© International Society for Rock Mechanics and Rock Engineering ISRM International Symposium

Norwegian Group for Rock Mechanics Eurock 2020 – Hard Rock Engineering
ISBN: 978-82-8208-072-9 Trondheim, Norway, 14-19 June
C.C. Li, H. Ødegaard, A.H. Høien, J. Macias (Eds.)

Rock slope stability study case: Ruínas de H uanchaca

south sector, Antofagasta, Chile

G.H. Bravo, S.A. Zepeda, J. Arzúa, J. González & M. Cánovas

Department of Metallurgical and Mining Engineering, Universidad Católica del Norte, Antofagasta, Chile

Downloaded from http://onepetro.org/ISRMEUROCK/proceedings-pdf/EUROCK20/All-EUROCK20/2255170/isrm-eurock-2020-171.pdf by Javier Arzua on 29 January 2021

javier.arzua@ucmn.cl

Abstract
The south sector of Ruinas de Huanchaca (or Huanchaca Ruins) features a rock slope of around 850 m
in length with a height of around 30m. The Huanchaca Ruins are the remains of an ancient silver
foundry complex built in 1892 and abandoned in 1902. It is an important monument in Antofagasta,
Chile. The Huanchaca Ruins and the land on the toe of the slope belongs to the Catholic University of
the North. We started this preliminary stability study because there are citizens living above and
working below the rock slopes. The safety of these people is a concern because there is a lack of
previous information of the rock mass, poor monitoring (mainly based on satellite photographs) and
regular seismic activity. Therefore, this study is aimed to perform a preliminary study of the stability
of the slope in order to identify potential slope failures.

A field survey of discontinuities gave us a primary division of the slope, and drove us to dividing the
study area in 7 zones. Potential slope failure mechanisms were identified on four of these zones.
Another zone did not show any evidence of potential failure and the remaining two zones were not
accessible. On field, 3 geological areas are identified, being andesite and weathered andesite the
dominant rocks. Laboratory tests on rock fragments from the slope were performed in order to provide
information of the intact rock and the discontinuities.

Stability analyses were performed using analytical approaches and the Rocscience software when
available. Calculated Factors of Safety range from 1.1 to 2.5, indicating that a more detailed study is
required.

Keywords
Rock slope, Stability, Limit equilibrium methods.
 Eurock 2020 – Hard Rock Engineering

1 Introduction
Antofagasta is the largest city in Northern Chile, South America. Chile is a well-known country in
mining industry because of the massive copper mines and record winning earthquakes. Historically,
Antofagasta has been tied to mining from its beginning and later establishment during second half of
nineteenth century. In fact, the first recognized inhabitant of Antofagasta is known to be Juan López, a
prospector who in 1866 settled in La Chimba (currently a part of Antofagasta) and found copper
deposits with grades of 20% to 30% some 30 km to the west of Antofagasta (Arce 1997).

The formerly known as Establecimiento Industrial Playa Blanca (White Beach Industrial
Establishment) was a huge smelting plant built by the Bolivian company Huanchaca by the end of
nineteenth century (1888–1892). Unfortunately, it only ran for ten years, and in 1902 it stopped its

Downloaded from http://onepetro.org/ISRMEUROCK/proceedings-pdf/EUROCK20/All-EUROCK20/2255170/isrm-eurock-2020-171.pdf by Javier Arzua on 29 January 2021

activities. In 1964 the remains of the smelting plant were transferred to the Catholic University of the
North and in 1974 the ruins were declared as National Monument by the Chilean Government. In 2007
the Huanchaca Ruins Foundation was created and the Atacama Desert Museum was built, reassessing
the historical mining tradition of the city (CMN 2019).

Located at the south of the Huanchaca Ruins, there is a large esplanade (some 22 Ha) surrounded in its
east and south limits by rock slopes with different lithology and weathering grade (Fig. 1). This
esplanade was created by quarrying the rock mass, the extracted materials were used as building
materials for the smelting plant and surrounding buildings. There are buildings near the crest of the
slopes, also an industrial unit and an arena for rodeo just in the toe of the slopes. The general
appearance of the slopes is not good, there are evidences of past failures, producing some perception
of risk for the surrounding population. It is also to remark that this esplanade is part of the future
campus expansion plans of the university, so a detailed stability assessment will be required in order to
securely implant the expansion of the campus. The current study is not such detailed one, but a
preliminary observation of the stability of these rock slopes.

