See

discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at:

https://www.researchgate.net/publication/209804772

The value of rock mass classification

systems for weak rock masses: A case
example from Huntly, New Zealand

Article in Engineering Geology · July 2001

DOI: 10.1016/S0013-7952(01)00024-2

CITATIONS READS

21 75

3 authors, including:

Vicki G Moon
The University of Waikato
68 PUBLICATIONS 438 CITATIONS

SEE PROFILE

Some of the authors of this publication are also working on these related projects:

Development of a liquefaction chamber for earthquake simulation View project

Multidisciplinary study on landslide processes in highly sensitive rhyolitic tephras View

project

All content following this page was uploaded by Vicki G Moon on 21 July 2015.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file. All in-text references underlined in blue are added to the original document
and are linked to publications on ResearchGate, letting you access and read them immediately.
 Engineering Geology 61 (2001) 53±67
www.elsevier.nl/locate/enggeo

The value of rock mass classi®cation systems for weak rock

masses: a case example from Huntly, New Zealand
Vicki Moon*, Geoff Russell, Meagan Stewart
Department of Earth Sciences, University of Waikato, Private Bag 3105, Hamilton, New Zealand
Received 3 August 2000; accepted for publication 1 February 2001

Abstract
Three published rock mass classi®cation systems (RMR, SMR, RMS) were applied to weak Waikato Coal Measure
mudrocks in order to assess their value as indicators of rock mass conditions and stable slope angles. The SMR classi®cation
gives the most sensitive measure of rock mass conditions for the slopes studied, but none of the systems adequately predicts
observed slope angles. Regression analysis indicates that where conditions for failure by sliding along discontinuities exist the
slopes are most sensitive to the discontinuity parameters of parallelism, dip angle and spacing. Further, when the discontinuities
are oriented favourably with respect to the slope, slope angles are most sensitive to intact rock strength and groundwater. This is
supported by geomorphic evidence. Low angle natural slopes developed on unfavourable discontinuity sets are well predicted
by published equations associated with both the RMR and RMS classi®cation systems. Steeper slopes developed on favourable
discontinuities are at a much lower angle than the equations predict and show evidence of extensive creep. Application of the
present rock mass classi®cation systems to these weak rocks is thus only appropriate when conditions exist under which the
rocks fail by sliding on unfavourably oriented discontinuities. Where this does not occur, the contribution of intact strength to
the rock mass strength is greatly overestimated by all of the rock mass classi®cation systems studied. Development of a separate
rock mass classi®cation for these conditions is not seen as appropriate. Hence, recognition of the favourability or otherwise of
the discontinuity sets is crucial to dealing with these rocks. A stereonet overlay that facilitates this division is presented. q 2001
Elsevier Science B.V. All rights reserved.
Keywords: Rock mass classi®cation; Weak rock; Soft rock; Mudrocks

1. Introduction open-cast coal mines where soft rocks are common,

Methods of classifying hard rock masses based on
simple ®eld and drill core observations have been
extensively used as an aid to excavation design for
tunnels, mines, slopes and foundations (Bieniawski,
1993). Rock mass classi®cation systems may also
prove a cost-effective aid to designing slopes for
* Corresponding author. Tel.: 164-7-856-2889; fax: 164-7-856-
0115.
E-mail address: v.moon@waikato.acnz (V. Moon).
0013-7952/01/$ - see front matter q 2001 Elsevier Science B.V. All rights reserved.
PII: S 0013-795 2(01)00024-2
and for which relatively short-term stability is
required.
This paper examines three systems, the Rock Mass
Rating (RMR), Slope Mass Rating (SMR), and Rock
Mass Strength (RMS) classi®cations, which have
previously been used in slope stability applications.
These are applied to weak mudrock coal measures of
the Waikato Coal Region, New Zealand. The aims are
to establish which system best applies in this soft-rock
environment, to validate the measurement techniques
and to determine the predictive ability of the selected
54 V. Moon et al. / Engineering Geology 61 (2001) 53±67
system in terms of stable slope angles and the nature
of slope failure.
2. Rock mass classi®cation systems
The RMR system (Bieniawski, 1979) classi®es
discontinuous rock masses using six parameters-
uniaxial compressive strength, rock quality designa-
tion (RQD), spacing of discontinuities, condition of
discontinuities, groundwater conditions and orienta-
tion of discontinuities. Rating numbers are applied
to each parameter from published charts (Bieniawski,
1979). Ratings for the ®rst ®ve parameters are
summed to yield the basic RMR and adjustments
are subsequently made for the in¯uence of disconti-
nuity orientation to give an adjusted RMR value. A
maximum RMR value of 100 exists. Five classes are
de®ned ranging from `very poor rock' at RMR ,20,
to `very good rock' with RMR values $81 (Bien-
iawski, 1979).
The SMR classi®cation system is a modi®cation to
the RMR system, designed to more rigorously assess
the discontinuity orientation adjustment applied to the
basic RMR (Romana, 1988). The SMR is obtained
from the basic RMR (not adjusted for discontinuity
orientation) by adding ®rstly, a factorial adjustment
factor depending on the discontinuity-slope relation-
ship, and secondly, a factor depending on the method
of excavation (Romana, 1993). The ®rst adjustment
factor is obtained from three components relating to:
(1) the parallelism between strikes of the discontinu-
ities and slope face, (2) the dip of the discontinuity
planes, and (3) the relationship between the dip of the
discontinuities and that of the slope face. A maximum
value of 100 still applies, and the same subdivisions of
the range of rating values are maintained.
The RMS classi®cation (Selby, 1980) uses similar
input parameters to the RMR system. However, it
incorporates eight features of rock masses: strength
of intact rock; state of rock weathering; spacing,
orientation, width, length (continuity), and in®lling
of discontinuities; and out¯ow of groundwater.
Ratings are applied to each parameter and summed
to derive a total RMS value. Again a maximum of
100 applies, and the range is divided into ®ve classes.
In this case however, the rating classes are de®ned
differently from the RMR and SMR systems, and
the results obtained are not directly comparable with
those of the other systems.
The RMS classi®cation is accompanied by an equi-
librium curve which relates RMS rating to long-term
stable slope angle, based on measurements of many
slopes assumed to be in a stable equilibrium condition
(Selby, 1980, 1982). Thus predictions of stable slope
angles can be achieved. Reanalysing the data
published by Selby (1980) and including data from
mine walls in Australia, Orr (1992) developed a
slope angle versus RMR relationship for long-term
stability.
3. Regional setting
The Waikato Coal Region includes 13 coal®elds
and is New Zealand's major coal producing region
(Edbrooke et al., 1994). Both open-cast and under-
ground methods are used to win coal from the region,
with open-cast mines being the most common. The
Waikato Coal Measures, of Late Eocene age (Scho-
®eld, 1978), form the basal unit of the Te Kuiti Group,
a transgressional sequence found in the South Auck-
land area of North Island, New Zealand (Kear and
Scho®eld, 1959; King, 1978). They overlie Mesozoic
basement rocks unconformably to typical thicknesses
of 30±100 m.
A simpli®ed stratigraphy, based on the Awaroa
North pit, sees three principal units comprising the
mine slopes: a 4±5 m thick upper unit of yellow
brown, highly weathered, silty clay derived from
Quaternary rhyolitic tephras; a central unit of up to
60 m thickness consisting of mudrocks of the Manga-
kotuku Formation; and the Waikato Coal Measures
comprising thickly interbedded coal, carbonaceous
mudstone and siltstone, and subordinate cross-bedded
sandstone. Distinct contacts exist between each of
these units (Stewart, 1998).
The mudstones of the Mangakotuku Formation and
Waikato Coal Measures are typically massive, with
few well-de®ned sedimentary structures. They have
low bulk densities (1500±1630 kg m 23) and high
porosities (7±31%) (Stewart, 1998). Kaolinite is the
dominant clay mineral, the average clay-mineral
compositions being: kaolinite 80%, illite 11%,
mixed-layer clays 7%, and chlorite 2% (King, 1978).
Directly measured uncon®ned compressive strengths
 V. Moon et al. / Engineering Geology 61 (2001) 53±67 55

