Professional Documents
Culture Documents
Rock Slope Rating Procedure: Geotechnical Engineering Manual GEM-15
Rock Slope Rating Procedure: Geotechnical Engineering Manual GEM-15
AUGUST 2015
GEOTECHNICAL ENGINEERING MANUAL:
ROCK SLOPE RATING PROCEDURE
GEM-15
Revision #2
AUGUST 2015
EB 15-025 Page 1 of 17
TABLE OF CONTENTS
I. INTRODUCTION................................................................................................................3
REFERENCES ..............................................................................................................................16
APPENDIX....................................................................................................................................17
A. Derivation of the Active and Passive Condition Human Exposure Factors ....... A-1
B. Field Procedures for Rating Rock Slopes ............................................................B-1
C. Guidelines for Determining Risk Reduction........................................................C-1
D. Sight Distance Tables (from NYSDOT Highway Design Manual) .................... D-1
EB 15-025 Page 2 of 17
I. INTRODUCTION - PENGANTAR
In the winter of 1988, NYSDOT resident maintenance engineers were asked to send the
Geotechnical Engineering Bureau lists of rock slope locations in their areas of responsibility that
might conceivably be considered potential rockfall problem sites, screening them by the
following criteria (listed in order of importance):
Pada musim dingin tahun 1988, teknisi pemeliharaan penduduk NYSDOT diminta untuk mengirim
daftar Biro Teknik Geoteknik lokasi lereng batuan di wilayah tanggung jawab mereka yang
mungkin dianggap sebagai lokasi masalah rockfall yang potensial, menyaringnya dengan kriteria
berikut (tercantum menurut urutan kepentingannya):
A total of 1741 sites were identified and then evaluated by geologists from the Geotechnical
Engineering Bureau, using an initial rating system based on a procedure originally developed for
the Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) by Duncan C. Wyllie of the geotechnical consulting
firm of Golder Associates. This procedure was considered state-of-the art at the time, and was
included in FHWA's Rock Slopes manual1. Although the Department used this system in
developing a rock slope ranking, no implementation policy was established. Also,
identification of potential rockfall sites is an open-ended process, because sites may be added at
any time. NYSDOT has now devised a revised system believed to have these three distinct
advantages :
Sebanyak 1741 situs diidentifikasi dan kemudian dievaluasi oleh ahli geologi dari Biro Teknik
Geoteknik, menggunakan sistem peringkat awal berdasarkan prosedur yang awalnya dikembangkan
EB 15-025 Page 3 of 17
untuk Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) oleh Duncan C. Wyllie dari perusahaan konsultan
geoteknik Golder Associates . Prosedur ini dianggap canggih pada saat itu, dan dimasukkan dalam
manual Lereng Batu FHWA1. Meskipun Departemen menggunakan sistem ini dalam
mengembangkan peringkat lereng batuan, tidak ada kebijakan implementasi yang ditetapkan. Juga,
identifikasi potensi lokasi runtuhan adalah proses terbuka, karena lokasi dapat ditambahkan kapan
saja. NYSDOT sekarang telah menyusun sistem revisi yang diyakini memiliki tiga keunggulan
berbeda:
The proposed rating procedure for rock slopes was presented to the Assistant Commissioner and
Chief Engineer, approved, and a working draft issued in May 1993.
Prosedur pemeringkatan yang diusulkan untuk lereng batuan telah disampaikan kepada Asisten
Komisaris dan Chief Engineer, disetujui, dan draft kerja dikeluarkan pada Mei 1993.
EB 15-025 Page 4 of 17
II. RATING PROCEDURE - PROSEDUR PERINGKAT
This procedure outlines the creation of "factors" -- geologic, section, and human exposure -- for
computing relative risk of a rockfall-related accident occurring at any site listed in the statewide
rock slope inventory. The product of these factors is defined as "total relative risk." The risk
assessment model computes relative -- not absolute -- risk of rockfall accidents occurring along
various rock slopes adjoining state highways. That is, the values created by this model do not
actually establish how much risk is posed at a particular site, but indicate only whether risk at a
given rock slope is more or less than that posed by other rock slopes.
Prosedur ini menguraikan penciptaan "faktor-faktor" - paparan geologis, penampang, dan manusia
- untuk menghitung risiko relatif dari kecelakaan terkait runtuhan batu karang yang terjadi di lokasi
mana pun yang tercantum dalam inventaris lereng batu di seluruh negara bagian. Produk dari faktor-
faktor ini didefinisikan sebagai "total risiko relatif." Model penilaian risiko menghitung relatif -
bukan absolut - risiko kecelakaan batu jatuh yang terjadi di sepanjang berbagai lereng batu di jalan
raya negara bagian. Yaitu, nilai-nilai yang diciptakan oleh model ini tidak benar-benar menentukan
seberapa besar risiko yang ditimbulkan pada lokasi tertentu, tetapi hanya menunjukkan apakah risiko
pada lereng batuan tertentu lebih atau kurang dari yang ditimbulkan oleh lereng batuan lainnya.
