 6.1 – Blocks of rock on cliff base ................................................ 111
5
List of Table
Table 2.1 – Topographical Survey ........................................................... 71
Table 2.2 – Angle of friction readings....................................................... 73
Table 2.3 – Schmidt Hammer readings taken on site .............................. 74
Table 2.4 – Dip and Dip direction data ..................................................... 75
Table 3.1 – Raw data for Hard Sandstone ............................................... 79
Table 3.2 – Raw data for rock mass with layers of Sandstone and Clay . 79
Table 3.3 – Calculated point load index ................................................... 80
Table 3.4 – Calculated point load index ................................................... 81
Table 3.5 – Point load strength index....................................................... 82
Table 3.6 – Classification of rock by strength .......................................... 83
Table 3.7 – Raw results for the PUNDIT test ........................................... 84
Table 3.8 – PUNDIT test calculated results ............................................. 85
Table 3.9 – Cycle 1 raw results ................................................................ 86
Table 3.10 – Cycle 2 raw results .............................................................. 86
Table 3.11 – Hardsandstone calculations for slake durability index ......... 86
Table 3.12 – Rock mass with layers of Sandstone and Clay calculations for
slake durability index................................................................................ 87
Table 3.13 – Slake durability scale .......................................................... 87
Table 3.14 – Raw plastic limit test results ................................................ 88
Table 3.15 – Liquid limit raw results ......................................................... 88
Table 3.16 – Plastic limit test results ........................................................ 89
Table 3.17 – Liquid limit test results ......................................................... 89

6
Table 3.18 – Data for Goodman and Bray Chart...................................... 94
Table 4.1 – Discontinuity set from plot ..................................................... 97
Table 4.2 – Angle of Friction .................................................................... 98
7
Equations
Point load test
Is = P
De2 =
Area for square = Length x width
A = Cross sectional failure area
Is =
Is(50) = F x Is
Size correction factor= (de/502)0.45
σ = F/A
C = 24 Is(50)
Average (Mean) = Total values/number of items
Average σ = Total values/number of items
Slake durability test
Slake durability index =
PUNDIT Test
Vp = D/t ms-1
Average Length =
Average time =
8
Preface
The aim of this report is to investigate the rock slope stability of Cliff End.
A literature review is conducted which includes the geology of the site,

conditions that can initiate rock slope stability and various methods to stabilise
the rock slope. Numerous site visits were made to collect data for further testing
and the findings can be found in this report. All of the data are analysed and
discussed to determine the stability of the site. Methods to stabilise the rock
slope are also discussed and their merits questioned.
9
CHAPTER 1 - INTRODUCTION
Rock slope engineering is a branch of Geomechanical engineering and is an
integral topic within it. The application of structural geology and rock mechanics
principles form the topic of rock slope engineering these principles lie in the
stability of a slope cut into rock as (Kliche, 1999). The topic of rock slope
engineering includes a wide range of analysis that is normally conducted and
these include, groundwater analysis, geological data collection, slope
stabilisation methods, kinematic and kinetic analysis.
Further, rock slope stability analysis is also an integral topic within Civil
Engineering. Its use and application can according to (Kliche, 1999) be found in
the following areas:
1) Buildings, dam sites or foundations

2) Road cuts
3) Cut and cover tunnelling
4) Irrigation channels
5) Tailing dams
6) Mine dumps
Wyllie 2004, generally agrees with Kliche 1999, and adds further to the list of
activities which require the excavation of rocks. These include
1) Projects involved in
transportation system such as
railways and highways
2) Dams for power
production and water supply
3) Industrial and urban
development
It is therefore necessary to
Figure 1.1 - (Greece Fatal Rockfall picture and
analyse rock slopes
photos, 2009)
10
effectively so that the proper measures can be undertaken in order to stabilise
them if necessary.
Failure to analyse the stability of a rock mass can be catastrophic. Figure 1

shows a rock fall in Greece on the main highway linking north and southern
Greece on December 17th 2009 which took the life of an Italian engineer.
Figure 1.2 – (British Geological Survey, 2010)
The above pictures show a rock fall occurring at Pennington Point. What can be
seen in the pictures is the development of the actual rock fall and also the
amount of material involved.
11
CHAPTER 2 – LITERATURE REVIEW
2.1 Discontinuities
The factors that control most rock slopes are joints, faults and fractures which
are otherwise termed discontinuities. Discontinuities represent planes of
weakness (Kliche, 1999). It is these planes of weaknesses that control the
engineering properties of the rock mass by way of splitting the rock mass into
numerous blocks.
(Simons, Menzies, & Matthews, 2001) also agrees with Kliche, in respect of
discontinuities being a major factor when it comes to slope failures. To
determine whether or not a rock slope is stable, one must take into account the
pattern, the extent and the type of discontinuity that are present within the rock
mass.
Looking at BS 5930:1999, the types of discontinuities included for site

investigations are:
Joints
- A joint is formed in compression or tension and is structurally of small
dimension. They lack substantial shear strength in the plane of the
joint. (Palmstrom & Stille, 2010)
Fault
- Faults are defined by (Kliche, 1999) as essentially fractures which
have caused displacements due to tectonic activity. Characteristics of
a fault include crushed and sheared rock. This fracture allows the
water to flow freely which increases weathering.
Bedding fracture
- These are fractures which coincide along the bedding.
Induced fracture
- This is a discontinuity which has no geological origin. They have been
brought about by blasting, coring etc…
12
Incipient fracture
-incipient fractures tend to be found along bedding or cleavage. These

are defined by (Simons, Menzies, & Matthews, 2001) as discontinuities
which retains some tensile strength which may not be fully developed or
which may be partially cemented. Incipient failures are common along
bedding or cleavage.
All of these different types of discontinuities can change the structural or

geological feature or alter the homogeneity of a rock mass as (Palmstrom &
Stille, 2010) mentioned in Rock Engineering 2010. These discontinuities vary
tremendously in length from millimetres to thousands of meters.
Figure 2.1 - Above are the main types of discontinuities according to size.
(Palmstrom & Stille, 2010)
In the earth’s crust, there are numerous variations of joints and faults and
(Palmstrom & Stille, 2010) mentions that it is for this reason that it is so difficult
to apply common observation and description of rocks.
13
2.2 Joints and Faults
The most common type of

geological structure found in
rocks is joints. (Jaeger, Cook, &
Zimmerman, 2007) provide a
simple yet detailed explanation of
Joints in rock. Joints are defined
as fractures or cracks in the
rocks along which minimal or no
transverse displacement has
taken place. The spacing in
between joints is parallel or sub
parallel and regularly spaced.
Within a rock mass exist several
set which are oriented in different
ways which breaks up the rock
mass into smaller and blockier Figure 2.2 – Joint (S.Aber, 2003)
structures. As (Jaeger, Cook, &
Zimmerman, 2007) mentions, this is why joints are very important in rock
mechanics. As the joints divides rock mass into different parts sliding can occur
along the joint surfaces. Another crucial factor is their influence on the paths
they provide for fluids to flow through the rock mass.
Joints exist in a variety of scales. (Blyth, 2005) mentions that well defined joints
are termed as Major joints whereas smaller breaks are minor joints. (Jaeger,
Cook, & Zimmerman, 2007) expands on this by terming the major joints as the
most important set and can be traced for tens or hundreds of meters. The minor
joints are not as important and can be seen usually intersecting the major joints
which is why they are also known as cross joints.
14
This is still not applicable to all cases though as two sets of joints have the
potential to be equally as important as each other.
An interesting point that

(Simons, Menzies, &
Matthews, 2001) that other
authors do not mention is
that even though there is
abundant literature on this
subject and even though
joints are common, they are
one of the most difficult
structures to analyse. The
reason for this is due to the
fundamental characteristics
that are inherent to these
rock masses.
Faults are described by

(Jaeger, Cook, &
Figure 2.3 - Well-developed joint sets at St Mary’s Zimmerman, 2007) as

Chapel, Caithness, Scotland (Norton, 2008) fracture surfaces along
which relative displacement
has transpired transverse to the nominal plane of the fracture. Major faults can
have a thickness ranging from several meters to hundreds of meters. Minor
faults have a thickness ranging from a decimetre to a meter. They can usually
be seen to be approximately planar, and due to this, they provide the crucial
planes along which sliding can occur. (Palmstrom & Stille, 2010) also adds that
the result of most fault zones is of the numerous ruptures which occur during
geological time and have a correlation with other parallel discontinuities that
decrease with size and frequency with distance.
(Villaverde, 2009) notes that the existence of faults at some location indicates
that a relative motion took place between its two sides at some time in the past.
15
All of the authors agree that the most important aspect in relation to
discontinuities is their spacing and orientation. (Simons, Menzies, & Matthews,
2001) gives a useful list of important characteristics of discontinuities. Their list
is as follows:
Orientation
Spacing (one dimension)
Block size and shape
Persistence
Roughness
Wall strength
Wall coating
Aperture and infilling
Seepage
Discontinuity sets
Both the initial and main concerns in regards to rock slope stability is the
orientation and spacing of the discontinuities. (Wyllie, Mah, & Hoek, 2004)
states that whilst orientation is the number one characteristic that influences
stability, there are other properties such as spacing and persistence that also
have an effect. Three examples from (Wyllie, Mah, & Hoek, 2004) are shown on
figure 2.4-2.6:
16
J1 can be seen to be widely
spaced and the persistence is
greater than the slope height of
the cut.
Figure 2.4 - The persistent J1 joints can be

seen dipping out of the face. This forms the
possibility of unstable sliding blocks
J1 and J2 can be seen to be

closely spaced and have low
persistence. There is no overall
slope failure.
Figure 2.5 - The joints here are closely

spaced. The low persistence joints cause the
ravelling of small blocks.
A series of small thin slabs are

produced due to J2 being
persistent and closely spaced
which dip into the face. This
creates toppling failure.
Figure 2.6 - Potential toppling slabs are

caused through persistent J2 joints dipping
into face.
17
2.3 Orientation
It is essential that the orientation of the discontinuities in a rock mass are

measured and analysed when it comes to rock slope engineering. Since the
vast majority of discontinuities encountered are irregular, data gathered over a
small area will appear scattered. (Simons, Menzies, & Matthews, 2001)
suggests a way to reduce this scatter is to place a 200mm diameter aluminium
measuring plate on the discontinuity surface before measurements are made.
Dip and dip direction are the terminology used to record orientation. They are
defined by (Wyllie, Mah, & Hoek, 2004) as follows:
1) Dip –The dip is measured normal to the strike direction and is the
inclination angle of the plane.
2) Dip direction – this is the horizontal trace of the line of dip, which is
measured clockwise from north. (Kliche, 1999) further adds that the dip
direction is measured from 0⁰ to 360⁰. 0⁰ and 360⁰ = North, 90⁰ = East,
180⁰ = South, 270⁰ = West.
To measure the dip and dip direction, the strike is also needed. This is defined
by (Wyllie, Mah, & Hoek, 2004) as the trace of the intersection of an inclined
plane with a horizontal reference plane. A diagram is shown below by (Wyllie,
Mah, & Hoek, 2004) to illustrate the relationship between strike, dip and dip
direction.
18
Figure 2.7 - Diagram showing discontinuity orientation. Diagram on left showing
isometric view and on the right showing the plan view. (Wyllie, Mah, & Hoek,
2004)
To take dip and dip directions, a compass and inclinometer will be required.
(Simons, Menzies, & Matthews, 2001) recommends the use
of a common type of combination between a compass and
inclinometer. These include the Silva compass and the Clar
type compass. They allow for both dip and dip direction to
be taken using the same instrument.
Figure 2.8 -
Compass
Figure 2.9 - Inclinometer
19
2.4 Stereographic analysis
When the data has been collected in the field it can be expected that there will
be scatter in the data. To be able to efficiently analyse this, it is vital that a
technique is used to deal with such scatter. Stereographic projection is a
technique that allows for such data to be analysed efficiently. Several textbooks
also term stereographic projection as “Hemispherical projection” but for the
sake of simplicity, it will be referred to as Stereographical projection here.
(Kliche, 1999) mentions that the term stereographic projection literally means
the projection of solid or three dimensional drawings. Stereographical projection
is a method which is often used in rock mechanics for the analysis of planar
discontinuities such as bedding planes, faults, shear planes, and joints. Since
this technique allows data to be analysed visually rather than numerically, it is
considered a valuable technique in rock mechanics due to its simplicity.
In Geomechanics, there are two