Table 1
Field observations of rock conditions used to derive rock mass classi®cation numbers. Compressive strength is derived from cone indentor data
(MRDE, 1977); RQD is estimated from mean discontinuity spacing using the equation of Priest and Hudson (1976); discontinuity condition
parameters are described in terms of the classi®cation of Romana (1993) (sl. ˆ `slightly'); weathering and groundwater are classi®ed by the
scheme of Brown (1981)

Site Compressive Discontinuities Weathering Groundwater

strength (MN m 22)
Mean spacing Est. Length Separation Roughness In®ll
(m) RQD (m) (mm)

M1011 20 ^ 2 0.21 ^ 0.02 80 ,1 0.1±1.0 Rough None Unweathered Wet

M1021 5.9 ^ 0.5 0.21 ^ 0.03 80 ,1 0.1±1.0 Sl. rough None Unweathered Wet
M3011 6.9 ^ 0.7 0.24 ^ 0.02 83 ,1 1±5 Rough None Slightly Damp
weathered
M3012 5.9 ^ 0.7 0.141 ^ 0.007 64 ,1 0.1±1.0 Rough None Slightly Damp
weathered
M3013 5.3 ^ 0.3 0.16 ^ 0.01 68 ,1 0.1±1.0 Rough None Slightly Dry
weathered
M3021 4.0 ^ 0.3 0.16 ^ 0.01 68 ,1 0.1±1.0 Smooth None Unweathered Dry
M3031 9^1 0.24 ^ 0.02 84 ,1 0.1±1.0 Smooth None Unweathered Wet
W0011 10 ^ 1 0.23 ^ 0.03 83 ,1 1±5 Sl. rough None Slightly Dripping
weathered
W0012 7.9 ^ 0.8 0.18 ^ 0.01 74 ,1 1±5 Rough None Slightly Dripping
weathered
W0013 11 ^ 1 0.18 ^ 0.01 74 ,1 0.1±1.0 Sl. rough None Slightly Dripping
weathered
W0021 10 ^ 1 0.22 ^ 0.03 81 ,1 1±5 Smooth None Unweathered Dry
W0031 9.6 ^ 0.8 0.16 ^ 0.01 67 ,1 0.1±1.0 Smooth None Unweathered Dripping
W0041 6.1 ^ 0.3 0.26 ^ 0.03 87 ,1 0.1±1.0 Smooth None Unweathered Dry
W0051 10.1 ^ 0.8 0.21 ^ 0.01 80 ,1 0.1±1.0 Sl. rough None Slightly Damp
weathered
W0061 9.7 ^ 0.7 0.31 ^ 0.03 89 1±3 0.1±1.0 Rough None Unweathered Dry

are low (,15 MPa), and the materials are prone to
rapid slaking, with second-cycle slake durability values
most commonly less than 60% (Moon and Beattie,
1995). In outcrop, this results in a frittered slope face,
which gives the rock mass a shattered appearance and
masks the inherent jointing of the rocks. The slaked
surface can develop very rapidly, but only extends a
short distance into the face (Beattie, 1990).
4. Methods
A total of 15 slopes was examined from three open-
cast mines: Maori Farm 1 (M1), Maori Farm 3 (M3),
and Waipuna (W0). The slopes are prone to rapid
deterioration by slaking. Where slopes showed
evidence of slaking, care was taken to clean the
faces through sluicing or mechanically digging away
the slaked material to ensure that fresh rock masses
were described. For each slope, descriptions of the
rock mass conditions were obtained, together with
details on the slope face orientation and any
geomorphic features indicating slope instability in
the face and immediately surrounding areas. Informa-
tion was recorded regarding the rating parameters for
each classi®cation (Table 1), from which ratings
numbers could be assigned and total ratings calculated
(Table 2).
Many of the classi®cation parameters for the differ-
ent rock mass classi®cations considered are similar. In
particular, all require knowledge of the intact strength,
discontinuity conditions, and groundwater. In addi-
tion, the RMR incorporates the RQD value and the
RMS includes state of weathering. The means of
determining each of these parameters are discussed
below.
56 V. Moon et al. / Engineering Geology 61 (2001) 53±67

