Int. J. Rock Mech. Min. Sci. Vol. 35, No. 2, pp.

219±233, 1998
# 1998 Elsevier Science Ltd. All rights reserved
Printed in Great Britain
PII: S0148-9062(97)00335-5 0148-9062/98 $19.00 + 0.00

A Practical Procedure for the Back Analysis

of Slope Failures in Closely Jointed Rock
Masses
H. SONMEZ
R. ULUSAY
C. GOKCEOGLU
Where closely jointed rock masses are encountered in slopes, failure can
occur both through the rock mass, as a result of combination of macro and
micro jointing, and through the rock substance. Determination of the
strength of this category of rock mass is extraordinarily dicult since the
size of representative specimens is too large for laboratory testing. This di-
culty can be overcome by using a non-linear rock mass failure criterion or
by back analysis of such slopes to estimate the rock mass strength. In this
paper, a practical procedure and a computer program are presented for the
back determination of shear strength parameters mobilized in slopes cut in
closely jointed rock masses which obey a non-linear failure criterion rather
than a linear one. The procedure shows that the constants to derive normal
stress dependent shear strength parameters of the failed rock masses can be
determined by utilizing a main cross-section and without a pre-determined
value of rock mass rating (RMR). Trials are made for di€erent RMRm and
RMRs values corresponding to various possible combinations of the constant
m and s, which are used in the Hoek±Brown failure criterion, satisfying the
limit equilibrium condition. It is also noted that the procedure provides a
quick check for the rock mass rating obtained from the site investigations.
The method is used in conjunction with the Bishop's method of analysis
based on circular slip surfaces. The procedure outlined in this paper has also
been satisfactorily applied to documented slope failure case histories in three
open pit mines in Turkey. # 1998 Elsevier Science Ltd.

