SLOPE STABILITY BY CLASSIFICATION SSPC RMR · PDF fileSLOPE STABILITY BY CLASSIFICATION SSPC...
Transcript of SLOPE STABILITY BY CLASSIFICATION SSPC RMR · PDF fileSLOPE STABILITY BY CLASSIFICATION SSPC...
SLOPE STABILITY BY CLASSIFICATION
SSPC RMR GSI
ROBERT HACK
ENGINEERING GEOLOGY, ESA,
ITC, FACULTY OF GEO-INFORMATION SCIENCE AND EARTH
OBSERVATION, UNIVERSITY OF TWENTE,
THE NETHERLANDS. PHONE:+31 (0)6 24505442; EMAIL: [email protected]
TU Delft, The Netherlands, 12 September 2016
Causes and triggers for in-stability of a slope
12/09/2016Slope Stability by Classification - Hack 2
WHAT CAUSES IN-STABILITY OF A SLOPE ?
• Wrong design
(e.g. too steep, too high)
• Decrease of ground mass properties in the future
(e.g. weathering, vegetation)
• Changes in future geometry
(e.g. scouring, erosion, human influence – road cut)
12/09/2016Slope Stability by Classification - Hack 3
WHAT IS REQUIRED TO ANALYSETHE STABILITY OF A SLOPE ?
• ground mass properties
• present and future geometry
• present and future geotechnical behaviour of ground mass
• external influences such as earthquakes, rainfall, etcetera
12/09/2016Slope Stability by Classification - Hack 4
GROUND MASS PROPERTIES
In virtually all slopes is a considerable variation
12/09/2016Slope Stability by Classification - Hack 5
Therefore:
First divide the soil or rock mass in:
homogene “geotechnical units”
12/09/2016Slope Stability by Classification - Hack 6
HOMOGENE GEOTECHNICAL UNIT?
Is that possible ?
VARIATION
Heterogeneity of mass causes:
• variation in mass properties
12/09/2016Slope Stability by Classification - Hack 7
GEOTECHNICAL UNIT:
A “geotechnical unit” is a unit in which the geotechnical properties
are the same.
12/09/2016Slope Stability by Classification - Hack 8
GEOTECHNICAL UNITS ARE BASED ON THE EXPERIENCE AND EXPERTISE OF THE INTERPRETER
12/09/2016Slope Stability by Classification - Hack 9
“No geotechnical unit is really homogene….”
A certain amount of variation has to be allowed as otherwise the
number of units will be unlimited
12/09/2016Slope Stability by Classification - Hack 10
“The allowable variation of the properties within one geotechnical unit depends on:
the degree of variability of the properties within a mass,
the influence of the differences on engineering behaviour, and
the context in which the geotechnical unit is used.
12/09/2016Slope Stability by Classification - Hack 11
Smaller allowed variability of the properties in a geotechnical unit results in:
higher accuracy of geotechnical calculations
less risk that a calculation or design is wrong
12/09/2016Slope Stability by Classification - Hack 12
Smaller allowed variability of the properties in a geotechnical unit:
requires collecting more data and is thus more costly
geotechnical calculations are more complicated and complex, and cost more time (and thus also more money)
12/09/2016Slope Stability by Classification - Hack 13
HENCE:
the variations allowed within a geotechnical unit for a slope along a major highway is smaller
the variations allowed within a geotechnical unit for a slope along a farmers road will be larger
12/09/2016Slope Stability by Classification - Hack 14
EXAMPLE
What are the implications if the units are wrongly assumed in a
design?
12/09/2016Slope Stability by Classification - Hack 15
ORIGINAL SITUATION
12/09/2016Slope Stability by Classification - Hack 16
AFTER EXCAVATION OF THE WRONG SLOPE DESIGN
12/09/2016Slope Stability by Classification - Hack 17
OPTIONS FOR ANALYSING SLOPE STABILITY
Analytical
Numerical
Classification (empirical)
12/09/2016Slope Stability by Classification - Hack 18
SLOPE STABILITY
analytical: only in relatively simple cases possible for a
discontinuous rock mass
numerical: difficult and often cumbersome
(however, possible with discontinuous numerical rock mechanics
programs such as UDEC & 3DEC)
12/09/2016Slope Stability by Classification - Hack 19
NUMERICAL SLOPE STABILITY(1)
Extra work for deterministic numerical methods is justified if:
Quantity and quality of input data is high, e.g. available should be:
representative tests of discontinuity (i.e. joint) shear strength of
each discontinuity family
orientations of each discontinuity family and spread in a family
etcetera, etcetera.
