Keterbatasan Uji Laboratorium

 Kekurangan utama uji laboratorium adalah

bahwa spesimen memiliki ukuran yang
terbatas, sehingga hanya mewakili sebagian
sangat kecil massa batuan.
 Dalam pekerjaan engineering, contoh yang
diuji di laboratorium mewakili fraksi yang
sangat kecil (1%) dari massa batuan.
 Selain itu, contoh yang diuji hanyalah contoh
yang tidak rusak selama pengiriman, sehingga
hasil uji mempunyai bias.
Lecture 5
 Rock mass
The material is characterized by shape and dimensions of
rock blocks and fragments, by their mutual arrangement
within the rock mass, as well as by joint characteristics such
as joint wall conditions and possible filling

The main features constituting a rock mass

(Palmstrom, 1995).
Rock Mass Variation
(Stille & Palmstrom, 2008)

7-6
Strength of Intact Rock & Rock Mass

 Pemilihan
kekuatan geser
yang tepat dari
lereng tergantung
terhadap
sebagian besar
pada skala relatif
antara
permukaan geser
dan struktur
geologi (Hoek,
2006).
Rock mass strength
• Hoek and Brown (1980) proposed a method for
obtaining estimates of the strength of jointed rock
masses, based upon an assessment of the
interlocking of rock blocks and the condition of the
surfaces between these blocks.
• This method was modified over the years in order
to meet the needs of users who were applying it to
problems that were not considered when the
original criterion was developed (Hoek 1983, Hoek
and Brown 1988).
Rock mass strength
• The application of the method to very poor quality
rock masses required further changes (Hoek, Wood
and Shah, 1992) and, eventually, the development
of a new classification called the Geological
Strength Index (Hoek, Kaiser and Bawden, 1995;
Hoek 1995; Hoek and Brown 1997).
• A review of the development of the criterion and of
the equations proposed at various stages in this
development is given in Hoek and Brown (1997).
Characteristics of
discontinuities in rock masses
Characteristics of discontinuities in
rock masses

• Parameters describing therock mass (Wyllie dan Mah, 2004)

Characteristics of discontinuities in
rock masses
• Rock type—The rock type is defined by the
origin of the rock (i.e. sedimentary,
metamorphic or igneous), the mineralogy,
the color and grain size (Deere and Miller,
1966)
• Discontinuity type—Discontinuity types
range from clean tension joints of limited
length to faults containing several meters
thickness of clay gouge and lengths of many
kilometers; obviously the shear strength of
such discontinuities will be very different.
Characteristics of discontinuities in
rock masses
• Discontinuity orientation—The orientation
of discontinuities is expressed as the dip and
dip direction (or strike) of the surface.
• Spacing—Discontinuity spacing can be
mapped in rock faces and in drill core, with
the true spacing being calculated from the
apparent spacing for discontinuities inclined
to the face spacing categories range from
extremely wide (>2m) to very narrow (<6
mm).
Characteristics of discontinuities in
rock masses
• Persistence—Persistence is the measure of
the continuous length or area of the
discontinuity; persistence categories range
from very high (>20 m) to very low (<1 m).
• Roughness—The roughness of a
discontinuity surface is often an important
component of the shear strength, especially
where thediscontinuity is undisplaced and
interlocked.
Characteristics of discontinuities in
rock masses
• Wall strength—The strength of the rock
forming the walls of discontinuities will
influence the shear strength of rough
surfaces.
• Weathering—Reduction of rock strength
due to weathering will reduce the shear
strength of discontinuities as described in
Wall strength
Characteristics of discontinuities in
rock masses
• Aperture—Aperture is the perpendicular
distance separating the adjacent rock walls of an
open discontinuity, in which the intervening
space is air or water filled; categories of aperture
range from cavernous (>1 m), to very tight (<0.1
mm).
• Infilling/width—Infilling is the term for material
separating the adjacent walls of discontinuities,
such as calcite or fault gouge; the perpendicular
distance between the adjacent rock walls is
termed the width of the filled discontinuity.
Characteristics of discontinuities in
rock masses
• Seepage—The location of seepage from
discontinuities provides information on
aperture because ground water flow is
confined almost entirely in the
discontinuities (secondary permeability);
seepage categories range from very tight
and dry to continuous flow that can scour
infillings.
Characteristics of discontinuities in
rock masses
• Number of sets—The number of sets of
discontinuities that intersect one another will
influence the extent to which the rock mass
can deform without failure of the intact rock.
• Block size/shape—Block size is an important
indicator of rock mass behavior. Block
dimensions are determined by discontinuity
spacing, by the number of sets, and by the
persistence of the discontinuities delineating
potential blocks.
Structural Geology Data Collection
Kompas & Inklinometer