types of stereographic
projections that can be used as
(Wyllie, Mah, & Hoek, 2004)
mention. These include both the
polar and equatorial stereonet
as shown in figure 2.10.The two
stereonets, polar and equatorial,
are used for different purposes.
explains that the polar stereonet
is used to plot poles whereas
the equatorial stereonet is used
Figure 2.10 - Equatorial and polar
projections of a sphere (Wyllie, Mah, to plot planes and poles.
& Hoek, 2004)
20
Both stereonets can be seen below on figures 2.11 and 2.12:
Figure 2.11 - Polar Stereonet (Hoek & Bray, 2001)
21
Figure 2.12 - Equatorial stereonet (Hoek & Bray, 2001)
Both stereonets shown above are a common type of stereonet called an equal
area or Lambert (Schmidt) net. All of the areas of an equal area stereonet on
the surfaces of the reference sphere is represented as an equal area. This is
particularly useful as this allows the contouring of pole plots. This in turn will
lead to concentrations of poles which define preferred orientations and sets of
discontinuities.
22
(Wyllie, Mah, & Hoek, 2004) and (Kliche, 1999) both provide methods to plotting
the data onto the stereo nets and provide similar instructions.
Figure 2.13 - The figure above shows geological data and analysed on a tracing
paper courtesy of (Wyllie, Mah, & Hoek, 2004)
Data collected from the field are first plotted onto a polar stereonet. This can
either be carried out by hand or computer. The dip direction is marked from 0⁰
to 360⁰. 0⁰ and 360⁰ start from the bottom of the stereonet and 180⁰ is located
on the top of the stereonet.
As can be seen on the left, a

polar stereonet is shown with a
discontinuity plotted. The plot
orientation is 50⁰/130⁰ (dip and
dip direction).
The dip direction is first located

on the outer edge of the stereonet.
In this case, the value is 130⁰.
The dip is then located. The outer
edge indicates 90⁰ and the centre
Figure 2.14 - Polar Stereonet example of the stereonet represents 0⁰ dip.

This process is carried out for
23
every dip and dip direction collected. Eventually, clusters will form and each
cluster will represent a discontinuity. An example of this is shown on the figure
below.
As can be seen on the left, a cluster

has been formed. A boundary is
drawn around the cluster and the
centre of that area is established.
This then forms the orientation of the
discontinuity set. In this case, the
centre of the circle is 57⁰/199⁰ dip and
dip direction respectively.
Figure 2.15 - Polar Stereonet example

(Kliche, 1999)
The next step requires the use of an
equatorial stereonet. (Wyllie, Mah, & Hoek, 2004) explains this procedure which
involves the plotting of great circles for each of the discontinuity set orientations,
along with the orientation of the face. The purpose of this is to show on a single
diagram, the orientation of every surface with the rock mass that has an
influence on its stability.
(Simons, Menzies, & Matthews, 2001) and (Wyllie, Mah, & Hoek, 2004) contain
worked visual examples of the plotting of great circles on the equatorial
stereonet. The best and most clear step by step example is shown by (Wyllie,
Mah, & Hoek, 2004) on figure 2.16:
Figure 2.16 - Equatorial stereonet example (Wyllie, Mah, & Hoek, 2004)
24
Two discontinuity set orientations are plotted on figure 2.16. They are 50/130⁰
and 30/250⁰.
Further examples are shown below.
To plot these two discontinuity sets,

a pin, tracing paper and an
equatorial stereonet is needed. A pin
in pricked through the centre of the
stereonet and the tracing paper is
placed on top. North is marked on
the tracing paper so that the initial
orientation of the tracing paper will
always be known. A dip direction of
130⁰ will also be recorded clockwise
from North.
Figure 2.17 - Stereonet
The tracing paper is rotated to either 90⁰ or 270 from the dip direction recorded.
The dip is then counted from the outer edge, representing 0⁰, to the centre,
representing 90⁰. In this case, a dip of 50⁰ is reached and the great circle is
traced that corresponds to 50⁰.
25
Figure 2.18 – stereonet with great circle
The tracing paper is rotated again so that the mark “N”, returns to its original
position. The entire procedure is repeated again for 30/250 giving a diagram as
shown in figure 2.19.
Figure 2.19 – Stereonet with 2 great circles
26
2.5 Slope instability mode identification
From the completed stereonets, it is possible to identify different types of slope

failure that may occur. This identification of potential stability problems is
paramount as (Wyllie, Mah, & Hoek, 2004) mentions during the early stages of
any project.
(Wyllie, Mah, & Hoek, 2004) and (Simons, Menzies, & Matthews, 2001) provide
patterns to look out for with respect to specific types of failures and both provide
explanations for those different failures. (Kliche, 1999) only goes as far as
showing the steps to making a equatorial stereonet but does not delve into what
the analysis necessarily represents.
There are four types of failure that are of main concern according to (Wyllie,
Mah, & Hoek, 2004). These include Plane failure, Wedge failure, Toppling
failure and Circular failure. (Simons, Menzies, & Matthews, 2001) agrees with
the main types of failures but also adds two more, Flexural toppling and Rock
falls. Since Plane failure, Wedge failure, toppling failure and circular failure are
the main type of failures which can be analysed using a stereonet, these will
form the main focus of this project.
27
2.5.1 Wedge failure
(Simons, Menzies, & Matthews, 2001)

explains that when the orientation is such that
two discontinuities intersect, a wedge failure
will occur if the dip direction is similar to that
of the face and if the dip is greater than the
Figure 2.20 - Diagram of wedge angle of friction. This is shown on the

failure (Wyllie, Mah, & Hoek, stereonet below. As there is no release
2004)
surfaces required, for this type of failure it is
considered the most dangerous mode.
Pole concentrations
Dip direction of the

face
Line intersection
dip direction and
Figure 2.21 - Wedge
direction of sliding
failure on stereonet
(Wyllie, Mah, & Hoek,
2004)
28
2.5.2 Plane failure
A plane failure will occur if the dip direction of

the discontinuity has a dip direction similar to
that of the face and if the dip if greater than
the angle of friction.
There must be lateral release surfaces for
Figure 2.22 - Diagram of Plane plane failure to occur, which will then allow a
failure (Wyllie, Mah, & Hoek, block of finite size to slide out of the face
2004)
(Simons, Menzies, & Matthews, 2001). A
plane failure is one of the simplest modes of failure.
Pole concentrations
Dip direction of
face and direction
of sliding
Figure 2.23 - Plane

2004)
29
2.5.3 Toppling failure
This is a type of failure where long slender rock

blocks dip into the face at angles which are steep
and rest on a basal discontinuity which dips out of
the face with an angle that is less than the angle of
friction for that discontinuity.
Figure 2.24 – Diagram of

toppling failure (Wyllie,
Mah, & Hoek, 2004)
Dip direction of
face and direction
of toppling
Figure 2.25 - Toppling
2004)
30
2.5.4 Circular failure
The failure is likely to be circular if the rock

mass is heavily broken or jointed. If on a
stereonet the pattern of discontinuity appears
to be random, then circular failure is a
possibility that should be considered.
Figure 2.25 – Diagram of

circular failure
Randomly oriented
discontinuities.
Figure 2.26 - Circular

failure on stereonet (Wyllie,
Mah, & Hoek, 2004)
One parameter that is left out in these stereonet examples is the angle of
friction as this will have an influence on the stability. (Wyllie, Mah, & Hoek,
2004) does not give a clear explanation as to how to plot the angle of friction
whereas (Simons, Menzies, & Matthews, 2001) does provide this.
To draw an angle of friction of 50⁰ on an equatorial stereonet, a dip of 50⁰ is

counted from the outer edge to the centre. A mark is left on 50 ⁰ and a compass
is then required to draw the circumference from the centre of the stereonet to
the 50⁰ mark. An example of this is shown on the next page.
31
Angle of Friction
at 50⁰
Figure 2.27 – Stereonet with great circles and Angle of Friction.
32
2.6 Rock instability causes
In different parts of the world, there are a wide range of conditions that
represent the wide variety of natural processes
that are taking place to shape the earth’s surface.
(Blyth, 2005) agrees that land areas are

constantly being reduced and reshaped and this
is the cause of weathering and erosion. This
process is known as denudation. Rain and frost
are responsible for a process called “weathering”
on rocks that are exposed to the atmosphere.
Figure 2.28 - Coastal chemical

weathering (Chinese
International School)
2.6.1 Weathering
The process of breaking down of the minerals into new compounds is called
chemical weathering. Chemical weathering takes place by action of chemical
agents such as acids in the
air, river water and in rain.
(Blyth, 2005) notes that
although the process of
chemical weathering is slow,
they produce noticeable
effects in soluble rocks.
Chemical weathering can
decrease the amount of
inflilling in discontinuities
which can result in a
Figure 2.29 - Mechanical weathering (De Groot, decrease of shear stress of
2005)
the discontinuity. This can
cause premature slope failures due to the decrease in the angle of friction.
33
Mechanical weathering is essentially the breakdown of rock into small particles.
This is achieved by abrasion from mineral particles carried in the wind, constant
temperature changes and by impact from raindrops. In dry areas the land are
shaped by the sand constantly blasting against them during storms. Flaking of
exposed rock surfaces are produced in very hot and very cold climates where
temperature constantly changes.
2.6.2 Erosion and deposition
Figure 2.30 - Wave erosion on Portland Cliff (Chadwick, Wave erosion on a