12/09/2016Slope Stability by Classification - Hack 20
NUMERICAL SLOPE STABILITY(2)
High quality and quantity of data not only of the rock mass at the
slope face but also inside the slope ground mass!
Hence:
excavate the site and rebuilt (then it is exactly known)
or
many large-sized borehole samples required
High quality and quantity of data of rock mass inside a slope rock
mass are virtually never available because far too expensive to
obtain
12/09/2016Slope Stability by Classification - Hack 21
NUMERICAL SLOPE STABILITY(4)
Solution often used:
Use a numerical program and estimate or obtain the input
parameters from literature
In particular dangerous because:
Users (i.e. the civil engineers) expect numerical calculation to be
accurate (the result becomes the "truth")
12/09/2016Slope Stability by Classification - Hack 22
NUMERICAL SLOPE STABILITY(5)
Alternative:
use rock mass classification for input data in a numerical
calculation
or
use rock mass classification without numerical calculation
12/09/2016Slope Stability by Classification - Hack 23
SLOPE CLASSIFICATION SYSTEMS
Classification systems are empirical relations that relate rock mass
properties either directly or via a rating system to an engineering
application, e.g. slope, tunnel
12/09/2016Slope Stability by Classification - Hack 24
CLASSIFICATION SYSTEMS:
For underground (tunnel):
• Bieniawski (RMR)
• Barton (Q)
• Laubscher (MRMR)
• etcetera
For slopes:
• Selby
• Bieniawski (RMR)
• Vecchia
• Robertson (RMR)
• Romana (SMR)
• Haines
• SSPC
• etcetera
12/09/2016Slope Stability by Classification - Hack 25
ROCK MASS RATING (RMR) (BIENIAWSKI)
one of the oldest still used systems (Bieniawski, 1989).
developed in South Africa for underground mining
but currently widely used in civil engineering as well
excavation and support is determined by the RMR value
and results in five different support classes.
adjustment factors and refinements are possible
12/09/2016Slope Stability by Classification - Hack 26
RMR (2)
based on a combination of five parameters
Each parameter is expressed by a point rating
12/09/2016Slope Stability by Classification - Hack 27
(from De Mulder et al., 2012)
RMR(3)
addition of the points results in the RMR rating
reduction factors for: orientation, excavation damage, etc.
related (empirically) to rock mass cohesion, friction angle of the
rock mass, and other rock mass properties
12/09/2016Slope Stability by Classification - Hack 28
(from De Mulder et al., 2012)
)(sfactorreductionr)groundwateconditionspacingRQDRMR =(IRS
RMR - SLOPE MASS RATING (SMR) (Romana)(modified Bieniawski)
RMR rating multiplied with series of compensation factors
12/09/2016Slope Stability by Classification - Hack 29
excavation of methodfor factor =
dipity discontinu and face slope between relationfor factor =
angle dipity discontinufor factor =
face slope and itiesdiscontinu of strikes theof mparallelisfor factor =
) si' Bieniawskas (same Rating Rock Mass=
Rating MassSlope =
4321
F
F
F
F
RMRRMR
SMR
F) + F * F * F- (SMR = RMR
4
3
2
1
RMR(5)
Advantages:
Simple
Disadvantages:
developed for tunneling in (generally) high surrounding stress
environment
Cohesion generally considered (far) too high
for low stress environment (i.e. not suitable in slopes)
12/09/2016Slope Stability by Classification - Hack 30
GEOLOGICAL STRENGTH INDEX (GSI)
The Geological Strength Index (GSI) is derived from a matrix
describing the ‘structure’ and the ‘surface condition’ of the rock mass
12/09/2016Slope Stability by Classification - Hack 31
GSI(2)
12/09/2016Slope Stability by Classification - Hack 32(from De Mulder et al., 2012)
‘structure’ is related to
the block size and the
interlocking of rock
blocks
‘surface condition’ is
related to weathering,
persistence, and
condition of
discontinuities.
GSI(3)
The GSI is one of the constituents of the Hoek-Brown failure
criterion.