7-21
7-22
7-23
Rock Mass Classification
 Beberapa Klasifikasi Massa Batuan
1. Metode klasifikasi beban batuan (rock load, Terzaghi, 1946)
2. Klasifikasi stand-up time (Lauffer, 1958)
3. Rock Quality Designation (RQD Deere, 1964)
4. Rock Structure Rating (RSR, Wickham et al., 1972)
5. Q-system (Barton, Lien & Lunde, 1974)
6. Klasifikasi size strength
7. Klasifikasi ISRM
8. RMR Rock Mass Rating (Bieniawski, 1973, 1976 & 1989)
9. MRMR Mining Rock Mass Rating (Laubshcer, 1977 & 1990)
10. RMS Rock Mass Strength (Selby, 1980)
11. SMR Slope Mass Rating (Romana, 1985)
12. Slope Rock Mass Rating (Robertson, 1988)
13. CSMR Chinese System for SMR (Chen, 1995)
14. GSI Geological Strength Index (Hoek et al. 1995)
15. M-RMR Modified Rock Mass Classification (Unal, 1996)
16. BQ Index of Rock Mass Basic Quality (Lin, 1998)
Rock Mass Classification
Rock Mass Rating (RMR)
Rock Mass Rating (RMR)
1. Uniaxial compressive strength of intact
rock material
2. Rock quality designacion (RQD)
3. Spacing of discontinuities
4. Orientation of discontinuities
5. Condition of discontinuities
6. Groundwater conditions
Aplikasi RMR Untuk Stand-up Time
Rock Mass Classification
Q-system
The Q-Sytem is based on a numerical
assessment of the rock mass quality using
six different parameters :

1. RQD
2. Number of joint Sets
3. Roughness of the most unfavorable joint or
discontinuity
4. Degree of alteration or filling aling the weakest
joint
5. Water in flow
6. Stress condition
Q-Sytem
𝑅𝑄𝐷 𝐽𝑟 𝐽𝑊
𝑄= × ×
𝐽𝑛 𝐽𝑎 𝑆𝑅𝐹
Where RQD = Rock Quality Designation
𝐽𝑛 = Joint Set Number
𝐽𝑟 = Joint Roughness Number
𝐽𝑎 = Joint Alteration Number
𝐽𝑊 = Joint Water Rreduction Number
SRF = Stress Reduction Factor
Aplikasi Q System

7-32
Rock Mass Classification
Slope Mass Reting (SMR)
Slope Mass Rating (SMR)

• The proposed ‘Slope Mass Rating’ (SMR) is

obtained from RMR by subtracting a factorial
adjustment factor depending on the joint—
slope relationship and adding a
factordepending on the method of
excavation
• SMR = RMR + (F1 . F2 . F3) + F4
7-34
 SMR = RMRB - (F1 x F2 x F3) + F4

• RMRB is calculated using RMR Bieniawski (1989)