INTRODUCTION (a) Methods suitable for slopes in soils or soil like

In a rock mass with clearly de®ned discontinuity sets,
failure mechanisms related to discontinuities can be
analyzed and the stability of slopes excavated in that
rock mass can be calculated providing the shear
strength along the discontinuities is known. However,
such an analytical approach might not be feasible for
slopes containing multiple discontinuity sets with large
variations in mechanical characteristics. Continuum
calculations for engineering structures in or on a rock
mass, whether analytical or numerical, cannot be
appropriate, since over-simpli®cations result from pre-
senting the rock mass as a continuum.
In general, the slope stability determination methods
depending on the material involved may be divided
into three broad categories:
Hacettepe University, Faculty of Engineering, Geological
Engineering Department, Applied Geology Division, 06532
Beytepe, Ankara, Turkey.
219
materials where the strength of the material can be
determined from testing small specimens of the ma-
terial in the laboratory.
(b) Methods suitable for slopes in hard jointed rocks
where slope stability is controlled by the discontinuities
in the rock material. The potential for failure is depen-
dent on the presence and orientation of discontinuities,
and shear strength along them.
(c) Methods suitable for closely jointed rock masses
where failure can occur both through the rock mass,
as a result of a combination of macro and micro joint-
ing, and through the rock substance. Determination of
the strength of this category of rock mass is a much
more dicult task. There are formidable diculties in
the sampling and testing of undisturbed samples that
are suciently large to represent the combined e€ects
of rock material and discontinuities. The possibility for
the measurement of the shear strength of such rock
masses is usually based on some form of classi®cation
220 SONMEZ et al.: BACK ANALYSIS OF SLOPE FAILURES IN ROCK MASSES
Fig. 1. E€ect of scale on rock strength and possible mechanisms of failure in rock slopes.
techniques [1±3] in conjunction with a non-linear fail-
ure criterion [4±8].
A rock mass is described as closely jointed when the
joint spacing is small in relation to the scale of the
project in question. In closely jointed media it seems
appropriate to assume that the material is approxi-
mately isotropic and homogeneous, i.e. there are no
clearly de®ned joint planes or joint sets which control
the form of the failure mode. In these rocks, the joint
spacing is a fraction of meter, the individual particles
of rock mass are very small compared to the dimen-
sion of slope and these particles are not interlocked
due to their shape. Depending on the number and
nature of the discontinuities, the intact rock pieces will
translate, rotate or crush in response to stresses
imposed on the rock mass. The behavior of the mass is
thus a consequence of the combined action of a large
number of individual joints. When the rock mass con-
tains a number of discontinuity sets, having relatively
small spacings in relation to the slope size, failure can
occur along a shear surface similar to those observed
in soil slopes. Therefore, the required conditions for a
circular failure are mostly satis®ed in heavily jointed
rock masses as illustrated in Fig. 1.
The standard method for assessing the strength of a
geotechnical material is to recover a sample and test it
in laboratory. In the case of a closely jointed rock
mass it is clearly not possible to recover a sample that
is large enough to represent the joint system.
Therefore, an empirical approach such as rock mass
classi®cation can be attractive alternative, provided
that the appropriate parameters are included in the
classi®cation system. In order to overcome the dicul-
ties in laboratory determination of the shear strength
of jointed rock masses; the Hoek±Brown failure cri-
terion in conjunction with geomechanics classi®cation
system [1] is commonly used.
Rock mass classi®cation has been applied success-
fully in tunnelling and underground mining [1±3, 9]. A
number of systems, introduced by Bieniawski [1] and
by Romana [10], has also been suggested for rock
slopes. It should be noted, however, that the use of
rock mass classi®cations developed particularly for
underground works may lead to unsatisfactory results
when applied to near-surface applications such as rock
slopes. This is due to the restrictions of these systems
which are not well considered.
Recently, an empirical failure criterion developed by
Hoek and Brown [5±8] has been adopted to the RMR
rock mass classi®cation scheme [1] to assess the shear
strength of the jointed rock masses in surface and
underground excavations. This approach has been also
employed in slope stability analyses by several
investigators [11±14]. The slope mass rating (SMR)
classi®cation scheme proposed by Romana [10] also
involves the input parameters used by the RMR-sys-
tem, but generally provides assessments on structurally
controlled slope failures.
The main input parameters used in various classi®-
cation systems are more or less the same. Namely,
these systems consider intact rock strength, RQD, dis-
continuity spacing, condition and orientation of dis-
continuities and groundwater conditions. Although a
number of additional input parameters and some
modi®cations are required in the RMR classi®cation
scheme, the advantage of the system is that it provides
an easy connection to the Hoek±Brown failure cri-
terion for jointed rock masses. The intact rock strength
is one of the input parameters involved in the RMR-
System and is only of limited interest with regard to
the stability of rock slopes in which failure is most
often associated with the shear strength of discontinu-
ities. Sometimes a rock mass having low intact rock
strength is a consequence of the failed rock containing
a large number of discontinuities. In addition to this,
the purpose of including intact rock strength in the
classi®cation system for slopes is to give an assessment
of wall rock strength of the discontinuities. As stated
by Hoek [15], the Hoek±Brown failure criterion is only
applicable to intact rock or to closely jointed rock
masses which can be considered homogeneous and iso-
tropic. The rock mass parameters RQD and disconti-
nuity spacing de®ne the block size and block form and
are also very useful in analyzing stability of slopes.
Therefore, these two parameters are considered by the
authors to be the parameters of meaningful value in
rock mass classi®cation, particularly for slopes exca-
vated in closely jointed rock masses.
 SONMEZ et al.: BACK ANALYSIS OF SLOPE FAILURES IN ROCK MASSES
The condition of discontinuities includes the items
related to roughness, continuity, in®ll material, aper-
ture and degree of weathering. Laubscher [9] takes
into account in his ®nal RMR rating only the con-
dition factor of the most prominent discontinuity set
or the discontinuity set with the most adverse in¯uence
on the stability of an underground excavation. This is
too simple for slopes where the failure is often not
determined by one main discontinuity set. Particularly
for the slopes in a closely jointed rock mass, the con-
dition rating becomes more important and it is taken
as the mean value of the condition ratings of the
di€erent discontinuity sets. For the rock slopes, the
persistence has a considerable in¯uence on the stability
and the RMR-System takes into account the persist-
ence as a quantitative factor. Weathering a€ects the
condition of discontinuities and discontinuity spacing.
It is also noted that the state of weathering is con-
sidered to be a local feature which has changed the
rock mass at a particular location. Within the lifespan
of a cut slope, future weathering might lead to instabil-
ity. Therefore, the weathering parameter included in
the RMR-System is a very important factor in slope
stability.
The main problem of water in slopes is the pressure
of the water in discontinuities. The presence of water
in discontinuities reduces the stability of slopes by
reducing the strength of discontinuity surfaces or of
any in®ll material. The water pressure is taken into
account in the slope stability analysis by estimating the
pressure or the position of groundwater table in slope.
But the softening or weakening e€ect of water on dis-
continuity surfaces becomes more important for slopes.
Consequently, the groundwater rating is an integral
part of the rock mass classi®cation and should be
assigned for each particular outcrop for slopes.
In closely jointed or crushed rock masses it is very
dicult or impossible to determine the orientation of
discontinuities. In such cases, the orientation is not
meaningful, because part of the rock mass will fall into
the underground opening and require immediate sup-
port regardless of discontinuity orientation. In the case
of slopes excavated in such rocks, the situation is not
di€erent. Bieniawski [1] in his RMR classi®cation
scheme, suggests rating adjustments for discontinuity
orientations, relative to proposed slope orientation,
ranging between 0 and ÿ60. No guidelines have been
published for the de®nition of each adjustment values,
and no reference is given by Bieniawski to use of the
RMR classi®cation in slopes. The reason for this lack
of use is probably the extremely high values of the
adjustment rating values which may sometime result in
negative RMR values. Therefore, the ratings assigned
for discontinuity orientation adjustments suggested by
Bieniawski [1] is unrealistic. Singh and Gahrooee [16]
proposed better and clearer descriptions for disconti-
nuity orientation in slopes. This approach was quanti-
®ed on the basis of rating with regard to the number
of possible modes of failure. The authors of the pre-
221
sent paper think that the above mentioned rating sys-
tem is still questionable. First of all, Singh and
Gahrooee [16] did not change the values of ratings
which can reach up to ÿ60 points out of 100. As dis-
cussed before, such an adjustment is not applicable in
practice. Secondly, in a closely jointed rock mass, the
most probable mode of failure occurs in the form of a
circular shape regardless of discontinuity orientation.
Consequently, only one de®nition namely ``one poss-
ible mode of failure'' is considered to be more logical,
and a single adjustment of ÿ5 for discontinuity orien-
tation is more realistic for slope failures in closely
jointed rock masses.
Some factors such as method of excavation, major
planes of weakness or change in stress are treated as
local features which have in¯uenced the rock mass at a
particular location and are not rock mass constants.
These have been discussed by Laubscher [9],
Romana [10] and Kendorski et al. [17]. The greatest
in¯uence of the method of excavation will be on the
spacing of discontinuities. Depending of the blasting
damage, blasted slopes may have closer discontinuity
spacing than natural slopes. Therefore, in order to
compensate for the in¯uence of such local factors,
necessary adjustments [1, 9, 17] are taken into consider-
ation in rock mass classi®cation for the slope failures
in closely jointed rock masses investigated in this
study.
On the other hand, during a classi®cation process,
serious diculties are encountered in determining or
describing some of the rock mass parameters, particu-
larly in poor quality rock masses [18±20]. Due to such
uncertainties, the calculated rock mass rating may
erroneously a€ect the constants and shear strength
parameters derived from the non-linear rock mass fail-
ure criterion. The most reliable way to obtain a mean
value of the constants m and s employed by the
Hoek±Brown failure criterion in an extended slope is
by back-calculation and by comparison of the results
of back-calculation with the available data derived
from the Hoek±Brown criterion [21]. However, in
some cases it is unlikely that an accurate assessment of
the true strength parameters for a given rock mass will
ever be available due to limitations, so RMR values
cannot be precisely determined. Because the results of
back-analysis provide a range of combinations of
apparent friction angle and cohesion, the problem of
parameter selection becomes dicult in such cases.
The procedure presented herein is to perform a
back-analysis of failed slopes cut in jointed rock
masses to estimate the rock mass rating and shear
strength parameters mobilized at the time of failure.
The main philosophy of the method recognizes that it
is unlikely that an accurate assessment of the value of
RMR and shear strength parameters for a given rock
mass will ever be available. A detailed description of
the procedure which can be readily incorporated into
the conventional back analysis of a slope failure in a
jointed rock mass, where only a single cross-section is
222 SONMEZ et al.: BACK ANALYSIS OF SLOPE FAILURES IN ROCK MASSES