Portland Cliff, 2006)
The agents of erosion are rivers, wind, water waves and moving ice. This is due
to their capabilities which include loosening, carrying particles of soil and
dislodging large pieces of rock and sediment.
As the toe of the rock is eroded away over geological time, this leaves the rock
on top of the toe to overhang above the sea which is known as undercutting.
When the discontinuities control the rock slope stability, undercutting of the
34
slope will cause daylighting of the discontinuities resulting in plane, wedge or
toppling failure as well as other more complex failure mechanisms.
The rate of erosion however, depends on a number of parameters. They include

wind speed, rock type, its permeability as well as porosity and whether the rock
are folded, faulted or weathered.
In climates where little rain is seen, wind is the main source of erosion. The
wind contributes to erosion through the following methods; wind carries small
particles and essentially moves it to another region. The other effect is erosion
as the suspended particles
impact on solid objects. This over
geological time, erodes rock from
the bottom which causes
overhanging of rocks which will
eventually topple.
Valleys are widened and

deepened due to the work of
Figure 2.31 - Mushroom rock pinnacle – erosion by the river. (Blyth, 2005)
wind and sand erosion (Byrd, 2010)
also adds that the rate of erosion
is increased in times of flood. Rivers also act as agents of transport. They carry
many materials in suspension which eventually leads to the sea.
35
2.6.3 Earthquake
Sharp movements along

fractures cause numerous
shocks which continually take
place and relieve stress in the
crustal rocks. Various reasons
cause stress to accumulate
locally until the stress exceeds
the strength of the rock. Figure 2.32 – Earthquake (Man Made Earth,
2010)
When this happens, failure
and slip will occur along the fracture and this followed by a smaller rebound.
(Blyth, 2005) notes that it only takes a few centimetres of movement or less to
create a significant shock due to the amount of energy involved. Earthquake
can have devastating effects and have the potential to send severe shocks
capable of opening fissures on the ground, initiating landslides, and fault scarps.
Weak ground produces the worst effects especially in young deposits such as
sand, silt and clay.
Figure 2.33 - Formation of mountain range due to the convergence of two

continental plates. (Villaverde, 2009)
The figure above shows two plate boundary colliding and given enough time,
they will eventually fold up in very much the same manner as an accordion. It is
36
this process that has creates the world’s mightiest mountain ranges, such as
the Alps and the Himalayas.
Figure 2.34 - Formation of a fault by plates sliding past each other. (Villaverde,
2009)
When the edges of the plate slide past each other, crust is neither created nor
destroyed, nor are there any changes on the Earth’s surface. This type of action
occurs on boundaries which are called faults.
Pressure released during earthquakes widens discontinuities which causes rock

slopes to fail due to the decrease in the angle of friction and/or alteration of the
dip or dip direction of the face,
37
2.7 Properties of the rock
(Hoek & Bray, 2001) mentions that when analysing rock slopes, the most
important factor that needs to be considered is the geometry of the rock mass
behind the slope face. (Kliche, 1999) and (Wyllie, Mah, & Hoek, 2004) also
echo these sentiments. Another factor, which is the next important factor that
needs to be considered, is the shear strength of the potential failure surface.
There are many factors that contribute to shear strength including angle of
friction, cohesion, rock mass density, surface roughness and joint continuity.
Cohesion is defined by the Oxford dictionary of Earth Sciences as the ability of

particles to stick together without dependence on interparticle friction.
Angle of friction is defined simply by the Oxford dictionary of Earth Sciences as

the angle (Ф) which is measured between the normal force (N) and resultant
force (R). This is attained when failure ensues in response to a shearing stress
(S).
The peak shear strength is

influenced by the angle of
friction, discontinuities and
any infilling that may be
present. For a test which is
conducted with continuous
normal stress, a plot of
Figure 2.35 - Plot of shear displacement vs shear Shear stress again Shear
stress (Wyllie, Mah, & Hoek, 2004) displacement is shown.
38
If the test is carried out in different normal stress levels and the peak shear
strength value is gained from each of the tests, then a plot of Shear stress
against Normal stress can be plotted. This is called the Mohr diagram.
Figure 2.36 - Mohr plot of peak strength (Wyllie, Mah, & Hoek, 2004)
As can be seen on the diagram above, the features of the Mohr diagram is that
it is approximately linear and the slope of the line is equivalent to the peak
friction angle Фp of the rock surface. The point at which the line intercepts the
shear stress axis is the cohesive strength c.
The peak shear strength is defined by:
(2.1)
If no cohesion is present, the equation can be shortened to
(2.2)
39
Driving force and Restoring force
A slope that is stable has a Restoring force that is greater than the driving force.
The driving force is influenced greatly by gravity which creates a downward
movement.
A slope that is unstable has a Restoring force that is less than the driving force.
When the dip of the beds is greater than the angle of friction, driving force is
increased thus destabilising the rock mass.
The cohesion of any infilling material can decrease due to the groundwater
pressure increasing the uplifting pressure. This results in a reduction of
Restoring force as can be seen in the figure below.
Infill material
Figure 2.36 – Driving force and resisting force (Freeman, 2010)
40
2.8 Rock laboratory tests
A variety of laboratory tests need to be conducted to determine what the

properties of the rocks are.
2.8.1 Point load test
The point load test is a reliable test as

this involved the process of actually
breaking the rock between two point as
(Freeman, 2010) states. To conduct
this experiment, a sample is required to
be approximately 50 mm across with
approximately parallel sides.
The point load test is a way of

classifying the rock that can be
performed either in the laboratory or on
site.
The experiment consists of a loading Figure 2.38 – Point load test
frame, platens, hydraulic ram and

pump. The necessary force can then be applied onto the specimen so that it
breaks.
41
2.8.2 Slake durability test
Figure 2.39 – Slake durability test
Rock materials are susceptible to degradation when exposed to the processes

of weathering including wetting and drying and freezing cycles. Rock types that
are susceptible to degradation are rocks that usually have high clay content
such as mudstone and other rock types such as shale.
The test involves the rock sample being put in a drum and then partially
submerged in water. The drum is then rotated at 20 revolutions per minute for a
period of 10 minutes. The drum is dried and the weight loss is then recorded.
The test cycle is then repeated one more time.
42
2.8.3 Pundit test
Figure 2.40 – PUNDIT test
This is a non-destructive method for determining certain elastic properties of a

rock mass. This test is based on finding the velocity at which an elastic wave
travels through the rock. This will give an indication of the internal structure of
the rock or object.
A PUNDIT (Portable Ultrasonic Non Destructive Index Tester) is used for this
test. At one end of the specimen a compressive stress pulse is generated and
the PUNDIT test records the time taken for the resulting P wave to reach the
other end.
43
2.8.4 Undrained Triaxial test
This test is the most popular test for

testing shear strength. It is suitable for
all types of soil except for very
sensitive clays (Whitley, 2001).
A cylindrical specimen of soil is

required having a diameter/height
ratio of 2:1. (Whitley, 2001) lists
typical sizes as being 76 x 38 mm and
100 x 50 mm.
The specimen is tested under

different cell pressures which then
creates a Mohr circle for each peak or
ultimate failure stress. A common
tangent is then drawn and then this
maybe be taken as the strength
envelope for the soil from which the
angle of friction and cohesion values
can be scaled.
Figure 2.41 – Triaxial test
Figure 2.42 – Sample for Triaxial test

44
2.8.5 Consistency limit – penetrometer method
Consistency limit is used as a basis for

the classification of fine soils. The cone
penetrometer method for liquid limit is
reliant on the relationship between the
moisture content and the penetration of
the soil sample by the cone.
The test consists of a Cone

penetrometer and soil samples with the
appropriate water content which allows
for certain penetration to occur. The
sample is then placed in the oven after
being weighed and the relationship
between the wet and dry mass is
recorded.
To gain the plastic limit, a sample is

rolled until cracks appear. If cracks do
Figure 2.43 – Cone penetrometer not appear, the sample needs to be
more dry and then rolled again until
cracks appear. The sample is weighed, placed in the oven for 25 hours and
then weighed again.
Schmidt hammer
The Schmidt hammer is a tool used to

give an indication of the strength of the
rock. It is also known as the rebound
hammer.
The hammer is placed on the rock mass Figure 2.44 – Rebound Hammer
(Poyeshyar Co. Ltd, 2011)
and a spring loaded mass is released
onto the rock. The rebound is dependent on the hardness of the rock.
45
2.9 Stabilisation of rock slope
Stabilisation of slopes is vital as the operation of highways and railways,

transmission facilities, power generation and the safety of commercial and
residential development in rocky terrain depend on the surrounding rock to be
stable.
(Wyllie, Mah, & Hoek, 2004) mentions that stabilisation programs are often very
economical as the failure of a slope could bring around high costs. An example
of this can be seen on highways as even a minor rock fall can bring about
damage to vehicles as well as injury or even death to the passengers. The
failure of stabilising a slope can also bring severe traffic and indirect economic
loss. (Wyllie, Mah, & Hoek, 2004) adds that a closure of railroad and toll
highways will result in a direct loss of revenue.
Due to these
reasons, stabilising
a rock face is of
extreme importance.
Below will be a list of
stabilisation
techniques which
are commonly used
to stabilise slope.
Figure 2.45 - Rockfall in Canada caused by heavy rain on

November 9, 1990 (Canada, 2007)
46
2.9.1 Rock bolt
Rock bolting is a technique that is very common due to its flexibility. (Palmstrom
& Stille, 2010) mentions that it is often used for the initial support at the tunnel
sides and can often be used for the final support.
They are regarded as short, low capacity reinforcement which comprises of a

bar or tube fixed into the rock and tensioned as illustrated by (Simons, Menzies,
& Matthews, 2001) in the figure below.
Figure 2.46 - Typical rock bolt configuration (Simons, Menzies, & Matthews,
2001)
Rock bolts are used to prevent toppling by tying together the blocks of rock so
that the effective base width is increased. They can also increase the resistance
to sliding on discontinuity surfaces. Another use for rock bolts is its use as an
anchor structure such as retaining walls and catch nets.
47
Rock bolts being used to
prevent toppling failure
Rock bolts being used to

increase resistance to
sliding
Rock bolts being used as

an anchor structure
Figure 2.47 - Applications of rock bolts and anchoring. (Simons, Menzies, &
Matthews, 2001)
48
2.9.2 Shotcrete
Spraying concrete is advantageous when a slope is prone to rock falls, spalling

and sliding of small amount of rock. (Palmstrom & Stille, 2010) also notes that
shotcrete has been in use for several decades. It is a popular method due to its
favourable properties together with flexibility and high capacity.
The term shotcrete is used for a sprayed concrete which comprises of mortar
and aggregate which can be as large as 20mm thick. (Simons, Menzies, &
Matthews, 2001) also notes that the term gunite is also used to describe a
similar sort of material but with smaller aggregate.
Three different shotcrete methods are in use today as (Palmstrom & Stille,
2010) mentions:
1) Wet-mix, dry-mix or ordinary shotcrete sprayed in layers up to 100 mm

thick.
2) Net reinforced shotcrete. This process involves first spraying a layer of
concrete and then installing the net. A second layer is then is sprayed to
eventually cover up the net.
3) Fibre-reinforced shotcrete. This involves 3-5 cm long thin needles of fibre
steel which are mixed in to the wet concrete. (Hoek & Bray, 2001) also
notes that this is the method of choice in Scandinavia and have
completely replaced new reinforced shotcrete.
49
Figure 2.48 – Shotcrete used for reinforcing of unstable fragments
and small blocks
Figure 2.49 - A combination of shotcrete/fibrecrete and rock bolts. (Palmstrom &

Stille, 2010)
50
2.9.3 Anchored Wired mesh
If small blocks are prone to falling

then the most economical and
versatile material to prevent the fall is
the wire mesh. It is not uncommon to
see layers of mesh pinned onto the
surface of the rock as a means of
stopping small loose blocks or rock
becoming dislodged. The other
advantage of a wire mesh is in the
case of the small blocks of rock that
eventually do fall down can be guided
into the ditch at the base of the slope.
Figure 2.50 - Anchored wire mesh

to prevent small blocks from
becoming dislodged. (Simons,
Menzies, & Matthews, 2001)
51
2.10 Site selection
For this research project, a site needed to be selected to assess its rock slope
stability. The selection of the site was based on a number of different
requirements which had to be agreed on with the supervisor. The following were
the requirements:
The site had to be easily accessible