The failure criterion does not provide excavation or support
recommendations but rather determines rock mass properties, such
as rock mass cohesion and rock mass angle of friction (Hoek et al.,
1998, Marinos & Hoek, 2000, Marinos et al., 2005).
12/09/2016Slope Stability by Classification - Hack 33
SLOPE STABILITY PROBABILITY CLASSIFICATION (SSPC)
three step classification system
based on probabilities
independent failure mechanism assessment
12/09/2016Slope Stability by Classification - Hack 34
SSPC - THREE STEP CLASSIFICATION SYSTEM (1)
12/09/2016Slope Stability by Classification - Hack 35
river
old road
proposed new road cut slightly
weathered
moderately
weathered
1 2
3
Reference
Rock Mass
fresh
1: natural exposure made by scouring of river, moderately weathered; 2: old road, made by excavator, slightly weathered; 3: new to develop
road cut, made by modern blasting, moderately weathered to fresh.
THREE STEP CLASSIFICATION SYSTEM
12/09/2016Slope Stability by Classification - Hack 36
EXPOSURE ROCK MASS (ERM) Exposure rock mass parameters significant for slope stability:
Material properties: strength, susceptibility to weathering
Discontinuities: orientation and sets (spacing) or single Discontinuity properties: roughness, infill, karst
REFERENCE ROCK MASS (RRM) Reference rock mass parameters significant for slope stability:
Material properties: strength, susceptibility to weathering
Discontinuities: orientation and sets (spacing) or single Discontinuity properties: roughness, infill, karst
SLOPE ROCK MASS (SRM) Slope rock mass parameters significant for slope stability:
Material properties: strength, susceptibility to weathering
Discontinuities: orientation and sets (spacing) or single
Discontinuity properties: roughness, infill, karst
Exposure specific parameters:
Method of excavation Degree of weathering
Slope specific parameters:
Method of excavation to be used
Expected degree of weathering at end of engineering life-time of slope
SLOPE GEOMETRY Orientation
Height
SLOPE STABILITY ASSESSMENT
Factor used to remove the influence of the
method excavation and degree of weathering
Factor used to assess the influence of the
method excavation and future weathering
SSPC
Excavation specific parameters for the excavation which is used to
characterize the rock mass:
Degree of weathering
Method of excavation
12/09/2016Slope Stability by Classification - Hack 37
SSPC
Rock mass Parameters:
Intact rock strength
Spacing and persistence discontinuities
Shear strength along discontinuity:
- Roughness - large scale
- small scale
- tactile roughness
- Infill
- Karst
Susceptibility to weathering
12/09/2016Slope Stability by Classification - Hack 38
SSPC
Slope specific parameters for the new slope to be made:
Expected degree of weathering at end of lifetime of the slope
Method of excavation to be used for the new slope
12/09/2016Slope Stability by Classification - Hack 39
SSPC
Intact rock strength (IRS)
By simple means test:
hammer blows, crushing by hand, etcetera
12/09/2016Slope Stability by Classification - Hack 40
SSPC
Spacing and persistence of discontinuities:
Determine block size and block form by:
visual assessment, followed by:
quantification (measurement) of the characteristic spacing and
orientation of each set
12/09/2016Slope Stability by Classification - Hack 41
SSPC
Shear strength based on a combination of:
roughness (persistence)
infill
presence of karst
12/09/2016Slope Stability by Classification - Hack 42
SSPC
Roughness is a combination of:
large scale roughness (Rl),
small scale roughness & tactile roughness (Rs)
12/09/2016Slope Stability by Classification - Hack 43
SSPC
Shear strength – roughness
12/09/2016Slope Stability by Classification - Hack 44
SSPC
Shear strength
roughness tactile
Three classes:
rough
smooth
polished
12/09/2016Slope Stability by Classification - Hack 45
SSPC
Infill (In):
- cemented
- no infill
- non-softening (3 grain sizes)
- softening (3 grain sizes)
- gauge type (larger or smaller than roughness amplitude)
- flowing material
12/09/2016Slope Stability by Classification - Hack 46
SSPC
Karst (Ka):
karst or no karst
12/09/2016Slope Stability by Classification - Hack 47
SSPC
Shear strength - condition factor
Discontinuity condition factor (TC) is a multiplication of the ratings
for:
small-scale roughness
large-scale roughness
infill
karst
12/09/2016Slope Stability by Classification - Hack 48
SSPC
12/09/2016Slope Stability by Classification - Hack 49
CONDITION OF DISCONTINUITY factor
Roughness
large scale (Rl)
(visual area > 0.2 x 0.2 and <
1 x 1 m2)
wavy
slightly wavy
curved
slightly curved
straight
1.00
0.95
0.85
0.80
0.75
Roughness
small scale (Rs)
(tactile and visual on an area
of
20 x 20 cm2)
rough stepped/irregular
smooth stepped
polished stepped
rough undulating
smooth undulating
polished undulating
rough planar
smooth planar
polished planar
0.95
0.90
0.85
0.80
0.75
0.70
0.65
0.60
0.55
Infill
material (Im)
cemented/cemented infill
no infill - surface staining
1.07
1.00
non softening
& sheared
material, e.g.