available, is presented with a computer solution devel-
oped for the purpose. The proposed method is also
applied to failure case histories in jointed rock masses
at three open pit mines located in Turkey to check its
performance.
METHOD OF ANALYSIS
Theoretical background-basic procedure
One of the most dicult tasks in slope stability
analysis is the determination of the shear strength par-
ameters (c, f) along the sliding surfaces. In geotechni-
cal engineering practice, failure of a slope can be
regarded as a full scale ®eld test and an assessment of
any failure is, therefore, of considerable value.
Appropriate geomechanics models can be used to esti-
mate the values of shear strength parameters on the
basis of certain assumptions. These back calculated
values may then be used for preventative and remedial
work for the redesign of failed slopes and for new pro-
jects in similar types of material. Therefore, it is con-
sidered that back analyses are an integral part of the
slope design.
The shear strength parameters of a failed slope have
been back calculated by geotechnical engineers and en-
gineering geologists in the following procedures:
(a) Assuming the value of the angle of internal fric-
tion f or of the cohesion c to calculate another [22]
(Fig. 2(a)).
(b) Utilizing a main cross-section of a failed slope
and another cross-section near the main one in the
same failed slope or utilizing two cross-sections in two
failed slopes which have similar geological and hydro-
geological conditions to establish two equations and
then evaluate the values of c and f (single solution;
Fig. 2(b)).
(c) Because of the variations in the mechanical prop-
erties of the same material in di€erent places, utilizing

Fig. 2. Basic back analysis approaches applied for the slope forming materials obeying linear failure envelopes: (a) derived
range of c and f and determination of c from an assumed f; (b) single solution for two slides with di€erent geometry; (c)
multiple solutions for four slides with di€erent geometry; and (d) multiple solutions with a comparison with laboratory de-
rived strength test results.
 SONMEZ et al.: BACK ANALYSIS OF SLOPE FAILURES IN ROCK MASSES 223

more than two slope cross-sections to obtain as many ing can be very dicult because of tendency of these
as n(n ÿ 1)/2 points of intersections (solutions) for n materials to slake and de-laminate. In addition, as
curves c(f) (multiple solutions; [23]; Fig. 2(c)). The set reported by Unal et al. [18], Ulusay et al. [19] and
of continuous curves represents the range of back cal- Unal [20], serious diculties are encountered in deter-
culation solutions from which the most realistic sol- mining or describing some of the rock mass par-
ution can be obtained based on engineering judgement, ameters, particularly in weak, strati®ed and clay-
experience and veri®ed with shear test results if these bearing rocks. In such circumstances overestimated
are available (Fig. 2(d)). rock mass ratings might be obtained and they result in
The above procedures, however, are based on the deriving di€erent m and s values than those in real
back calculation of the shear strength parameters of situation. On the other hand, in some areas where
the materials obeying linear Mohr±Coulomb failure slope failures have occurred, because of the limited
criterion which are characterized by c and f values number of outcrops or no borehole data, the rock
independent from the normal stress. But a consensus mass rating can not be precisely determined.
has gradually emerged among the rock mechanics
Therefore, a back analysis based on such limited or
community that the failure envelope for a closely
questionable data may yield unrealistic results.
jointed rock mass is curved rather than linear. The
The strategy of this study is aimed at overcoming
authors believe that the Hoek±Brown non-linear fail-
the diculties associated with the limitations discussed
ure criterion [4±7], which has gained an increasing
above. In this strategy, a procedure is suggested to
popularity in stability analyses made in conjunction
with rock mass classi®cation systems, provides a mean- identify the most reasonable and a common rock mass
ingful estimate of rock mass behavior. Due to the non- rating (RMR) value which corresponds to the pair of
linear nature of this failure criterion, the above men- m and s satisfying the limit equilibrium condition. In
tioned methods are unrealistic for use with closely jointed rock masses obeying the Hoek±Brown failure
jointed rock slopes, i.e. the shear strength parameters criterion, a function F, the conventional factor of
of a failure surface in closely jointed rock masses can safety commonly speci®ed in the limit equilibrium
be calculated for any speci®c normal stress value using methods of slope stability analysis, depends on several
the material constants (m and s) as a function of rock variables and for any particular sliding surface may be
mass rating (RMR) from the following equation [24]; written in the following form:
for disturbed rock masses: F ˆ FfRMR…m, s†, GW, G g …3†
 
m RMR ÿ 100
ˆ exp …1a† where RMR: rock mass rating (m and s are the ma-
mi 14
terial constants), GW: groundwater conditions prevail-
  ing in the slope, G: geometry of the slope and the
RMR ÿ 100
s ˆ exp …1b† failure surface.
6
for undisturbed or interlocking rock masses:
 