The site had to pose no immediate danger to the public.
The site had to be unstable
The site had to be safe to work on and safety equipment used at all times
The site had to be agreed with the supervisor
Based on these requirements, an investigation was made into which sites

should be shortlisted. The following were the initial short listed sites:
1) Hastings
2) Fairlight Cove
3) Cliff End
4) Pex Hill quarry
5) Derbyshire quarry
6) Paragon beach
7) Tenby beach
Although pictures on Google maps show that Tenby and Paragon beach clearly
have unstable rocks to analyse, to get to the site would take approximately 5
hours by car. This was deemed too far. Pex Hill quarry and Derbyshire quarry
were also far away with approximately a 4 hour car journey to get there. It was
not clear there was easy access to the site either so a site visit to the quarries
would be a last resort. Out of all of the sites listed above, the Hastings area was
the closest with a 2 hour drive which had Fairlight Cove and Cliff End close to
its proximity.
From satellite imagery provided by Bing Maps, the coast along Hastings to Cliff
End were potential sites.
52
Figure 2.51 – map of site
The first site visited was the coast along Hasting on October 2nd 2010. There were amples of parking space and the site was very easily
accessible.
53
As can be seen on the
pictures taken, the site is
not easy to work on.
Although there is
evidence of plane failure
from the rubble at the
bottom, it would not be
comfortable or safe to
work on this site.
Furthermore, a warning
sign on the front of the
entrance also gave
indication as to the level
of safety on the site as
can be seen on the
photograph taken to the
left.
A friendly local then gave

advise on potential sites
mentioning that Fairlight
Cove was also not safe
to work on due to
Landslides and falling
rocks. Cliff End then
seemed to form the best
chance of finding a
suitable site.
Figure 2.52 – Photos of Hastings
54
Figure 2.53 – Map of Fairlight
Driving along the coast of Hastings, Cliff End was eventually reached. Cliff End
provided very easy access to the site from the car park as can be seen below.
Figure 2.54 – Access to Cliff End site.
55
After roughly a 5 minute walk, the Cliffs of Cliff End could be seen.
Figure 2.55 – Cliff End site
56
Walking along the coast was not possible on this day due to the high tides but
this site showed some evidence of instability due to the orientation of the
discontinuities present.
After showing pictures of the site to the supervisor, it was eventually agreed that
the Cliff End site would form the subject for this research project.
57
Car Park
Site
Figure 2.58 – Satellite view of Cliff End site
58
2.11 Geology of Cliff End
The Cliff End site at East Sussex which starts from Haddock’s reversed fault to
just after the Cliff End faults consist mainly of layers of Ashdown Beds, Cliff End
Sandstone and Wadhurst Clay.
The Cliffs have reached their current state by constant wave erosion over
geological time and it is estimated by (Villagenet, 2011) to have eroded at a rate
of 0.6 metres per year. This would indicate that during 1066 the cliffs were
approximately a further 550 metres out.
Figure 2.59 – Sketch of Cliff End site. (British Geological Survey, 1987) A=
Ashdown beds CE= Cliff End Sandstone W= Wadhurst Clay.
Approximately 6000 years ago, after the last Ice Age, the sea level was
approximately 45 meters lower than it is at present due to the Polar Regions
having more ice. At that time, a forest grew when England was still joined by a
land bridge to the continent.
The sea level began to rise as the climate became warmer. This caused the
Polar Regions to have their ice slowly melt away causing sea levels to rise
above the level of the forest. The consequences were that the forest drowned
but the wood is still preserved today in salt water and mud.
Pictures taken of Cliff End on the next page illustrate the remains of the
submerged forest.
59
Figure 2.60 – Submerged forest. (Chadwick, Submerged Forest, Cliff End,
2010)
Figure 2.61 – submerged forest (Chadwick, Submerged Forest, Cliff End, 2010)
60
Cliff End
Figure 2.62 – Topographical features of the Hastings area (British Geological Survey, 1987)
61
Figure 2.63 – Structural geology of the Hastings area (British Geological Survey, 1987)
62
Figure 2.64 - Sketch of Cliff section between Haddock’s Reversed Fault and Cliff End (British Geological Survey, 1987)
63
Looking beyond
Haddocks reverse fault
on page 54, the cliff
line has a height of
approximately 20-30
meters which goes as
far as Cliff End. Soft
Wadhurst Clay shales
Figure 2.65 – Cliff End site cut into the upper part
of the cliff which gives
rise to a strip of densely wooded, slipped terrain from which material sometimes
falls to the beach. Within these shales is where the Cliff End Bone Bed occurs
which is a few meters above the top of the Cliff End Sandstone in the top of the
cliff.
Beneath the base of the Cliff End sandstone, a 1m band of shales with a 0.1 m
bed of clay-ironstone gives rise to a notch in the cliff which marks the
intersection of the Wadhurst Clay and the Ashdown Beds. Up to 15 m of
sandstones lie beneath the notch with thin silty mudstone bands which are
exposed above the beach.
As can be seen from

figure 2.63, the rocks
form a gentle anticline
which can be seen along
this stretch of coast and
this causes the base of
the Cliff End Sandstone
to fall almost to beach Figure 2.66 – Cliff End site

level at the Cliff End Fault.
64
There are scattered exposures at the cliff top in the wadhurst clay which
comprises of 16 m of shales and subordinate siltstones with clay ironstone
nodules. There are also fish and plant debris and bivalve moulds at some
horizons.
There are faunal remains at the site which include fish and teeth and some
reptilean bone fragments and teeth. These remains give valuable data as to the
evolutionary lineages within their groups.
Ashdown Beds
The Ashdown beds consists of sandstones, siltstones and mudstones with

subordinate lenticular beds of lignite, sideritic mudstone and spaerosiderite
nodules.
They are from the early Cretaceous period, specifically the Berriasian age which
ranges from 140 million to 145.5 million years ago.
65
Wadhurst Clay
The wadhurst clay mainly consists of grey mudstone which weathers at the
surface to heavy, orcreous mottled, greenish grey and khaki clays. Other
lithologies include sandstone, siltstone, conglomerate, clay ironstone and shelly
limestone. Thin beds of shelly limestone, rich in Neomiodon and Viviparus, are
also present throughout. The top metre of the Wadhurst Clay contains stiff clay
stained red by penecontemporaneous weathering.
Wadhurst Clay are from the early Cretaceous period, specifically the
Valanginian age which ranges from 136 million to 140 million years ago.
Cliff End Sandstone
The cliff end sandstone is a sizable 10 m thick sandstone which is exposed in

the cliffs at Cliff End. The sandstone was thought to be the top part of the
Ashdown beds however the discovery of Wadhurst Clay in the underlying
shales with ironstone has shown that sandstone does form a part of the
Wadhurst Clay formation.
66
Normal observed
fault
Ashdown formation
Wadhurst Clay
Normal Inferred fault
Figure 2.68 - Edina Digimap 2011 showing bedrock on the Cliff End area.
67
Figure 2.69 – Stratigraphical column (British Geological Survey, 1987)
68
2.12 Travel log
2.12.1 November 14th 2010
Arrived on the Cliff End site early morning at 8:00 am where the tide was low.
This allowed 6 hours of investigation before the tide returned. This day was
spent observing the site, selecting the faces to analyse and to take dip and dip
directions. The aim was to take as many dip and dip directions as possible.
Figure 2.70 – First day at Cliff End site.

69
Arrived on the Cliff End site early morning at 9:00 am where the tide was low.
The main focus of this day was again to take as many dip and dip directions as
is possible. By the time the high tide started to arrive, 722 dip and dip direction
readings were taken.
Figure 2.71 – Second day at Cliff End site.
70
Having arrived at Cliff End at 10 am, and having taken enough dip and dip
directions, the focus of attention could be placed elsewhere. The task for this
day was to do a topographical survey, take Schmidt hammer readings, take the
angle of friction and to also take back rock samples to the Laboratory for testing.
Figure 2.72 – Third day at Cliff End site
A topographical survey was taken with the below readings
Dip Direction (⁰) Length of face (mm)
136 2800
032 720
138 980
065 2850
022 740
138 2400
042 650
132 20500
028 400
121 1250
Table 2.1 – Topographical survey
71
The readings were then used in AutoCad to create a topographical survey of
the faces to be analysed.
Face 2
Face 4
Face 8
Face 5
Face 1
Face 9
Face 3
Face 7
Face 10 Face 6
Figure 2.73 – Topographical survey
Face 10 Face 1
Figure 2.74 – Satellite imagery of Cliff End site
72
Angle of friction
It was important to get the angle of

friction so that an analysis could be
done for the stereonet. To get the
angle of friction, two rocks were
places on top of each other on a
clipboard. The board was tilted slowly
until the rock on top starts to slide
away. The dip is then measured
using the inclinometer. To get the Figure 2.75 – Taking the angle of friction
angle of friction of the clay, a sample of the clay needs to be taken to the
laboratory and a tri-axial test needs to be performed.
Description Angle of Friction ⁰
Hard Sandstone 37
Rock mass with layers of Sandstone and Clay 42

Table 2.2 – Angle of friction readings
73
Schmidt Hammer test
Rock type Angle Reading Average MPa

Reading
Hard Sandstone 90 34, 32, 34 33 30
Rock with mixture of mainly 90 28, 28, 24 27 20

Sandstone and Clay
Table 2.3 – Schmidt Hammer readings taken on site
Figure 2.76 – Schmidt hammer chart
74
Dip and dip direction data – sample. All 722 points can be found in the appendix
No Dip Dip Comments No Dip Dip Comments No Dip Dip Comments

Direction Direction Direction
1 02 302 Discontinuity 32 81 063 63 88 130
2 05 078 33 87 130 64 88 130
3 03 138 34 90 122 65 88 124
4 05 120 35 89 124 66 05 005
5 04 120 36 89 132 67 03 082
6 06 98 37 89 042 68 10 052
7 03 98 38 08 089 69 13 112
8 02 30 39 02 120 70 15 118
9 03 120 40 08 122 71 30 070
10 04 50 41 10 100 72 31 082
11 03 132 42 89 132 73 70 110
12 02 58 43 81 112 74 85 132
13 01 120 44 85 124 75 88 132
14 16 118 45 84 028 76 90 110
15 11 130 46 90 030 77 01 188
16 86 120 47 84 040 78 71 100
17 85 116 48 88 130 79 78 122
18 90 114 49 86 134 80 00 178
19 86 118 50 90 124 81 59 092
20 88 122 51 85 128 82 89 132
21 89 118 52 08 180 83 74 128
22 84 120 53 07 230 84 88 126
23 89 124 54 05 238 85 82 068
24 66 072 55 80 120 86 76 042
25 62 091 56 85 122 87 88 140
26 78 102 57 89 042 88 88 130
27 02 112 58 84 038 89 70 118
28 77 034 59 88 042 90 75 112
29 88 124 60 82 052 91 81 022
30 88 126 61 08 018 92 66 136
31 90 138 62 82 108 93 70 154
Table 2.4 – Dip and Dip direction data
75
Discontinuity description
Figure 2.77 – Bed layers
Discontinuities have a typical height of 1100 mm, width of 960 mm and a length
of 2000 mm. Cliff End consists of the same discontinuities throughout the entire
site.
76
Geological Strength Index
Figure 2.78 – Geological strength index for jointed rocks
The rock was blocky and had a moderately weathered surface. Using the
Geological strength index, the rock mass was in the range of 40-50 which is a
moderately strong rock.
77
2.13 Petrology1
Hard Sandstone
Hard sandstone, dark greyish blue, fine course