• F1 depends on parallelism between joints & slope strikes.
• F2 refers to joint dip angle in the planar mode of failure
• F3 reflects the relationship between slope face and joint dips. In the planar mode
F3 refers to the probability that joints daylight in the slope face. Conditions are
fair when slope dips 10o greater than joints, very unfavorable can not happen in
view of the nature toppling, with very few sudden failures and may toppled slope
standing

as slope dip direction aj /bj

bs slope dip
as joint dip direction
as /bs bs joint dip

7-35
 Very Un- Very un-
Case Condition Favorable Fair
Favorable favorable favorable

P |aj – as|
>300 300-200 200-100 100-50 <50
T |aj – as - 180|
F1 = (1-Sin|aj-
P/T 0.15 0.40 0.70 0.85 1.00
as|)2
P |bj| <200 200-300 300-350 350-450 >450

P F2 = tan2bj 0.15 0.40 0.70 0.85 1.00

T F2 = tan2bj 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00

P |bj – bs| >100 100-00 00 00-(-100) <-100

T |bj + bs| <1100 1100-1200 >1200 - -

P/T F3 0 -6 -25 -50 -60

Natural Smooth Blasting / Defficient

Method of Excavation Presplitting
slope blasting mechanical blasting

F4 +15 +10 +8 0 -8

7-36
Adjustment Rating for Joints
The adjustment factor for the method of excavation has been fixed empirically as
follows:
i. Natural slopes are more stable, because of long time erosion & built-in
protection mechanisms (vegetation, crust desiccation, etc.): F4 = + 15.
ii. Presplitting increases slope stability for half a class: F4 = ± 10.
iii.Smooth blasting, when well done, also increases slope stability: F4 = ± 8.
iv.Normal blasting, applied with sound methods, does not change slope stability:
F4 = 0.
v. Deficient blasting, often with too much explosive, no detonation timing and/or
nonparallel boles, damages stability: F4 = - 8.
vi.Mechanical excavation of slopes, usually by ripping, can be done only in soft
and/or very fractured rock, and is often combined with some preliminary
blasting. The plane of slope is difficult to finish. The method neither increases
nor decreases slope stability: F4 = 0.
Comparison Between Disturbance Effects of Blasting
Methods & F4 (Swindells)

Depth of damaged zone

Excavation Methods No SMR F4
Range (m) Average (m)

Natural Slope 4 0 0 15

Presplit Blasting 3 0-0.6 0.5 10

Smooth Blasting 2 2-4 3 8

Poor Blasting -8

Mechanical Excavation 3 3-6 4 0

GSI = 1,07 RMS – 22,39 (r2 = 0,82)

Generalised Hoek-Brown criterion &
Geological Strength Index (GSI)
Generalised Hoek-Brown criterion
a
 σ3' 
σ1'  σ 3 '  σ ci  m b  s 
 σ ci 

• s1’ and s3’ : Max. and min. effective stresses at

failure
• mb : Hoek-Brown constant m for the rock mass
• s and a : Constants
• sci : UCS of the intact rock pieces.
 Generalised Hoek-Brown criterion
• In order to use the Hoek-Brown
criterion for estimating the strength and
deformability of jointed rock masses,
three ‘properties’ of the rock mass have
to be estimated:
• sci of the intact rock pieces
• Hoek-Brown constant mi for these intact
rock pieces
• Geological Strength Index GSI for the rock
mass
 Intact rock properties
0.5
 σ3' 
σ1'  σ 3 '  σ ci  mi  1
 σ ci 
• The relationship between the principal stresses
at failure for a given rock is defined by two
constants, sci and mi.
• Wherever possible the values of these
constants should be determined by statistical
analysis of the results of a set of triaxial tests
on carefully prepared core samples.
 Intact rock properties
• The range of minor principal stress (s3’)
values over which these tests are carried out
is critical in determining reliable values for
the two constants.
• In deriving the original values of sci and mi,
Hoek and Brown (1980) used a range of 0 <
s3’ < 0.5sci.
• In order to be consistent, it is essential that
the same range be used in any laboratory
triaxial tests on intact rock specimens.
 Intact rock properties
• At least five data points should be
included in the analysis.
• Once the five or more triaxial test
results have been obtained, they can be
analysed to determine the sci and the
mi as described by Hoek and Brown
(1980).
 Intact rock properties
 y   xy   x y/n   x
0.5
 σ3'  σ ci2 

