See

discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: http://www.researchgate.net/publication/39437429

Modification of slope mass rating (SMR) by

continuous functions

ARTICLE in INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF ROCK MECHANICS AND MINING SCIENCES · APRIL 2007
Impact Factor: 1.69 · DOI: 10.1016/j.ijrmms.2007.02.004 · Source: OAI

CITATIONS READS

19 343

3 AUTHORS, INCLUDING:

Roberto Tomás
University of Alicante
117 PUBLICATIONS 418 CITATIONS

SEE PROFILE

All in-text references underlined in blue are linked to publications on ResearchGate, Available from: Roberto Tomás
letting you access and read them immediately. Retrieved on: 06 November 2015
 ARTICLE IN PRESS

International Journal of Rock Mechanics & Mining Sciences 44 (2007) 1062–1069

www.elsevier.com/locate/ijrmms

Technical note

Modification of slope mass rating (SMR) by continuous functions

R. Tomása,, J. Delgadob, J.B. Serónc
a
Departamento de Ingenierı´a de la Construcción, Obras Públicas e Infraestructuras Urbanas. Escuela Politécnica Superior,
Universidad de Alicante, P.O. Box 99, E-03080 Alicante, Spain
b
Departamento de Ciencias de la Tierra y Medioambiente. Facultad de Ciencias, Universidad de Alicante, P.O. Box 99, E-03080 Alicante, Spain
c
Departamento de Ingenierı´a del Terreno, Escuela Técnica Superior de Ingenieros de Caminos, Canales y Puertos, Universidad Politécnica de Valencia.
Camino de Vera, s/n, E-46022 Valencia, Spain
Received 15 November 2006; received in revised form 27 December 2006; accepted 19 February 2007
Available online 6 April 2007

1. Introduction Both RMR and SMR are discrete classifications,

Rock mass classification systems are a universal com-
munication system for those who use them (explorers,
designers and constructors). They facilitate characteriza-
tion, classification and knowledge of rock mass properties
and provide a quantitative valuation of rock mass by a
simple arithmetic algorithm [1]. Some of the published
geomechanical classifications for slopes are rock mass
rating (RMR) [2,3], rock mass strength (RMS) [4],
slope mass rating (SMR) [5], slope rock mass rating
(SRMR) [6], mining rock mass rating (MRMR) [7], mining
rock mass rating modified (MRMR modified) [8], Chinese
slope mass rating (CSMR) [9], natural slope methodology
(NSM) [10], modified rock mass rating (M-RMR) [11],
slope stability probability classification (SSPC) [12], and
the modified slope stability probability classification (SSPC
modified [13].
Among the above-mentioned classifications, the SMR is
widely used [14–16] and is derived from basic RMR [3]. It
was initially created for tunneling applications, but its
author has included proposals for slope correction factors
in order to take into account if the discontinuities strike
and dip are favorable or not for slope failure. In practice, it
is not easy to apply RMR to slopes as there is no
exhaustive definition for the use of correction factors in the
original RMR classification. The detailed quantitative
definition of the correction factors [17] is one of the most
important advantages of SMR classification.
Corresponding author.
E-mail addresses: roberto.tomas@ua.es (R. Tomás),
Jose.delgado@ua.es (J. Delgado), jbseron@upv.tr.es (J.B. Serón).
computed by assigning a specific rating to each parameter
included, depending on the value adopted by the variable
that controls the parameter under consideration. The
discrete character of these classifications can cause major
changes in the value of one of the parameters due to small
differences in the value of the variable, which can cause
changes in the quality assigned to the rock mass. On the
other hand, geomechanical quality indexes are extremely
biased, which also conditions the final quality index.
The aim of this study is to define continuous functions
for SMR computation using basic RMR continuous
functions proposed by Sen and Sadagah [18]. Some new
ways of calculating rock quality designation (RQD) and
hydrological conditions are introduced, and continuous
functions for SMR correction factors in planar, wedge and
toppling failure cases are also proposed. Finally, a
comparison is made between continuous functions and
the original discrete SMR classification for 61 rocky slopes
to establish the validity of the proposed functions.
2. The SMR classification
The geomechanical index SMR, proposed by Romana
[5], is calculated by adding four correction factors to the
basic RMR [3]. These factors depend on the geometrical
relationship existing between discontinuities affecting the
rock mass and the slope, and the slope excavation method.
It is obtained using the following expression:
SMR ¼ RMRb þ ðF 1 F 2 F 3 Þ þ F 4 , (1)
where RMRb is the RMR index resulting from Bieniaws-
ki’s Rock Mass Classification without any correction.