m RMR ÿ 100
ˆ exp …2a†
mi 28
 
RMR ÿ 100
s ˆ exp …2b†
9
where mi is the material constant of intact rock sample
and can either be calculated form laboratory triaxial
test on intact samples or taken from the tables pro-
posed by Hoek [24], and Hoek et al. [8].
In the case of a slope instability with accurately
speci®ed failure geometry in a closely jointed rock
mass, if the value of RMR is precisely determined and
the triaxial test data are available, back analysis of the
failure provides a realistic comparison between the
rock mass strength obtained from the failure surface
yielding a safety factor of unity and the failure envel-
ope derived with the updated Hoek±Brown failure cri-
terion as reported by Ulusay and Aksoy [21] (Fig. 3).
However, in weak sedimentary rocks, such as shales, Fig. 3. Comparison between the rock mass shear strength obtained
from the failure surfaces yielding safety factors of unity and the fail-
marls and siltstones, and in heavily fractured schistose ure envelope with the updated Hoek±Brown criterion for coal-bear-
rock masses, preparation of specimens for triaxial test- ing rocks (after Ref. [21]).
224 SONMEZ et al.: BACK ANALYSIS OF SLOPE FAILURES IN ROCK MASSES
The real factor of safety F is considered to be
known and equal to one for a case study concerned
with a slope that has failed. The value of the geometry
data G in Equation (3) can be delineated from the
results of ®eld inspection or by surveying the actual
failed slope. The values of the constants m and s at the
time of failure are unknowns and groundwater con-
dition, GW, may be either known or unknown.
The suggested approach involves the determination
of various possible combinations of m and s satisfying
the following equation:
1 ˆ FfRMR…m, s†, GW, G g …4†
where G and GW are considered as known in the pro-
cedure.
The back analysis method presented herein is based
on the following assumptions:
(1) The geometry of the slope before and after fail-
ure, the position of the sliding surface, and the
groundwater conditions are known.
(2) The mechanism of the movement is known.
(3) A condition of static equilibrium at the point of
failure (limit equilibrium) exists at the time of failure.
(4) In closely jointed media, it seems appropriate to
assume that material is approximately homogeneous.
(5) What is obtained by back calculation is a
weighed mean value of RMR and corresponding m
and s values along the failure surface at the time of
failure.
(6) A set of relations between the RMR from the
Bieniawski's rock mass classi®cation [1] and the con-
stants given in Equations (1a)±(b) and (2a)±(b) are
used in conjunction with the equations given by the
updated Hoek±Brown failure criterion [24].
(7) Uniaxial compressive strength (sc) and the ma-
terial constant mi are the input parameters.
The back analysis procedure starts with the fact that
the constants m and s of a given rock mass depend
upon an RMR value (Equations (1a)±(b) and (2a)±
(b)), and therefore, various possible combinations of
(m, s) pairs at the time of failure (F = 1) can be de-
rived from di€erent RMR values. The procedure
which performs back calculations for three unknown
parameters can be carried out using the following al-
gorithm.
Step 1. One variable, RMR, out of three unknown
geomechanical parameters (RMR, m, s) is selected and
the second unknown, the constant s, is calculated by
the utilization of Equation (1b) or Equation (2b)
depending on the condition of disturbance (blasted
and/or excavated rock, or none) of the rock mass. The
RMR value selected to calculate the parameter s is
denoted by RMRs.
Step 2. By utilizing the position of the sliding sur-
face, normal stress acting on each slice base is calcu-
lated. Keeping the previously chosen RMRs value and
the corresponding RMR (RMRm) which lead a value
of safety factor of unity are calculated by trial and
error technique in conjunction with the equations
given by the updated Hoek±Brown failure
criterion [24].
Step 3. Trials are made for di€erent values of
RMRs(s) to obtain various possible combinations of
RMRs and RMRm satisfying the limit equilibrium con-
dition.
The results of the back analysis are best presented in
a RMRs±RMRm function forms, i.e. RMRs plotted
against RMRm considering each combination to lead
to a value of the factor of safety F = 1 (Fig. 4). All
the points (or RMR pairs) located on the curve indi-
cate a safety factor of unity. Because the closely
jointed rock mass is an approximately homogeneous
material, it is logical to consider that the rock mass
must have a unique RMR value from which a pair of
m and s representing a given rock mass can be derived
using Equations (1a)±(b) and (2a)±(b). Thus, if a
straight line passing from the origin of the graph (see
Fig. 4) with an inclination of 458 is drawn, it intersects
the RMRs±RMRm curve at a certain point which indi-
cates a common RMR (RMRRM:the actual RMR for
the rock mass) value for both constants at the time of
failure and utilization of this back analyzed RMRRM
value will yield the right combination of the two con-
stants, m and s, of the rock mass.
Software description
The method described above has been used to
develop a computer program for conventional determi-
nistic slope stability analysis and back calculation. The
computer program was written in QBasic and can run
on any type of IBM PC or compatible equipped with
a graphics card and monitor. The program
HOBRSLP, which has routines that search the more
critical failure surface in a grid system or automati-
cally, can handle slope stability analysis of circular slip
surfaces for slopes involving many benches with di€er-
ent geometries, various materials and di€erent ground-
water conditions, and includes simpli®ed Bishop's
method of analysis [25].
Two options are included in the program: (a) con-
ventional stability analysis for searching the most criti-
cal failure surface and corresponding lowest factor of
safety; (b) back analysis of a failed slope with known
failure geometry. Input data for the program includes
the coordinates of the points specifying slope geome-
try, water conditions prevailing in the slope, and ma-
terial properties. It will also prompt users to enter the
tension crack position. Output consists of a table of
input data, safety factor, a cross-section of the slope
showing all strata, water table, the failure surface, and
a list of ci, fi, sn, t for each slice base if the case con-
sists of materials having non-linear failure envelopes.
Three di€erent methods of shear strength data input
are incorporated in the program with keyboard selec-
tion of the input mode for conventional analysis.
These three modes are as follows:
(1) Input of the known shear strength parameters
derived from linear Coulomb equation.
 SONMEZ et al.: BACK ANALYSIS OF SLOPE FAILURES IN ROCK MASSES
Fig. 4. Basic concept of the proposed back analysis technique.
(2) Calculating the shear strength parameters from
input data for rock types, RMR value, sc, and ma-
terial constant mi.
(3) Calculating the shear strength parameters from
normal stress (sn) acting on each slice base, and the
constants A and B for the materials ®tted to power
curve strength equation (t = AsB).
The back calculation option provides the use of the
®rst two modes mentioned above. In the back analysis
option, mi and sc are given as material properties with
the condition of rock mass (disturbed or undisturbed).
The existing program can analyze slopes with up to
150 slices. The steps to be followed during the ex-
ecution of the program are shown diagrammatically in
the ¯ow chart illustrated in Fig. 5.
EXAMINATION OF THE PROCEDURE ON ACTUAL
EXAMPLES
The procedure outlined above has been applied to
failed slopes in three open pit mines located in the wes-
tern and central parts of Turkey (Fig. 6). All the slopes
presented in the particular and well documented case
histories were cut in jointed rock masses where the
joint spacing is a fraction of a meter. It is, therefore,
very much smaller than the scale of the cut slopes
which are tens of meters high.
An externally loaded highwall slope failure (Case 1)
The particular case history presented and described
below is concerned with the instability of a highwall in
Eskihisar strip coal mine (Yatagan±Mugla) in south-
western Turkey. No sign of instability in highwalls was
observed until 1989. During a comprehensive slope
stability research project by Ulusay [14], the highwall
of the ninth slice was found to be unstable after load-
ing the slope by a temporary spoil pile (Fig. 7).
The failed highwall, located at the southern end of
the ninth slice, was excavated in the compact marls
which lie above the coal seam with a thickness of 15±
20 m. In the failed highwall and in the entire pit, con-
tinuous cross joints are well developed within the com-
pact marl. Except local deviations, there are three
dominant joint sets developed parallel and/or subpar-
225
allel to the normal faults crossing the Tertiary depos-
its. Excepting local deviations, three dominant joint
sets dipping 758±858 NE and SW were identi®ed. Their
persistence is high and reaches up to 8 m in some
places. The presence of cross joints, faults and ¯at
lying bedding planes result in a closely jointed rock
mass. The groundwater level rises above the coal seam
into the compact marls and where seepage occurs it
tends to decline toward the compact marl±coal seam
boundary. Thus, the failed part of the investigated
slope was dry.
In the strip coal mine, the overburden rocks com-
posed of the compact marls were evaluated based on
Bieniawski's 1989 classi®cation [1]. The data required
for rock mass rating determinations were obtained
from the geotechnical logs recorded and the scanline
surveys carried out in accordance with the procedure
suggested by ISRM [26]. Values of RMR for the rock
mass were determined for a number of individual sec-
tions from seven fully cored geotechnical boreholes
considering drill-run lengths ranging between 1 to 3 m.
In addition, a total of seven scanline sections were also
evaluated. Joint systems show negative exponential dis-
tribution. Mean joint spacing (x) and the average num-
ber of joints per meter (l) of the rock mass were
calculated as 0.386 m and 2.59 mÿ1, respectively. In the
compact marls overlying the coal, excepting occasional
laminated levels, spacing between bedding planes ran-
ged 0.3 to 1 m. Discontinuity surfaces observed on the
faces of the benches were normally dry. However,
moisture appeared in some places when the surfaces
were scraped by a geologist hammer. The ranges of
the ®ve main parameters employed in the determi-
nation of RMR values are tabulated in Table 1. As
explained in the ®rst section, the adjustment rating for
discontinuity orientation was quanti®ed on the basis of
rating with regard to the number of possible modes of
failure [16]. In this study, only one mode of failure, cir-
cular failure through the rock mass, was considered
for discontinuity orientation adjustment. Mining appli-
cations include dynamic processes. In the studied pit a
controlled blasting with a slight damage to loosen the
overburden, compact marls, is made. For this con-
dition, a blasting damage adjustment of 0.94 [17] to
the RMR values of the compact marls was assigned.
Using the statistical methods, individual RMR values
were assessed and then RMR values ranging between
50 and 62 with a mean value of 53 were obtained. Due
to light blasting carried out in the compact marls to
loosen the overburden, disturbed rock mass condition
is considered and the value of mi (9.87) for intact rock
was calculated by linear regression analysis on the
measured triaxial data pairs from the intact rock, and
the constants m and s were found to be 0.344 and
0.0004, respectively [14]. To assess the various controls
on slope movements, the development of mobilized
shear strength and the failure mechanism under the in-
¯uence of the loads exerted by the spoil pile were
investigated by Ulusay and Aksoy [21] using determi-
226 SONMEZ et al.: BACK ANALYSIS OF SLOPE FAILURES IN ROCK MASSES