Table 2 weak rock cone indenter number (Iw) is calculated and

Calculated rock mass classi®cation numbers. RMR ˆ Rock Mass converted to an equivalent compressive strength for
Rating of Bieniawski (1979); SMR ˆ Slope Mass Rating of
Romana (1988); RMS ˆ Rock Mass Strength of Selby (1980)
25 mm diameter cores (s c(25)) by means of a calibra-
tion equation. For each site 15 specimens were tested
Site RMR SMR RMS and the mean strength determined.
Basic Adjusted
4.2. Discontinuities
M1011 67 42 58 59
M1021 60 35 28 59 Ideally, discontinuity sets would be recognised in
M3011 66 16 54 54
the ®eld, and assigned a favourability rating on the
M3012 61 36 49 60
M3013 67 67 55 67 basis of their orientation relative to the slope. This is
M3021 63 58 52 67 the intention of both the RMS and RMR classi®ca-
M3031 60 60 51 65 tions, which describe a few, relatively simple, rela-
W0011 57 52 45 61 tionships between face and discontinuity
W0012 55 50 43 61
orientations. In a highly jointed rock mass, objective
W0013 57 52 45 61
W0021 64 14 52 56 recognition and measurement of discontinuity sets is
W0031 57 32 48 59 often very dif®cult. For this reason, scanline surveys,
W0041 70 20 58 56 which involve sampling and measuring all disconti-
W0051 63 38 51 59 nuities intersecting a line set on the surface of the rock
W0061 71 46 62 66
mass, were used to ensure statistically meaningful
data.
4.1. Intact rock strength For each site, at least 100 discontinuities were
recorded. Where outcrop was limited this involved
The RMR, and consequently SMR, systems use establishing several separate scanlines and combining
uniaxial compressive strength as a measure of intact the data. For each discontinuity the following data
rock strength, though this is generally proxied by the were recorded: distance along scanline; orientation
point load strength index as a more convenient ®eld (dip/dip direction); and discontinuity condition.
test. The RMS classi®cation uses the N-type Schmidt Interpretation of discontinuity orientation data
hammer index as a measure of intact strength. The obtained from scanlines involves ®rstly determining
Schmidt hammer has proven to be insensitive to a representative orientation for each discontinuity set
these rocks (Beattie, 1990), and the point load is too present in the rock mass, then de®ning the favourabil-
subject to fracturing on the scale of testing. Clear ity through geometric relationships with the slope
relationships between the NCB cone indenter and face. Plotting the data stereographically (using
compressive strength have been established for these STEREO (McEachran, 1986)) provides a rapid
materials (Beattie, 1990; Stewart, 1998), so this means of achieving the ®rst objective. This was
instrument was used to give a ®eld proxy of intact undertaken for all scanline data and pole concentra-
strength for all classi®cations systems. For the RMS tions contoured. The central value, de®ned as the
system, de®ned N-type Schmidt hammer ranges were maximum density point on the contour diagram, was
converted to compressive strength values using the selected as the best representation of the orientation of
hammer calibration charts (Selby, 1993) and each discontinuity set. This value was assigned a
predicted cone indentor strength values were assigned con®dence limit of ^ 108 in both the dip angle and
ratings on the basis of these compressive strength dip direction as this appeared to adequately describe
values. the distribution of poles for each cluster in this study.
The NCB cone indenter was designed to test the Mean discontinuity spacing was calculated for each
strength of very small specimens of weak rocks by recognised discontinuity set as the average distance
measuring the resistance to indentation by a hardened between adjacent discontinuities making up the set,
cone. Tests were performed in accordance with the corrected for directional bias following the method
procedure outlined by MRDE (1977), for which the of Giani (1992). This correction calculates the
 V. Moon et al. / Engineering Geology 61 (2001) 53±67
perpendicular distance between adjacent parallel
discontinuities, hence removing the in¯uence of the
orientation of the scanline. Total mean spacing for the
site was also calculated as the average distance
between adjacent discontinuities regardless of the
sets present.
Discontinuity condition is a complex parameter,
which includes several sub-parameters: roughness,
®lling, separation/aperture, persistence/continuity,
and weathering. The RMR classi®cation combines
these parameters into one grouped component of the
classi®cation. The RMS classi®cation separates these
components more by including the width of disconti-
nuities and weathering as separate classi®cation
components. Continuity and in®ll are still lumped as
one rating value. The SMR classi®cation, recognising
dif®culties in assigning discontinuity condition to
lumped categories, provides a detailed breakdown
for each component (Romana, 1993). For this study,
each parameter was described separately, and grouped
appropriately for each classi®cation system when
rating values were assigned.
Roughness was de®ned using the descriptive terms
of Romana (1993); ®lling was de®ned in terms of the
type (none, high friction material, soft gouge) and
thickness of in®lling material; separation followed
the classi®cation of Romana (1993) which sees divi-
sions at 0.1, 1.0 and 5.0 mm, and is similar to the
divisions de®ned by Selby (1980) for the RMS clas-
si®cation; and weathering was de®ned in terms of the
six weathering grades de®ned by Brown (1981).
4.3. RQD
RQD is based on the percentage of core recovery.
In slope stability applications core material is often
not available, or is irrelevant to the project. To over-
come this, Bieniawski (1989) has produced a chart,
based on correlation data from Priest and Hudson
(1976), which relates RQD to discontinuity spacing
measured from scanline surveys. RQD values used in
the RMR and SMR classi®cations in this study are
derived from this chart using the mean discontinuity
spacing for the site.
4.4. Groundwater
Groundwater ¯ow is expressed using a descriptive
classi®cation proposed by Brown (1981) for the esti-
57
mation of seepage from individual un®lled and ®lled
discontinuities. Romana (1993) has adapted this clas-
si®cation for surfacing discontinuities to allow the
estimation of groundwater.
4.5. Method of excavation
The SMR classi®cation includes an adjustment
factor for the method of excavation. Although exca-
vation in the Waikato Coal Measures usually involves
mechanical excavation, when pre-existing slopes
were examined it was not always possible to deter-
mine whether or not preliminary blasting had been
used. Most blasts in open pits are designed to get
maximum fragmentation, for this reason all slopes
have been rated as `de®cient blasting' in order to
give a conservative estimate of the rock mass condi-
tions. This effectively removes this component from
the classi®cation system, which is considered accep-
table as the slopes were all prepared in a similar fash-
ion.
5. Assessment of discontinuity orientation
The RMS and RMR each provide ®ve rating classes
for discontinuity orientation, ranging from `very
favourable' to `very unfavourable', based on rela-
tively simple relationships between the discontinuity
orientation and that of the slope face. The SMR recog-
nises that these relationships may be more complex
and thus uses several equations in order to delineate
the least favourable discontinuity set in the rock mass.
Whilst these equations are well de®ned and rigorous,
when dealing with a large number of slopes, each
containing several sets of discontinuities, they can
be tedious to analyse. For this reason, a graphical
means of recognising discontinuity set conditions is
de®ned for this study. This takes the form of a stereo-
net overlay, similar to that de®ned by Francis (1991)
for tunnel stability (Fig. 1).
5.1. De®nition of overlay sectors
The stereonet overlay in Fig. 1 has letters assigned
to each line, and numbers assigned to sectors to allow
them to be referenced during discussion. The overlay
is divided into two halves (line `d' corresponds with
the strike of a slope), allowing differentiation between
58 V. Moon et al. / Engineering Geology 61 (2001) 53±67