1365-1609/$ - see front matter r 2007 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
doi:10.1016/j.ijrmms.2007.02.004
 ARTICLE IN PRESS
R. Tomás et al. / International Journal of Rock Mechanics & Mining Sciences 44 (2007) 1062–1069 1063

Thus, it is calculated according to RMR classification rX̄ ¼ 24 þ 15:1 log X̄ , (4)

parameters [3]. It is equivalent to the corrected RMR after
subtracting the term corresponding to discontinuity rs ¼ 1:67ð1 þ sP Þ, (5)
orientation correction (rc). It is obtained by adding five
parameters that take into account uniaxial compressive rs ¼ 0:075sC , (6)
strength or point load strength of the rock (rs), disconti-
nuity spacing (rX) and conditions (rJ), hydraulic conditions rG ¼ 10  2:9 log G, (7)
(rG) and the RQD (rRQD):
RMRb ¼ RMR  rc ¼ rs þ rX þ rJ þ rG þ rRQD . (2) where RQD is expressed as a percentage, X̄ is the average
discontinuity spacing in meters, sP is the point load
F1 depends on the parallelism between discontinuity, aj strength, and sC is the uniaxial compressive strength, they
(or the intersection line, ai, in the case of wedge failure) and are both expressed in MPa, rJ is the factor depending on
slope dip direction (Table 1). discontinuity conditions, and G is the water flow existing in
F2 depends on the discontinuity dip (bj) in the case of the discontinuities expressed in liters per 10 m/min.
planar failure and the plunge, bi of the intersection line in It is important to note that function (7) is not defined for
wedge failure. As regards toppling failure, this parameter values of G equal to 0 (dry state). Romana [21] proposed an
takes the value 1.0. This parameter is related to the alternative function for hydrogeological conditions of rock
probability of discontinuity shear strength [19]. mass based on pore pressure relationship. He states that a
F3 depends on the relationship between slope (bs) and more accurate method for calculating rG is using the
discontinuity (bj) dips (toppling or planar failure cases) or expression
the immersion line dip (bi) (wedge failure case) (Table 1).
This parameter retains the Bieniawski adjustment factors rG ¼ 10 log ru  1:5, (8)
that vary from 0 to 60 points and express the probability valid for ru (equal to u/sv) values varying between 0.02 and
of discontinuity outcropping on the slope face [19] for 0.7, with u being the existing pore pressure and sv the
planar and wedge failure. existing vertical stress at the considered depth.
F4 is a correction factor that depends on the excavation Consequently, taking into account that basic RMR is
method used (Table 1). obtained using expression (2) and considering continuous
functions (3)–(8), basic RMR can be expressed as
3. Continuous functions for basic rock mass rating (RMRb) 8
>
> 0:2RQD þ 15:1 log X̄ þ 1:670sP  2:9 log G þ 35:67 þ rJ ;
>
>
Sen and Sadagah [18] modified RMR for tunneling by >
> 0:2RQD þ 15:1 log X̄ þ 0:075sC  2:9 log G þ 34:00 þ rJ ;
>
>
>
< 0:2RQD þ 15:1 log X̄ þ 1:670sP  10 log ru þ 24:17 þ rJ ;
continuous functions. The use of continuous functions
RMRb ¼
allows only the RMR index to be obtained, substituting the > 0:2RQD þ 15:1 log X̄ þ 0:075sC  10 log ru þ 22:50 þ rJ ;
>
>
>
values of the different properties of rock mass. The above- >
> 0:2RQD þ 15:1 log X̄ þ 1:670sP þ 25:67 þ rG þ rJ ;
>
>
>
:
mentioned functions are: 0:2RQD þ 15:1 log X̄ þ 0:075s þ 24:00 þ r þ r :
C G J

rRQD ¼ 0:2RQD; (3) (9)