The rating system does not indicate risks associated with rock slopes as roadside hazards, nor does
it provide a means of comparing risks posed by rockfalls with other dangers to traffic. It does not
consider possible catastrophic slope failures -- when predictable, those situations are addressed
and treated with appropriate urgency.
Sistem peringkat tidak menunjukkan risiko yang terkait dengan lereng batu sebagai bahaya di tepi
jalan, juga tidak menyediakan cara untuk membandingkan risiko yang ditimbulkan oleh batu jatuh
dengan bahaya lain terhadap lalu lintas. Ini tidak mempertimbangkan kemungkinan kegagalan
lereng bencana - ketika dapat diprediksi, situasi tersebut ditangani dan ditangani dengan urgensi
yang sesuai.
This rating procedure has been developed to establish appropriate relationships among the
following three separate factors in assessing comparative risks of accidents being caused by
rockfalls:
Prosedur pemeringkatan ini telah dikembangkan untuk membangun hubungan yang tepat di antara
tiga faktor berikut dalam menilai risiko komparatif kecelakaan yang disebabkan oleh batu jatuh:
EB 15-025 Page 5 of 17
The following analysis of relative risk to the public at any particular rock slope site is based on the
concept that geologic, cross-sectional, and traffic-related factors at a particular site can
increase or reduce risk. Each factor is assumed to be independent of the others. The factors can be
combined (multiplied) to create a number representing total relative risk of a rockfall causing a
vehicular accident at each rock slope on the statewide inventory.
Analisis risiko relatif terhadap publik di lokasi lereng batuan tertentu berikut ini didasarkan pada
konsep bahwa faktor-faktor geologis, lintas-bagian, dan terkait lalu lintas di lokasi tertentu dapat
meningkatkan atau mengurangi risiko. Setiap faktor diasumsikan independen dari yang lain. Faktor-
faktor tersebut dapat digabungkan (berlipat ganda) untuk membuat angka yang mewakili risiko
relatif total dari jatuh batu karang yang menyebabkan kecelakaan kendaraan bermotor pada setiap
kemiringan batuan pada inventori di seluruh negara bagian.
Definitions and procedures to be used in establishing the numerical values are as follows:
Definisi dan prosedur yang akan digunakan dalam menetapkan nilai numerik adalah sebagai berikut:
EB 15-025 Page 6 of 17
The numerical value for GF consists of the sum of points assigned to each of the following
categories divided by 10. The division by 10 is done solely to reduce its numerical value. Each
category is scored on a scale ranging from 1 to 81, with 1 the lowest risk and 81 the highest
(see Appendix B):
Nilai numerik untuk GF terdiri dari jumlah poin yang ditetapkan untuk masing-masing kategori
berikut ini dibagi dengan 10. Pembagian dengan 10 dilakukan semata-mata untuk mengurangi
nilai numeriknya. Setiap kategori diberi skor dalam skala mulai dari 1 hingga 81, dengan 1 risiko
terendah dan 81 tertinggi (lihat Lampiran B):
SF is computed as the ratio of the required Ritchie criteria to actual dimensions, yielding a
number representing the risk that a rock, if it falls, will reach the pavement. The SF
numerical value is computed as follows:
SF dihitung sebagai rasio kriteria Ritchie yang diperlukan untuk dimensi aktual, menghasilkan
angka yang mewakili risiko bahwa batu, jika jatuh, akan mencapai trotoar. Nilai numerik SF
dihitung sebagai berikut:
EB 15-025 Page 7 of 17
WR = ditch width in feet (meters) (from the Ritchie graph),
lebar parit dalam kaki (meter) (dari grafik Ritchie),
DA = actual ditch depth in feet (meters), measured in the field, and
lebar parit dalam kaki (meter) (dari grafik Ritchie),
WA = actual offset distance in feet (meters), (minimum value of 3 ft. (1 m)) from
the toe of the rock slope to the pavement edge (or shoulder edge where one
exists).
jarak offset aktual dalam kaki (meter), (nilai minimum 3 kaki (1 m)) dari
ujung kaki batu miring ke tepi trotoar (atau tepi bahu mana satu ada).
EB 15-025 Page 8 of 17
This numerical value ranges from 1 or less in the best circumstances, to about 11 in the worst,
such as a curbed section with a high rock slope immediately adjoining the curb. The Ritchie
criteria do not take massive rockfalls into consideration -- a voluminous rockfall could overfill a
ditch meeting or exceeding the referenced Ritchie criteria.