Parallel
Strike

(7) U
nfa
vo
ur
a a b

le
(3) Unfavourable f
+20° -20°
y Favourable

(8) Ver
b

yU
(2) Very Unfavourable (4) (5) Favourable Dip Direction
(6) Fair

nfavourable
of Face
c
(1) Ver

b
e

-20° (3) Unfavourable +20°

(7
)
Un
fav
ou
rab
le

Parallel
Strike

Fig. 1. Stereonet overlay for assessment of worst-case discontinuity set(s).

those discontinuities which dip with or against the
slope. Rotation is thus necessary to align the overlay
with the strike of the slope face. Pole concentrations
can then be compared with the de®ned sectors. Note
however, that the de®nition of the sectors, as
described below, is partially site speci®c (with respect
to slope face and discontinuity friction angles) so the
overlay must be adjusted for different conditions.
5.1.1. Planar failure
Sectors 1 to 4 relate to failures which occur as a
result of sliding along planes and delineates the condi-
tions outlined by Hoek and Bray (1977) which must
be satis®ed for sliding to occur.
The maximum slope angle examined for this study
was 698. Line `a' is placed at 708. Discontinuities
steeper than this will not daylight from any of the
slopes studied, and hence sector 1 is considered very
favourable. Lines `b' are placed at ^ 208 to the dip
direction of the slope face, de®ning near parallelism
of the strikes of the face and failure surface.
Line `c' accounts for the friction angle of the
discontinuities. Because of the variability in the
Waikato Coal Measures a conservative estimate has
been used to de®ne the angle of friction. Although
most discontinuities are unlikely to fail at an angle
of 108 (Works Consultancy Services (1994) have
suggested values of 20±308 for similar materials),
this conservative estimate was used. Therefore, sector
2 satis®es all the conditions required for sliding to
occur on a plane, and is classed as very unfavourable.
Sector 4 is described as `fair', as sliding should not
occur at angles below this conservative friction angle
unless very unfavourable water table conditions exist.
5.1.2. Wedge failure
When two discontinuities strike obliquely across
the slope face and their line of intersection daylights
in the slope face, the wedge of rock resting on these
discontinuities will slide down the line of intersection,
provided that the inclination of this line is signi®-
cantly greater than the angle of friction (Hoek and
Bray, 1977). Sector 3 approximates these conditions,
assuming that a second pole concentration exists,
 V. Moon et al. / Engineering Geology 61 (2001) 53±67
which can combine to form a wedge failure. This
sector is therefore classed as `unfavourable'.
5.1.3. Toppling failure
Sectors 5 to 8 relate to failures which occur as a
result of toppling. Failure occurs along prevalent
discontinuities that dip against the slope, with a strike
near parallel to the slope face. Delineation of favour-
ability sectors is based entirely on dip angle and the
degree of parallelism with the slope.
Line `e' is placed at 308 as discontinuities that dip
against the slope at an angle less than this are unlikely
to fail. Hence, sector 5 is considered `favourable'.
Sector 6 allows for an increase in dip angle. Failure
as a result of toppling is still unlikely unless intersect-
ing discontinuities, which dip with the slope exist.
However, these discontinuities would be recognised
in another sector of the overlay, and so this sector is
fair.
Toppling instability is most prominent when the
rock mass contains sub-vertical planes. Line `f' is
placed at 708. Discontinuities steeper than this are
considered sub-vertical. As with planar failures,
toppling failures are most prevalent when discontinu-
ities strike parallel with the slope face. Thus, sector 7
allows for sub-vertical discontinuities, but includes
only those discontinuities, which do not strike parallel
with the slope (^208), and is considered unfavour-
able. Sector 8 is the least favourable, with disconti-
nuities in this region both sub-vertical and parallel
with the slope. It is therefore very unfavourable.
5.2. Comparison with SMR adjustment factors
Comparison of the worst-case discontinuity set
selected by the SMR factors and the stereonet overlay
shows that for all but two of the 15 slopes examined,
the two methods identi®ed the same discontinuity
set(s). For the remaining two slopes:
1. One (M3031) is a low-angle slope (less than 708) so
the overlay predicts that the discontinuities daylight
when they do not in reality; the next worst case
selected by the overlay is indeed the worst.
2. For site W0013 the SMR sees all three discontinu-
ity sets as equivalent, whereas the overlay picks
one as the worst. Indeed the three sets fall in similar
areas of the overlay, but one is across a boundary,
59
giving it a lower classi®cation. Technically it is the
worst, but in reality it is unlikely to really be appre-
ciably worse than the others.
As a quick classi®cation system the overlay hence
proves very useful as in one process the sets are both
discriminated and the worst case identi®ed. An advan-
tage in using the overlay is that it is very quick and
simple to use. However, to accommodate all of the
slopes being investigated it must be quite general and
common sense is essential in interpreting the results.
To complete the SMR analysis then simply requires
calculating the factorial adjustment for each of the
worst-case discontinuity sets.
6. Applicability of different classi®cation systems
Comparisons have been made between the classi®-
cation systems in terms of the spread and variability of
the ®nal classi®cation values (Table 2). The distribu-
tions can be seen in Fig. 2. The adjusted RMR classi-
®cation exhibits a wide range (14±67) of values, with
a mean of 41 and a ¯at peak (standard deviation 16.1).
The distribution of SMR values is narrower (range
28±62), with a mean of 50 and a well de®ned peak
(standard deviation 8.1). In contrast, the RMS values
show a very strongly peaked distribution (range 54±
67; mean 61; standard deviation 4.0). This is similar to
the distribution for the basic RMR, which also has a
narrow range (55±71; mean 63) and low standard
deviation (5.0), although notably this is greater than
that for the RMS.
From these results it may be seen that:
² The RMS appears insensitive for these soft rocks-a
very narrow, highly peaked distribution means that
there is little capacity to distinguish variations in
these materials.
² The adjusted RMR shows a very wide range, but
comparison with the basic RMR (unadjusted for
discontinuity orientation) shows that most of this
spread comes from the very coarse adjustment-this
is thought to be unrealistic, as other authors have
commented (Romana, 1988).
² The SMR seems to have a good range, and approx-
imate a normal distribution.
Practical considerations with regard to applying
60 V. Moon et al. / Engineering Geology 61 (2001) 53±67