Table 1
Correction parameters for SMR (modified from Romana [1] by Anbalagan et al. [20])

Type of failure Very favorable Favorable Normal Unfavorable Very unfavorable

P A jajasj 4301 30–201 20–101 10–51 o51

T jajas180j
W jaiasj
P/T/W F1 0.15 0.40 0.70 0.85 1.00
P/W B jbjj or jbij o201 20–301 30–351 35–451 4451
P/W F2 0.15 0.40 0.70 0.85 1.00
T 1.00
P C bjbs 4101 10–01 01 0(101) o(101)
W bibs
T bj+bs o1101 110–1201 41201 — —
P/T/W F3 0 6 25 50 60

Excavation method (F4)

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

P: Planar failure; T: Toppling failure; W: Wedge failure.

 ARTICLE IN PRESS
1064 R. Tomás et al. / International Journal of Rock Mechanics & Mining Sciences 44 (2007) 1062–1069

These expressions allow us to calculate basic RMR for
several kinds of data (point load strength or uniaxial
compressive strength, water flow or pore pressure relation-
ship). As hydrogeological conditions are usually defined
using subjective descriptions (dry, damp, wet, dripping or
flowing), the last two expressions allow us to calculate
basic RMR.
When no borehole data are available and we use scanline
data or volumetric measures to estimate RQD, the Priest
and Hudson [22] expression can be used:
RQD ¼ 100e0:1l ð0:1l þ 1Þ
or the Palmstrom [23] expression:
Romana [19] proposed a function for the computation of
the F1 parameter (Fig. 1a):
F 1 ¼ ð1  sin jAjÞ2 , (14)
where A is the parallelism between discontinuities and
slope dip direction for planar and toppling failures. For
wedge failure, A is the angle formed between the
intersection of the two discontinuities (the plunge direc-
tion) and the slope dip direction [24]. This function is valid
for all possible values of A and provides more conservative
values for F1 than the original discrete function.
(10) The same author established the following continuous
function for F2 computation (Fig. 1b):

RQD ¼ 115  3:3J v , (11) F 2 ¼ tan2 B, (15)