Nilai numerik ini berkisar dari 1 atau kurang dalam kondisi terbaik, hingga sekitar 11 dalam kondisi
terburuk, seperti bagian yang dibatasi dengan kemiringan batuan tinggi yang langsung berdampingan
dengan tepi jalan. Kriteria Ritchie tidak mempertimbangkan rockfall besar - rockfall yang besar dapat
memenuhi sampai memenuhi pertemuan parit atau melebihi kriteria Ritchie yang dirujuk.
Figure 1a. Ritchie ditch criteria – Ditch Design Chart [Figure 12.10 from FHWA's
(US Customary Units) Rock Slopes manual1].
For example, for a 50 ft. high, 3V/1H cut slope (71.6 slope angle), the Ritchie criteria would call for a
6 ft. deep, 18 ft. wide ditch.
EB 15-025 Page 9 of 17
Figure 1a. Ritchie ditch criteria – Ditch Design Chart [Figure 12.10 from FHWA's
(International System Rock Slopes manual1] converted by New York State D.O.T.
of Units)
For example, for a 15.2 m high, 3V/1H cut slope (71.6 slope angle), the Ritchie criteria would call for a
1.8 m deep, 5.5 m wide ditch.
Figure 1b. Ritchie ditch criteria – Rock Falls on Slopes [Figure 12.10 from FHWA's Rock Slopes
manual1]
EB 15-025 Page 10 of 17
3. Human Exposure Factor (HEF)
If rock does fall and reaches the roadway, a vehicle is threatened with impact by two separate
mechanisms: 1) the falling rock will hit a vehicle or land so close to an approaching vehicle
that it runs into the rock, or 2) the vehicle will hit a previously fallen rock that has come to
rest on the roadway. The rock in the first situation may be considered to be in an "active"
condition, because it is falling as the vehicle approaches or passes under the point of impact.
The second situation could be termed a "passive" condition, because the rock has landed before
the vehicle approaches, and is then hit by the vehicle.
a. Active Condition
This is defined as the situation occurring when the approaching driver either has no
perception of the rock falling, or perceives it only as being in the process of falling.
Two conditions exist.
The first is when a moving vehicle is hit by falling rock. In the second, an
approaching vehicle runs into rock that has just fallen. The driver sees the rock
falling but is unable to stop the vehicle in time to avoid a collision.
It can be demonstrated (see Appendix A) that for these two active condition cases, the
probability of a vehicle being hit by a falling rock or running into one can be
expressed by this equation:
b. Passive Condition
This passive condition analysis applies for a single accident, and does not address the
possibility of subsequent vehicles colliding with the first vehicle or the fallen rock.
The rockfall has occurred and come to rest in the travel lane at some time before any
vehicle approaches the rockfall zone. If the highway section has adequate stopping sight
distance (SSD) as defined by tables in Chapter 2 of the NYSDOT Highway Design
Manual (reproduced here in Appendix D) it is assumed that no accident would occur.
A driver may perceive the problem, and react to avoid hitting the rock.
Conversely, if SSD is less than adequate, collision with the fallen rock is likely. The
governing factors in this situation are taken as the SSD required, as compared to that
available. From an engineering viewpoint, this situation is objective for analysis
purposes, because both the available decision sight distance (DSD) and required SSD
EB 15-025 Page 11 of 17
can be confidently determined by the established AASHTO method3 and the
NYSDOT Highway Design Manual. If SSD is adequate, an accident will probably not
occur (passively). If SSD is inadequate, however, an accident probably will occur when
the next vehicle enters the rockfall area.
It can be demonstrated (see Appendix A) that for the passive condition, relative risk
of a vehicle hitting an already-fallen rock can be expressed by the following equation:
The HEF number is then defined as the sum of the active and passive risk values divided
by 3, representing total relative risk of an accident occurring if a consequential
rockfall reaches the highway, or
The following information is then needed to compute HEF values for each rock slope
site:
Relative risk of an accident occurring at a rock slope site can now be established. If the
Section Factor is 1 or less, Total Relative Risk is set at 1. Otherwise, it is equal to the
product of the three factors:
Several assumptions and simplifications have been made in this analysis. Raters should be aware
of them, and gage their effects on ratings computed for actual field situations:
EB 15-025 Page 12 of 17
1. First, the analysis assumes that falling rock will come to rest on both travel lanes of a
two-lane, two-way highway, or on all lanes in one direction on a multi-lane highway. If,
in the latter case, a rockfall does not come to rest on all the lanes, the analysis model
would be faulty because traffic volume is assumed to be equally distributed over all lanes.
Simply assuming that the rockfall would in all cases extend across all travel lanes
probably induces less error, and is certainly less complicated than analyzing the
probability of the outer travel lanes being occupied.
2. The model used to generate active and passive HEFs has been based on daylight stopping
sight distance.
3. It has also been assumed that all rockfall accidents would be equal in severity. No attempt
was made to distinguish non-injury situations from personal injury or fatal accidents. The
likelihood of serious personal injury or fatality was taken to be equal at all rockfall
locations.