Fig. 5. The ¯ow chart for the proposed method of analysis code HOBRSLP.
 SONMEZ et al.: BACK ANALYSIS OF SLOPE FAILURES IN ROCK MASSES
Fig. 6. Location map of the back analyzed case study sites.
nistic and numerical (FEM) methods. For this pur-
pose, available monitoring record, structural data and
groundwater information were examined, and a rock
mass shear strength envelope was derived from the
Hoek±Brown criterion in conjunction with rock mass
classi®cation for the highwall material. Ulusay and
Aksoy [21] back analyzed the failure utilizing four
cross-sections and indicated that the updated Hoek±
Brown failure criterion used with rock mass classi®-
cation gives strength values equal to those obtained by
the mobilized strength curve, and results of the back
analyses con®rm the applicability of the loaded slope
model proposed for the case.
The procedure presented herein was applied to the
case summarized above. Taking into consideration the
loaded slope model (symmetrical vertical triangular
external loading condition), the program
HOBRSLP [14] was modi®ed by the authors to incor-
porate external loading conditions (Fig. 8).
Considering that the predicted (based on the site ob-
servations and monitoring data) surfaces were con-
®rmed by the calculated failure surfaces [21], four
failure surfaces given in Fig. 9 were employed in the
Fig. 7. Initiation of the slide in the highwall externally loaded by a spoil pile (Case 1).
227
back analyses. A mean uniaxial compressive strength
of 4.15 MPa determined from 40 test specimens for the
compact marl, and average values of unit weight of
13 kN/m3 and 16 kN/m3 were utilized for the spoil ma-
terial (in-situ) and the compact marl, respectively.
For each cross-section, starting from an arbitrarily
chosen initial RMR value of 18 for the calculation of
the constant s, the values of the constant m and corre-
sponding RMRm which satisfy a factor of safety of
unity for the given failure surfaces are calculated. The
results of the analyses are plotted in the form of
RMRm±RMRs graphs (Fig. 10). It is evident from
Fig. 10(a)±(d) that common values of RMR for the
constants m and s along the failure surfaces in section
1-1' is 51, along section 2-2' is 52 and along section 3-
3' is 53. The RMR values back calculated for four fail-
ure surfaces are equal to or nearly identical to 53 and,
thus they con®rm the average value of RMR (53)
obtained from the comprehensive geotechnical logging
and scanline surveys performed by Ulusay [14]. Shear
strength values calculated for the base of each slice
involved by the four failure surfaces con®rmed by the
predicted surfaces (at F = 1 condition) were plotted
against normal stresses acting at the slice bases onto
the original failure envelope of the rock mass derived
from the Hoek±Brown failure criterion by utilizing an
average RMR value of 53 (Fig. 11(a)). This compari-
son indicates that the mobilized strength plots match
the original failure envelope of the investigated rock
and the method proposed gives identical results to
those obtained in a previous study by Ulusay and
Aksoy [21]. The resulting curvilinear failure envelopes
with RMR values of 51±53 given in Fig. 11(b). Figure
11(b) suggest that failure envelopes for the range of
calculated normal stress levels (sn) in the back ana-
228 SONMEZ et al.: BACK ANALYSIS OF SLOPE FAILURES IN ROCK MASSES

Table 1. Range of parameters employed in rock mass classi®cations for three cases considered in the study
Parameter Range (mean)/description
case 1 case 2 case 3
Uniaxial compressive strength 1.14±6.41 (4.15) 4.20±6.15 (5.2) 35.4±44.3 (40.2)
(MPa)
RQD (%) 37±98 0 90±95
joints: 250±410 (386) bedding: 300± 30±40 310±390 (370)
Spacing of discontinuities (mm) 1000
Condition of discontinuities aperture 0±1 mm; very thin soft aperture 1±3 mm; soft in®lling; apertures <1 mm and 1±5 mm
coating; planar-smooth surfaces; slickensided surfaces; highly between bedding and joint planes,
fresh/slightly weathered; high weatered; high persistence respectively; soft coating <1 mm;
persistence smooth-slightly rough surfaces;
fresh to slightly weathered; high
persistence
Groundwater dry-damp dry dry
Adjustment for discontinuity one mode of failure ÿ5 one mode of failure ÿ5 one mode of failure ÿ5
orientation
Blasting damage adjustment smooth blasting 0.94 ÿ fair blasting 0.90
Adjustment for major plane of ÿ very close to discrete fault zones ÿ
weakness 0.7
Adjusted RMR'76 not determined 21 not determined
Adjusted RMR'89 50±62 (53) 20.6 40±47 (43)
The values given in the parentheses indicate mean value.