where l is the discontinuity frequency and Jv is the where B corresponds to the discontinuity dip (bj) in
volumetric joint count, respectively. Consequently, the degrees, for planar failure and toppling and to the plunge
basic RMR of (9) can be expressed for RQD obtained from (bi) of the wedge failure intersection line [24]. Its valid
expression (10) and taking into account that l ¼ 1=X̄ range is for values of B lower than 451. For higher values,
newly as F2 is set to 1. Consequently, this function is not valid for all
8 values of B constituting a discrete function. Moreover, it is
>
> 20ð1 þ 0:1lÞe0:1l  15:1 log l þ 1:670sP  2:9 log G þ 35:67 þ rJ ; unsafe because it provides values of F2 lower than those
>
>
>
> 20ð1 þ 0:1lÞe0:1l  15:1 log l þ 0:075sC  2:9 log G þ 34:00 þ rJ ;
>
>
> proposed in the original function.
< 20ð1 þ 0:1lÞe0:1l  15:1 log l þ 1:670sP  10 log ru þ 24:17 þ rJ ;
RMRb ¼
> 20ð1 þ 0:1lÞe0:1l  15:1 log l þ 0:075sC  10 log ru þ 22:50 þ rJ ;
>
>
>
> 4.2. Alternative functions
>
> 20ð1 þ 0:1lÞe0:1l  15:1 log l þ 1:670sP þ 24:67 þ rG þ rJ ;
>
>
: 20ð1 þ 0:1lÞe0:1l  15:1 log l þ 0:075s þ 24:00 þ r þ r ;
C G J
In this section, alternative functions for the F1 and F2
(12) correction parameters are proposed. Moreover, new
and for RQD obtained from expression (11), expression continuous functions are proposed for the F3 parameter.
(9) is expressed as The proposed F1 continuous function that best fits
8 discrete values is expressed as (Fig. 1a)
>
>
>
3:3J V þ 15:1 log X̄ þ 1:670sP  2:9 log G þ 150:67 þ rJ ;  
>
> 16 3 1
>
> 3:3J V þ 15:1 log X̄ þ 0:075sC  2:9 log ðGÞ þ 149:00 þ rJ ; F1 ¼  arctan ðjAj  17Þ , (16)
>
>
< 3:3J V þ 15:1 log X̄ þ 1:670sP  10 log ru þ 139:17 þ rJ ; 25 500 10
RMRb ¼
>
> 3:3J V þ 15:1 log X̄ þ 0:075sC  10 log ru þ 137:50 þ rJ ; where parameter A and arctangent function are expressed
>
>
>
> 3:3J V þ 15:1 log X̄ þ 1:670sP þ 139:67 þ rG þ rJ ;
>
>
>
in degrees.
: 3:3J V þ 15:1 log X̄ þ 0:075sC þ 139:00 þ rG þ rJ : We propose an alternative continuous function for F2
(13) estimation, which is valid for all possible values of B (Fig.
1b):
As a result, basic RMR can be expressed in 18 different  
forms (Eqs. (9), (12) and (13)), depending on the 9 1 17
F2 ¼ þ arctan B5 , (17)
parameters available for determining rock mass quality. 16 195 100
Note that the discontinuity conditions term (rJ), which where parameter B and arctangent function are also
depends on roughness, continuity, alteration, aperture and expressed in degrees.
fill, has a descriptive character and consequently a Tomás et al. [25] proposed continuous functions for F3
continuous function cannot be used to calculate it. calculus from dip relationship (C) using sigmoidal and
Furthermore, it should be pointed out that Eq. (12) has asymptotical arctangent function. These functions have
only four independent parameters while Eqs. (9) and (13) been slightly readjusted to the following new formula (Figs.
have five different independent parameters. 1c and d), which is more conservative and shows a better fit
to the F3 discrete values:
4. Continuous slope mass rating (SMR) 1
F 3 ¼ 30 þ arctan C, (18)
3
4.1. Available functions
1
F 3 ¼ 13  arctan ðC  120Þ. (19)
As previously stated, SMR is calculated from Eq. (1) by 7
adding four correction factors (F1, F2, F3 and F4) to the Function (18) is used for slopes with planar or wedge
basic RMR (Table 1). failure and expression (19) is used for toppling failure
 ARTICLE IN PRESS
R. Tomás et al. / International Journal of Rock Mechanics & Mining Sciences 44 (2007) 1062–1069
Fig. 1. Proposed functions for SMR correction factors estimation: (a) F1; (b) F2; (c) F3 for planar and wedge failures; (d) F3 for toppling failures.
cases. The C variable expresses dip relationship and is
equivalent to bjbs for planar failure, bibs for wedge
failure and bj+bs for toppling failure.
Note that the use of arctangent functions has the
advantage of being asymptotic to the extreme score values
and, consequently, for values higher than those corre-
sponding to the properties near the extreme borders, they
do not cause significant deviations from the discrete values.
Functions (18) and (19) are novel for Romana’s
classification application because they enable the F3
parameter to be calculated using the original values of
Bieniawski’s classification (varying from 0 to 60), which
very much condition the final SMR value. For instance, a
slope with planar failure and C ¼ 01, F3 is equal to 25
points. However, for values of 01oCp101 F3, is equal to
6 points and for values of 101pCo01, F3 is equal to
50 points, which, in the worst case scenario, implies
maximum SMR indexes with differences of 44 points
(more than 2 classes). Consequently, 711 can cause
important changes in the chosen score and, for the slope
under consideration, we will select a value of F3 equal to
50, to be on the safe side.
As a result, when this correction index is continuous, we
avoid the ambiguity that sometimes appears when refer-
1065
ence values approach interval borders. This observation
can be performed equally on the remaining parameters.
Finally, F4 factor depends on the excavation system
employed for slope construction. It has an unavoidably
descriptive character and is not suitable for continuous
functions.
5. Comparison between original and modified by continuous
functions SMR
In this section, we applied the proposed functions to 61
slopes in order to establish their confidence with the
original, discrete functions for SMR. Most of the cases
correspond to Spanish slopes measured by the authors,
although several of them have been taken from historical
and bibliographical cases.
The results obtained from the comparison between
continuous and discrete SMR correction parameters in
the cases considered are shown in Fig. 2 and Table 2.
The continuous functions provide a unique correction
value for every case (Fig. 2) in comparison with discrete
functions. It can be observed that Eqs. (14) and (15)
generally provide lower values than those provided by
original SMR discrete functions. Moreover, the correction
 ARTICLE IN PRESS
1066 R. Tomás et al. / International Journal of Rock Mechanics & Mining Sciences 44 (2007) 1062–1069