(A) 8 (B) 8

7 7

6 6

5 5
freq u en cy

frequency
4 4

3 3

2 2

1 1

0 0
0 20 40 60 80 10 0 0 20 40 60 80 10 0
Basic RMR value Adjusted RMR value

(C) 8 (D) 8

7 7

6 6

5 5
frequency
frequency

4 4

3 3

2 2

1 1

0 0
0 20 40 60 80 10 0 0 20 40 60 80 10 0
RMS value SMR value

Fig. 2. Frequency histograms for each of the rock mass classi®cation systems considered: (A) basic RMR; (B) RMR adjusted for discontinuity
orientation; (C) RMS; (D) SMR.

these classi®cations have largely been discussed by
previous workers (Romana, 1993). The same
concerns were encountered in this study, relating
mainly to the need for a subjective assessment of
the favourability, or otherwise, of discontinuity sets
in the RMR and RMS systems, and the relatively
coarse adjustments associated with this parameter.
As the SMR classi®cation gives a good distribution
of values, and the favourability component is well
de®ned, it is suggested that this classi®cation system
is the best for application to soft rocks if the principal
aim is to de®ne a simple classi®cation parameter for
the materials. It should be noted, however, that obtain-
ing accurate discontinuity orientation data for this
 V. Moon et al. / Engineering Geology 61 (2001) 53±67 61

Table 3
Slope characteristics for each site. Typical slope angles represent the most commonly observed; maximum slope angles are the steepest slope
portions observed at each site. `Failure mode' refers to the likely failure associated with the worst-case discontinuity set(s) as identi®ed by the
overlay of Fig. 1. Parallelism is calculated as the angle between the dip direction of the least favourable discontinuity direction and the dip
direction of the face (or 1808 to the face in the case of discontinuity sets dipping into the face)

Site Slope angle Face orientation Discontinuities Nature of failure

(dip direction/dip) observed in ®eld
Typical Max. Sets (least favourable in Failure mode Parallelism
(8) (8) bold) (dip direction/dip) (stereonet) (8)

M1011 44 85 225/44 140/72; 060/56; 320/19; Toppling 15 Small block failures;

110/60 rill erosion
M1021 60 63 145/60 123/46; 028/81; 276/73; Planar 22
310/26
M3011 55 60 025/55 117/81; 155/57; 275/81; Toppling 42 None; some vegetation
247/58
M3012 50 62 004/50 133/83; 305/86 Toppling 51 None; some vegetation
M3013 51 54 045/51 153/75 Toppling 72
M3021 55 57 145/55 254/58; 005/76 Toppling 40 Small topples
M3031 47 64 100/47 147/61; 082/70; 330/65 Planar 18
W0011 62 68 047/62 114/74; 015/68; 291/80 Wedge (056/62) 9 Wedge failures; small,
some large (4 m)
W0012 57 71 040/57 166/63; 135/66; 305/78 Toppling 54
W0013 61 70 030/61 168/71; 140/61; 287/74 Toppling 42
W0021 42 45 094/42 163/83; 255/09; 267/84 Toppling 7 None
W0031 52 85 204/52 154/80; 286/61; 153/04 Wedge (232/47) 28 Wedge failures; small,
some large (4 m)
W0041 61 76 173/61 132/83; 069/69; 281/15; Wedge (219/23) 46 Block fall
300/70
W0051 69 80 206/69 091/71; 334/73; 143/66 Toppling 52
091/71; 334/73; 143/66 Wedge (131/75) 75 Small wedges
W0061 38 60 075/38 154/82; 332/81; 134/78; Wedge (075/54) 0 No mass wasting; rill
353/84 erosion

system becomes a complex task, and that the level of
detail involved may not be warranted if simple clas-
si®cation is the aim.
7. Determination of stable slope angles
Two slope angles were determined for each slope:
(1) a typical slope angle, and (2) the maximum slope
angle observed at the site (Table 3). As this is a
mining environment (with arti®cial slopes) none
could be considered to represent natural slope angles.
7.1. Classi®cation systems
Fig. 3 presents graphs of maximum and typical
slope angles versus each of the classi®cation systems,
together with appropriate linear regression coef®-
cients (r 2). Clearly, there is no simple predictive
value to any of these classi®cations. In all cases
there is considerable scatter in the graphs and the
regression lines produced are either essentially verti-
cal, or in some cases showing a negative slope, which
is counter-intuitive.
Previously published calibration equations of Selby
(1980) and Orr (1992) are also included in Fig. 3. The
equation of Selby (1980) clearly implies that the
slopes are oversteepened and in an unstable condition.
This is to be expected as the equation was derived for
slopes which were expected to be in a long-term stable
equilibrium state. Arti®cial slopes in a mining envir-
onment might be expected to be rather steeper. The
equation of Orr (1992), which was derived partially
from data in operating mines, ®ts the range of slopes
encountered in this study better, but does not provide a
good predictive relationship between slope angle and
adjusted RMR classi®cation value.
62 V. Moon et al. / Engineering Geology 61 (2001) 53±67