free of clay,
talc, etc.
coarse
medium
fine
0.95
0.90
0.85
soft sheared
material, e.g.
clay, talc, etc.
coarse
medium
fine
0.75
0.65
0.55
gouge < irregularities
gouge > irregularities
flowing material
0.42
0.17
0.05
Karst (Ka)none
karst
1.00
0.92
SLIDING CRITERION
TC is related to friction along plane by:
12/09/2016Slope Stability by Classification - Hack 50
0113.0
*KaImRl*Rs*anglesliding
SLIDING CRITERION (EXAMPLE)
bedding plane description factor
large scale straight 0.75
small scale & tactile rough stepped 0.95
infill fine soft sheared 0.55
karst none 1.00
12/09/2016Slope Stability by Classification - Hack 51
degrees3501130
001550950750
01130
Im
..*.*.*.
.
*KaRl*Rs*
anglesliding
SSPC
Orientation dependent stability
Stability depending on relation between slope and discontinuity
orientation
For example:
Plane and wedge sliding
Toppling
12/09/2016Slope Stability by Classification - Hack 52
SSPC
Orientation dependent stabilityDiscontinuity related shear strength failure
Plane sliding
Conditions:
- discontinuity must daylight
- downward stress > shear strength along discontinuity plane
12/09/2016Slope Stability by Classification - Hack 53
SSPC
Orientation dependent stability
Discontinuity related shear strength failure
Wedge sliding
Conditions:
- intersection line must daylight
- downward stress > shear strength along discontinuity planes
12/09/2016Slope Stability by Classification - Hack 54
Orientation dependent stability
Sliding if:
12/09/2016Slope Stability by Classification - Hack 55
APTC *0113.0
TC = discontinuity condition factor
AP = apparent discontinuity dip in direction of slope dip
SSPC
Orientation dependent stability
Sliding probability
12/09/2016Slope Stability by Classification - Hack 56
SSPC
Orientation dependent stability
Discontinuity related shear strength failure
Toppling
12/09/2016Slope Stability by Classification - Hack 57
SSPC
Orientation dependent stability
Toppling criterion
12/09/2016Slope Stability by Classification - Hack 58
itydiscontinudipAPTC 90*0087.0
TC = discontinuity condition factor
AP = apparent discontinuity dip in
direction of slope dip
DIPdiscontinuity = dip of discontinuity
SSPC
Toppling probability
12/09/2016Slope Stability by Classification - Hack 59
Orientation independent stability
12/09/2016Slope Stability by Classification - Hack 60
SSPC
Orientation independent stability
Slope instability not dependent on the orientation of discontinuities in relation with the slope orientation
E.g. in situations with:
• No discontinuities
• Too high stress for the ground intact material strength (intact
material breaks) (e.g. slope too high)
• So many discontinuities in so many directions that there is always
a failure plane (comparable to a soil mass)
12/09/2016Slope Stability by Classification - Hack 61
SSPC
Orientation independent stability
In SSPC based on:
• Intact rock strength
• Block size and form
• Condition of discontinuities
12/09/2016Slope Stability by Classification - Hack 62
SSPC
12/09/2016Slope Stability by Classification - Hack 63
Probability orientation independent failure
SSPCCOMPARISON BETWEEN SSPC AND OTHER CLASSIFICATION
SYSTEMS
12/09/2016Slope Stability by Classification - Hack 64
SSPC stability probability (%)
nu
mb
er o
f sl
op
es (
%)
< 5 7.5 15 25 35 45 55 65 75 85 92.5 > 95 0
20
40
60
80 visually estimated stability
stable (class 1) unstable (class 2) unstable (class 3)
Romana's SMR (points)
nu
mb
er o
f sl
op
es (
%)
5 15 25 35 45 55 65 75 85 95 0
20
40
60
80 visually estimated stability
stable (class 1) unstable (class 2) unstable (class 3)
Haines' slope dip - existing slope dip (deg)
nu
mb
er o
f sl
op
es (
%)
-45 -35 -25 -10 -5 5 15 25 35 45 0
20
40
60
80 visually estimated stability
stable (class 1) unstable (class 2) unstable (class 3)
Percentages are from total number of slopes per visually estimated stability class.
