View metadata, citation and similar papers at core.ac.

uk brought to you by CORE

provided by UMP Institutional Repository
242

Rock mass classification for rock slope stability assessment in

Malaysia: a review

A F Salmanfarsi, H Awang and M I Ali

Faculty of Civil Engineering Technology, Universiti Malaysia Pahang, 26300 Gambang,

Pahang, Malaysia

Abstract. Rock mass classification systems are commonly used in the design and construction
of rock engineering, and have seen widespread modifications and validations by various
researchers over the last few decades. The rock mass classification, in particular the slope mass
rating (SMR), continues to be the preferred preliminary method in small-scale assessment of
rock slope stability. In Malaysia, parameters related to rock slope stability assessment have
been modified to consider the condition of the rock mass such as the effect of heterogeneous
rock units and weathering of rocks. The application of rock mass classifications however have
been shown to contain some discrepancies, and the acknowledgement of the limitations of the
system is important for an optimum use in the design stage. This paper reviews several
development of rock mass classifications in Malaysia, as well as looking at potential direction
of further development of the rock mass classification system in the context of local slope
stability analysis.

1. Introduction
Development involving rock slope are usually related to highway construction, where large rock
surface are excavated. Often times, these slopes are prone to instability problems, due to rock mass
conditions and environmental external factors. Internally, factors such as the rock materials, slope
height, slope face angle, and discontinuities affect the slope’s stability. Over the years, various
techniques and methods have been developed by researchers working with rock slopes, from the fields
of tunnelling, mining, or conventional slope cutting. Malaysia have been subjected to several major
landslides over the years, with several involving cut rock slopes on highway [1]. Geological condition
have been reported to account only a portion of the contributing factor to landslide in Malaysia,
accounting for a total of 8% [2]. However, due to the safety and economic factor involved in rock
slope stability, the input of engineering geology to the process of excavation and treatment of cut
slopes is still of great importance [3]. To mitigate potential slope failures in cut rock slopes, a proper
understanding of the lithology and discontinuities in rock mass is thus necessary.

2. Assessment methods for rock slope stability

It has been noted by [4] that eight modelling methods for the purpose of rock engineering has been
categorized, which includes pre-existing standard methods, analytical methods, basic and extended
numerical methods, precedent type analysis, empirical classification, the basic system approach and
the combined system approach. In this review the kinematic analysis and rock mass classification is
discussed:
243

2.1. Kinematic analysis

Kinematic analysis represents one of the conventional methods of slope stability analysis, and is a
purely geometric method which examines potential modes of failures in jointed rock mass through the
usage of stereographic projection technique. The common method, originally proposed by [5], is later
redefined by [6-7]. In the test, the great circle of the slope face and circle of friction angle, φ, is plotted
on stereographic projection. The zone between the great circle and the friction circle (sliding
envelope) represent the condition for failure, where the plunge value of the joint is less than the slope
angle and greater than the friction angle of the joint. A review for case studies of engineering geology
in Malaysia by [3] have cited the usage of kinematic analysis as the standard for local geologists and
engineer geologists working on rock slopes. It could be observed that numerous local slope stability
analyses employed kinematic analysis, either in conjunction or independent of rock mass classification
systems. The method is however limited to the case of structurally controlled cut slopes, and have
been noted to ignore the strength parameters of the discontinuities and of the rock mass, as well as
acting forces on the slope the quantifiable slope stability condition is not given, as only the potential
for slope failure is given [8]. Kinematic analysis still remains essential for evaluation of structurally
controlled rock slopes, and has been recommended as the first step before proceeding to other
analytical techniques of slope stability [9].