Fig. 2. Comparison between discrete and continuous F1, F2 and F3 parameters using different functions (61 case studies considered).

Table 2 of new functions proposed and contrasted by other

Statistics about differences among SMR classification continuous and authors, we have also included the basic RMR index
discrete correction factor terms (61cases studied) statistics. For this index, an average value of 574 points (a
F1  F2  F3 Using Eqs. (14) and (15) from Proposed Eqs. coincidence of 9375%) and a maximum difference of 16
Romana [19] and Eqs. (18) (Eq. (16), (17), points (Table 3 and Fig. 3a), almost equivalent to a
and (19) (18) and (19)) geomechanical class, has been calculated. For the SMR
Average 577 073
index, an average difference of 978 points (a coincidence
difference of 83714%) and a maximum difference value of 28 points
Maximum 21 4 have also been calculated using Eqs. (14), (15), (18) and
difference (19) (Table 3 and Fig. 3b). For Eqs. (16)–(19) (Table 3
Minimum 7 7 and Fig. 3b), the average differences are reduced to 574
difference
(a coincidence of 8978%) with maximum differences of 14
points.
If we analyze these differences for the existing types of
values obtained from continuous functions (16) and (17) failure (Table 4 and Figs. 3c and 3d) we can see that the
are generally higher (in absolute value) than those obtained greater level of coincidence between lump and continuous
using discrete functions and are therefore on the safe side. SMR indexes corresponds to planar failure mode with
Some of these facts can be seen in Table 2. It shows that the average differences of 573 points and a maximum of 10
average and maximum differences between correction points if we use Eqs. (16), (17), (18) and (19).
factor terms F1  F2  F3 from the SMR classification are Finally, differences among lump and continuous indexes
577 points (half a subclass) and 21 points (more than one have been studied for the different geomechanical classes
class), respectively, if we use Eqs. (14), (15), (18) and (19) (Table 4). Minimum differences correspond to class V with
and 073 points and 4 points (less than a subclass) if we use average differences of 472 points and a maximum
Eqs. (16)–(19). difference of 7 points. However, this class is the least
Fig. 3 shows the comparison between basic RMR and represented with only five cases.
SMR continuous and discrete indexes. Although it is not As a result, we can conclude that no significant
the principal aim of this study to discuss the suitability of differences between proposed continuous functions and
the continuous functions proposed by Sen and Sadagah discrete functions have been observed for the different
[18] and the changes introduced due to the incorporation geomechanical classes and types of failure. These differences
 ARTICLE IN PRESS
R. Tomás et al. / International Journal of Rock Mechanics & Mining Sciences 44 (2007) 1062–1069 1067

Fig. 3. Comparison between continuous and discrete indexes: (a) Basic rock mass rating; (b) slope mass rating for different continuous functions; (c) slope
mass rating for different failure types and Eqs. (14) and (15) from Romana [19] and Eqs. (18) and (19). (c) slope mass rating for different failure types and
Eqs. (16), (17), (18) and (19).

Table 3
Statistical differences among continuous and lump geomechanical indexes

Coincidence (%) Avr. difference Max. difference Min. difference

RMRb 9375 574 16 1

SMR Eqs. (16)–(19) 8978 574 14 0
SMR Eqs. (14) and (15) from Romana [19] and Eqs. (18) and (19) 83714 978 28 0

No. of considered cases ¼ 61.