(A) (B)

80 80
typical slope angle (º)

typical slope angle (º)

60 60

40 40

basic RMR basic RMR

20 20
adj RMR adj RMR
SMR SMR
RMS RMS
Selby (1980) Selby (1980)
Orr (1992) Orr (1992)

0 0
0 20 40 60 80 100 0 20 40 60 80 100
RMR, RMS and SMR classification value RMR, RMS and SMR classification value

2 2
basic RMR: r = 0.16 basic RMR: r = 0.04
2 2
adj. RMR: r = 0.00 adj. RMR: r = 0.00
2 2
SMR: r = 0.23 SMR: r = 0.00
2 2
RMS: r = 0.06 RMS: r = 0.06

Fig. 3. Graphs of typical (A) and maximum (B) measured slope angles versus classi®cation value for each of the rock mass classi®cation
systems considered. Regression coef®cients (r 2) are given for each graph, and published predictive equations of Selby (1980) and Orr (1992)
are superimposed.

Using the stereonets plotted previously, it is possi- lism', de®ned as the angle between the dip direction of
ble to determine whether plane/wedge type sliding the least favourable discontinuity set and the dip
failure, or toppling-type failure is most likely for the direction of the face (or 1808to the face in the case
worst-case discontinuity set (Table 3). Separating the of discontinuity sets dipping into the slope); and the
graphs for these two failure modes (Fig. 4) shows dip of the least favourable discontinuity set. Regres-
better, but still not good, linear regression coef®cients sion coef®cients (r 2) for each parameter versus maxi-
(r 2). It is apparent that in their present form, none of mum slope angle for the total dataset are presented in
the published rock mass classi®cation systems Table 4. Again, very low regression coef®cients are
provide any usable correlation with slope angle for apparent, indicating no relationship.
these materials. Subdividing this further into sliding (planar/wedge)
failures and toppling failures (Table 4) starts to indi-
7.2. Classi®cation parameters cate some clearer relationships. In particular, quite
strong relationships are seen between maximum
In order to look further into the classi®cation slope angle and the discontinuity parameters for slid-
systems, the parameters used to de®ne them were ing failures. This suggests that for these slopes discon-
plotted against the measured slope angles. This effec- tinuity conditions are most in¯uential over slope
tively removes the weightings applied by each system failure. Conversely, for slopes likely to be prone to
and looks directly at the relationships between the toppling failure, intact strength and groundwater
parameters and the slope angles. In this case the orien- produce the best relationship (indeed the correlation
tation data were treated as two components: `paralle- for intact strength is almost perfect if one low-slope
(A) (B)
100 100

maximum slope angle (º)

80 80

maximum slope angle (º)

basic RMR: r 2 = 0.08 basic RMR: r 2 = 0.05
60 60
adj. RMR: r 2 = 0.15 adj. RMR: r 2 = 0.31

SMR: r 2 = 0.17 SMR: r 2 = 0.01

40 40
RMS: r 2 = 0.61 RMS: r 2 = 0.45

V. Moon et al. / Engineering Geology 61 (2001) 53±67

20 20
basic RMR basic RMR
adj. RMR adj. RMR
SM R SM R
RMS RMS

0 0
0 20 40 60 80 100 0 20 40 60 80 100
RMR, RMS and SMR classification value RMR, RMS and SMR classification value

(C) (D)

80 80
typical slope angle (º)

typical slope angle (º)

60 60
basic RMR: r 2 = 0.18 basic RMR: r 2 = 0.03

adj. RMR: r 2 = 0.07 adj. RMR: r 2 = 0.04

40
SMR: r 2 = 0.22
40 SMR: r 2 = 0.00

RMS: r 2 = 0.01 RMS: r 2 = 0.01

20 20
basic RMR basic RMR
adj. RMR adj. RMR
SM R SM R
RMS RMS

0 0
0 20 40 60 80 100 0 20 40 60 80 100
RMR, RMS and SMR classification value RMR, RMS and SMR classification value

Fig. 4. Graphs of slope angle versus measured rock mass classi®cation value separated according to different identi®ed potential failure modes: maximum slope angle versus
classi®cation value for sliding failures (A) and toppling failures (B); typical slope angle versus classi®cation value for sliding failures (C) and toppling failures (D).