σ 1 '  σ 3 '  σ ci  m i  1  
 σ ci  n   x2  (  x)2 /n  n

y  mσ ci x  sσ ci 1   xy   x y/n 
mi   
x  σ3' σ ci   x2  (  x)2 /n 
y  σ 1 ' σ 3 '2
 xy   x y/n
r2 
(  x2  (  x)2 /n) (  y 2  (  y)2 /n)
Intact rock properties
 Intact rock properties
• Short-term laboratory tests on very hard brittle
rocks tend to overestimate the in situ rock mass
strength.
• Laboratory tests and field studies on excellent
quality Lac du Bonnet granite, reported by Martin
and Chandler (1994), show that the in situ strength
of this rock is only about 70% of that measured in
the laboratory.
 Intact rock properties
• This appears to be due to damage resulting from
micro-cracking of the rock which initiates and
develops critical intensities at lower stress levels in
the field than in laboratory tests carried out at
higher loading rates on smaller specimens.
• Hence, when analysing the results of laboratory
tests on these types of rocks to estimate the values
of sci and mi , it is prudent to reduce the values of
the major effective principal stress at failure to 70%
of the measured values.
Field estimates of sci
UCS PLI Field estimate of
Grade Term Examples
(MPa) (MPa) strength
R6 Extremely > 250 >10 Specimen can only be Fresh basalt, chert,
strong chipped with a diabase, gneiss, granite,
geological hammer quartzite
R5 Very 100 - 250 4 - 10 Specimen requires Amphibolite, sandstone,
strong many blows of a basalt, gabbro, gneiss,
geological hammer to granodiorite, limestone,
fracture it marble, rhyolite, tuff
R4 Strong 50 - 100 2-4 Specimen requires Limestone, marble,
more than one blow of phyllite, sandstone,
a geological hammer schist, shale
to fracture it
R3 Medium 25 - 50 1-2 Cannot be scraped or Claystone, coal,
strong peeled with a pocket concrete, schist, shale,
knife, specimen can be siltstone
fractured with a single
blow from a
geological hammer
Field estimates of sci
UCS PLI Field estimate of
Grade Term Examples
(MPa) (MPa) strength
R2 Weak 5 - 25 Can be peeled with a Chalk, rocksalt, potash
pocket knife with
difficulty, shallow
indentation made by
firm blow with point
of a geological
hammer
R1 Very 1-5 Crumbles under firm Highly weathered or
weak blows with point of a altered rock
geological hammer,
can be peeled by a
pocket knife
R0 Extremely 0.25 - 1 2-4 Indented by thumbnail Stiff fault gouge
weak
Field estimates of mi
Texture
Rock type Class Group
Coarse Medium Fine Very fine
Conglomerate Sandstone Siltstone Claystone
(22) (19) (9) (4)
Clastic
Greywacke
(18)
Chalk
(7)
Organic
Sedimentary Coal
(8-21)
Non-
Clastic Sparitic Micritic
Breccia
Carbonate Limestone Limestone
(20)
(10) (8)
Gypstone Anhydrite
Chemical
(16) (13)
Field estimates of mi
Texture
Rock type Class Group
Coarse Medium Fine Very fine
Marble Hornfels Quartzite
Non foliated
(9) (19) (24)
Migmatite Amphibolite Mylonites
Metamorphic Slightly foliated
(30) (25-31) (6)
Gneiss Schists Phyllites Slate
Foliated
(33) (4-8) (10) (9)
Field estimates of mi
Texture
Rock type Class Group
Coarse Medium Fine Very fine
Granite Rhyolite Obsidian
(33) (16) (19)
Granodiorite Dacite
Light
(30) (17)
Diorite Andesite
(28) (19)
Igneous
Gabbro Dolerite Basalt
(27) (19) (17)
Dark
Norite
(22)
Extrusive Agglomerate Breccia Tuff
Pyroclactic type (2) (18) (15)
Geological Strength Index GSI
• The strength of a jointed rock mass depends on the
properties of the intact rock pieces and also upon
the freedom of these pieces to slide and rotate
under different stress conditions.
• This freedom is controlled by the geometrical shape
of the intact rock pieces as well as the condition of
the surfaces separating the pieces.
Geological Strength Index GSI
• Angular rock pieces with clean, rough discontinuity
surfaces will result in a much stronger rock mass than
one which contains rounded particles surrounded by
weathered and altered material.
• The Geological Strength Index (GSI), introduced by
Hoek (1995) and Hoek,Kaiser and Bawden (1995)
provides a system for estimating the reduction in rock
mass strength for different geological conditions.
• Once the Geological Strength Index has been
estimated, the parameters that describe the rock mass
strength characteristics, can be calculated.
GSI
GSI
7-58
Rock Rock
Mass Rock Mass Description Mass
Type Class