4. Catastrophic rock slope failure, where an entire slope might fall and cover the highway, is
not modeled in this procedure. Where a massive failure is predicted, the Department
would take appropriate action.
C. RISK REDUCTION
Computation of total relative risk for a rock slope has just been described. The resulting values
are useful in gauging the risk posed by one rock slope as compared to others, but of limited value
as decision tools when addressing the issue of the possible benefit of undertaking a specific
treatment at a site. For that purpose, the concept of "risk reduction" is more useful, defined as the
benefit provided by one of several possible treatments applicable to a given rock slope. If the
amount of total relative risk expected after a slope is treated is called "residual risk," then
A residual risk target value can be computed by recalculating total relative risk, based on GFs,
SFs, and HEFs associated with a recut slope meeting the Ritchie ditch criteria. This level of
remediation can be viewed as the "optimum" residual risk. Improvements of total residual risk
beneath this optimum value would be impractical in most cases, unless the slope was completely
removed or the highway relocated. Optimum residual risk value should not be treated as a goal
that must be achieved, but as a gage of what can be accomplished. Other remedial treatments --
such as rock scaling, rock bolting, use of a rock catchment fence, etc. -- will result in some risk
reduction. These treatments will only reduce the risk associated with the geologic factor.
Guidelines for determining risk reduction for various remedial treatments are given in Appendix
C.
EB 15-025 Page 13 of 17
III. FIELD EVALUATION
All sites in the inventory and any subsequently identified will be rated according to this new
procedure. Appendix B is the field manual to be used in collecting required data.
Prime responsibility for rating sites lies with engineering geologists of the Geotechnical
Engineering Bureau. A site selected for re-evaluation will be inspected by a team including Main
Office engineering geologists and a designated regional representative. The first step will be
determining if the site should actually be considered "significant," based on determination by the
geologists as to whether a rockfall could reasonably be expected to come to rest on the pavement
(travel lane). This determination is based on the SF criteria presented earlier and on judgment of
the raters. If they find that a rockfall is unlikely to reach the pavement, the site would be deemed
"not significant."
If deemed "significant," the rating team will obtain all field data needed to compute total relative
risk. While at the site, they will also establish which specific remedial treatments are applicable.
Data needed will be obtained to compute residual risk associated with each applicable treatment.
In addition, Geotechnical Engineering Bureau staff will estimate quantities for slope-remediation
components of each applicable treatment, and the regional staff will estimate quantities of non-
rock slope components (traffic maintenance and protection, highway work, right-of-way, etc.)
associated with each treatment. The Regional Geotechnical Engineer will be responsible for
coordinating all required input. When necessary, the region will provide proper work-zone safety
equipment and/or personnel to protect the field evaluators.
The Geotechnical Engineering Bureau will use field data, along with current traffic volumes
supplied by the regions, to compute total relative risk at each significant site, and also to compute
risk reductions provided by remediation treatment(s). These values will be submitted to the regions
for their information.
EB 15-025 Page 14 of 17
IV. DATABASE AND REPORTING
1. Current Operations
Geology will obtain, input, and update data on a computer file, including site description,
geological rating, contract work history, and maintenance work history. The region will
provide records or summaries of relevant remedial work performed by maintenance
forces or other operations to Geology through the Regional Geotechnical Engineer.
Rockfall reports from the regions will be incorporated into the database. Reports containing
rock slope information may be obtained by any requesting group. The point of contact for
all regional groups will be the Regional Geotechnical Engineer, who in turn will request
data from the Highway Design and Construction Section of the Geotechnical Engineering
Bureau. Main Office groups may obtain reports through the same Bureau section.
2. Future Operations
Eventually, the Geology computer will be tied into the Network Database Server (NDS),
allowing direct access for each region. Through the Regional Geotechnical Engineer,
regions will be able to access, input, and obtain reports from the NDS through their
computers. Only Geology will be able to change rating information. Both the regions and
Geology will be able to update information. The regions will update remedial work
records - both contract and maintenance.
B. REPORTS
These will be accessible in many formats. Information can include data sheets for specific
rock slope sites, date(s) last inspected, and the following:
1. Rock Slope Location Listing: by region or statewide, county, residency, and route.
2. Statewide, Region, County, Residency, and Route Listing: by total relative risk, residual
risk, risk reduction, and benefit/cost ratio (risk reduction divided by estimated cost).
EB 15-025 Page 15 of 17
V. PROGRAMMING OPTIONS
Sites having special or unique circumstances relating to human exposure may be subjectively
adjusted in ranking order at the Regional Director's discretion. In such cases, the region will
document the facts and reasons for adjustment. This allows consideration of conditions not
reflected in the model presented earlier in Chapter II, such as:
No specific guidelines are proposed here regarding exact criteria for regional decision-makers in
programming rock slope remediation. Instead, various strategies are outlined, and the role of
decision tools presented in Chapter II is explained. The ability to quantify risk reduction
facilitates establishing goals. A region could base programming decisions on a goal of reducing
rockfall risk by a certain amount over some period of years. The following programming strategies
are suggested:
EB 15-025 Page 16 of 17
5. Group Locations
This can be advantageous where several separate sites are within a given geographical
area. When combined as one project, lower unit costs can usually be obtained.