visually estimated stability:
class 1 : stable; no signs of present or future slope failures (number of slopes: 109) class 2 : small problems; the slope presently shows signs of active small failures and has the potential for future small failures (number of slopes: 20) class 3 : large problems; The slope presently shows signs of active large failures and has the potential for future large failures (number of slopes: 55)
unstable stable stable unstable
a: SSPC b: Haines
c: SMR
Haines safety factor: 1.2
completely unstable
completely stable
partially stable unstable stable
'tentative' describtion of SMR classes:
EXAMPLES
12/09/2016Slope Stability by Classification - Hack 65
12/09/2016Slope Stability by Classification - Hack 66
POORLY BLASTED SLOPE
POORLY BLASTED SLOPE
New cut (in 1990):
Visual assessed: extremely poor; instable.
(SSPC stability < 8% for slope height 13.8 m high, dip 70°, rock
mass weathering: 'moderately' and 'dislodged blocks' due to
blasting).
Forecast in 1996: SSPC final stability: slope dip 45.
In 2002: Slope dip about 55 (visually assessed unstable).
In 2005: Slope dip about 52
12/09/2016Slope Stability by Classification - Hack 67
SABA - DUTCH ANTILLES - LANDSLIDE IN HARBOUR
12/09/2016Slope Stability by Classification - Hack 68
SABA - GEOTECHNICAL UNITS
12/09/2016Slope Stability by Classification - Hack 69
SABA
12/09/2016Slope Stability by Classification - Hack 70
Pyroclastic deposits Calculated SSPC Laboratory / field
Rock mass friction 35° 27° (measured) Rock mass cohesion 39kPa 40kPa (measured)
Calculated maximum
possible height on the
slope
13m 15m (observed)
FAILING SLOPE IN MANILA, PHILIPPINES
12/09/2016Slope Stability by Classification - Hack 71
FAILING SLOPE IN MANILA (2)
volcanic tuff layers with near horizontal weathering horizons (about every 2-3 m)
slope height is about 5 m
SSPC non-orientation dependent stability about 50% for 7 m slope height
unfavourable stress configuration due to corner
12/09/2016Slope Stability by Classification - Hack 72
BHUTAN
Widening existing
road in Bhutan
(Himalayas)
12/09/2016Slope Stability by Classification - Hack 73
BHUTAN
Method of
excavation
12/09/2016Slope Stability by Classification - Hack 74
BHUTAN
12/09/2016Slope Stability by Classification - Hack 75
BHUTAN
Above road level:
Various units
Joint systems (sub-) vertical
Present slope about 21 m high, about 90° or overhanging (!)
Present situation above road highly unstable (visual assessment)
Below road level:
Inaccessible – seems stable
12/09/2016Slope Stability by Classification - Hack 76
BHUTAN
Above road level:
Following SSPC system about 12 – 27 m for a 75° slope (depending on unit) (orientation independent stability 85%)
Below road level:
Inaccessible – different unit ? – and not disturbed by excavation method
12/09/2016Slope Stability by Classification - Hack 77
FUTURE DEGRADATION OF SOIL OR ROCK DUE TO WEATHERING, RAVELLING, ETC.