 ARTICLE IN PRESS
1068 R. Tomás et al. / International Journal of Rock Mechanics & Mining Sciences 44 (2007) 1062–1069

Table 4
Absolute differences in discrete SMR and continuous SMR according to failure type and slope rock mass class (No. of considered cases ¼ 61)

Failure type Classa

W T P I II III IV V

Cases (n) 13 29 19 0 16 15 25 5
Average difference Eqs. (16)–(19) 574 674 573 — 473 574 674 472
Eqs. (14) and (15) from Romana [19] and Eqs. (18) and (19)) 12710 775 1179 — 674 775 1479 373
Maximum difference Eqs. (16)–(19) 11 14 10 — 10 10 14 7
Eqs. (14) and (15) from Romana [19] and Eqs. (18) and (19) 28 16 27 — 15 18 28 6
Minimum difference Eqs. (16)–(19) 0 0 0 — 0 0 0 1
Eqs. (14) and (15) from Romana [19] and Eqs. (18) and (19) 2 0 0 — 0 1 2 0

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

a
Taking discrete SMR into account.

are, in the worst-case scenario, 14 points, which is less than tion System but in contrast they are difficult to apply in the
three quarters of a geomechanical class. field, where chart classification is more useful.

6. Conclusions Acknowledgments

Rock mass classifications are a very useful tool for the
characterization of rock masses. Among all available rock
mass classifications, SMR is the most extended and is
applied for rocky slopes due to its ease and exhaustive, well
established, quantitative definition of correction factors.
These factors are: F1, which depends on parallelism
between discontinuities and the slope face; F2, which
depends on discontinuity dip; F3, which depends on the
relationship between the slope face and the discontinuity
dip and F4, which depends on the excavation method.
In this study, new arctangent and asymptotical contin-
uous functions for F1, F2 and F3 SMR correction factors
are proposed. These functions show maximum absolute
differences with discrete functions lower than 7 points and
significantly reduce subjective interpretations. Moreover,
the proposed functions for SMR correction factors calculus
reduce doubts about what score to assign to values near the
border of the discrete classification. Only the F4 parameter
preserves its subjective and descriptive character.
These functions have been combined with Sen and
Sadagah’s proposal [18] to also reduce basic RMR
subjective interpretations. These continuous basic RMR
functions have been slightly modified to increase the
possibilities of expressing different parameters.
The resulting functions obtained by combining basic
RMR and SMR correction parameter continuous func-
tions allow a unique SMR value to be assigned for every
slope and allow discrimination among slopes that have the
same discrete SMR index. The differences observed among
lump and continuous functions are less than 14 points for
the SMR with an average value of 574 (a coincidence of
8978%). These differences are higher if we use that
proposed by Romana [19] for F1 and F2 estimation.
The continuous functions make it easy to program data
processing routines for SMR calculus and facilitate the
implementation of SMR using the Geographical Informa-
This study was partially funded by the Spanish Ministry
of Science and Technology and FEDER (Project TEC-
2005-06863), by the Valencia Regional Government
(Project GV06/179 and GRUPOS03/085) and by the
University of Alicante (Project VIGROB-157).
References
[1] Romana M. El papel de las clasificaciones geomecánicas en el
estudio de la estabilidad de taludes. In: Proceedings of IV Simposio
Nacional sobre taludes y laderas inestables, Granada, Spain, 1997.
p. 955–1011.
[2] Bieniawski ZT. Rock mass classification in rock engineering. In:
Proceedings of the symposium on explor for rock eng, Johannesburg,
1976. p. 97–106.
[3] Bieniawski ZT. Engineering rock mass classification. Chichester:
Wiley; 1989.
[4] Selby MJ. A rock mass strength classification for geomorphic