Generally rock mass condition is good,

slightly weathered, medium strong rock.
Rough joints, undulation, joint spacing 0.2 – Good
6m average 2.2 m, ight joints 0.1 – 0.5mm, Rock
Type 1
joints filled with iron oxide. Appearance, RMR:
rock mass is competent and undisturbed 69
although some is disturbed and dominated
with sandstone

Generally rock mass condition is fair,

moderately weathered, medium strong rock.
Fair
Rough joints undulation, joint spacing 0.2 –
Rock
Type 2 5.0 average 1.0m, blocky, tight joints
RMR:
opening 0.1 – 2mm, filled with iron oxide.
59
Some rock mass is disturbed and
dominated with sandstone.

Rock mass condition is poor, highly

weathered, weak rock, very blocky and Poor
fractured. Difficult to assess joint condition Rock
Type 3
because heavyli fractured. Rock mass is RMR:
disturbed. Rock mass is dominated with 30
clay and shale.

Fault zone rock mass, the rock is fractured Very

& very much jointed. Discontinuous joints Poor
Type 4 and layering, obvious slickenside, randomly Rock
folliated. Weak rock and sheared joints are RMR:
obvious in some areas 20

7-59
Example of Parameter Geomechanics Based on Hoek-
Brown (2002)

Rock Bench height

RMR GSI UCS (MPa) mi D C (kPa) f (0)
type (m)
Min: 266.6 Min: 44.1
Min: 10
Type-1 69 65 25.70 17 0.7 Max: 683.0 Max: 58.7
Max: 100
Avg: 490.6 Avg: 49.5
Min: 159.0 Min: 39.8
Min: 10
Type-2 59 55 25.70 17 0.7 Max:525.0 Max: 55.8
Max: 100
Avg: 360.1 Avg: 45.6
Min: 39.0 Min: 18.0
Min: 10
Type-3 30 30 13.75 8 0.7 Max: 150.0 Max: 34.3
Max: 100
Avg: 101.6 Avg: 23.9
Min: 39.0 Min: 18.0
Min: 10
Type-4 20 25 13.75 6 0.5 Max:148.0 Max: 32.8
Max: 100
Avg:100.3 Avg: 22.8

7-60
 Typical properties for a very poor quality hard rock mass
Intack rock strength sci 20 MPa
Hoek-Brown constant mi 8
Geological Strength Index GSI 30
Friction angle f' 24o
Cohesive strength c' 0.55 MPa
Rock mass compressive strength scm 1.7 MPa Typical Rock Data
Rock mass tensile strength stm -0.01 MPa
Deformation modulus Em 1400 MPa
Poisson's ratio n 0.3
Dilatation angle a zero
Post-peak characteristics
Broken rock mass strength scm 38 MPa
Deformation modulus Efm 10000 MPa

