GEOTECHNICAL DESIGN PROCEDURE FOR

PREPARING ROCK SLOPE RECOMMENDATIONS

GEOTECHNICAL DESIGN PROCEDURE

GDP-13
Revision #2

AUGUST 2015
 GEOTECHNICAL DESIGN PROCEDURE:
GEOTECHNICAL DESIGN PROCEDURE FOR PREPARING ROCK SLOPE
RECOMMENDATIONS

GDP-13
Revision #2

STATE OF NEW YORK

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

GEOTECHNICAL ENGINEERING BUREAU

AUGUST 2015

EB 15-025 Page 1 of 10
 TABLE OF CONTENTS

I. INTRODUCTION ....................................................................................................................3
A. Purpose .........................................................................................................3
B. Background ..................................................................................................3

II. PROCEDURE ..........................................................................................................................6

A. Procedure for Preparing Rock Slope Recommendations .............................6

REFERENCES ..............................................................................................................................10

EB 15-025 Page 2 of 10
I. INTRODUCTION

A. Purpose

Rock slope recommendations are obtained through the Geotechnical Engineering Bureau’s
Engineering Geology Section. The purpose of this manual is to inform both Regional and
Consultant designers of the proper procedure for preparing rock slope recommendations.

B. Background

The Geotechnical Engineering Bureau provides rock slope recommendations which consider two
major items in designing slopes for a proposed rock cut: stability and cost. Although rockfalls
rarely cause injury and only occasionally cause property damage, when they occur they draw
considerable public attention. Rock slope recommendations for creating a new slope or trimming
an existing slope include cut angles and ditch catchment dimensions. Recommended cut angles
are the steepest angle which will provide a stable, low maintenance slope. Catchment ditches
prevent falling rock from reaching the roadway. Other methods of mitigating an existing slope
may include rock scaling, rock bolts, slope mesh, buttresses, and rock fall barriers.

Rock slope recommendations are provided for new and existing cuts to accommodate new road
alignments or changes in road template, or for existing unstable rock slopes to stabilize the slope
and provide improved catchment. Rock slope recommendations are based upon an evaluation of
rock cores, exposed bedrock, site conditions and cross sections. Cut angles are based upon rock
type, bedding orientation, fracture orientation, and slope geometry. Occasionally, flatter cut
angles will result in smaller excavation quantities. In some circumstances, cut angles can be
steepened provided the slope can be properly reinforced.

Adequately designed rock catchment ditches will prevent most falling rock from reaching the
road. Ritchie Ditch profiles are based upon the work of Arthur M. Ritchie, who conducted a
study in 1963 sponsored by the US Department of Commerce, Bureau of Public Roads and the
Washington State Highway Commission. The study produced a set of practical design criteria
that could be used to size the width and depth of catchment area based on slope height and slope
angle. The resulting ditch is flat bottomed and has a 1 V on 1 1/4 H foreslope. The steep foreslope
is difficult to construct and maintain using typical construction methods and materials, and is
deemed a non-recoverable slope which poses a hazard and must be protected using guide rail.
The Ritchie Ditch profiles cover the widest range of slope heights and slope face angles, and are
designed to achieve 85% rockfall catchment.

EB 15-025 Page 3 of 10
To expand on the Ritchie Ditch criteria, the Oregon DOT conducted an extensive research
project, final report issued 2002, through a pooled fund effort funded by several State
Transportation Departments, including NYSDOT, and the FHWA. The research project had three
main goals:

1. Investigate how slope, catchment area and rockfall properties affect retention at
the base of vertical, 4V:1H, 2V:1H, 1.33V:1H, and 1V:1H slopes; for slope
heights of 40 ft. (12.2 m), 60 ft. (18.3 m), and 80 ft. (24.4 m); and catchment area
slopes of flat-bottom, 1V:6H and 1V:4H.

2. Develop improved guidelines.

3. Provide flexibility in designing catchment areas that will retain percentages of

rockfall ranging from 30% to 99%.

The Oregon Ditch design guide uses catchment area slopes that are considered recoverable.
However, only a limited number of rock slope heights were considered in the study.

EB 15-025 Page 4 of 10
A third method of rock catchment design is the computer program Colorado Rockfall Simulation
Program, which simulates rocks tumbling down a slope, predicts the statistical distribution of
speed and bounce height, and can be used for locating and designing rockfall mitigation.

When providing ditch widths, the recommended width may have to be wider than what would be
required for adequate catchment to allow for 5 ft. (1.5 m) of burden for presplit blasting. Presplit
blasting is required for all slopes greater than 5 ft. (1.5 m) in height and 1V: 1H or steeper.

EB 15-025 Page 5 of 10
II. PROCEDURE FOR PREPARING
ROCK SLOPE RECOMMENDATIONS

Rock slope recommendations will be provided after a field meeting is held with the Regional
Geotechnical Engineer, Regional or Consultant Designer, Regional Representatives and the
Geotechnical Engineering Bureau Engineering Geologists. The intent of the field meeting is to
provide an opportunity for a discussion on the aspects, specifically the constraints, of the project.
This way, all individuals involved know the factors that contributed to the final rock slope
catchment design, whether it is a Ritchie Ditch or some alternate section.

The following is the Procedure for Preparing Rock Slope Recommendations:

Scoping Phase

Step 1:
Prior to the scoping meeting, the Regional Geotechnical Group reviews the Initial Project
Proposal and project limits and identifies the possibility of rock work.

Step 2:
A:

The Regional Geotechnical Engineer requests the Geotechnical Engineering Bureau, in writing,
to review the project and provide a Rock Slope Location and Identification Report. The report
will provide the locations of the existing rock slopes from the Geotechnical Engineering
Bureau’s inventory as well as additional slopes within the project limits. In addition to this, the
report will identify if there are stability concerns with any of these slopes. To provide the
designer with a preliminary analysis, the stability of the existing slopes based on the existing
alignment will be ranked between 1 (general instability problems, high potential for work) and 4
(stable slope, no work required). No recommendations will be included in the report.

