SLOPE MASS RATING
(SMR)
ØFor evaluating the stability of rock slopes, Romana ( 1985)
proposed a classification system called Slope Mass
Rating(SMR) system.
ØSlope Mass Rating(SMR) is obtained from Bieniawski’s Rock
Mass Rating ( RMR) by subtracting adjustment factors of the
joint – slope relationship and adding a factor depending on
method of excavation,
SMR = RMR basic - ( F1. F2. F3 ) + F4
Where, RMR basic is evaluated according to Bieniawski (1979,
1989) by adding the ratings of five parameters
F1, F2 and F3 = adjustment factors related to joint orientation
with respect to slope orientation.
F4 = correction factor for method of excavation.
Strike of
Discontinuity (α j )
Parallelism between the
slope and the discontinuity
(α j - α S )
Dip of
Discontinuity
(βj )
Relation Between Dip
of Discontinuity and
Strike of Slope slope (βj - βS )
(α S )
Dip of Slope
(β S )
Planar Failure
q F1 = depends upon parallelism between joints and slope
face strikes.
It ranges from 0.15 to 1.0
It is 0.15 in cases when the angle between critical joint
plane and slope face is more than 30° and failure
probability is very low.
It is 1.0 when both are near parallel
q the value of F1 was initially established empirically , but
subsequently it was found to match approximately the
following relationship:
F1 = ( 1- sin A)2
Where A denotes the angle between strikes of the
slope face and that of the joints ( α s - α j )
qF2 = refers to joint dip angle (βj )in the planar failure
mode.
§ It values also vary from 0.15 to 1.0
§ It is 0.15 when the dip of the critical joint is less than 20°.
§ It is 1.0 for joints with dip greater than 45°.
§ For the toppling mode of failure , F2 remains equal to
1.0.
F2 = tan βj
qF3 = refers to the relationship between the slope
face and joint dips.
§ In planar failure, F3 refers to probability of joints “
day lighting” in the slope face. Conditions are
called fair when the slope face and the joints are
parallel.
§ Where the slope dips 10° more than the joints,
the conditioned is termed very unfavorable.
§ For the toppling failure, unfavourable conditions
depend upon the sum of dips of joints and slope
βj + βs
Case of slope failure Very Favourable Fair Unfavourable Very
Favourable Unfavourable
P Іα j - α S І > 30° 30 -20° 20 -10° 10 -5° <5°
T Іα j - α S -180І
W Іα i - α S І
P/W/T F1 0.15 0.40 0.70 0.85 1.00
P ІβjІ <20° 20 -30° 30 -35° 35 -45° > 45°
W ІβiІ
P/W F2 0.15 0.40 0.70 0.85 1.00
T F2 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0
P Іβj - βS І > 10° 10 -0° 0° 0-(-10° ) <-10°
W Іβ i - β S І
T Іβj + βS І <110° 110 -120° > 120° -- --
P/W/T F3 0 -6 -25 -50 -60
P: Planar, T: toppling and W: Wedge Failure; α S : slope strike ; α j : joint strike; α I : Plunge direction of line of
intersection , βS : slope dip and βj : joint dip
Strike of
Discontinuity (α j )
Parallelism between the
slope and the discontinuity
(α j - α S )
Dip of
Discontinuity
(βj )
Relation Between Dip
of Discontinuity and
Strike of Slope slope (βj - βS )
(α S )
Dip of Slope
(β S )
Planar Failure
• F4 = pertains to the adjustment for the method
of excavation.
• It includes the natural slope, or the cut slope
excavated by pre- splitting , normal blasting , poor
blasting and mechanical excavation.
• Natural Slopes , are most stable , because of long
time erosion and built in protection mechanism
(vegetation, crust desiccation), F4 = +15
• Normal blasting applied with sound methods
does not change slope stability conditions and
therefore F4 = 0
• Deficient or poor blasting, damages the stability,
therefore F4 = - 0.8
• Mechanical excavation of slopes, usually by
ripping, can be done only in soft and or very
fractured rock, and is often combined with some
preliminary blasting . The plane of slope is difficult
to finish.
• The method neither increases nor decreases slope
stability, therefore, F4 = 0
Values of adjustment factor F4 for method of excavation
( Romana,1985)
Method of F4 value
Excavation
Natural Slope +15
Pre - splitting +10
Smooth blasting +8
Normal blasting 0
Poor blasting -8
Plunge or angle of line of
intersection with horizontal
Line of intersection
βi
αi
Line obtained after vertical
projection of intersection
line on horizontal plane
Wide angle wedge failure
Slope Stability Classes
Ø According to SMR values , Romana (1985)
defined five stability classes.
Ø The slopes with SMR value below 20 may fail
very quickly.
ØNo slope has been registered with SMR value
below 10 because such slopes would not be
physically existing.
Various Stability Classes as per SMR values ( ROMANA,1985)
Class No V IV III II I
SMR value 0 - 20 21 - 40 41 - 60 61 - 80 81 - 100
Rock Mass Very bad Bad Normal Good Very Good
Description
Stability Completely Unstable Partially Stable Completely
unstable Stable stable
Failures Big planar Planar or Planar Some block No failure
or soil like big wedges along some failure
or circular joint and
many
wedges
Probability 0.9 0.6 0.4 0.2 0
of Failure
Support Measures
Ø In broader sense, the SMR range for each
group of support measures are the following:
q SMR 65 – 100 None , Scaling
q SMR 30 – 75 Bolting, Anchoring
q SMR 20 – 60 Shotcrete, Concrete
q SMR 10 – 30 Wall erection, Re-excavation
Suggested Supports for various SMR Classes
SMR Classes SMR Values Suggested Supports
Ia 91 - 100 None
Ib 81 – 90 None, scaling is required
II a 71 – 80 (None, toe ditch or fence), spot bolting
II b 61 – 70 (Toe ditch or fence nets), spot or systematic bolting
III a 51 – 60 (Toe ditch and or nets), spot or systematic bolting, spot
shotcrete
III b 41 – 50 (Toe ditch and or nets), systematic bolting / anchors,
systematic shotcrete, toe wall and / or dental concrete
IV a 31 – 40 Anchors, systematic shotcrete, toe wall and / or concrete,
drainage
IV b 21 – 30 Systematic reinforced shotcrete, toe wall and / or concrete,
re – excavation, deep drainage
Va 11 – 20 Gravity or anchored wall ,re -excavation