grained sand particles, cemented, strong on
the surface but weaker in the middle, large
block sizes, 5 major discontinuity sets, does
not fizz with acid.
Figure 2.79 – Hard Sandstone
Rock mass with layers of sandstone

and clay
Rock mass with layers of sandstone

and clay, light yellowish grey, weak on
the surface, large block sizes, 5 major
discontinuity sets, does not fizz with
acid. Figure 2.80 – Rock mass with layers

of sandstone and clay
1
Rock Mass Description sheets for both rock types can be found in the appendix
78
CHAPTER 3 – LABORATORY/FIELD RESULTS
3.1 Point load test
To gain the strength characteristics of the rock mass, a point load test needs to
be performed. The pundit test will help gain the uniaxial compressive index
which will then be used to check against a uniaxial compressive index chart.
The table below are the raw results gained from the experiment.
Hard Sandstone
Force at Failure (N) Length of Axial Loading (mm) Area (mm)2
Height Average length
10280 33.2 55.34 1837.29
6400 19.91 36.14 719.55
10600 25.2 64.14 1616.33
12260 32.69 25.17 822.81
7190 42.28 34.18 1445.13
Table 3.1 – Raw data for Hard Sandstone
Mixture of Sandstone and Clay
Force at Failure (N) Length of Axial Loading (mm) Area (mm)2
Height Average length
2700 23.09 63.46 1465.29
890 21.82 41.14 897.67
560 25.48 47.28 1204.69
9600 21.73 38.34 833.13
8200 16.59 31.42 521.26
Table 3.2 – Raw data for rock mass with layers of Sandstone and Clay
The table on the next page shows the calculations to get the Uniaxial
compressive index
79
Hard Sandstone
Force at Length of Axial Area De2=4A/π De (mm) Is=P/Dee F= (De/50)0.45 Is(50)=F x Is Average Is
Loading (mm) (mm)2
Failure (N) (mm2)
Height Average
length
10280 33.2 55.34 1837.29 2339.31 48.37 4.39 0.99 4.33
6400 19.91 36.14 719.55 916.16 60.27 6.99 0.80 5.57
10600 25.2 64.14 1616.33 2057.97 45.36 5.15 0.96 4.93 5.62
12260 32.69 25.17 822.81 1047.63 32.37 11.70 0.82 9.62
7190 42.28 34.18 1445.13 1840.00 42.90 3.91 0.93 3.65
Table 3.3 – Calculated point load index
Is = 5.62 N/mm2
The size corrected PLS index Is(50) = Is x F
Average F = 0.90
Is(50) = 5.05 N/mm2 = 5.05 Mpa
80
Mixture of Sandstone and Clay
Force at Length of Axial Area De2=4A/π De (mm) Is=P/Dee F= (De/50)0.45 Is(50)=F x Is Average Is
Loading (mm) (mm)2
Failure (N) (mm2)
Height Average
length
2700 23.09 63.46 1465.29 1865.67 43.19 1.45 0.94 1.35
890 21.82 41.14 897.67 1142.96 33.81 0.78 0.84 0.65
560 25.48 47.28 1204.69 1533.86 39.16 0.37 0.90 0.33 3.79
9600 21.73 38.34 833.13 1060.77 32.57 9.05 0.82 7.46
8200 16.59 31.42 521.26 663.69 25.76 12.36 0.74 9.17
Table 3.4 – Calculated point load index
Is = 3.79 N/mm2
The size corrected PLS index Is(50) = Is x F
Average F = 0.85
Is(50) = 3.21 N/mm2 = 3.21 Mpa
81
Description Point Load Strength Index Equivilant Uniaxial
(MPa) Compressive Strength
(MPa)
Extremely high strength >10 >160
Very High strength 3 – 10 50 – 160
High strength 1–3 15-60
Medium strength 0.3 – 1 5 – 16
Low strength 0.1 – 0.3 1.6 – 5.0
Very low strength 0.03 – 0.1 0.5 – 1.6
Extremely low strength <0.03 <0.5
Table 3.5 – Point load strength index (Franklin and Brox, 1972)
The Hard Sandstone has a point load index of 5.05 MPa which indicates very
high strength with a Equivilant Uniaxial Compressive Strength of 50 – 160. The
rock mass with the mixture of Sandstone and Clay has a point load index of
3.21 MPa which also represents very high strength with a Equivilant Uniaxial
Compressive Strength of 50 – 160. Both the Hard Sandstone and the rock mass
with the mixture of Sandstone and Clay can be classified by Hoek’s rock
classification table, seen on table 3.6, as being strong to very strong.
82
Table 3.6 Classification of rock by strength (Hoek, E, & Marinos, P, 2000)
83
3.1.1 Results
The Hard Sandstone had a point load strength index of 5.05 MPa and the
mixture of Sandstone and Clay had a point load strength index of 3.21 MPa.
3.1.2 Formulas used for calculations
Is = P
Area = length x width
De2 = 4A/π
Uncorrected Point Load Strength (Is) = P/De2
F= (De/50)0.45
Is(50)=F x Is
84
3.2 Pundit test
A PUNDIT (Portable Ultrasonic Non Destructive Index Tester) is used for this
test. At one end of the specimen a compressive stress pulse is generated and
the PUNDIT test records the time taken for the resulting P wave to reach the
other end. The table below shows the raw results for the PUNDIT test
Description of rock Time (ms x 10-6) Length (mm)
43.2 230
Hard Sandstone 22.4 100
45.3 230
63.5 145
Mixture of Sandstone and 30.7 130

Clay
23.6 40
Table 3.7 – Raw results for the PUNDIT test
The table on the next page shows the calculations to get the Average Velocity
(ms-1)
Description Time Average Length Length Average VP ms-1 Average

(ms x time (ms (mm) (m) Length Velocity
10-6) x 10-6) (m) ms-1
43.2 230.00 0.23 5324.07
Hard 22.4 36.97 100.00 0.10 0.19 4464.29 4955.21

Sandstone
45.3 230.00 0.23 5077.26
Mixture of 63.50 145.00 0.15 2283.46

Sandstone
and Clay 30.70 39.27 130.00 0.13 0.11 4234.53 2737.64
23.60 40.00 0.04 1694.92
Table 3.8 – PUNDIT test calculated results
VP = D/t
85
3.3 Slake durability
The test involves the rock sample being put in a drum and then partially
submerged in water. The drum is then rotated at 20 revolutions per minute for a
period of 10 minutes. The drum is dried and the weight loss is then recorded.
The test cycle is then repeated one more time. This is all to test how prone a
rock mass is to weathering.
The table below are the raw results gained from the slake durability test
Sample Initial mass (g) After Cycle 1 mass Dry mass (g)
(g)
Mix of clay and 310.9 269.4 250.0
sandstone
Hard Sand Stone 301.9 302.9 299.7
Table 3.9 – Cycle 1 raw results
Sample Initial mass (g) After Cycle 2 mass Dry mass (g)
(g)
Mix of clay and 250.0 251.3 235
sandstone
Hard Sand Stone 299.7 300.6 299
Table 3.10 – Cycle 2 raw results
Hard Sandstone
Test Initial weight Final weight (g) Slake durability Average slake
number (g) index (%) durability index (%)
1 30.1.90 299.70 99.27 99.52
2 299.70 299.00 99.77
Table 3.11 – Hard Sandstone calculations for average slake durability index
86
Mix of Sandstone and Clay
Test Initial weight Final weight (g) Slake durability Average slake
number (g) index (%) durability index (%)
1 310.90 250.00 80.41 87.21
2 250.00 235.00 94.00
Table 3.12 – Rock mass with layers of Sandstone and Clay calculations for
slake durability index
Group Percentage retained after Percentage retained after

one 10 – minute cycle (dry two 10 minute cycle (dry
weight basis) weight basis)
Very high durability >99 >98
High durability 98-99 95-98
Medium high durability 95-98 85-95
Medium durability 85-95 60-85
Low durability 60-85 30-60
Very low durability <60 <30
Table 3.13 – Slake durability scale
3.3.1 Results
Using the table above, the Hard Sandstone has an average slake durability
index of 99.52 % which means that it has very high durability. The first and
second cycles were both slightly above 99% which was expected.
The Rock mass which contained a mix of Sandstone and Clay had a slake
durability index of 80.41% on the first cycle and 94% on the second cycle.
Slake durability index = (initial weight/final weight)*100
87
3.4 Consistency limit
The cone penetrometer method for liquid limit is reliant on the relationship
between the moisture content and the penetration of the soil sample by the
cone.
This test must be performed due to the layer of Clay that runs along the site.
Tin number Mass of empty tin Mass of tin plus Mass of tin plus
(g) “wet” soil (g) “dry” soil (g)
5.9 5.3 16.3 14.7
Table 3.14 – Raw Plastic limit test results
Test number Penetration Tin Mass of Mass of tin Mass of tin

(mm) number empty tin plus “wet” plus “dry”
(g) soil (g) soil (g)
1 27.8, 25.8, 27.6 30 3.8 12.6 10.4
Ave = 27.1
2 3.6, 3.6, 4.1 139 3.7 16 27.1
Ave = 3.8
3 9.7, 10.2, 10.5 99 3.5 24.4 20.3
Ave = 10.1
4 15.5, 15.0, 15.0 136 3.5 33.8 14
Ave = 15.2
Table 3.15 – Liquid limit test results: raw results gained from the Liquid limit test
The table on the next page shows the calculations necessary to classify the soil.
88
Mass of tin (g) Mass of tin plus wet soil (g) Mass of tin plus dry soil (g)
5.3 16.3 14.7
Table 3.16 – Plastic limit test results
Plasticity index = 17.02%
Penetration Tin weight (g) Mass of tin + Mass of tin + Water

wet soil (g) dry soil (g) content %
27.1 3.8 12.6 10.4 33.33
15.2 3.5 16 14 28.63
10.1 3.5 24.4 20.3 24.40
3.8 3.7 33.8 27.1 19.05
Table 3.17 – Liquid limit test results.
A penetration against water content graph is plotted on the next page.
89
30
25
20
Penetration
15
Linear (Penetration)
10
0
0.00 5.00 10.00 15.00 20.00 25.00 30.00 35.00
Water content %
Figure 3.1 - Liquid Limit = 30 %
90
Figure 3.2 – Soil classified as clay with low plasticity.
91
3.4.1 Results
This test has confirmed that the soil is clay with low plasticity.
Plasticity index = water content = (wet-dry/dry-tin) x 100
92
3.5 Undrained Triaxial test
The specimen for the triaxial test was prepared and the computer attached to
the triaxial test produced the necessary Mohr Circle so that the angle of friction
of the clay could be gained. The figure below shows the Mohr circle created.
For the rest of the results, please refer to the appendix.
15⁰
Figure 3.3 – Mohr’s Circles
Results
With the aid of computer software, Mohr’s circle’s were created for the clay
sample. The angle of friction for the Clay was measured at 15⁰.
The sample failed by sliding as

can be seen on figure 3.4 which
gives an indication as to how the
clay will fail.
Figure 3.4 – Clay sample failed in

Tri-Axial test
93
3.6 Goodman and Bray Chart
Obs No Base (m) Height Angle of Friction (  ) Dip of main Comments:

(m) H.S Rock with layers of discontinuity
Sandstone and Clay

1 3.78 1.07 37 42 04 DS 1
2 0.62 0.95 37 42 64 DS 2
3 1.103 1.14 37 42 09 DS 3
4 0.58 1.40 37 42 73 DS 4
5 4.36 1.40 37 42 10 DS 5
6 2.21 1.25 37 42 88 DS 6
Average 2.11/1.20
b/h
Table 3.18 – Data for Goodman and Bray Chart
From figure 3.4 on the next page, DS1, 3 and 5 are stable. DS2, 4 and 5 fall into
the toppling and sliding to toppling zones.
94
DS1 Zone C: DS2 DS4 DS6
DS3 Toppling only
DS5
Figure 3.5 – Goodman and Bray chart
95
CHAPTER 4 – STABILITY OF THE SITE
This part of the project will investigate the stability of the Cliff End site. A
topographical survey was taken which contains 10 faces and all 10 faces were
analysed with the aid of a stereonet software called “Stereonet 32”.
Face 9
Face 4 Face 1
Face 2
Face 5
Face 10
Face 8
Face 7
Face 3
Face 6
Figure 4.1 – Topographical survey
Face 1
Face 10
Figure 4.2 – Satellite view of Cliff End
96
4.1 Stereographic projection
A total of 722 Dip and Dip directions were taken of the Cliff End site. All 722
were typed into the stereonet 32 software and the programme determined 6
discontinuities with the value of both their dip and dip direction marked with a ▲
on the polar stereonet.
Figure 4.3 – Stereonet with every discontinuity data plotted
Discontinuity set Dip Dip direction
DS1 4 308
DS2 64 035
DS3 09 023
DS4 73 123
DS5 10 079
DS6 88 100
Table 4.1 – Discontinuity set from plot
97
Hard
Mixture of Sandstone
Sandstone
and clay
Clay
Figure 4.4 – Stereonet without face.
The figure above shows all 6 discontinuity sets plotted with 3 angles of friction.
For a Plane failure to occur the dip of the face must be greater than the dip of
the discontinuity and the dip direction of both the face and discontinuity must be
similar, +-20⁰. The angle of friction must also be less than the discontinuity set.
For a Wedge failure to occur, the intersection of two discontinuities must have a
dip direction similar to that of the face (+-20⁰) as well as having a dip less than
that of the face. The intersection must also be less than the intersection.
Description Angle of Friction (⁰)
Hard Sandstone 37
Mixture of Sandstone and Clay 42
Clay 15
Table 4.2 – Angle of Friction
98
Face 1 = 84/136
Figure 4.5 – Analysis of Face 1
Plane failure along discontinuity set 4. All other discontinuities sets are stable.
Face 1
Face 2 = 89/032

Wedge failure along DS2 and DS6. Plane failure along DS2. Possible
wedge failure along DS2 and DS4.
99
Face 3 = 89/138
Plane failure along DS4. All other discontinuities are stable.
Face 4 = 82/065
Wedge failure along DS2 and DS4. All other discontinuities are stable.
100
Face 5 = 81/022
Wedge failure along DS2 and DS6. Plane failure along DS2. All other
discontinuities are stable.
Face 6 = 84/138
101
Face 7 = 83/042
Plane failure along DS2. Possible wedge failure along DS2 and DS6. Possible
wedge failure along DS4 and DS2. All other discontinuities are stable.
Face 8 = 89/132
102
Face 9 = 88/028
Plane failure along DS2. Wedge failure along DS2 and DS6. Possible wedge
failure along DS2 and DS4. All other discontinuities are stable.
Face 10 = 85/121
103
CHAPTER 5 - Discussion
5.1 Laboratory results
Hard sandstone and the rock containing a mixture of mainly Sandstone and
Clay, found on the site, were tested in the Slake durability test. Hard sandstone
was found to have a consistent slake durability index on both cycle 1 and cycle
2 with a slake durability index of 99.52 %. This confirms that the Hard
sandstone is highly resistant to weathering which suggests that the particles
within the Hard sandstone are very well cemented.
The rock mass that contained a mixture of mainly Sandstone and Clay did not
have consistent results through both cycles. The first cycle had a slake
durability index of 80.41% and the second had a slake durability index of 94%.
Using Gamble’s Slake durability scale, this would mean that the durability range
lies from low durability to medium high durability which is a significant difference.
The reason for this is that the rock mass initially contained a layer of clay which
disintegrated in the first cycle. In the second cycle, the rock mass no longer has
the clay inside so the difference in weight from the initial weight to the final
weight is far less than the first cycle’s initial and final weight.
It is important to note though that the slake durability test does not take into
account other mechanical or physical process such as fractures as a result of
heat expansion or contraction and freeze thaw cycles.
The Pundit test was used to test the pulse velocity of the Hard sandstone and
the rock mass containing mainly a mixture of Sandstone and Clay. As expected,
the pundit test showed that the Hard sandstone was more dense. The Hard
sandstone had a pulse velocity of 4955.21 ms-1 and the rock mass with a
mixture of Sandstone and Clay had a pulse velocity of 2737.64 ms -1. This is due
to the higher density of the Hard Sandstone which reduces air voids and
imperfections.
The point load test was used to give an indication as to what the strength of the
rock samples were. The Hard Sandstone had a point load index of 5.05 MPa
which indicates very high strength with a Equivilant Uniaxial Compressive
104
Strength of 50 – 160 MPa. The rock mass with the mixture of Sandstone and
Clay has a point load index of 3.21 MPa which also represents very high
strength with a Equivilant Uniaxial Compressive Strength of 50 – 160 MPa.
Before the point load test, it was predicted that the hard sandstone and the
mixture of Sandstone and Clay would be classified as rocks with high to very
high strength due to the Schmidt hammer readings that were taken on the site.
The laboratory test results confirmed these readings with the Hard Sandstone
having a point load strength index of 5.05 MPa and the mixture of Sandstone
and Clay having a point load strength index of 3.21 MPa.
To classify the soil found on site, the consistency limit test had to be performed.
This is a test that is reliant on the relationship between the water content and
the plastic limit of the sample. The liquid limit was 30% and the plastic lndex
was 17%. Using the soil classification graph, the soil was found to be clay with
low plasticity. Before the test, it was expected that the laboratory test would
show that the soil sample was clay. This is due to various sources that
discussed Wadhurst Clay in great detail as well as geological maps that gave
indication of Wadhurst Clay on the site. By touch and feel, it was also expected
for the Clay to be of low plasticity. This test has confirmed that the soil is indeed
Clay with low plasticity.
5.2 Field results
As an early indication of the rock strength, the Schmidt hammer reading was an
quick and easy test to carry out. The Hard Sandstone was stronger with an
average reading of 33 whilst the rock with mixture of mainly Sandstone and
Clay had a reading of 27. It must be noted that this is only a measure of the
exterior strength of the rock mass and not an indication of the strength that is
inside the rock. Based on these initial readings, there was an expectation to the
behaviour of these rocks in the laboratory tests.
105
5.3 Analysis of Stereographic projection.2
Face 1
The stereonet only shows a plane failure which runs along discontinuity set 4
(DS4). The face can be seen to have a dip which is less than DS4. Face 1
having a dip of 84⁰ and DS4 123⁰ respectively. The face also has a similar dip
direction to discontinuity set 4 with 136⁰ and 123⁰ respectively which is within +-
020⁰. This means that DS4 is within the danger zone, therefore the stereonet
shows a plane failure for this face under all angles of friction.
Face 2
The stereonet shows a wedge failure occurring along discontinuity set 2 (DS2)
and discontinuity set 6 (DS6). The point at which DS2 and DS6 intersect is
greater than all three angles of friction. The dip direction of the intersection is
015⁰ and the dip direction of the face is 032⁰ which indicates that the
intersection is in the danger zone. The dip of the face is also greater than the
intersection which all add up to indicate a wedge failure along DS2 and DS6.
DS4 and DS2 also intersect but with a dip direction of 66⁰, it clearly does not fall
into the danger zone.
There is also a plane failure along DS2. This is due to the dip of DS2 being
greater than all three of the angles of friction as well as having a dip direction of
035⁰ which is very similar to that of the face’s 032⁰. The dip of the face (89⁰) is
also greater than DS2 (64⁰) which meets the conditions for a plane failure to
occur.
Face 3
On this stereonet, a plane failure is existent along DS4. The dip of the face (89⁰)
is greater than that of DS4 (73⁰) and the dip direction of the face (138⁰) is within
2
When the phrase “entire angles of friction” is page 98 for the values of each angle of friction.
106
+- 20⁰ of DS4 (123⁰). DS4 also has a dip which is greater than all three angles
of friction. This places DS4 in the danger zone and due to this, plane failure
occurs along this discontinuity set
Face 4
On this stereonet, a wedge failure occurs along DS2 and DS4. As can be seen
on the stereonet, DS2 and DS4 intersect at a point where its dip direction (66⁰)
is almost identical to that of the dip direction of the face (65⁰). The dip of the
intersection (60⁰) is less than the dip of the face (82⁰) and the intersection’s dip
is greater than all three angles of friction. This places the intersection in the
danger zone which indicates a wedge failure.
Face 5
This stereonet shows a wedge failure along DS2 and DS6. The point at which
DS2 and DS6 intersect has a dip direction of 15⁰ of and the face has a dip
direction of 022⁰ which are similar. The intersection has a dip (15⁰)lower than
that of the face (81⁰) but greater than that of all angles of friction which places
the intersection in the danger area.
There is also a plane failure on this stereonet. DS2 has a dip direction (035⁰)
which is similar to that of the face (022⁰). The dip of DS2 (64⁰) is also less than
the dip of the face (81⁰) but greater than all three angles of friction which places
DS2 in the danger area. This results in a plane failure along DS2.
Face 6
This stereonet shows a plane failure along DS4. The dip direction of the face is
138⁰ which is similar to DS4’s dip direction of 123⁰. The dip of DS4 (73⁰) is also
less than that of the face’s dip of 84⁰ but greater than all of the angles of friction
which means that DS4 lies within the danger zone thus, resulting in a plane
failure.
107
Face 7
This stereonet shows a plane failure along DS2. The dip direction of the face
(042⁰) is similar to that of DS2 (035⁰). The dip of DS2 (035⁰) is also greater than
all three angles of friction as well as being lower than that of the dip of the face
(83⁰). This places DS2 in the danger zone thus resulting in a plane failure.
Face 8
This stereonet shows another plane failure along DS4. DS4 has a dip direction
of 123⁰ which is similar to the dip direction of the face (132⁰). The dip of DS4 is
73⁰ which is less than the dip of the face which is 89⁰ but is greater than all
three angles of friction. This means that DS4 lies within the danger zone thus
resulting in a plane failure.
Face 9
On this stereonet a wedge failure exists along DS2 and DS6. The point at which
they intersect is 15⁰ which is similar to the dip direction of the face which is 028⁰.
The dip of the intersection (60⁰) is also less than the dip of the face (88⁰) but
greater than all three angles of friction. This means that the intersection lies
within the danger zone thus forming a wedge failure.
There is also a plane failure along DS2 due to its dip direction (035⁰) being
similar to that of the dip direction of the face (028⁰), its dip (035⁰) being less
than that of the face’s dip (88⁰) but greater than all three angles of friction. This
places DS2 in the danger zone thus resulting in a plane failure along DS2.
Face 10
This stereonet shows a plane failure only along DS4. The dip direction of the
face (121⁰) is very similar to that of the dip direction of DS4 (123⁰). The dip of
DS4 (73⁰) is less than that of the dip of the face (85⁰) but greater than that of all
three angles of friction. This places DS4 in the danger zone thus resulting in a
plane failure along DS4.
108
5.4 Comments on stability
Discontinuity set 1, 3 and 5 took no part in any failure of the face since the dip
was on all three discontinuity sets were less than all three of the angles of
friction. The main discontinuity sets were 2, 4 and 6. When the orientation of the
face was SE°, only a plane failure would occur along discontinuity set 4. When
the orientation of the face was towards NE°, NNE° and ENE° there were plenty
of instances where both wedge and plane failures would occur. The only
exception to that was face 7 which had a dip direction not similar to the two
intersections. It is then reasonable to assume that a wedge and plane failure is
to be expected if the orientation of the face is towards NE°, NNE° and ENE°.
The Goodman Bray Chart, Figure 3.4 on page 84, confirms that there are no
failure along Discontinuity set 1, 3 and 5. Discontinuity set 2, 4 and 6 are prone
to Sliding and toppling failure according to the Goodman Bray Chart.
5.5 Slope stabilisation
Along the Cliff End site, it has been identified that the most common type of
failures are plain failure and wedge failure depending on the orientation of the
face. There was also a more immediate concern due to the debris and small
rocks that would occasionally fall from the top of the cliff. Putting on a hard hat
is enough to avoid injuries but it is not recommended for the general public to
walk along the cliff face without a hard hat.
To avoid any
immediate danger, it is
highly recommended
that anchored wire
mesh is used on the
site. This will divert the
small blocks of rock
that could fall off the
Figure 5.1 – soil and bits of rock on the base of the cliff, onto the base of
cliffs
the slope safely.
109
Shotcrete is then recommended due to the ability to decrease the chance of
rockfalls and sliding of small rocks. Local residents could find this to be not as
aesthetically pleasing.
Before applying
any of these
methods, it is
important to take
the time to check
the tide times as
the tides only allow
a 5-6 hour window
Figure 5.2 – Rock mass to work before the