092/67
032/74 351/85 282/46
1
2
3
4

5 6

Fig. 1. The studied slope was divided in seven zones (numbers inside circles). The orientation of the main discontinuity sets
is also indicated. Please, take into account that the north is oriented to the left side of the aerial picture (Google Earth 2019).

In order to study the current stability of the slopes, a preliminary field observation was carried out. It
allowed us to zone the slopes according to the different look of the rock mass, the presence of large
geological faults and the weathering grade. The study area was divided in seven zones which are
indicated with numbers in Fig. 1. Three of the seven zones (zones #3, #6 and #7) were inaccessible, so
they were not analysed and a future study of these zones using remote sensing is being prepared. In
any case, considerations based on the current look of these and the surroundings zones could be
concluded. Hereinafter, the used methodologies for each zone of the slopes and the analyses
performed will be described.

2 Methodologies and obtained data

A field survey following ISRM Suggested Methods (ISRM 2007) was performed on the accessible
slopes. Some rock samples were collected and carried to the Rock Mechanics Laboratory of the
Department of Metallurgical and Mining Engineering of the Catholic University of the North. This
laboratory has all the required equipment in order to cut, prepare and test rock specimens (Arzúa et al.,
2019) as indicated by current standards (ASTM 2017 2019, ISRM 2007). Some density, point load

2
 Eurock 2020 – Hard Rock Engineering

(PLT), uniaxial compressive strength (UCS) and tilt tests were performed in order to obtain the
relevant parameters controlling slope stability.

2.1 Field survey

A field survey on the quantitative description of discontinuities was performed as suggested by ISRM
(2007) in order to obtain mean values of the geomechanical parameters of the sets of discontinuities.
Measured orientations of the discontinuities were analysed using DIPS (Rocscience 2019a). The
discontinuities were analysed first by zones and then as a whole. The main results show that the mean
orientations of the sets are the same in the whole slope with slight local variations due to the presence
of some geological faults. It is evident from the pictures that will be presented in following sections
that there are some particular characteristics of three zones: Zone #5 shows a very continuous 60 cm in
thickness stratum that covers a large section of the slope, but below this stratum, there are the same

Downloaded from http://onepetro.org/ISRMEUROCK/proceedings-pdf/EUROCK20/All-EUROCK20/2255170/isrm-eurock-2020-171.pdf by Javier Arzua on 29 January 2021

discontinuities and the same materials identified in the other zones; Zones #6 and #7 show a much
fresher and unweathered rock, but seems to feature the same sets of discontinuities measured in the
other zones (it is to remember that zones #6 and #7 were inaccessible, so this last sentence is based
only in observations from a certain distance).

Four main sets of discontinuities were identified. Some more local discontinuities were measured,
although it was difficult to assign them to a specific set. Table 1 shows the main geomechanical
features of each set for the slope as a whole and Fig. 1 indicates the orientation of these sets.
Table 1. Identified sets of discontinuities and mean values of the relevant geomechanical parameters.

Set number 1 2 3 4
Parameters

Dip direction (º) 282 351 032 092

Dip (º) 46 85 74 67
Continuity (m) 8.8 6.5 10.5 8.4
Spacing (m) 1.4 1.3 1.3 0.9
Roughness (-) 11.2 7 12.0 8.6
JCS (MPa) 100.0 124 107.3 106.3
Aperture (mm) 13.3 10 61.9 4.5
Type of filling Calcite Calcite Calcite Calcite
Alteration Level III III II III
Water Effect Dry Dry Dry Dry

In general, the sets have a medium continuity, mainly due to the presence of a number of geological
faults that greatly make a condition of discontinuity persistence. They are also not so much spaced, so,
in general terms, blocks are not too large. The discontinuities feature a medium roughness and, in
general, there are large apertures or filling widths with calcite as main type of filling. Their strength is
lower than intact rock (Table 2) showing a certain degree of alteration. Finally, and since the slope is
located in Antofagasta (just in the limit of the most arid dessert of the world), they are dry, although
the presence of calcite shows evidences of water circulation in the past and some localized zones
(mainly in Zone #5) show evidences of water presence (dripping in a large vertical fault and presence
of vegetation).