In the future, total relative risk values generated by this rating procedure may also be used to
gage when other actions are appropriate. Ranges of total relative risk values may be established
that correspond to various actions, such as:
Doing nothing.
Visual monitoring by maintenance patrols.
Re-inspection by geologists at various intervals.
Monitoring with instrumentation.
Repairing by contract 1) immediately, 2) by special contract, 3) by combining with the
next scheduled contract, or 4) by inclusion in the five-year program.
Closing the highway intermittently until repaired.
EB 15-025 Page 17 of 17
VI. UPDATING THE DATABASE
To meet program objectives, existing data must be updated periodically, with information
originating from the regions or the Geotechnical Engineering Bureau.
The regions may add new slopes to the program at any time by notifying the Geotechnical
Engineering Bureau. Adding a slope will prompt Geology to perform a rating. Any remedial
work to slopes already in the program -- by construction contract, maintenance contract, or
maintenance forces -- should be recorded by the region and reported, when completed, to the
Geotechnical Engineering Bureau through the Regional Geotechnical Engineer, triggering the re-
evaluation process. Actual rockfalls of any magnitude should be reported in a timely manner to
the Geotechnical Engineering Bureau on the Rockfall Report Form (completed by the
Transportation Maintenance Division) or other means.
The Geotechnical Engineering Bureau will periodically update cost of the work and traffic
information, and revise the database to include the new information.
EB 15-025 Page 18 of 17
REFERENCES
1. Rock Slopes (:) Design, Excavation, Stabilization. Seattle: Golder Associates, (for
the Federal Highway Administration, U.S. Department of Transportation), May 1988
(4th ed.).
5. Barrett, R.K., Bowen, T., Pfeiffer, T., and Higgins, J. Rockfall Modeling and
Attenuator Testing. Report CDOH-DTD-ED3/CSM-89-2, Colorado Department of
Highways and Colorado School of Mines, March 1989.
EB 15-025 Page 19 of 17
APPENDIX
EB 15-025 Page 17 of 17
APPENDIX A
HEF is the relative risk of an accident happening, after a rock actually falls onto the highway.
Because rockfall accidents have never been a specific category for routine reporting, historical
data are extremely limited. Derivation of the HEF formula as described here is thus based on
engineering judgment. To calculate HEF, consider two separate possibilities for a rockfall accident
-- the "active" and "passive" conditions.
A vehicle is at risk of being hit by a falling rock during the following time (in days):
The driver sees it falling but cannot stop the vehicle in time to avoid collision. In this scenario,
the vehicle is already at risk once within the SSD (stopping sight distance) from the rockfall
zone. The time-at-risk (in days) thus is:
It is assumed that the second scenario would occur much more often than the first, and one thus
finds a conservative value for time-at-risk by using Eq. 2. To find risk for an entire highway
section, one takes traffic volume into account by multiplying this time-at-risk by an AADT value.
(AADT should be the two-way value for a two-lane undivided highway, or the one-way value for
a divided highway.) The Active Condition Factor thus is equal to
EB 15-025 A-1
APPENDIX A
where a is the larger of the two numbers: (SSD - DSD) or 0, and L is length of the rockfall zone
in feet (meters). Eq. 4 is meant to represent the influence of factors affecting relative risk of an
accident. Note that the factor a/(SSD - a) reflects the increased risk when the DSD is less than the
required SSD. Traffic volume AADT may seem inconsequential when determining risk for the
passive condition -- an accident will probably occur sooner or later when other vehicles enter the
rockfall area. However, the factor log10(AADT) reflects the limited possibility of maneuvering or
stopping safely in congested traffic, and also the limited time available for removing the rock
from the pavement once it is noticed. The factor log10(L) would be replaced by L if one could
assume that the measured DSD is relevant for the entire length of the rockfall zone. Data now
available include the DSD values measured at the worst areas of rockfall zones, which means
that significant portions of long rockfall zones may have adequate SSD. To suppress the
undesirable effects of large values of L, one uses the logarithm function log10(L).
The active and passive condition factors now are combined to calculate the Human Exposure
Factor:
EB 15-025 A-2
APPENDIX B
These procedures establish a uniform statewide procedure for obtaining field information
required in determining total relative risk of a rock falling from a slope, reaching the pavement,
and hitting or being struck by a vehicle. Total relative risk is defined as the product of the
Geologic Factor, multiplied by the Section Factor, multiplied by the Human Exposure Factor.