lyzed slope show negligible and/or slight di€erences
which result from probably due to small variations in
the mechanical properties of the same rock in di€erent
places.
Slope failure in a closely jointed schist rock mass at a
barite open pit mine (Case 2)
The Baskoyak mine at the central part of Turkey is
an open pit mine operated for the extraction of barite.
A comprehensive slope stability project was carried
out to determine the engineering properties of the rock
mass, and to assess the failure mechanism and the
alternatives for improving the overall stability between
1987 and 1988, and the investigation was published by
Ulusay and Yucel [27].
Based on the scanline surveys consisting of 90 schist-
osity and 160 joint measurements and geotechnical
logging of a borehole of 75 m deep, Ulusay and
Yucel [27] reported that the schists should be regarded
as comprising two rock mass types. The ®rst type con-
sists of a schist rock mass heavily broken by closely
spaced discontinuities (Fig. 12), and the second type is
a weathered schist in di€erent degrees both in the
hangingwall and footwall, particularly observed at the
Fig. 8. The model with the parameters for the slope under the in¯u-
ence of a symmetrical vertical triangular spoil loading used in the
back analysis (Case 1).
middle and lower benches. The unit weight of the
schists ranges between 17.2 kN/m3 and 28.5 kN/m3
with a mean value of 22.2 kN/m3. The uniaxial com-
pressive strength of the intact rock determined on a
limited number of specimens due to the diculties in
sample preparation was 5.2 MPa. Slope failures cover-
ing a single bench or two benches were observed at
three locations in the pit. The failures were circular
and one of them occurred in the closely jointed rock
mass. Back analysis of the failures indicated that the
calculated sliding surfaces con®rm the actual failure
surfaces delineated from the site measurements [27].
No any sign of groundwater was encountered through
the geotechnical and previously drilled boreholes and
on the benches. Thus, the pit slopes was considered as
dry for stability assessments. The overburden material
and the ore are removed by the excavators without
any blasting.
The rock mass parameters of the heavily broken
part of the rock mass are given in Table 1. Ulusay and
YuÈcel [27] declared an RMR value of 21 in their
report based on Bieniawski's 1976 classi®cation [28].
However, the authors of this recent study also calcu-
lated the RMR value of the rock mass based on 1989
version of the RMR classi®cation [1] using the par-
ameters given in Table 1 for this case. In this calcu-
lation a discontinuity adjustment of ÿ5 considering
one mode of failure, mass failure, was assigned.
Because the presence of discrete fault zones running
very close to the failed slope, a major structure adjust-
ment of 0.7 [17] was also considered to obtain ®nal
RMR value. An RMR value of 20.6 which is identical
to that derived from Bieniawski's 1976 classi®cation
was obtained.
Utilizing the well delineated circular slip surface il-
lustrated in Fig. 13 and the geomechanical parameters
given above, the proposed method was applied to the
failure occurred in closely jointed part of the schists.
Choosing an initial RMR value of 10 for the calcu-
 SONMEZ et al.: BACK ANALYSIS OF SLOPE FAILURES IN ROCK MASSES 229

Fig. 9. Slope pro®les, and the predicted and calculated failure surfaces employed in the back analyses for the loaded high-
wall case (Case 1).

lation of the constant s, the analysis was started. The
pairs of RMRm and RMRs which lead a value of
safety factor of unity are plotted and then the
RMRRM value which satis®es limit equilibrium con-
dition for the constants of m and s is found as 21
(Fig. 14(a)). Besides, on the basis of normal stresses
acting at the bottom of 10 slices in the failed mass, the
rock mass shear strength values obtained from the fail-
ure surface yielding F = 1 are plotted on the original
s±t curve derived from the updated Hoek±Brown cri-
terion utilizing an RMR value of 21 (Fig. 14(b)).
These results indicate that the back calculated RMR
value and the mobilized shear strength plots match the
RMR derived from site investigations, and the original