2.2. Rock mass classification

Rock mass classifications are one of the most widely known empirical classification for rock
engineering. They represent the means for evaluating the performance of rock cut slopes based on
important parameters, describing the rock mass condition quantitatively [10]. Due to their simplicity
and reliability, the system enjoys wide usage among practitioners, having been time-tested for more
than three decades [11]. Summary and discussion of existing rock mass classification systems can be
found in the work of [10] and [12]. Rock Mass Rating (RMR) perhaps one of the most widely used
empirical method for rock mass classification. Originally designed by [13] to evaluate the quality of
rock mass while working in underground projects, the system contain five parameters representing
different conditions of rock and discontinuities: strength of intact rock material (uniaxial compressive
test or point load strength) (Rδ), rock quality designation (RRQD), spacing between discontinuities
(RSD), condition of discontinuities (RCD), and groundwater condition (RCG) (1):
RMR = Rδ + RRQD + RSD + RCD + RCG (1)
The rock mass could be sorted into five classes: very good (RMR 100–81), good (80–61), fair (60–
41), poor (40–21), and very poor (<20). The list of parameters and assigned value in the rating is given
in table 1. From the classes, [15] provided guidelines for supports to tunnel excavated through
conventional drilling and blasting. The Slope Mass Rating (SMR), devised by [16] modifies the RMR
of [13]. The SMR system aims to remove ambiguities in RMR for the purpose of classifying rock
slope. The SMR index adds four adjustment factors, with parameters that reflect joint-slope
relationship (F1–F3), as well as method of excavation (F4) (2):

SMR = RMR + F1 F2 F3 + F4 (2)

As with RMR, slope stability is divided five classes: completely stable (SMR 100–81), stable (80–61),
partially stable (60–41), unstable (40–21), and completely unstable (20-0). SMR is one of the most
widely used classification system used for the purpose of slope stability analysis, with subsequent
modifications by workers further modifying the parameters from the system. [14] recommends the
usage of [16] SMR for rock slope stability analysis.

Table 1. Rock rating system [14].

Parameter Range of values
1 Strength Point- >10 4–10 2–4 1–2 For the low range,
of intact load uniaxial compression
244

rock strength test is preferred

mineral index
(MPa)
UCS >250 100–250 50–100 25–50 5–25 1–5 <1
(MPa)
Rating 15 12 7 4 2 1 0
2 Drill core RQD (%) 90–100 75–90 50–75 25–50 <25
Rating 20 17 13 8 3
3 Spacing of >2 m 0.6–2 m 200- 60- <60 mm
discontinuities 600 mm 200 mm
Rating 20 15 10 8 5
4 Condition of Very Slightly Slightly Slicken- Soft gouge
discontinuities rough rough rough sided >5 mm
surfaces surfaces surfaces surfaces, thick, or
Not conti- Separa- Separa- or Separa-
nuous tion tion Gouge < 5 tion > 5
No <1 mm <1 mm mm thick, mm
separa- Slightly Highly or (Continuo
tion weather- weather- Separa- us)
Unwea- ed walls ed walls tion 1–
thered 5 mm
wall rock (Conti-
nuous)
Rating 30 25 20 10 0
5 Ground- Inflow None <10 10–25 25–125 >125
water per 10 m
tunnel
length
(L/min
Ratio of 0 <0.1 0.1–0.2 0.2–0.5 >0.5
joint
water
pressure
to major
princi-
pal stress
General Complete- Damp Wet Dripping Flowing
condi- ly dry
tion
Rating 15 10 7 4 0

Other notable rock mass classification systems include the Rock Tunneling Quality Index (Q) ([17],
and the Geological Strength Index (GSI) [18-19]. The former is used for tunnel support work, while
the latter deals with heterogenous and poor-quality rock mass.

3. Modification of rock mass classification

3.1. Modification in Malaysian context

As Malaysia is particularly vulnerable to landslides occurrence [1-2], several empirical methods for
slope assessment and management have been developed over the years for in large-scale and medium-
scale assessment of slope. [20] reviewed the accuracy of five slope assessment systems (SAS)
developed by the Malaysian Public Work Department (PWD). The study found that none of the
systems were satisfactory in predicting landslides in rock cut slopes, although one of the system (Slope
Management and Risk Tracking System, SMART) seems satisfactory in predicting failures for
245

metasedimentary rocks (table 2–3). The various reasons for the unsatisfactory prediction of landslide
were cited to be the result of usage of hazard score developed from other country, insufficient
database, the use of an oversimplified approach, and the use of database derived from a different
rock/soil formation.