All three factors require field observations or measurements, recorded on Form GE 470 MET
(see pages 29 & 30). In addition, possible remedial treatments must be determined while in the
field, and those generally acceptable are covered here. All field evaluators must be accompanied
by designated Regional representatives.
Safety
Rock slope rating surveys take place in potentially hazardous locations. Dense, high-speed traffic
areas are particularly dangerous. Consequently, attention to safety is essential when evaluating
rock slopes. Evaluators should assess the risks, and consult the appropriate Regional Safety
Coordinator to plan and arrange backup support where necessary.
Geotechnical Engineering Bureau employees often must work close to vehicular traffic. In some
instances, this work involves long-term operations and the Transportation Maintenance Division
forces should establish work-zone protection. At other times, work may take place at the roadside
for short periods, but these can be equally dangerous. When the work is of brief duration and the
crew may consist of only a few inspectors traveling in a passenger vehicle, it is not practical or
possible to set up a signed work zone as in maintenance operations. Nevertheless, several
guidelines should be followed to ensure safety while working on highways for short periods.
When work or inspection is to be completed on the shoulder or in an area adjoining the highway,
pull the vehicle as far off the road as possible and turn on the four-way flashers. If the evaluators
must be on the shoulder, station a lookout facing traffic to warn co-workers of approaching
vehicles.
If inspecting in the traffic lane, use extreme caution. A flagger should be stationed a substantial
distance preceding the operation at a location based on sight distance, speed limit, traffic volume,
road conditions, type of work, and the obstacle that the work presents. The flagger should be alert
at all times and stand facing oncoming traffic. Refer to MUTCD4 for specific information on
work-zone protection and traffic control procedure.
Equipment
1. Hard hats
2. State car with bubble light (may need Maintenance backup)
3. 100 ft. (30 m) cloth tape
4. Brunton compass or inclinometer
5. Range finder
6. Range/height finder
7. Measuring wheel
EB 15-025 B-1
APPENDIX B
Requirement:
Each site must be photographed during the field evaluation.
EB 15-025 B-2
APPENDIX B
1B GEOLOGY Horizontal to Raveling, occasional Small overhangs Overhangs, some Bedding or joints
(Sed.) slightly dipping small blocks or columns, large unstable dipping out of slope,
numerous small blocks, high over- steepened cut
blocks columns face
2 BLOCK SIZE 6 in. (150 mm) 6 in. to 12 in. 1 ft. to 2 ft. 2 ft. to 5 ft. 5 ft. or more
(150 mm to 300 mm) (0.3 m to 0.6 m) (0.6 m to 1.5 m) (1.5 m or more)
4 WATER/ICE Dry Some seepage Moderate seepage High seepage/ High seepage with
brush long backslope/brush
5 ROCK FALL No falls Occasional minor Occasional falls Regular falls Major falls/slides
falls
6 BACKSLOPE Flat to gentle Moderate slope (15 Steep slope Very steep slope Very steep slope
ABOVE CUT slope - 25) (25 - 35) (>35) or steep (>35 ) with
(up to 15 ) slope (25 -35) boulders
with boulders
EB 15-025 B-3
APPENDIX B
Physical conditions directly affect stability of a rock slope. GF is determined by summing the
categories in Figure 2 numbered 1A or 1B and 2 through 6, and dividing by 10. Categories are
assigned 1, 3, 9, 27, or 81 points. The rater selects only from these values -- no intermediate values
may be used. Assigned 1 point to the best condition and up to 81 points to the worst. The categories
are 1A. Geology (crystalline) or 1B. Geology (sedimentary), 2 Block Size, 3 Rock Friction, 4
Water/Ice, 5 Rockfall (history), and 6 Backslope Above Cut.
2. Block Size
These categories should be estimated by maximum dimension of the largest unstable
block on the slope, or the largest rocks in the ditch. Often a more massively bedded rock
EB 15-025 B-4
APPENDIX B
slope may receive a higher rating because of the potential for larger unstable blocks.
3. Rock Friction
This is estimated by roughness of the surface of bedding and joint planes. Rockfall
potential may be greater for slickensided, clay-gouged, weathered rock, and mineralized
surfaces such as biotite or serpentine layers. Potential failure surfaces should be carefully
inspected because many of these features may not be readily apparent.
4. Water/Ice
This category may fluctuate daily or seasonally, making a rating decision difficult, and the
slope should be examined with this variability in mind. Presence of ice and/or brush on
the slope indicates a potential water problem. A long backslope will bring a large quantity
of water to the slope even if none is apparent during inspection. A rock slope cut off and
isolated on all sides from higher slopes will have few water problems.
5. Rockfall
This category covers the history of rockfalls at the site. The rater should review the rockfall
history database currently maintained in the Engineering Geology Section's computer.
Examination of the ditch will reveal past rockfalls if it has not been cleaned. Roadway and
shoulder sections may also show evidence of rockfall damage. If maintenance personnel
are present during the evaluation, they may provide useful historical information.