63
64 V. Moon et al. / Engineering Geology 61 (2001) 53±67

Table 4 The latter two units are directly related to past

Regression coef®cients (r 2) for maximum slope angle against mining activities. The ¯at areas are developed on
various rock mass parameters
spoil in®ll in valleys and the sinkhole development
Total Sliding Toppling is associated with old underground workings. The
dataset failures failures ®rst two geomorphic units, however, can be asso-
ciated with the underlying geology.
Intact strength 0.27 0.00 0.44
Mean spacing 0.00 0.44 0.02 The complex landslides on gently undulating slopes
Estimated RQD 0.00 0.52 0.06 were recognised as being related to persistent struc-
Parallelism 0.00 0.44 0.00 tural patterns within the underlying Waikato Coal
Dip 0.26 0.22 0.37 Measures, being either planar or wedge failures
Condition 0.07 0.01 0.17
along discontinuity surfaces. In these areas the natural
Groundwater 0.31 0.06 0.53
geomorphology is very gentle slopes (average
11 ^ 18), which re¯ects the low dip angle of the
outlier is ignored). These two parameters are believed discontinuity sets recognised in the area (,158),
to be closely interrelated, as groundwater has a with some masking by debris on the failure surfaces.
profound in¯uence on the strength of these materials Conversely, the areas of sur®cial movement repre-
(Moon and Beattie, 1995). This suggests that when sent comparatively `good' rock mass conditions, in
conditions for sliding failures do not exist, the intact that the slopes are such that the persistent discontinu-
rock properties have the principal in¯uence on the ity sets are favourably oriented. In this case, no sliding
slope angle. The very low strength of the rocks type failures were obvious, and the slopes remained
makes this an acceptable interpretation. notably steeper (average 23 ^ 18). However,
For hard rocks, discontinuity failure can be hummocky ground and steep, well-developed terrac-
assumed to be the principal instability mechanism in ettes are ubiquitous on these slopes, indicating exten-
all cases, so a relatively consistent weighting system sive creep movement. This is interpreted as being a
can be derived. For soft rocks, the above results response of the weak intact rock material, especially
suggest that this is only the case when the disconti- as sur®cial rocks become partly weathered. Note that
nuities are very unfavourably oriented. When discon- on these slopes the Quaternary soils were absent, and
tinuity orientations are favourable, intact rock the thickness of regolith was very shallow (,1 m).
parameters assume far greater signi®cance. This is There are no rock exposures on these slopes on
intuitively reasonable. To attempt to de®ne a unifying which to measure rock mass classi®cation parameters,
classi®cation system in this case is likely to be so average values derived from those measured in this
fruitless. study are used to assess the slope versus classi®cation
value relationships. To do this, average, minimum and
maximum values of the basic RMR were determined
8. Geomorphic evidence from Table 2. These values do not include the discon-
tinuity orientation adjustment values of the adjusted
The geomorphology of natural slopes in the RMR or SMR classi®cations. A similar process was
surrounding area consists of a very subdued topogra- applied to the RMS classi®cation, by subtracting the
phy, with low angle (,108), undulating slopes predo- orientation adjustment parameter. Two adjustments
minant, and a few steeper (25±358) slope sections. for discontinuities were then applied to these values,
Stewart (1998) recognised four major geomorphic the unfavourable adjustment and the favourable
units in the area: adjustment for each of the appropriate classi®cation
systems. These were then plotted against the slope
² gently undulating slopes with large, complex land- angles (Fig. 5). The values obtained with unfavour-
slides; able orientations are plotted against the 118 slopes and
² steep slopes with evidence of sur®cial movement; the values obtained with favourable orientations are
² ¯at, uniform areas with no obvious failures; plotted against the 238 slopes. Values plotted are
² zones of subsidence and sinkhole collapse. averages, with error bars representing the range.
 V. Moon et al. / Engineering Geology 61 (2001) 53±67 65

Selby (1980)
80 Orr (1992)
average RMS
average SMR
average RMR

60
slope angle (º)

40

20

0
0 20 40 60 80 100
adjusted RMR, SMR and RMS classification value

Fig. 5. Graph of slope angle versus classi®cation values for two natural slopes: 118 slopes with unfavourable discontinuity orientations; and 238
slopes with favourable discontinuity orientations. Error bars represent the range of rock mass classi®cation values. For unfavourable orienta-
tions the equations of Selby (1980) and Orr (1992) provide good predictors of measured slope angles. For unfavourable conditions the
equations both signi®cantly overestimate the natural stable slope angles.