purposes: with tests from Antarctica and New Zeland. Z Geomorph
1980;24:31–51.
[5] Romana M. New adjustment ratings for application of Bieniawski
classification to slopes. In: Proceedings of Int Symp Role of Rock
Mech, ISRM, Zacatecas, Mexico, 1985, p. 49–53.
[6] Robertson AM. Estimating weak rock strength. In: Proceedings of
SME ann mtg, Phoenix, 1988. p. 1–5.
[7] Laubscher DH. A geomechanical classification system for the rating
of rock mass in mine design. J South Afr Inst Min Metall
1990;90:257–73.
[8] Haines A, Terbrugge PJ. Preliminary estimation of rock slope
stability using rock mass classification system. In: Proceedings of 7th
cong ISRM, Aachen, Germany, 1991. p. 887–92.
[9] Chen Z. Recent developments in slope stability analysis. In:
Proceedings of 8th international congress ISRM, Tokyo, 1995. p.
1041–8.
[10] Shuk T. Key elements and applications of the natural slope
methodology (NSM) with some emphasis on slope stability aspects.
In: Proceedings of 4th South Amer cong rock mech, Santiago, 1994.
p. 255–66.
[11] Ünal E. Modified rock mass classification: M-RMR system. In:
Bieniawski ZT, editor. Milestones in rock engineering, the bieniawski
jubilee collection. Rotterdam: Balkema; 1996. p. 203–23.
 ARTICLE IN PRESS
R. Tomás et al. / International Journal of Rock Mechanics & Mining Sciences 44 (2007) 1062–1069
[12] Hack HRGK. Slope stability probability classification. Netherlands:
ITC Delf Publication; 1998.
[13] Lindsay P, Campbell RN, Fergusson DA, Gillard GR, Moore TA.
Slope stability probability classification, Waikato coal measures, New
Zealand. Int J Coal Geol 2001;45:127–45.
[14] Romana M, Serón JB, Montalar E. La clasificación geomecánica
SMR: Aplicación experiencias y validación. In: Proceedings of V
Simposio Nacional sobre taludes y laderas inestables, Madrid, 2001.
p. 393–404.
[15] Romana M, Serón JB, Montalar E. SMR Geomechanics classifica-
tion: application, experience and validation. In: Proceedings of the
international symposium on the role of rock mechanics, South Afr
Inst Min Metall, 2003. p. 1–4.
[16] Romana M, Serón JB, Jordá L, Vélez MI. La clasificación
geomecánica SMR para taludes: Estado actual, aplicación y
experiencia internacional. In: Proceedings of VI Simposio Nacional
sobre taludes y laderas inestables, Valencia, 2005. p. 239–50.
[17] Irigaray C, Fernández T, Chacón J. Preliminary rock-slope-suscept-
ibility assessment using GIS and the SMR classification. Nat Hazards
2003;30:309–24.
[18] Sen Z, Sadagah H. Modified rock mass classification system by
continuous rating. Eng Geol 2003;67:269–80.
1069
[19] Romana M. A geomechanical classification for slopes: slope mass
rating. In: Hudson JA, editor. Comprehensive rock engineering.
Oxford: Pergamon; 1993. p. 575–600.
[20] Anbalagan R, Sharma S, Raghuvanshi TK. Rock mass stability
evaluation using modified SMR approach. In: Proceedings of 6th nat
symp rock mech, Bangalore, India, 1992. p. 258–68.
[21] Romana M. Nota sobre la valoración del 51 parámetro (condiciones
hidrogeológicas) del RMR básico en función de ru (razón de
presiones intersticiales). In: Proceedings of VI Simposio de taludes
y laderas inestables, Valencia, 2005. p. 221–26.
[22] Priest SD, Hudson JA. Estimation of discontinuity spacing and trace
length using scanline survey. J Rock Mech Min Sci Geomech Abstr
1981;18:183–97.
[23] Palmstrom A. The volumetric joint count—a useful and simple
measure of the degree of rock mass jointing. In: Proceedings of 4th
conf int ass eng geol, New Delhi, 1982. p. 221–28.
[24] Singh B, Göel RK. Rock mass classification. a practical approach in
civil engineering. Ámsterdam: Elsevier; 1999.
[25] Tomás R, Cano M, Cuenca A, Cañaveras JC, Delgado J, Estévez A, et
al. Nuevas funciones continuas para el cálculo del slope mass rating
(SMR): aplicación mediante un sistema de información geográfica a los
taludes rocosos de una cantera. Rev Soc Geol España 2006;19:87–97.