Commentary:
There may be areas where future rock slopes within a project’s limits are not
evident yet are discovered during the progression of borings for a proposed cut.
Step 3 may be relevant.

B:

The Regional Geotechnical Engineer requests the Geotechnical Engineering Bureau, in writing,
to review the project and provide a Rock Outcrop Map. The request should include a general map
identifying the location and boundary limits of the project. (Ideally, the map would be a Plan
identifying the existing and proposed alignments).

Commentary:

EB 15-025 Page 6 of 10
 If the Regional Geotechnical Engineer identifies that the project will require a
Rock Outcrop Map, the requests for a Rock Slope Location and Identification
Report and a Rock Outcrop Map may be combined.

To finalize the Rock Outcrop Map, an electronic version of the projects Plan, with
identified survey datum, must be submitted to the Geotechnical Engineering
Bureau.

Phase V

Step 3:
The Regional Geotechnical Engineer will schedule a field meeting with the Regional or
Consultant Designer, Regional representatives and the Geotechnical Engineering Bureau
Engineering Geologists to discuss the Rock Slope Location and Identification Report and the
proposed work. To expedite site discussions and agreement on the final alternate, the
memorandum from the Region requesting the field meeting should identify the constraints of the
project. This will allow the Geologists to analyze alternatives prior to the field meeting.

Cross sections including all the project’s constraints (right-of-way restrictions, Regional project
priorities, cost considerations, etc.) should be provided to the Geotechnical Engineering Bureau
prior to the meeting so site specific recommendations can be discussed.

Site Discussions:
A. The Geologists will discuss rock slope and catchment requirements for each site.
B. The Designer will discuss the project’s constraints.
C. If the rock slope and catchment requirements are within the project’s constraints,
recommendations will be made.
D. If the rock slope and catchment requirements are not within the project’s constraints,
alternatives will be discussed.
E. Additional time may be required to develop additional alternates.

Additional discussions/ field meetings may be held, if warranted.

Step 4:
To document the alternatives discussed, and the reasoning for acceptance/rejection of each
alternate, the Regional Geotechnical Engineer writes a memorandum outlining the minutes of the
field meeting.

Step 5:
Based on the site discussions, constraints, slope analyses and after reaching verbal agreement
with the Region, the Geotechnical Engineering Bureau will provide written Rock Slope and
Catchment Recommendations for each site.
Step 6:

EB 15-025 Page 7 of 10
The Regional Designer provides the Regional Geotechnical Engineer with a copy of the
Advanced Detail Plans. As part of their review, the Regional Geotechnical Engineer provides the
Geotechnical Engineering Bureau with a copy of the Plans containing rock work for review.

Commentary:
If, during design, the development of the project produces changes that affect the
rock slope catchment area, the Regional Designer shall notify the Regional
Geotechnical Engineer. An additional meeting (Step 3) should be called to discuss
the rock slope recommendations.

Step 7:
The Geotechnical Engineering Bureau provides the Regional Geotechnical Engineer with a
written review of the Advanced Detail Plans which include the proposed rock work. The review
is submitted to the Regional Designer who evaluates the comments received.

Phase VI

Step 8:
The Geotechnical Engineering Bureau provides the Regional Geotechnical Engineer a review of
the Final Plans.

Construction

Step 9:
If, during construction, a situation arises where rock slope recommendations are required for an
area omitted in the contract documents, the Regional Geotechnical Engineer will schedule a field
meeting with the Engineer-In-Charge, Regional Designer, Regional representatives and the
Geotechnical Engineering Bureau Engineering Geologists to discuss the field conditions.

Cross sections including all the project’s constraints (right-of-way restrictions, cost
considerations, etc.) should be provided to the Geotechnical Engineering Bureau prior to the
meeting so site specific recommendations can be discussed.

Site Discussions:
A. The Geologists will discuss rock slope and catchment requirements for each site.
B. The Engineer-In-Charge and Designer will discuss the project’s constraints.
C. If the rock slope and catchment requirements are within the project’s constraints,
recommendations will be made.
D. If the rock slope and catchment requirements are not within the project’s constraints,
alternatives will be discussed.
E. Additional time may be required to develop additional alternates.

Additional discussions/ field meetings may be held, if warranted.

EB 15-025 Page 8 of 10
Step 10:
Based on the site discussions, constraints, slope analyses and after reaching verbal agreement
with the Region, the Geotechnical Engineering Bureau will provide written Rock Slope and
Catchment Recommendations for each site.

EB 15-025 Page 9 of 10
REFERENCES

1. Rockfall Catchment Area Design Guide, Final Report, SPR-3(032), Oregon Department
of Transportation, FHWA-OR-RD-02-04, January, 2002.

2. The Nature of Rockfall as the Basis for a New Fallout Area Design Criteria for 0.25:1
Slopes, Engineering Geology Group Oregon Department of Transportation, FHWA-OR-
GT-92-05, September, 1994.

3. Evaluation of Rockfall and Its Control by Arthur M. Ritchie, Washington State Highway
Commission, Highway Research Record, Vol. 17: 1963.

4. Rock Slope Rating Procedure, Geotechnical Engineering Bureau, Geotechnical

Engineering Manual GEM-15, June, 1996.

5. Rock Slopes: Design, Excavation, Stabilization, FHWA-TS-89-045, September, 1989.

6. Colorado Rockfall Simulation Program Version 4.0 (for Windows), Sponsored by

Colorado Department of Transportation, March 2000.

EB 15-025 Page 10 of 10