2.2 Laboratory works

Some samples of the rock of the slopes were selected and carried to the Rock Mechanics Laboratory of
the Department of Metallurgical and Mining Engineering of the Catholic University of the North.
Cores were drilled from the samples and specimens (Fig. 2b). These cores were cut and ground in
order to meet current standards (ISRM 2007). Regretfully and since it was a preliminary study, only a
few specimens coming from Zone #2 could be obtained. The samples selected from the other zones
did not allowed to obtain intact rock specimens. Since the objective of the study is a preliminary
assessment of stability, and although some strength tests were performed, efforts focused on obtaining
density and basic friction angle. The rock was identified as andesite with different degrees of
alteration, although there were some red sandstones on the upper part of Zone #1.

When it was not possible to obtain cores from the samples, parallelepiped blocks were cut in order to
perform density, tilt and point load tests (Fig. 2a). Density tests were performed on all available
samples using saturation and buoyancy techniques (ISRM 2007). Tilt tests were performed following

3
 Eurock 2020 – Hard Rock Engineering

the recently published ISRM Suggested Method on the topic (Alejano et al. 2018). UCS and Point
Load Index were also obtained according to ISRM SM (ISRM 2007). Beginning from the point load
test, UCS was estimated using both, ISRM SM (2007) and size correction of Brook (1985) in order to
obtain a more accurate value of k. Table 2 summarizes the results of the laboratory tests.
Table 2. Results of laboratory tests

σc PLT σc UCS Bulk Density Residual Friction Angle (°)

Zone Basic Friction Angle (°)
(MPa) (MPa) (t/m3) (Barton and Choubey 1977)
1 98.2 - 2.54 33.2 31.9
2 - 164.3 2.70 32.9 31.1
4* 136 - 2.42 27.1 25.6

Downloaded from http://onepetro.org/ISRMEUROCK/proceedings-pdf/EUROCK20/All-EUROCK20/2255170/isrm-eurock-2020-171.pdf by Javier Arzua on 29 January 2021

5 136 - 2.42 27.1 25.6
* Zone 5 data will be used for zone 4 due to proximity.

a) b)

Fig. 2. a) Parallelepiped blocks used for tilt and point load tests, b) some of the specimens obtained for uniaxial strength tests.

3 Identified mechanisms of failure

The orientation of each slope was added as a plane to DIPS (Rocscience 2019a) and the existing
mechanisms of failure were identified. Each mechanism was then evaluated using the appropriate
software (when available) of Rocscience software, and a Factor of Safety (FoS) was obtained for each
zone and mechanism. Next subsections briefly summarize the performed analyses for each zone of the
slope and the most prone to occur mechanism of failure (i.e. that one with the lowest Factor of Safety
of the zone). It is to remark that in the analysis of the stability of each zone, the local orientation of
discontinuities was used instead of the global orientation shown in Table 1.

3.1 Zone #1
Zone #1 (Fig. 3a) features a plane failure as the most prone to occur mechanism of failure. In fact, left
part of this zone (left side of the sub-vertical fault) has already failed in the past. In order to
corroborate our data, we analysed the left part of the zone as if it was not failed. We supposed a case
with the seismic effect of a large earthquake (since Chile is prone to suffer them) but without water
because there is no evidence of water and the maximum amount of rain (in a single event as well as in
a year) is really low. Table 3 shows the parameters used in Rocplane (Rocscience 2019b) software. It
is to remark that the discontinuity failure criterion used was that of Barton-Bandis (1990). Obtained
FoS for this model was 0.84. The magnitude of the earthquake that caused this slope to fail was
calculated as that corresponding to a FoS = 1, which resulted to be a seismic coefficient of 0.26,
instead of the 0.34 (NCh 2012) used in the calculations.
Table 3. Geometric and geomechanical parameters used in the analysis of zone #1.

Geometric parameters Geomechanic parameters

Slope height 30.1 m JRCn 8.9 – 9.4
Plane failure discontinuity dip 47º JCSn 111 – 90.9 MPa
Slope dip 61º Residual friction angle, φr 31.9º
Upper face dip 29º Rock unit weight, γr 25.4 kN/m3
Water content Dry Seismic coefficient, α 0.34

After confirming the validity of the data, another model was performed (Fig. 3.b) for the slope located
at the right side of the fault. The only difference considers a slightly larger JRCn (9.4) and a slighltly
lower JCSn (90.9 MPa) due to different measured characteristics and size of the discontinuity. Results

4
 Eurock 2020 – Hard Rock Engineering

show a FoS of 0.88, slightly larger than that of the left side of the fault, so it may explain failure of left
side while allows right side to be stable. In any case, it becomes evident that this zone has a precarious
level of stability if another large magnitude earthquake occurs.

a) b)

Downloaded from http://onepetro.org/ISRMEUROCK/proceedings-pdf/EUROCK20/All-EUROCK20/2255170/isrm-eurock-2020-171.pdf by Javier Arzua on 29 January 2021

Fig. 3. a) Picture of Zone #1. Plane failure mechanism. Take into account the wide (∼50 cm) sub-vertical fault. b) Rocplane
model.