high tide comes in.
This also does not allow for labourers to work on any day as only specific times
and days will provide daylight and low tides.
It remains questionable whether it is worth the time and effort to use methods
such as rock bolting to stabilise the 0.5 km of cliffs as this does not pose any
immediate danger to the
public or to properties as
there are none at the
base of the cliff. Warning
signs are recommended
to be placed near the cliff
to urge people who want
to walk along this area to
stay clear from the cliff. Figure 5.3 – Bits of rock on the shore
Tourists often come to Cliff End to walk along the coast and take in the sites
that Cliff End has to offer. Since there is no immediate danger to them as long
as they keep a distance from the cliff, then there should be no need to tarnish
the site which many come to see.
110
CHAPTER 6 - Conclusion
The Cliffs have reached their current state by constant wave erosion over
geological time and it is estimated by (Villagenet, 2011) to have eroded at a rate
of 0.6 metres per year. This would indicate that during 1066 the cliffs were
approximately a further 550 metres out.
The site consisted of Hard Sandstone, Wadhurst Clay and Cliff End sandstone
which were taken to the lab and tested upon. The sandstones were proven to
be highly durable, strong rock.
The clay is a major factor when it comes to the instability of the cliffs as the
angle of friction is 15⁰ and is more prone to erosion than the Sandstones.
Through stereographic projection, it was proven that wedge failures would only
occur if the face’s orientation was facing towards NE°, NNE° and ENE°. Plane
failure could occur anywhere from NE° to SE°. Failures would tend to occur
along discontinuity sets 2, 4 and 6. Discontinuity sets 1, 3 and 5 had a dip less
than the entire angle of friction hence no failure would occur along those
discontinuity sets.
There are a number of remedial actions that have been proposed in the short
term such as shotcrete and using anchored wired mesh but this could make the
site less aesthetically pleasing. It is recommended to hold a consultation with
the local residents to decide on what remedial actions should take place.
Figure 6.1 – Blocks of rock on cliff base
111
Bibliography
Greece Fatal Rockfall picture and photos. (2009, December 17). Retrieved
November 13, 2010, from Sulekha.com:
http://newshopper.sulekha.com/greece-fatal-rockfall_photo_1096453.htm
Blyth, F. G. (2005). A geology for Engineers. Oxford: Butterworth-Heinemann.
British Geological Survey. (1987). Geology of the country around hastings and
Dungeness sheet memoir 320/321. Geological memoir.
British Geological Survey. (2010, February 19). Rock fall at Pennington Point.
Retrieved 11 20, 2010, from British Geological Survey:
http://www.bgs.ac.uk/landslides/penningtonPoint.html
Bromhead, E. (1986). The stability of slopes. Glasgow: Surrey University Press.
Byrd, C. (2010, November 1). Mushroom rock pinnacle - wind and sand erosion.
Retrieved 02 26, 2011, from Flickr:
http://www.flickr.com/photos/christopherbyrd/5282084764/
Chadwick, N. (2006, January 22). Wave erosion on a Portland Cliff. Retrieved

02 26, 2011, from geograph: http://www.geograph.org.uk/photo/109895
Chadwick, N. (2010, November 26). Submerged Forest, Cliff End. Retrieved 03

05, 2011, from geograph: http://www.geograph.org.uk/snippet/4181
Chinese International School. (n.d.). Tung Ping Chau Physical Features.

Retrieved 02 26, 2011, from
http://www.cis.edu.hk/sec/ss/tpc_heritage/physical/index.html:
http://www.cis.edu.hk/sec/ss/tpc_heritage/physical/index.html
Clemens, W. (1963). Wealden mammalian fossils. Palaeontology, 6, 55-69.
De Groot, K. (2005, 03 02). The changing surface of the earth. Retrieved 02 26,
2011, from British Columbia School Superintendents Association:
112
http://www.bcssa.org/newsroom/scholarships/great8sci/Earth/Changing_
Surface/Changing_Surface.html
Freeman, R. (2010). Rock classification. London: University Of East London.
Hoek, E., & Bray, J. (2001). Rock Slope Engineering. London: Spon Press.
Jaeger, J., Cook, N., & Zimmerman, R. (2007). Fundamentals of rock

Mechanics. Ocford: Blackwell Publishing Ltd.
Kliche, C. A. (1999). Rock slope stability. Colarado: Society for Mining,

Merallurgy, and Exploration, Inc (SME).
Lee, D.-H., Yang, Y.-E., & Lin, H.-M. (2007). Assessing slope protection
methods for weak rock slopes in Southwestern Taiwan. Engineering
Geology 91 , 100-116.
Man Made Earth. (2010, 03 01). Earthquake. Retrieved 02 26, 2011, from Man
Made Earth: http://www.manmadeearth.com/earthquake
Norton, M. (2008, May 3). Joints (geology. Retrieved 02 26, 2011, from
Wikipedia: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Joints_Caithness.JPG
Palmstrom, A., & Stille, H. (2010). Rock Engineering. London: Thomas Telford.
Poyeshyar Co. Ltd. (2011, 01 01). Non destructive Concrete Testing. Retrieved
03 06, 2011, from Poyeshyar Co. Ltd:
http://www.poyeshyar.com/CNDT.HTM
S.Aber, J. (2003, August 01). Fractures and Faults 1. Retrieved 02 26, 2011,
from Emporia State University:
http://academic.emporia.edu/aberjame/struc_geo/faults/faults1.htm
Simons, N., Menzies, B., & Matthews, M. (2001). A short course in Soil and
Rock Slope Engineering. London: Thomas Telford.
113
Sulekha.com. (2009, 12 17). Greece fatal Rockfall. Retrieved 02 27, 2011, from
Sulekha.com: http://newshopper.sulekha.com/greece-fatal-
rockfall_photo_1096453.htm
Villagenet. (2011, 02 13). The cliffs of Sussex and Erosion. Retrieved 03 15,
2011, from www.villagenet.co.uk:
http://www.villagenet.co.uk/history/0000-sussexcliffs.html
Villaverde, R. (2009). Fundamental Concepts of Earthquake Engineering.

Florida: Taylor and Francis.
Whitley, R. (2001). Basic Soil Mechanics. Harlow: Pearson Education Limited.
Wyllie, D. C., Mah, C. W., & Hoek, E. (2004). Rock slope engineering: civil and
mining. Oxon: Institute of Mining and Merallurgy.
114
CHAPTER 8 – APPENDIX
Field data
115
Discontinuity data
No Dip Dip Comments No Dip Dip Comments No Dip Dip Comments