Predictive equations of Selby (1980) and Orr (1992)
are also included in Fig. 5.
The equations of Selby (1980) and Orr (1992) both
predict the low slopes of the unfavourably oriented
discontinuities very well, suggesting again that when
the conditions exist for sliding failure in these soft
rocks the classi®cation systems provide a good indi-
cation of the likely slope angles. However, for favour-
ably oriented discontinuities, which will not readily
lead to sliding failure, the published equations do not
adequately predict the observed slope angles. The
equation of Orr (1992) predicts a stable angle of 718
compared with a measured angle of 238. The equation
of Selby (1980) gives a closer prediction of 398, but
this 168 discrepancy is still signi®cantly different to
the measured slope of 238.
From this it is interpreted that for soft rocks, when
discontinuity failure does not occur, the contribution
of intact strength to the classi®cation of rock mass
properties is considerably overestimated. In hard
rocks, if there are favourably oriented discontinuities
the rocks can be assumed to be competent and will
support steep slopes. For soft rocks this is not the case
and intact rock failure, in this case probably in the
form of slaking and stress release features, together
with plastic deformation of the rocks (evidenced as
creep) will serve to reduce the stable slope angle. This
is supported by the regression analysis presented
earlier.
9. Conclusions
Johnston (1993) views soft rocks as a transitional
zone between hard rocks and soils. In this context, it
can be seen that when the conditions exist for soft
rocks to fail along discontinuities, in the manner of
hard rocks, then they follow basic rock mechanics
principals, and the rock mass classi®cation systems
devised for hard rock masses provide a reasonable
estimate of their condition. However, when the condi-
tions leading to failure along discontinuities do not
exist, these soft rocks exhibit many of the behaviours
associated with soil mechanics, particularly plastic
deformation of the intact rock material. In this case,
the rock mass classi®cation systems examined all
66 V. Moon et al. / Engineering Geology 61 (2001) 53±67
appear to overestimate the contribution of the intact
strength to the mass strength. As the same materials
will behave as either rocks or soils depending upon
the orientation of the discontinuities, any attempt to
develop a single rock mass classi®cation to cope with
all conditions is likely to be unsuccessful.
Clearly, when the discontinuities are such that rock
type behaviour can be expected, the present classi®-
cation systems are adequate. Data from this study
suggest that the basic RMR system provides a reason-
able estimate of the rock mass properties when a
simple classi®cation is required. In the speci®c case
of slopes, correction of the RMR using the SMR
adjustment factors is possibly the most appropriate
system as it gives the widest distribution of classi®ca-
tion values, though it is more dif®cult to apply than the
RMS system.
Conversely, when conditions for ready sliding fail-
ure along discontinuities do not exist, soil mechanics
methods are a more appropriate means of assessing
material behaviour. The present rock mass classi®ca-
tion systems did not give an adequate indication of the
slope characteristics, and in order to account for these
conditions a completely different weighting scheme
would need to be developed which gives much greater
weighting to the intact strength. The value of such a
scheme would be questionable, as it would apply to a
very limited range of materials.
Apparently, assessment of the contribution of the
discontinuities is crucial to establishing the approach
to be used. In particular, it is crucial to establish
whether or not conditions for sliding failure exist. A
stereonet assessment is the most appropriate for this,
and the overlay used in this study considerably facili-
tated making this distinction.
Acknowledgements
Solid Energy North Ltd. is thanked for ®nancial and
logistic contributions to the two studies on which this
paper is based. The Foundation for Research Science
and Technology funded part of the research through a
GRIF scholarship.
References
Beattie, A.G., 1990. Petrological Controls on the Geomechanical
Behaviour of Coal Measure Soft Rocks, Waikato, New Zealand.
MSc thesis lodged with the University of Waikato Library,
Hamilton, New Zealand, 165 pp.
Bieniawski, Z.T., 1979. The geomechanics classi®cation in rock
engineering application. Proceedings Fourth congress of the
International Society for Rock Mechanics, 2±8 September
1979, Montreaux, Suisse, vol. 2. pp. 41±48.
Bieniawski, Z.T., 1989. Engineering Rock Mass Classi®cations.
Wiley, New York (251 pp.).
Bieniawski, Z.T., 1993. Classi®cation of rock masses for engineer-
ing: the RMR system and future trends. In: Hudson, J.A. (Ed.).
Comprehensive Rock Engineering, vol. 3. Pergamon press,
Oxford, pp. 553±573.
Brown, E.T. (Ed.), 1981. Rock Characterization, Testing and Moni-
toring. ISRM Suggested Methods Pergamon press, Oxford
(Published for the Commission on Testing Methods, Interna-
tional Society for Rock Mechanics).
Edbrooke, S.W., Sykes, R., Pocknall, D.T., 1994. Geology of the
Waikato Coal MeasuresWaikato Coal Region, New Zealand.
Institute of Geological and Nuclear Sciences, monograph 6.
Francis, T.E., 1991. Determination of the in¯uence of joint orienta-
tion on rock mass classi®cation for tunnelling using a stereo-
graphic overlay. The Quarterly Journal of Engineering Geology
24 (3), 267±274.
Giani, G.P., 1992. Rock Slope Stability Analysis. Balkema, Rotter-
dam (361 pp.).
Hoek, E., Bray, J., 1977. Rock Slope Engineering. The Institution of
Mining and Metallurgy, London (420 pp.).
Johnston, I.W., 1993. Soft rock engineering. In: Hudson, J.A. (Ed.).
Comprehensive Rock Engineering, vol. 1. Pergamon Press,
Oxford, pp. 367±393.
Kear, D., Scho®eld, J.C., 1959. Te Kuiti Group. New Zealand Jour-
nal of Geology and Geophysics 2, 685±717.
King, P.R., 1978. Sedimentology of the Waikato Coal Measures,
South Auckland, New Zealand. MSc thesis lodged with the
University of Waikato Library, Hamilton, New Zealand, 280 pp.
McEachran, D.B., 1986. Stereow Ð The stereographic program for
the Macintosh. Rockware, USA.
Mining Research and Development Establishment (MRDE), 1977.
NCB Cone Indentor. MRDE Handbook no. 5.
Moon, V.G., Beattie, A.G., 1995. Textural and microstructural in¯u-
ences on the durability of Waikato coal measures mudrocks. The
Quarterly Journal of Engineering Geology 28, 303±312.
Orr, C.M., 1992. Assessment of rock slope stability using the Rock
Mass Rating (RMR) system. The Australian Institute of Mining
and Metallurgy 2, 25±29.
Priest, S.D., Hudson, J.A., 1976. Discontinuity spacings in rock.
International Journal of Rock Mechanics, Mining Sciences
and Geomechanics Abstracts 13, 135±148.
Romana, M.R., 1988. Practice of SMR classi®cation for slope
appraisal. Proceedings Fifth International Symposium on Land-
slides, 10±15 July, Lausanne, Switzerland. Balkema, Rotter-
dam, vol. 2. pp. 1227±1232.
Romana, M.R., 1993. A geomechanical classi®cation for slopes:
slope mass rating. In: Hudson, J.A. (Ed.). Comprehensive
Rock Engineering, vol. 3. Pergamon Press, Oxford, pp. 575±
599.
 V. Moon et al. / Engineering Geology 61 (2001) 53±67
Scho®eld, J.C., 1978. Tertiary stratigraphy, Auckland, South Auck-
land, and Coromandel Range. In: Suggate, R.P., Stevens, G.R.,
Te Punga, M.T. (Eds.). The Geology of New Zealand, vol. 2.
Government Printer, Wellington, pp. 449±456.
Selby, M.J., 1980. A rock mass strength classi®cation for
geomorphic purposes: with tests from Antarctica and New Zeal-
and. Zeitschrift fuÈr Geomorphologie 24 (1), 31±51.
Selby, M.J., 1982. Controls on the stability and inclinations of hill-
slopes formed on hard rock. Earth Surface Processes and Land-
forms 7, 449±467.
View publication stats
67
Selby, M.J., 1993. Hillslope Materials and Processes. . 2nd ed.Ox-
ford University Press, Oxford (451 pp.).
Stewart, M.E., 1998. An Engineering Geological Model for Awaroa
Opencast Prospect, Huntly, New Zealand. MSc. thesis lodged
with the University of Waikato Library, Hamilton, New Zeal-
and, 236 pp.
Works Consultancy Services, 1994. Waipuna Mine Highwall
Review. Unpublished report for Solid Energy, Works Consul-
tancy Services, Hamilton.