Typical properties for a very good quality hard rock mass Typical properties for an average rock mass.
Intack rock strength sci 150 MPa Intack rock strength sci 80 MPa
Hoek-Brown constant mi 25 Hoek-Brown constant mi 12
Geological Strength Index GSI 75 Geological Strength Index GSI 50
Friction angle f' 46o Friction angle f' 33o
Cohesive strength c' 13 MPa Cohesive strength c' 3.5 MPa
Rock mass compressive strength scm 64.8 MPa Rock mass compressive strength scm 13 MPa
Rock mass tensile strength stm -0.9 MPa Rock mass tensile strength stm -0.15 MPa
Deformation modulus Em 42000 MPa Deformation modulus Em 9000 MPa
Poisson's ratio n 0.2 Poisson's ratio n 0.2
Dilatation angle a f'/4 = 11.5o Dilatation angle a f'/8 = 4o
Post-peak characteristics Post-peak characteristics
Cohesive strength ff' 38o Broken rock mass strength scm 8 MPa
Deformation modulus Efm 10000 MPa Deformation modulus Efm 7-61
5000 MPa
Geological Strength Index GSI
• For better quality rock masses (GSI > 25), the
value of GSI can be estimated directly from
the RMR76’, with the Groundwater rating set
to 10 (dry) and the Adjustment for Joint
Orientation set to 0.
• For very poor quality rock masses the value
of RMR is very difficult to estimate and the
balance between the ratings no longer gives
a reliable basis for estimating rock mass
strength.
Geological Strength Index GSI
• Consequently, Bieniawski’s RMR
classification should not be used for
estimating the GSI values for poor quality
rock masses.
• If the RMR89’ is used, then GSI = RMR89’ – 5
where RMR89’ has the Groundwater rating
set to 15 and the Adjustment for Joint
Orientation set to zero.
Estimates of m & s Using GSI
(Hoek et al, 2002)
• mb = mi exp [(GSI – 100)/(28-14D)]

• s = exp [(GSI-100)/(9-3D)]

• D = Disturbance Factor

• a = 1/2 + 1/6 [exp(-GSI/15)-exp(-20/3)]

7-64
What is the GSI of This Rock Mass

Controlled Bulk
blasting blasting
Disturbance Factor, D

Suggested
Appearance or rock mass Description of rock mass
value of D

Excellent quality controlled blasting

or excavation by Tunnel Boring
Machine results in minimal D=0
disturbance to the confined rock
mass surrounding a tunnel.
Disturbance Factor, D

Suggested
Appearance or rock mass Description of rock mass
value of D

Mechanical or hand excavation in

poor quality rock masses (no
blasting) results in minimal
disturbance to he surrounding rock D=0
mass.
Where squeezing problems result
in significant floor heave,
disturbance can be severe unless a D = 0.5
temporary invert, as shown in the
photograph, is placed. (no invert)
Disturbance Factor, D

Suggested
Appearance or rock mass Description of rock mass
value of D

Very poor quality blasting in a hard

rock tunnel results in severe local
D = 0.8
damage, extending 2 or 3 m, in the
surrounding rock mass.
Disturbance Factor, D

Suggested
Appearance or rock mass Description of rock mass
value of D

Small scale blasting in civil

engineering slopes results in D = 0.7
modest rock mass damage, Poor blasting
particularly if controlled blasting is
used as shown on the left hand
side of the photograph. However, D = 1.0
stress relief results in some Good blasting
disturbance.
Disturbance Factor, D