Forecasting
future geotechnical properties of soil or rock mass
12/09/2016Slope Stability by Classification - Hack 78
FUTURE DEGRADATION
12/09/2016Slope Stability by Classification - Hack 79
FUTURE DEGRADATION
Reduction in
slope angle
due to
weathering,
erosion and
ravelling
(after
Huisman)
12/09/2016Slope Stability by Classification - Hack 80
1.0
1.5
2.0
2.5
3.0
3.5
7.0 7.5 8.0 8.5 9.0 9.5
y [m]
z [
m]
Excavated 1999 May 2001 May 2002
FUTURE DEGRADATION
Main processes involved in degradation:
Loss of structure due to stress release
Weathering (In-situ change by inside or outside influences)
Erosion (Material transport with no chemical or structural
changes)
12/09/2016Slope Stability by Classification - Hack 81
12/09/2016Slope Stability by Classification - Hack 82Slope Stability by Classification - Hack 82
CINDARTO SLOPE:VARIATION IN CLAY CONTENT IN INTACT ROCK CAUSES DIFFERENTIAL WEATHERING
bedding planes
Slightly higher clay content
April 1990
12/09/2016Slope Stability by Classification - Hack 83Slope Stability by Classification - Hack 83
CINDARTO SLOPEVARIATION IN CLAY CONTENT IN INTACT ROCK CAUSES DIFFERENTIAL WEATHERING
April 1992
mass slid
SIGNIFICANCE IN ENGINEERING
When rock masses degrade in time, slopes and other works that
are stable at present may become unstable
12/09/2016Slope Stability by Classification - Hack 84
12/09/2016Slope Stability by Classification - Hack 8585
12/09/2016Slope Stability by Classification - Hack 86
IMPACT OF WEATHERING
12/09/2016Slope Stability by Classification - Hack 87
From: De Mulder, E.J.F., Hack, H.R.G.K., Van Ree, C.C.D.F., 2012.
Sustainable Development and Management of the Shallow Subsurface.
The Geological Society, London. ISBN: 978-1-86239-343-1. p. 192.
The susceptibility to weathering is a concept that is frequently
addressed by “the” weathering rate of a rock material or mass.
Weathering rates may be expected to decrease with time, as the
state of the rock mass becomes more and more in equilibrium
with its surroundings.
12/09/2016Slope Stability by Classification - Hack 88
12/09/2016Slope Stability by Classification - Hack 89
log 1app
init WEWE t WE R t
WE(t) = degree of weathering at time t
WEinit = (initial) degree of weathering at time t = 0
RappWE = weathering intensity rate
WE as function of time, initial weathering
and the weathering intensity rate
12/09/2016Slope Stability by Classification - Hack 90Slope Stability by Classification - Hack 90
WEATHERING RATES
Middle Muschelkalk near Vandellos (Spain)
•Material:
Gypsum layers
Gypsum cemented siltstone layers
SSPC system with applying weathering intensity rate:
- original slope cut about 50º (1998)
- in 15 years decrease to 35º
12/09/2016Slope Stability by Classification - Hack 91
KOTA KINABALU, MALAYSIA
12/09/2016Slope Stability by Classification - Hack 9292
10 years
old
(after Tating, Hack, & Jetten, 2011)
KOTA KINABALU
Side road (dip 45°, 5 years old)
sandstone: slightly weathered
SSPC
stability:
Sandstone:
stable (92%)
Shale:
unstable (< 5%)
12/09/2016Slope Stability by Classification - Hack 93
KOTA KINABALU
Main road (dip 30°, 10 years old):
sandstone: moderately weathered
SSPC
stability:
Sandstone:
stable (95%)
Shale:
ravelling (<5%)
12/09/2016Slope Stability by Classification - Hack 94
10 years
old
KOTA KINABALU
time
[years]
dip
[degre
es]
SSPC visual SSPC
probability
unit RM friction RM
cohesion
[degrees] [kPa]
shale
slightly 5 45 4 2.4 in stable
moderately 10 30 2 1.1 in stable
sandstone
slightly 5 45 20 10.0 stable
moderately 10 30 11 6.3 stable
12/09/2016Slope Stability by Classification - Hack 95
SSPC system in combination with degradation forecasts gives:
reasonable design for slope stability
with minimum of work and
in a short time
(likely a reasonable tool to forecast susceptibility to weathering)
12/09/2016Slope Stability by Classification - Hack 96
REFERENCES
De Mulder, E.J.F., Hack, H.R.G.K., Van Ree, C.C.D.F., 2012. Sustainable Development and Management of the Shallow Subsurface. The Geological Society,
London. ISBN: 978-1-86239-343-1. p. 192.