Fig. 10. Back analysis plots illustrating the derivation of RMRs±RMRm pairs satisfying the limit equilibrium condition for
the slope pro®les examined (Case 1).
230 SONMEZ et al.: BACK ANALYSIS OF SLOPE FAILURES IN ROCK MASSES
Fig. 11. (a) Comparison between the rock mass shear strength
obtained from the back analysis and the failure envelope derived
with the Hoek±Brown criterion considering the average RMR value
(53) for the rock mass; (b) failure envelopes based on empirical fail-
ure criterion for mean and lower bound RMR values derived from
the proposed method (Case 1).
failure envelope of the investigated rock mass. Thus, it
is concluded that the procedure outlined above also
yielded realistic results for this case.
A slope instability in a coal mine (Case 3)
As an example of the proposed method, back analy-
sis on a typical instability was carried out in
Kisrakdere open pit mine which is located at Soma lig-
nite basin (see Fig. 6). The necessary geotechnical data
were collected by the authors from this pit. The coal
seam is generally 20 m thick, but becomes thinner
towards the basin margins where the failed slope is
located. Figure 15(a) shows the geometry of the slope
in which a single thin coal seam with a thickness of
4.5 m is overlain by a sequence consisting of compact
marl, and soft clay beds about 10 m thick. The obser-
vations on the slope surfaces, measurements through
the blast-holes, and the records of the previously
Fig. 12. A view from the schist rock mass heavily broken by closely spaced joints and schistosity planes at a barite open pit
mine (Case 2).
Fig. 13. Slope geometry before and after failure and circular slip sur-
face in closely jointed schist rock mass (Case 2).
drilled holes in the vicinity of the investigated slope
indicated that the groundwater table lies below the
failed marly rock mass. As being in the ®rst case, the
coal seam acts an aquifer, and therefore, the failed
slope is dry. Bedding planes dip into opposite direction
of the slope. The marly rock which forms the majority
of the sequence has a carbonate content considerably
higher than its clay content. The actual slip surface
was in circular shape, which was evident from the ®eld
inspection and topographical measurements carried
out along the failure surface, and passed through the
compact marl rock mass and the clay, above the coal
seam. Because the thickness of the coal seam reduces
in this part of the pit, highly steep slopes were cut to
extract the coal. In addition to this application, it is
concluded that the presence of a weak and soft clay,
and the jointed nature of the marly rock in the
sequence made the failure easier. Scanline surveys were
carried out in the close vicinity of the failed slope to
collect data for the discontinuities and to assess rock
mass conditions. Three main joints moderately and
 SONMEZ et al.: BACK ANALYSIS OF SLOPE FAILURES IN ROCK MASSES
Fig. 14. (a) Back analysis plots illustrating the derivation of RMRs±
RMRm pairs satisfying the limit equilibrium condition for the failure
in the schist; (b) comparison between the rock mass shear strength
obtained from the back analysis and the failure envelope derived
with Hoek±Brown criterion utilizing the RMR value (21) determined
from the site investigation (Case 2).
closely spaced, and bedding planes in the marly
sequence resulted in a jointed rock mass.
In this study, Bieniawski's 1989 [1] classi®cation
scheme was used and the data for the rock mass rating
determinations were obtained from the scanline sur-
veys carried out at twenty®ve locations in the studied
pit. The range of the rock mass parameters determined
in this study is given in Table 1. It is also noted that a
discontinuity adjustment of ÿ5 for the case of one
mode of failure and a blasting damage adjustment of
0.90 for fair blasting carried out in the compact marls,
which have considerable higher strength when com-
pared to those mentioned in Case 1, were considered.
A histogram of RMR values based on the assess-
ment of the line survey data (Fig. 15(b)) has a normal
form which indicates that RMR values are concen-
trated between 42 and 44 with a mean value of 43.
The geotechnical properties of the marl and the clay
determined by an experimental program are listed in
Table 2.
Considering the similarities between engineering
behavior of the clays in this site and the clays in a
transition zone at Yatagan coal mine, which were back
analyzed by Ulusay and Doyuran [29], the residual
231
Fig. 15. (a) Cross-section illustrating the geometry of the failed slope
and the position of the strata; (b) RMR histogram for the marly
rock mass (Case 3).
shear strength parameters of the clay given in Table 1
were assumed to be used for back analysis. The pro-
cedure presented was applied to the failed slope by uti-
lizing data available for the site for the assessment of
shear strength parameters of the jointed marly rock
mass.
The results are presented as a plot of RMRs vs
RMRm (Fig. 16(a)). The method suggests that the
RMRRM value satisfying limit equilibrium condition is
42.5. The back calculated RMRRM value (42.5) con-
®rms the actual RMR (43) previously determined by
the authors through the site investigations. It is also
evident from Fig. 16(b) that there is a good agreement
between the back calculated shear strengths at the base
of slices and the failure envelope derived from the
Hoek±Brown failure criterion utilizing the actual
RMR value of 43.
232 SONMEZ et al.: BACK ANALYSIS OF SLOPE FAILURES IN ROCK MASSES
Table 2. Material properties employed in the black analysis of Kisrakdere open pit mine (Case 3)
Unit weight (kN/ U.C.S. (MPa) mi
Material m3)
Marl rock mass 23.7 40.2 9.04
Soft clay 18.0 ÿ ÿ
cp, cr: Peak and residual cohesion, respectively.
fp, fr: Peak and residual internal friction angle, respectively.
U.C.S.: Uniaxial compressive strength.
CONCLUSIONS
Conventional back analysis of slope failures can
provide functional relations between shear strength
parameters c and f for slopes of homogeneous ma-
terials with linear failure envelopes provided all the
other parameters are known. But in closely jointed
rock masses shear strength determination, particularly
due to the scale e€ect, is very dicult. In addition,
such back analyses have limited practical application
because these rocks obey a non-linear failure criterion.
In this study, the diculty of determining the shear
strength of such rocks and applicability of rock mass
classi®cation to rock slopes are explained and a practi-
cal procedure with a computer solution for the back
analysis of failed slopes is put forward as a means of
Fig. 16. (a) Back analysis plots; (b) comparison between the back
analyzed shear strength and the failure envelope derived with the
Hoek±Brown criterion for an RMR value of 43 (Case 3).
cp (kPa) cr (kPa) fp (8) fr (8)
ÿ ÿ ÿ ÿ
17.7 14.9 21 18
estimating the mobilized shear strength required to
explain existing states of stability.
This study is based on the conventional deterministic
analysis framework. However, the procedure outlined,
which is based on the Hoek±Brown failure criterion, is
suitable for back calculations with a maximum of
three unknown parameters (RMR and the constants m
and s), and requires iterations. The main emphasis in
this paper is the application of the method where no
procedure of direct strength or RMR measurement is
possible. The rock mass rating (RMR) of the rock and
the corresponding constants, m and s, satisfying limit
equilibrium condition can be readily obtained from a
graphic representation of the possible range of sol-
utions.
Three examples have been given to illustrate the ap-
plication of the method in practical geotechnical engin-
eering. In the application of this approach, it was