Suggested
Appearance or rock mass Description of rock mass
value of D

Very large open pit mine slopes

suffer significant disturbance due to D = 1.0
heavy production blasting and also Production
due to stress relief from overburden blasting
removal.
In some softer rocks excavation D = 0.7
can be carried out by ripping and Mechanical
dozing and the degree of damage excavation
to the slopes is less.
Geological Strength Index GSI
• For GSI > 25 
m b  m i exp 
GSI  100 

 28 

 GSI  100 
s  exp   and a  0.5
 9 

• For GSI < 25

GSI
s  0 and a  0.65 
200
GSI – Mohr-Coulomb parameters
GSI – Mohr-Coulomb parameters
GSI – Mohr-Coulomb parameters
GSI – Mohr-Coulomb parameters
Rock mass modulus of
deformation
Em  2RMR  100 GPa Bieniawski, 1978

RMR10
Em  10 40 GPa Serafim & Pereira, 1983

RMR Em [GPa]
0 – 20 0.05 – 0.5
20 – 40 0.5 – 4.0 Chappel, 1984
40 – 60 4–5
60 – 80 5 – 25
80 – 100 25 - 50
Rock mass modulus of
deformation

Em  0.05 RMR GPa Stille, 1986

RMR  30
Em  10 50 GPa Mehrota, et al., 1991

Em  exp 4.407  0.08 RMR GPa

Iasarevic & Kovacevic,
1996
Em  0.87 exp 0.0455RMR GPa Berardi & Bellingeri, 1998
Rock mass modulus of
deformation
GSI10
σ ci
Em  10 40 GPa Hoek & Brown, 1997
100

GSI10
 D  σ ci
Em   1   10 40 GPa Hoek, et al., 2002
 2  100

GSI10
E m   1  
D
10 40 GPa Hoek, et al., 2002
 2
Rock mass modulus of
deformation

 
D 
 1 
Em  100  2  GPa Hoek & Diederichs, 2006
 75 25D GSI 
  
 
 1 e 11

 Penentuan Sudut Lereng
• Abrahams dan Parsons (1987) menganalisisa secara
statistika data RMS hasil penelitian Selby, dengan kisaran
besarnya sudut lereng tersebar pada kisaran 55o hingga
90o, dengan tinggi lereng tidak lebih dari 40 m. Selain
kondisi geometri lereng tersebut, juga membagi lereng
sesuai dengan kondisi geologi yang sama.
• Sudut lerang stabil (derajat) = 2,681 RMS – 141,072

• Persamaan tersebut tidak berlaku untuk massa batuan

lunak dan sangat lunak atau atau RMS < 50.
 Penentuan Sudut Lereng
• Orr (1992) mengusulkan penentuan sudut lereng
stabil dengan menggunakan RMR. Adapun tinggi
lereng yang masih valid dengan korelasi ini hingga
50 m, dengan kisaran nilai RMR an Persamaan
penentuan sudut lereng dapat untuk
memperkirakan hingga tinggi lereng mencapai 50 m
dengan RMR antara 20 dan 77.
• Sudut lereng = 35 ln (RMR) – 71
 Penentuan Sudut Lereng
• Korelasi antara SMR suatu massa batuan dengan
faktor keamanan. Metode ini seperti ini dijumpai
pada metode Chine Slopa Mass rating, CSMR (Chen,
1995). Metode ini diperoleh dari pengembangan
suatu metode diusulkan oleh Collado dan Gili
(1988). Metode ini diterapkan pada tinggi lereng 8
hingga 42 m.
• SMR = 100 – [52.5/(F-0.15)]
• F adalah faktor keamanan
RMR vs. Slope Angle
Slope Angle vs. Slope
Height
Manual Index Text for Assessing Rock
Strength (ISRM)
Case Study SMR
Slope Angle vs.
Slope Height
McMahon,
1976
Slope Height vs. Slope Angle
(Haines & Terbrugge, 1991)
Bibliography Lecture 5
•

•
Bibliography Lecture 5
•

•
Bibliography Lecture 5
•