3.2 Zone #2
Zone #2 features a toppling failure mechanism (Fig. 4.a). It was analysed by means of RocTopple
(Rocscience 2019c). Table 4 shows the parameters used to create the model. It is to remark that this
zone seems to have already failed and reached a stable state, so the FoS should be larger than one.
There is some vegetation in the toe of the slope, so an amount of water was considered.
Table 4. Geometric and geomechanical parameters used in analysis of zone #2

Geometric parameters Geomechanic parameters

Slope height 30 m JRCn 7.8
Toppling discontinuity dip 67º JCSn 101.3 MPa
Slope dip 40º Residual friction angle, φr 31.1º
Upper face dip 0º Rock unit weight, γr 27 kN/m3
Overall base block dip 37º Water content 66%
Spacing 0.6 m Seismic coefficient, α 0.34

The model shows a FoS of 1.42 for the worst possible case (Fig. 4.b), so the slope is stable. It is to
remark that most of the blocks tend to slide instead of toppling and also that appears tension in the
basal joints of the blocks. The performed models allowed to determine that sliding of blocks occur
when the water is added, and the tension in the base of the blocks appears when seismic effect is
added. In any case the toe of this zone of the slope shows accumulation of small fragments, so there is
a ravelling phenomenon that should be controlled by means of, for example, a mesh.

a) b)

Fig. 4. a) Picture of Zone #2. Toppling failure mechanism. b) Roctopple model.

3.3 Zone #4
This zone is located between two large faults (Fig. 5.a). Planar, wedge and toppling failure were
identified in the slope. We performed the analysis of the three types of failure, but the most prone to
occur mechanism is toppling based on the values of the obtained Factors of Safety. Table 5 shows the
geometric and geomechanical parameters used to create the model (Fig. 5.b). The model gave a FoS of

5
 Eurock 2020 – Hard Rock Engineering

1.08 for the worst possible scenario, which, although is a low FoS, indicates a stable state. It is also to
remark that, again, most of blocks tend to slide instead of topple, and also appears tension in the basal
joint of the blocks when seismic force is considered.

Table 5. Geometric and geomechanical parameters used in analysis of zone #4

Geometric parameters Geomechanic parameters

Slope height 30 m JRCn 9.8
Toppling discontinuity dip 57º JCSn 82.6 MPa
Slope dip 61º Residual friction angle, φr 25.6º

Downloaded from http://onepetro.org/ISRMEUROCK/proceedings-pdf/EUROCK20/All-EUROCK20/2255170/isrm-eurock-2020-171.pdf by Javier Arzua on 29 January 2021

Upper face dip 0º Rock unit weight, γr 24.2 kN/m3
Overall base block dip 44º Water content 66%
Spacing 2m Seismic coefficient, α 0.34

a) b)

Fig. 5. a) Picture of Zone #4. Toppling failure mechanism. b) Roctopple model

3.4 Zone #5
This is the longest zone of the slope (Fig. 1). The whole zone is covered by a 60 cm in thickness
stratum. There are a pair of geological faults at the beginning and at the end of this zone, so, below
this stratum, one can observe the same rock mass previously studied in zone #4. In this zone there is a
stratum prone to fail by a footwall slope mechanism (Alejano and Sánchez-Juncal 2010), and, below
it, there is the previously studied rock mass mainly prone to fail by a toppling mechanism. This zone
does not show visible open joints apart from a very continuous saw-teeth shaped discontinuity located
around half height of the slope (marked with a black line in Fig. 6) and local geological faults located
at the beginning and at the end of the zone. When performing the discontinuity field survey, no other
discontinuity (apart from the stratum itself and the already commented geological faults) could be
identified.

Fig. 6. Zone #5 of the slope. Footwal slope failure mechanism. Observe the saw-teeth shaped discontinuity marked below the
black line.

From the analysis performed for Zone #4, it was determined that the toppling failure below the stratum
is stable, although its FoS is very close to 1.