Hack, H.R.G.K., 2002. An evaluation of slope stability classification; Keynote lecture. In: Dinis Da Gama, C., Ribeira E Sousa, L. (Eds) ISRM EUROCK 2002, Funchal,
Madeira, Portugal. Sociedade Portuguesa de Geotecnia, Av. do Brasil, 101, 1700-066 Lisboa, Portugal, pp. 3–32.
Hack, H.R.G.K., Price, D.G., Rengers, N., 2003. A new approach to rock slope stability : a probability classification SSPC. Bulletin of Engineering Geology and the
Environment. 62 (2). DOI: 10.1007/s10064-002-0155-4. pp. 167-184.
Hack, H.R.G.K., Price, D., Rengers, N., 2005. Una nueva aproximación a la clasificación probabilística de estabilidad de taludes (SSPC). In: Proyectos, U.D., Minas,
E.T.S.I. (Eds), Ingeniería del terreno : ingeoter 5 : capítulo 6. Universidad Politécnica de Madrid, Madrid. ISBN: 84-96140-14-8. p. 418. (in Spanish)
Hack, H.R.G.K., Price, D.G. & Rengers, N., 2003. 研究岩质边坡稳定性新方法—概率分级法 (Translation of "A new approach to rock slope stability - A probability
classification (SSPC)"). Original in: Bulletin of Engineering Geology and the Environment. 62 (2). DOI: 10.1007/s10064-002-0155-4. ISSN: 1435-9529; 1435-9537. pp.
167-184. (in Chinese)
Hoek, E., Marinos, P., Benissi, M., 1998. Applicability of the geological strength index (GSI) classification for very weak and sheared rock masses. The case of the
Athens Schist Formation. Bulletin of Engineering Geology and the Environment. 57 (2). DOI: 10.1007/s100640050031. pp. 151-160.
Huisman, M., Hack, H.R.G.K., Nieuwenhuis, J.D., 2006. Predicting Rock Mass Decay in Engineering Lifetimes: The Influence of Slope Aspect and Climate.
Environmental & Engineering Geoscience. 12 (1). DOI: 10.2113/12.1.39. pp. 39-51.
Marinos, P., Hoek, E., 2000. GSI: A geologically friendly tool for rock mass strength estimation. In: Drinan, J., Geom Australian (Eds) GeoEng2000 - International
Conference on Geotechnical & Geological engineering, Melbourne, 19-24 November 2000. Technomic Publishing Co, Lancaster, PA, USA, pp. 1422–1446.
Marinos, V., Marinos, P. & Hoek, E. 2005. The geological strength index: applications and limitations. Bull. of Engineering Geology and the Environment 64/1, doi:
10.1007/s10064-004-0270-5, 55-65.
Price, D.G., De Freitas, M.H., Hack, H.R.G.K., Higginbottom, I.E., Knill, J.L., Maurenbrecher, M., 2009. Engineering geology : principles and practice. De Freitas, M.H.
(Ed.). Springer-Verlag, Berlin, Heidelberg. ISBN: 978-3-540-29249-4. p. 450.
Tating, F.F., Hack, H.R.G.K. & Jetten, V., 2013. Engineering aspects and time effects of rapid deterioration of sandstone in the tropical environment of Sabah,
Malaysia. Engineering Geology. 159. DOI: 10.1016/j.enggeo.2013.03.009. ISSN: 0013-7952. pp. 20-30.
Tating, F.F., Hack, H.R.G.K. & Jetten, V., 2015. Weathering effects on discontinuity properties in sandstone in a tropical environment: case study at Kota Kinabalu,
Sabah Malaysia. Bulletin of Engineering Geology and the Environment. 74 (2). DOI: 10.1007/s10064-014-0625-5. ISSN: 1435-9529. pp. 427-441.
White, A.F., Blum, A.E., Schulz, M.S., Vivit, D.V., Stonestrom, D.A., Larsen, M., Murphy, S.F., Eberl, D., 1998. Chemical Weathering in a Tropical Watershed, Luquillo
Mountains, Puerto Rico: I. Long-Term Versus Short-Term Weathering Fluxes. Geochimica et Cosmochimica Acta. 62 (2). DOI: 10.1016/s0016-7037(97)00335-9. pp.
209-226.
12/09/2016Slope Stability by Classification - Hack 97