found that the back calculated and predetermined
values of RMR with the constants m and s were iden-
tical. However, it should be kept in mind that the
classi®cation systems which have been mainly devel-
oped for underground works may give unrealistic
results when applied to rock slopes if their limitations
are not well considered. Adjustment for the discontinu-
ity orientation is one of the most important question-
able parameter in the RMR system when it is applied
to rock slopes. Particularly in closely jointed rock
masses, which obey the non-linear Hoek±Brown failure
criterion, slope failures occur only in the form of a cir-
cular shape regardless of discontinuity orientation.
Therefore, in such rock masses expecting of one poss-
ible mode of failure and assignment and adjustment
value of ÿ5 for the discontinuity orientation seems to
be more realistic. This approach was also con®rmed by
the results of the stability analysis. On the other hand,
consideration of the factors such as method of exca-
vation, major planes of weakness and change in stress
which in¯uence the rock mass at a particular location
and thus an adjustment for these factors become
necessary in rock mass classi®cation applied to rock
slopes. It is also noted that the Hoek±Brown failure
criterion in conjunction with the RMR classi®cation
system is only applicable to intact rock or to closely
jointed rock masses, otherwise unrealistic results may
be obtained.
Therefore, it is reasonable to conclude that the
method seems to be a practical tool for back analyzing
of slopes in jointed rock masses and to check the rock
mass rating obtained from site and laboratory investi-
 SONMEZ et al.: BACK ANALYSIS OF SLOPE FAILURES IN ROCK MASSES
gations. In other words, the method may lead to the
development of possible modi®cations in describing
the rock mass parameters particularly for the slopes, if
necessary.
A better understanding of the mechanics of jointed
rock mass behavior is a problem of major signi®cance
in geotechnical engineering. The authors believe that
the Hoek±Brown failure criterion provides a good esti-
mate for the shear strength of jointed rock masses.
However, the authors hope that the application of the
proposed method on various failure case histories in
the future may lead to provide a better tool for more
precise input data and to check the equations
employed by the non-linear failure criterion.
AcknowledgementsÐThe authors express their gratitude to Professor
Evert Hoek of Canada, and to Professor Hasan Gercek of
Karaelmas University, Turkey for their valuable comments and sug-
gestions in preparing the manuscript.
Accepted for publication 26 November 1997
REFERENCES
1. Bieniawski, Z. T., Engineering Rock Mass Classi®cation. John
Wiley, 1989, 237 pp.
2. Barton, N. R., Lien, R. and Lunde, J., Engineering classi®cation
of rock masses for the design of tunnel support. Rock Mech.,
1974, 6, 189±239.
3. Grimstad, E. and Barton, N. R., Updating the Q-System for
NMT. Proc. Int. Symp. on Sprayed Concrete Ð Modern use of
wet mix sprayed concrete for underground support, Fagernes, ed.
Kompen, Opsahl and Berg. Oslo, Norwegian Concrete Assoc.,
1993.
4. Hoek, E. and Brown, T., Underground Excavations in Rock. Inst.
Min. Metall. Stephen Austin and Sons, London, 1980.
5. Hoek, E. and Brown, E. T., Empirical strength criterion of rock
masses. J. Geotech. Eng. Div. Am. Soc. Civil Eng. , 1980, 106,
1013±1035.
6. Hoek, E. and Brown, T., The Hoek±Brown failure criterion Ð a
1988 update. Proc. 15th Canadian Rock Mech. Symp. Univ. of
Toronto, 1988, pp. 31±38.
7. Hoek, E., Wood, D. and Shah, S., A modi®ed Hoek±Brown cri-
terion for jointed rock masses. Proc. Eurock'92, ed. J. A.
Hudson. Thomas Telford, 1992, pp. 209±213.
8. Hoek, E., Kaiser, P. K. and Bawden, W. F., Support of
Underground Excavations in Hard Rock. A. A. Balkema,
Rotterdam, 1995.
9. Laubscher, D. H., A geomechanics classi®cation system for the
rating of rock mass in mine design. J. South Afr. Inst. Miner.
Metall., 1990, 90(10), 257±273.
10. Romana, M., A geomechanical classi®cation for slopes: Slope
Mass Rating. in Comprehensive Rock Engineering, Vol. 3, Ch.
22, ed. J. A. Hudson. Pergamon Press, London, 1993, pp. 575±
599.
233
11. Priest, S. D. and Brown, E. T., Probablistic stability analysis of
variable rock slopes. Trans. Inst. Miner. Metall. A Miner. Ind.,
1993, 92(10), A1±A12.
12. Pender, M. J. and Free, M. W., Stability assessment of slopes in
closely jointed rock masses. Proc. Eurock'93, ed. A. Sousa and
P. Grossmann. A. A. Balkema, 1993, pp. 863±870.
13. Singh, R. N. and Gahrooee, D. R., Deterministic stability and
sensitivity analyses of slopes in jointed rock masses. Mining Sci.
Technol. , 1990, 10(10), 265±286.
14. Ulusay, R., Geotechnical considerations and deterministic design
considerations for pitwall slopes at Eskihisar (Yatagan±Mugla)
strip coal mine. Unpublished Ph.D. dissertation. Middle East
Technical University, Ankara, Turkey, 1991.
15. Hoek, E., Strength of rock and rock masses. News J. ISRM,
1995, 2(2), 4±16.
16. Singh, R. N. and Gahrooee, D. R., Application of rock mass
weakening coecient for stability assessment of slopes in heavily
jointed rock masses. Int. J. Surf. Mining, 1989, 3(2), 207±219.
17. Kendorski, F. S., Cummings, R. A., Bieniawski, Z. T. and
Skinner, E. H., Rock mass classi®cation for block caving mine
drift support. Proc. 5th Int. Cong. Rock Mech. ISRM.
Melbourne, 1983, pp. B51±B63.
18. Unal, E., Ozkan, I. and Ulusay, R., Characterization of weak,
strati®ed and clay Ð bearing rock masses. ISRM Symposium:
Eurock' 92 Ð Rock Characterization, Chester, UK, 14±17
September, 1992, ed. J. A. Hudson. British Geotechnical Society,
London, 1992, pp. 330±335.
19. Ulusay, R., Ozkan, I. and Unal, E., Characterization of weak,
strati®ed and clay Ð bearing rock masses for engineering appli-
cations. Fractured and Jointed Rock Masses Conference, ed. L.
R., Myer, N. G. W., Cook, R. E., Goodman, and C. F., Tsang,
3±5 June, 1992, CA. A. A. Balkema, Rotterdam, 1995, pp. 229±
235.
20. Unal, E., Modi®ed rock mass classi®cation: M-RMR System.
The Bieniawski Jubilee Collection Ð Milestones in Rock
Enginering. A. A. Balkema, 1996, pp. 203±222.
21. Ulusay, R. and Aksoy, H., Assessment of the failure mechanism
of a highwall slope under spoil pile loadings at a coal mine. Eng.
Geol. , 1994, 38(2), 117±134.
22. Fookes, P. G., Reeves, B. J. and Dearman, W. R., The design
and construction of a rock slope in weathered slate at Fowey,
South-West England . Geotechnique, 1977, 27(2), 533±556.
23. Sancio, R. T., The use of back-calculations to obtain shear and
tensile strength of weathered rocks. Proc. Intnl. Symp. on Weak
Rock, 21±24 September, 1981, Tokyo, Vol. 2. 1981, pp. 647±652.
24. Hoek, E., Estimating Mohr±Coulomb friction and cohesion
values from Hoek±Brown failure criterion. Int. J. Rock Mech.
Miner. Sci. Geomech. Abstr., 1990, 27(2), 227±229.
25. Bishop, A. W., The use of slip circle in the stability analysis of
earth slopes. Geotechnique, 1955, 5(2), 7±17.
26. ISRM (International Society for Rock Mechanics), ISRM
Suggested Methods: Rock Characterization, Testing and
Monitoring, ed. E. T. Brown. Pergamon, London, 1981, 211 pp.
27. Ulusay, R. and Yucel, Z., An example for the stability of slopes
excavated in weak rocks: Baskoyak Barite Open Pit.
Earthsciences (Bull. of Earth Sciences Application and Research
Center of Hacettepe University), 1989, 15(2), 15±27in Turkish.
28. Bieniawski, Z. T., Rock mass classi®cation in rock engineering.
Exploration for Rock Engineering, Proc. of the Symp., Vol. 1, ed.
Z. T. Bieniawski. Balkema, CapeTown, 1976, pp. 97±106.
29. Ulusay, R. and Doyuran, V., Characteristics of a multiple retro-
gressive failure in a coal mine in southwest Turkey. Eng. Geol. ,
1993, 36(2), 79±89.