For the footwall slope failure, an analogue to elastic beam technique (Fig. 7) was used to quantify the
amount of distributed load required in order to form the visible crack (Fig. 6). It is a low distributed
load (8.32 kN/m) compared to the own distributed weight of the stratum (14.5 kN/m), so any force
(maybe seismic or by water pressure, or even its own weight) below the stratum could generate this
saw-teeth shaped fracture.

6
 Eurock 2020 – Hard Rock Engineering

b ⋅ ∆x 3 
σt ⋅
M
=
σt ⋅ I
= 12 
max
c ∆ x  2 ⋅ σ t ⋅ b ⋅ ∆x 2
=  q = 8.32 kN m
2  L2
q·L2 
M max =
12 

Fig. 7. Elastic beam analogue and quantification of the distributed load that could cause the saw-teeth crack to form.

Downloaded from http://onepetro.org/ISRMEUROCK/proceedings-pdf/EUROCK20/All-EUROCK20/2255170/isrm-eurock-2020-171.pdf by Javier Arzua on 29 January 2021

Since there was no evidence of other discontinuities, a footwall slope model was developed with the
geometry shown in Fig. 8.a. In order to fail, the stratum has to break by two new fractures, and slide
through the basal joint, following a mechanism known as partially discontinuity control by means of
ploughing slab failure (Alejano and Sánchez-Juncal 2010). Therefore, the strength parameters of the
upper and lower discontinuities are those of the rock, φrm and crm, and are obtained using RocLab
(Rocscience 2019d) beginning from laboratory and bibliographical data, meanwhile the strength
parameter of the basal joint is the residual friction angle, φr, obtained from the field survey and the
laboratory testing (Table 2).

a) b) FoS vs. θ2 (d=0)

t
35
30
Factor of Safety

θ3 = 10º
q3=10º, d=0
25
θ3
l2 θ3 = 20º
q3=20º, d=0
20
θ3 = 30º
q3=30º, d=0
15
10
θ3 = 40º
q3=40º, d=0
d
θ2
5 θ3 = 50º
q3=50º, d=0
θ1 0 θ3 = 60º
q3=60º, d=0
42 44 46 48 50 52 54 56 58
l1
θ2 angle (º)
Fig. 8. a) Model of the possible footwall slope failure. θ1 and t are known, but θ2, θ3 and d are unknown; b) Results of the
Factor of Safety according to Eq. 1 for zone #5 and depending on the geometric parameters.

Solving forces equilibrium one can attain an equation (Eq. 1) for the Factor of Safety of the footwall
slope:

cmr l1 + W2 cos θ 2 + cmr l2 cos (θ1 − θ 2 − θ3 ) + N A ( tan φmr cos (θ1 − θ 2 − θ3 ) + sin (θ1 − θ 2 − θ3 ) )  tan φmr
FS = (1)
W1 sin θ 2 + N A cos (θ1 − θ 2 − θ3 ) − ( cmr l2 + N A tan φmr ) sin (θ1 − θ 2 − θ3 ) 
Where, in addition to the symbols explained in Fig. 8 and in previous paragraphs
W2 Lower block weight (block being thrown out)
W1 Upper block weight
NA Transmitted force between the blocks, it is obtained with Eq. (2).
W1 ( sin θ1 − cos θ1 tan φr ) + cmr l2 ( cos θ3 tan φr − sin θ3 )
NA = (2)
sin θ3 ( tan φr + tan φmr )  + cos θ3 (1 − tan φr tan φmr ) 
These equations have been implemented in an excel sheet and geometrical parameters have been
varied between possible limits. When performing these calculations, increasing the d parameter,
actually increased the Factor of Safety, so it has been fixed equal to zero in order to check the worst
possible case. Varying θ2 and θ3, gave the results shown in Fig. 8.b. The minimum FoS (equal to
12.85) was attained for θ3 = 10º and θ2 = 54º, but very stable in any case.

4 Conclusions
A preliminary stability study was performed on a slope located to the South of Ruínas de Huanchaca.
This study indicates a precarious level of stability in most of the zones of the slope and some
stabilization activities should be performed before using the esplanade:

• Zone #1 should be redesigned, removing material from the upper part and reducing the
inclination of the slope.

7
 Eurock 2020 – Hard Rock Engineering

• In zone #2, ravelling should be controlled, for example by means of a mesh.