1 Point 3 Points 9 Points 27 Points 81 Points
5 ROCK No falls Occasional Occasional falls Regular falls Major falls/slides
FALL minor falls
EB 15-025 B-5
APPENDIX B
EB 15-025 B-6
APPENDIX B
Slope Height
Vertical slope height should be measured from the pavement to the highest point on the rock
slope from which rock is expected to fall. The highest point may be part of the cut face or the
natural slope. Slope height can be determined using a range/height finder or a range finder in
combination with a Brunton compass or inclinometer. Determine the angle to the top of the rock
slope from the edge of roadway and the distance (angled distance) to top of slope (from the same
point from which the angle was measured). Use these two values to calculate slope height as
follows:
Slope Height = angled distance x sin (angle to top of rock slope) + instrument height
Instrument Height = height of a standing raters eye
Ditch Width
This is measured from the toe of the slope to the pavement edge or shoulder edge where either
exists.
It should be measured at the location of maximum slope height. If ditch width at the maximum
height of cut exceeds average ditch width, average width should be recorded. Average ditch
width should be determined by sighting down the length of the rock cut and approximating the
distance from the average projected toe of slope to pavement edge or shoulder edge where either
exists.
EB 15-025 B-7
APPENDIX B
Ditch Depth
This may vary considerably along the length of the rock cut, as well as along the width of the
ditch. It should be measured at the location of maximum slope height, from the pavement edge
elevation to the ditch bottom about 3 ft. (1 m) out from the projected toe of slope. One way to
measure this depth is to extend a tape from the pavement edge to the toe of slope, level the tape,
and measure to the ditch bottom with a ruler. Another method is to use a hand level (or
inclinometer) and measure a ruler placed at the pavement edge and again when placed at the
ditch bottom. Subtracting these two readings will give ditch depth.
Figure 3a. Ritchie ditch criteria – Ditch Design Chart [Figure 12.10 from FHWA's
(US Customary Units) Rock Slopes manual1].
For example, for a 40 ft. high slope with a 3V/1H slope angle requires a ditch 17 ft. wide and 5 ft. deep
ditch.
EB 15-025 B-8
APPENDIX B
Figure 3b. Ritchie ditch criteria – Ditch Design Chart [Figure 12.10 from FHWA's
(International System Rock Slopes manual1] converted by New York State D.O.T.
of Units)
For example, for a 12 m high slope with a 3V/1H slope angle requires a 5.1 m wide, 1.5 m deep ditch.
EB 15-025 B-9
APPENDIX B
Target location may have to be adjusted and measurements taken at several points along the
slope before minimum distance can be determined. This length and any factors limiting sight
distance should be recorded. If sight distance is greater than 550 ft. (170 m) it need not be measured,
but should be recorded as "greater than 550 ft. (170 m)" on the field form.
Number of Lanes
Total travel lanes in one direction adjacent to the rock slope should be recorded, including entrance
ramps, exit ramps, and acceleration lanes, but not paved shoulders.
EB 15-025 B-10
APPENDIX B
The back of the site field evaluation sheet (Form GE 470 MET) lists typical rock slope problems
and possible remediation treatments. Before any remedial measures can be determined for the
rock slope, existing problems at the site must be understood. Mechanics of slope failure and
treatment are thoroughly analyzed in the FHWA Rock Slopes1.
Remedies
Some common rock slope remediation treatments are listed on the field sheet. Determine the
most appropriate treatment(s) based on sound engineering judgment. Sometimes a combination
of two or more treatments may be necessary. For example, a rock slope may require a recut and a
fence or barrier. A recut should be considered when a slope has a high SF or HEF. A scaling
contract for a slope having these characteristics will not reduce these factors, and the scaled slope
will still have a high relative risk. However, if a slope's high Total Relative Risk results mainly
from a high GF, it may be a good candidate for scaling. Recutting this slope may reduce its Total
Relative Risk little more than scaling. See Appendix C for guidelines on risk reduction.
Recutting
Once it has been decided that the appropriate remediation is to recut the slope, one must
determine the recut angle, recommended setback, and estimated quantity to be removed.
Recut Angle
This should be designed at the steepest possible angle that will result in a stable, maintenance-
free slope. A stable rock slope design may match the angle of major discontinuities or bedding
surfaces. Use a Brunton compass to measure orientation of bedding, foliation, fractures, and joints.
Consideration should be given to other factors that may affect the recut angle such as right-
of-way, required sight distance, or constructability.
Recommended Setback
The setback of the re-designed slope should conform to the currently accepted standard. The
plane of the new presplit slope should be located a minimum 5 ft. (1.5 m) behind the most recessed
part of the existing slope to provide sufficient burden for effective presplit blasting.