Direction Direction Direction
1 02 302 Discontinuity 32 81 063 63 88 130
2 05 078 33 87 130 64 88 130
3 03 138 34 90 122 65 88 124
4 05 120 35 89 124 66 05 005
5 04 120 36 89 132 67 03 082
6 06 98 37 89 042 68 10 052
7 03 98 38 08 089 69 13 112
8 02 30 39 02 120 70 15 118
9 03 120 40 08 122 71 30 070
10 04 50 41 10 100 72 31 082
11 03 132 42 89 132 73 70 110
12 02 58 43 81 112 74 85 132
13 01 120 44 85 124 75 88 132
14 16 118 45 84 028 76 90 110
15 11 130 46 90 030 77 01 188
16 86 120 47 84 040 78 71 100
17 85 116 48 88 130 79 78 122
18 90 114 49 86 134 80 00 178
19 86 118 50 90 124 81 59 092
20 88 122 51 85 128 82 89 132
21 89 118 52 08 180 83 74 128
22 84 120 53 07 230 84 88 126
23 89 124 54 05 238 85 82 068
24 66 072 55 80 120 86 76 042
25 62 091 56 85 122 87 88 140
26 78 102 57 89 042 88 88 130
27 02 112 58 84 038 89 70 118
28 77 034 59 88 042 90 75 112
29 88 124 60 82 052 91 81 022
30 88 126 61 08 018 92 66 136
31 90 138 62 82 108 93 70 154
116
94 70 043 126 70 131 158 74 120
95 81 036 127 85 150 159 75 120
96 13 320 128 71 044 160 76 122
97 87 328 129 68 064 161 74 128
98 86 322 130 88 120 162 76 122
99 90 322 131 89 130 163 74 022
100 86 063 132 73 060 164 74 018
101 15 122 133 70 080 165 75 010
102 06 130 134 55 040 166 44 052
103 00 133 135 60 062 167 85 110
104 45 040 136 26 108 168 72 118
105 46 042 137 88 130 169 87 110
106 41 040 138 25 108 170 88 108
107 85 311 139 68 058 171 84 130
108 85 281 140 85 048 172 71 016
109 06 323 141 88 130 173 80 030
110 00 140 142 88 122 174 85 024
111 00 019 143 68 112 175 85 120
112 05 039 144 81 118 176 84 150
113 41 042 145 88 160 177 86 112
114 85 083 146 86 140 178 88 102
115 78 029 147 90 132 179 86 130
116 80 050 148 88 118 180 82 140
117 11 229 149 88 120 181 85 116
118 80 118 150 86 140 182 88 178
119 89 130 151 90 132 183 69 132
120 40 140 152 86 112 184 83 122
121 10 020 153 90 114 185 89 122
122 80 125 154 78 002 186 90 040
123 75 058 155 82 030 187 81 053
124 88 128 156 55 033 188 88 120
125 85 128 157 73 112 189 71 040
117
190 74 104 222 80 134 254 05 184
191 88 122 223 89 126 255 08 190
192 86 125 224 85 126 256 03 050
193 70 108 225 78 122 257 84 125
194 88 126 226 90 130 258 81 130
195 78 116 227 88 122 259 78 124
196 88 062 228 88 068 260 90 130
197 89 038 229 83 068 261 65 140
198 90 132 230 84 120 262 15 123
199 84 088 231 85 128 263 72 138
200 88 122 232 81 128 264 88 060
201 87 129 233 78 024 265 80 140
202 85 123 234 84 074 266 62 080
203 88 142 235 81 114 267 66 090
204 85 130 236 80 109 268 84 130
205 86 126 237 80 118 269 55 038
206 86 128 238 89 128 270 82 127
207 85 124 239 85 118 271 64 132
208 73 088 240 84 038 272 73 089
209 06 040 241 90 120 273 83 124
210 02 075 242 88 040 274 81 126
211 08 090 243 86 130 275 90 128
212 04 042 244 82 128 276 04 038
213 09 054 245 83 078 277 06 042
214 90 153 246 75 128 278 09 090
215 86 128 247 88 150 279 89 130
216 89 118 248 80 124 280 84 080
217 88 048 249 76 110 281 82 140
218 85 074 250 65 130 282 90 142
219 85 058 251 88 120 283 79 110
220 83 126 252 90 124 284 83 120
221 87 122 253 74 028 285 88 129
286 88 129 318 58 300 350 63 072
118
287 81 120 319 45 071 351 90 102
288 85 115 320 47 073 352 88 280
289 86 120 321 90 151 353 10 141
290 90 130 322 89 148 354 00 140
291 83 125 323 40 130 355 11 140
292 78 030 324 41 132 356 65 064
293 00 116 325 15 042 357 63 064
294 03 120 326 45 036 358 86 130
295 55 021 327 47 034 359 85 127
296 52 023 328 85 160 360 22 072
297 50 352 329 84 015 361 20 072
298 52 354 330 76 116 362 00 065
299 84 130 331 78 115 363 02 310
300 86 128 332 67 030 364 03 312
301 40 050 333 03 072 365 00 088
302 44 051 334 05 072 366 01 090
303 86 104 335 06 020 367 08 080
304 86 102 336 06 020 368 10 082
305 81 130 337 64 072 369 62 120
306 85 128 338 66 072 370 60 123
307 05 110 339 04 322 371 55 186
308 04 110 340 06 324 372 90 130
309 45 029 341 05 166 373 90 129
310 48 028 342 74 110 374 88 080
311 60 050 343 88 130 375 75 120
312 56 053 344 86 130 376 65 096
313 60 060 345 84 128 377 70 118
314 60 061 346 80 140 378 77 140
315 12 032 347 80 092 379 75 138
316 13 032 348 82 091 380 80 066
317 55 296 349 65 070 381 62 130
382 50 102 414 05 306 446 10 310
119
383 60 104 415 04 310 447 01 302
384 85 104 416 05 322 448 03 300
385 80 120 417 08 324 449 01 298
386 85 100 418 05 322 450 02 302
387 80 120 419 00 324 451 08 297
388 81 112 420 05 310 452 05 300
389 75 120 421 03 308 453 00 298
390 77 118 422 02 312 454 01 302
391 87 112 423 05 298 455 08 290
392 85 120 424 09 310 456 03 004
393 64 120 425 06 302 457 02 008
394 77 112 426 12 316 458 02 020
395 80 122 427 08 302 459 02 018
396 84 124 428 07 330 460 00 022
397 88 115 429 01 300 461 06 290
398 85 108 430 20 200 462 12 292
399 75 110 431 14 322 463 00 304
400 83 139 432 10 312 464 01 298
401 980 122 433 09 325 465 03 300
402 88 120 434 08 326 466 05 308
403 67 128 435 12 316 467 06 310
404 60 126 436 08 300 468 04 306
405 79 118 437 11 320 469 08 132
406 75 110 438 05 306 470 08 302
407 10 320 439 07 310 471 03 308
408 12 312 440 08 302 472 05 298
409 09 304 441 05 302 473 06 310
410 08 308 442 08 310 474 04 000
411 12 322 443 09 310 475 08 322
412 02 304 444 06 308 476 08 325
413 08 000 445 07 298 477 03 316
120
478 08 300 510 80 120 542 85 114
479 05 305 511 87 116 543 90 111
480 06 307 512 81 190 544 85 111
481 02 313 513 88 305 545 90 111
482 15 301 514 85 102 546 87 120
483 07 297 515 87 295 547 86 110
484 05 298 516 85 280 548 87 108
485 06 292 517 85 300 549 85 121
486 12 304 518 85 298 550 85 123
487 09 310 519 88 112 551 80 120
488 08 302 520 90 296 552 90 120
489 15 301 521 85 116 553 88 130
490 08 306 522 86 108 554 80 120
491 05 310 523 85 116 555 75 116
492 04 322 524 90 120 556 72 112
493 06 316 525 90 152 557 79 119
494 12 302 526 80 123 558 80 118
495 02 297 527 89 123 559 81 120
496 06 264 528 80 125 560 83 123
497 12 328 529 70 125 561 85 120
498 02 318 530 85 121 562 75 121
499 06 324 531 85 114 563 80 120
500 03 319 532 85 115 564 77 121
501 04 321 533 89 116 565 90 120
502 09 323 534 82 103 566 87 124
503 02 320 535 90 110 567 85 124
504 06 316 536 74 110 568 88 124
505 89 102 537 85 108 569 76 011
506 80 164 538 83 110 570 69 005
507 77 118 539 82 102 571 65 020
508 78 116 540 89 100 572 74 016
509 79 115 541 81 160 573 73 015
121
574 87 008 606 14 032 638 60 010
575 76 006 607 85 082 639 80 050
576 72 003 608 81 074 640 80 024
577 67 010 609 88 072 641 80 042
578 88 000 610 80 072 642 75 038
579 77 358 611 88 068 643 52 020
580 80 004 612 66 058 644 52 020
581 80 008 613 87 082 645 50 019
582 78 005 614 81 079 646 70 038
583 85 002 615 82 078 647 82 040
584 73 006 616 81 081 648 88 041
585 75 002 617 75 078 649 86 052
586 15 038 618 63 202 650 65 042
587 18 020 619 65 208 651 89 044
588 15 018 620 64 206 652 50 040
589 18 012 621 66 208 653 48 063
590 19 008 622 74 205 654 44 038
591 71 020 623 73 206 655 62 040
592 19 018 624 72 200 656 60 022
593 21 019 625 72 210 657 79 024
594 15 023 626 57 198 658 80 020
595 19 023 627 75 200 659 78 020
596 18 023 628 71 203 660 59 024
597 14 023 629 78 222 661 70 024
598 18 032 630 64 215 662 70 036
599 28 032 631 68 185 663 72 028
600 14 018 632 80 190 664 75 028
601 12 018 633 72 208 665 78 040
602 14 024 634 80 200 666 75 038
603 18 038 635 65 210 667 70 040
604 18 030 636 78 208 668 71 042
605 18 024 637 79 208 669 78 042
122
670 85 038 702 57 026
671 72 010 703 59 028
672 75 180 704 54 028
673 70 178 705 56 027
674 65 175 706 76 052
675 62 180 707 76 058
676 88 012 708 85 058
677 85 009 709 80 048
678 82 005 710 85 050
679 80 010 711 82 046
680 86 008 712 72 042
681 88 010 713 74 052
682 88 010 714 78 052
683 84 006 715 78 082
684 82 012 716 72 028
685 80 010 717 75 038
686 85 063 718 70 003
687 85 022 719 72 036
688 70 012 720 71 005
689 700 013 721 74 008
690 68 013 722 75 012
691 62 015
692 62 010
693 64 015
694 65 016
695 63 018
696 76 038
697 72 038
698 64 036
699 60 030
700 64 031
701 58 032
123
124
125
Lab Data
126
Undrained Triaxial compression test
127
128
129
130
131
132
133

Rock Slope Stability of Cliff End

Hochgeladen von

Dokumentinformationen

Copyright

Verfügbare Formate

Dieses Dokument teilen

Dokument teilen oder einbetten

Freigabeoptionen

Stufen Sie dieses Dokument als nützlich ein?

Sind diese Inhalte unangemessen?

Copyright:

Verfügbare Formate

Rock Slope Stability of Cliff End

Hochgeladen von

Copyright:

Verfügbare Formate

Rock Slope

Nima Golzar Soufiani

Thank you all.

List of figures ................................................................................................... 1

List of Table ..................................................................................................... 6

CHAPTER 1 - INTRODUCTION ....................................................................... 10

CHAPTER 2 – LITERATURE REVIEW ............................................................ 12

2.1 Discontinuities ......................................................................................... 12

2.2 Joints and Faults ..................................................................................... 14

2.3 Orientation ............................................................................................... 18

2.4 Stereographic analysis ............................................................................ 20

2.5 Slope instability mode identification ......................................................... 27

2.5.1 Wedge failure .................................................................................... 28

2.5.2 Plane failure ...................................................................................... 29

2.5.3 Toppling failure ................................................................................. 30

2.5.4 Circular failure ................................................................................... 31

2.6 Rock instability causes ............................................................................ 33

2.6.1 Weathering ....................................................................................... 33

2.6.2 Erosion and deposition ..................................................................... 34

2.7 Properties of the rock .............................................................................. 38

Driving force and Restoring force .................................................................. 40

2.8 Rock laboratory tests ............................................................................... 41

2.8.1 Point load test ................................................................................... 41

2.8.2 Slake durability test ........................................................................... 42

2.8.3 Pundit test ......................................................................................... 43

2.8.4 Undrained Triaxial test ...................................................................... 44

2.8.5 Consistency limit – penetrometer method ......................................... 45

2.9 Stabilisation of rock slope ........................................................................ 46

2.9.1 Rock bolt ........................................................................................... 47

2.9.2 Shotcrete .......................................................................................... 49

2.9.3 Anchored Wired mesh ...................................................................... 51

2.10 Site selection ......................................................................................... 52

2.11 Geology of Cliff End .............................................................................. 59

2.12 Travel log............................................................................................... 69

2.12.1 November 14th 2010 ....................................................................... 69

2.12.2 November 15th 2010 ....................................................................... 70

2.12.3 November 18th 2010 ....................................................................... 71

2.13 Petrology ............................................................................................... 78

3.1 Point load test.......................................................................................... 79

3.1.1 Results .............................................................................................. 84

3.1.2 Formulas used for calculations ......................................................... 84

3.2 Pundit test ............................................................................................... 85

3.2.1 Formulas used for calculations ......................................................... 85

3.3 Slake durability ........................................................................................ 86

3.3.1 Results .............................................................................................. 87

3.3.2 Formulas used for calculations ......................................................... 87

3.4 Consistency limit ..................................................................................... 88

3.4.1 Results .............................................................................................. 92

3.4.2 Formulas used for calculations ......................................................... 92

3.5 Undrained Triaxial test............................................................................. 93

3.6 Goodman and Bray Chart........................................................................ 94

CHAPTER 4 – STABILITY OF THE SITE ......................................................... 96

4.1 Stereographic projection.......................................................................... 97

CHAPTER 5 - Discussion ............................................................................... 104

5.1 Laboratory results .................................................................................. 104

5.2 Field results ........................................................................................... 105

5.3 Analysis of Stereographic projection. .................................................... 106

5.5 Slope stabilisation ................................................................................. 109

CHAPTER 6 - Conclusion ............................................................................... 111

Bibliography .................................................................................................... 112

CHAPTER 8 – APPENDIX .............................................................................. 115

Field data..................................................................................................... 115

Lab Data ...................................................................................................... 126

Figure 1.1 - Greece Fatal Rockfall ........................................................... 10