• Zone #3 was inaccessible. There is a large block on the upper part of the zone that should be
removed.
• Zone #4 shows a variety of failure mechanisms, being toppling the most prone mechanism to
occur. FoS indicates precarious stability and some mitigation measure should be considered,
for example adding material (weight) on the toe of the slope.
• Zone #5 resulted to be the most stable zone of the slope, but it should be considered that if
material is removed from the toe, the footwall failure will occur for sure. Therefore, protecting
this toe from weathering or human activities by means of a retaining wall, for example, seems
reasonable.
• Zones #6 and #7 were inaccessible, the rock mass seems to be more competent than in the rest

Downloaded from http://onepetro.org/ISRMEUROCK/proceedings-pdf/EUROCK20/All-EUROCK20/2255170/isrm-eurock-2020-171.pdf by Javier Arzua on 29 January 2021

of the zones, but a good amount of small rock fragments on the toe could be observed. This
indicates that there are rock falls, and these rock falls should be controlled by means of any
existing technique.

Future studies on the slope will focus on the inaccessible zones, using remote sensing (UAVs) in order
to capture discontinuities orientations.

References
Alejano LR, Sánchez-Juncal A (2010) Stability analyses of footwall slopes in open pit mining. Dyna 161: 61-70
Alejano LR, Muralha J, Ulusay R, Li CC, Pérez-Rey I, Karakul H, Chryssanthakis P, Aydan Ö (2018) ISRM
Suggested Method for Determining the Basic Friction Angle of Planar Rock Surfaces by Means of Tilt
Tests. Rock Mechanics and Rock Engineering 51(12): 3853-3859. DOI: 10.1007/s00603-018-1627-6.
Arce I (1997) Narraciones históricas de Antofagasta. 2nd ed. (1st ed. 1930). Self-edited, Antofagasta, Chile.
Online available: http://www.memoriachilena.gob.cl/archivos2/pdfs/MC0027709.pdf. Accessed at 10-
08-2019.
Arzúa J, González-Vázquez J, Erazo IT, Cánovas M, Alejano LR (2019) Grinding or not grinding, that is the
question. ISRM 2019 International Congress - Rock Mechanics for Natural Resources and
Infrastructure Development, Foz do Iguassu, Brazil, September 13-18 2019.
ASTM (2017) D7012 – 14ε1. Standard Test Methods for Compressive Strength and Elastic Moduli of Intact
Rock Core Specimens under Varying States of Stress and Temperatures. Pennsylvania: American
Society for Testing and Materials
ASTM (2019) D4543-19. Preparing Rock Core as Cylindrical Test Specimens and Verifying Conformance to
Dimensional and Shape Tolerances. Pennsylvania: American Society for Testing and Materials
Barton N, Choubey V (1977) The shear strength of rock joints in theory and practice. Rock Mechanics and Rock
Engineering 10(1):1-54. DOI: 10.1007/BF01261801
Barton N, Bandis S (1990) Review of predictive capabilities of JRC-JCS model in engineering practice. Proc.
ISRM Symposium. On rock joints. Loen, Norway. June 4-6 1990.
Brook N (1985) The equivalent core diameter method of size and shape correction in point load testing.
International Journal of Rock Mechanics and Mining Sciences & Geomechanics Abstracts 22(2): 61-70.
DOI: 10.1016/0148-9062(85)92328-9.
CMN (2019) Ruinas de la fundición de metales de Huanchaca.
https://www.monumentos.gob.cl/monumentos/monumentos-historicos/ruinas-fundicion-metales-
huanchaca. Accessed at 10-08-2019.
Google Earth (2019) Google Earth Pro for computers. https://www.google.com/earth/. Accessed at 10-17-2019
ISRM (2007) The complete ISRM suggested methods for rock characterization, testing and monitoring: 1974-
2006. R. Ulusay & J. A. Hudson (eds), Ankara, Turkey.
NCh (2012) NCh 433 – Diseño sísmico de edificios. Instituto Nacional de Normalización. Santiago de Chile,
Chile.
Rocscience (2019a) DIPS. Graphical and statistical analysis of orientation data. Toronto, Canada.
Rocscience (2019b) RocPlane. Planar sliding stability for rock slopes. Toronto, Canada.
Rocscience (2019c) RocTopple. Toppling stability analysis for slopes. Toronto, Canada.
Rocscience (2019d) RocLab. Rock Mass Strength Analysis using the Generalized Hoek-Brown failure criterion.
Toronto, Canada.