Scaling
Scaling quantities should be the estimated amount of rock (cubic meters) expected to be
removed, and not just the amount of loose rock on the slope. Removing a loose piece of rock
may undermine the slope, requiring that the upper part of the slope be scaled farther back. If scaling
with blasting is anticipated, this should be noted. Scaling volume can be roughly estimated
using the following formula:
EB 15-025 B-11
APPENDIX B
Surface area of existing rock cut face (ft2 (m2)) x weathering depth (ft. (m))
Rock Bolting
This may be the sole treatment or may be used in combination with other remedial treatments.
Blocks of unstable rock must be large enough to be bolted, and the rock slope composed of
sufficiently competent rock to provide a suitable anchor. Rock bolts should be installed a
minimum of 3 ft. (1 m) past the weathered zone or discontinuity into competent rock.
Mesh
A rock mesh screen may be considered for entire slopes, or only for areas containing numerous
small (6 in. to 10 in. (150 to 250 mm) diameter) loose rocks, or where recutting or scaling is not
feasible or may create right-of-way problems.
Fence
Rock fence installation may be considered for the top of slope, on a rock bench, or at the toe of
slope. Design of optimal height and fence location can be aided by using the Colorado
Rockfall/Simulation Program (CRSP)5, Oregon DOT Rockfall Program6, or other suitable
rockfall programs. Accurate cross-sections are necessary for reliable results.
Barrier System
This may be the sole treatment or may be used in combination with other remedial measures. Barrier
systems commonly considered are 1) an earth or broken-rock berm, 2) gabions, or 3) Jersey barrier or barriers
with fence.
EB 15-025 B-12
APPENDIX B
EB 15-025 B-13
APPENDIX B
EB 15-025 B-14
APPENDIX B
EB 15-025 B-15
APPENDIX B
EB 15-025 B-16
APPENDIX C
GUIDELINES FOR DETERMINING RISK REDUCTION
Risk Reduction
It is assumed that "optimal" Risk Reduction may be achieved by 1) presplitting the rock slope at
a properly designed angle, and 2) providing catchment in accordance with the accepted
NYSDOT criteria. To determine "optimal" risk reduction, the section factor is set equal to 1, which
represents equality with the currently accepted criteria. Typical rock slope remediation measures
are presented here with a guideline for Risk Reduction.
Rock Bolting
Areas of the rock slope may be stabilized by rock bolting to reduce the quantity of unstable
material. Bolting may reduce the point values assigned to geology, block-size, rock-friction, and
rockfall categories of the GF.
Rock Scaling
Scaling may be recommended for specific blocks or locations, or for an entire slope. Scaling may
reduce the point values assigned to the GF categories: geology, block size, rockfall, and backslope
above cut.
Mesh
Mesh may be recommended for rock slope remediation where small (< 2 ft. (0.6 m) diameter)
blocks are raveling off the slope. Mesh may reduce point values in the GF categories of geology
(sedimentary or crystalline with sedimentary characteristics) and block size.
EB 15-025 C-1
APPENDIX C
TREATMENTS:
P = RECUT WITH PRESPLITTING (Other than to improve the Section Factor)
B = ROCK BOLTING
S = ROCK SCALING
M = MESH
F = FENCE OR BARRIER
TREATMENT B, S B, S B, S B, S
TREATMENT P, S, M P, B, S, M P, B, S P, B, S
TREATMENT P, S, M P, B, S, M P, B, S P, B, S
TREATMENT B B B
EB 15-025 C-2
APPENDIX C
TREATMENT P, B, S, F P, B, S, F P, B, S,F P, B, S, F
TREATMENT P, F P, F, S P, F, S P, F, S
EB 15-025 C-3
APPENDIX D
STOPPING SIGHT DISTANCE TABLES
From Chapter 2 : Design Criteria, Highway Design Manual NYSDOT
EB 15-025 D-1
APPENDIX D
STOPPING SIGHT DISTANCE TABLES
From Chapter 2 : Design Criteria, Highway Design Manual NYSDOT
EB 15-025 D-2
APPENDIX D
STOPPING SIGHT DISTANCE TABLES
From Chapter 2 : Design Criteria, Highway Design Manual NYSDOT
EB 15-025 D-3
APPENDIX D
STOPPING SIGHT DISTANCE TABLES
From Chapter 2 : Design Criteria, Highway Design Manual NYSDOT
EB 15-025 D-4
APPENDIX D
STOPPING SIGHT DISTANCE TABLES
From Chapter 2 : Design Criteria, Highway Design Manual NYSDOT
EB 15-025 D-5
APPENDIX D
STOPPING SIGHT DISTANCE TABLES
From Chapter 2 : Design Criteria, Highway Design Manual NYSDOT
EB 15-025 D-6
APPENDIX D
STOPPING SIGHT DISTANCE TABLES
From Chapter 2 : Design Criteria, Highway Design Manual NYSDOT
EB 15-025 D-7