Table 2. Accuracy of the SAS in predicting landslides: granitic formation cut slopes [20].
Prediction SMS SPRS SIMS SMART LHRA
(1) Number of slopes assessed 139 139 139 139 139
(2) Number of recent landslides or failed slopes 44 44 44 44 44
(3) Number of slopes classified as High and Very
High Hazard that actually failed 17 23 1 27 1
(4) Percentage of (3) compared with (2) 39% 52% 2% 61% 2%

Table 3. Accuracy of the SAS in predicting landslides: meta-sediment formation cut slopes [20].
Prediction SMS SPRS SIMS SMART LHRA
(1) Number of slopes assessed 47 47 47 47 47
(2) Number of recent landslides or failed slopes 29 29 29 29 29
(3) Number of slopes classified as High and Very
High Hazard that actually failed 13 17 5 26 0
(4) Percentage of (3) compared with (2) 45% 59% 17% 90% 0%

Out of the rock mass classification systems, the SMR method has proven to be widely accepted for
local practitioners working on rock slopes. As an example, recent case study on slope stability analysis
of limestone cliff at Gunung Kandu, Gopeng by [21] highlight how the usage of SMR is significant for
its quantification of rock slope stability in a practical method for large area of rock slope assessment.
RMR and SMR have been noted as being useful for preliminary assessment of slope stability,
incorporating geological, geometric, and engineering parameters to arrive at a quantitative value of
rock mass quality [22].
Only few works have been found to modify the rock mass system in the context of local conditions.
The most notable example is the Modified Slope Mass Rating (M-SMR) by [23–25] based on the
works on the Crocker Formation in Kota Kinabalu. The system modifies RMR of [14] and SMR of
[16] to consider the effect of alternating lithologies in heterogeneous rock formation, introducing the
concept of ‘lithological unit thickness’ in lieu of assigning a single value for strength of intact rock
material (UCS) for the whole rock unit (figure 1). The system is divided into six classes: very good
(M-SMR 100–81), good (80–61), moderate (60–41), poor (40–21), very poor (20–1) and extremely
poor (<1). Slope stabilization and protection measures are proposed for each classes (figure 2).
Another notable modification is the development of systematic cut slope stability evaluation by [26–
27]. Here, the RMR and SMR values were compared with dip angle of the discontinuity (βi) and the
peak friction angle, αp of discontinuity surfaces from laboratory tests for slope stability. The
evaluation is based on the derived polynomial equations by [28] that correlates the αp of discontinuity
planes from schist bedrocks with Joint Roughness Coefficient (JRC), which in effect include the
parameter of discontinuity surface roughness for cut slope stability evaluation. The systematic
approach propose four classifications for potential for failure: very high failure potential, intermediate
failure potential, low failure potential, and stable (figure 3).
246

Figure 1. Lithological unit thickness model. The final intact rock strength of slope forming rock
material (SFRM) is represented by the sum of strength of all lithological in any particular slope [23].

Figure 2. Slope stabilization and protection measures from M-SMR values [25].

Due to the tropical condition of Malaysia, weathering in rock mass is extremely common. Extensive
studies on the weathering of bedrock in Malaysia have notably been carried out [29-31] with clear
indication of the uppermost zone of weathering profile consisting of completely weathered bedrock
material with unclear relict original bedrock texture. It is clear that any significant assessment of rock
mass has to factor in the influence of weathering. [32] developed a typical mass weathering profile of
tropically weathered granite (figure 4). The profile includes geological and structural parameters (joint
characteristics, corestone occurrence, rock/soil ratio, mass homogeneity, colour of rock, and
discoloration at joint' surfaces). The classification provides useful parameters for the preliminary stage
of any civil engineering design, which potentially will save cost and time during site investigations for
development of engineering work design parameters.
247

Figure 3. Diagram for systematic cut slope stability evaluation [26].

Figure 4. Typical mass weathering profile of tropically weathered granite [32].

3.2. Evaluation of rock mass classification

From the literatures mentioned in previous sections, it has been shown that rock mass classifications
have been subjected to wide usage over a long period of time – leading to the identification of some
248

inherent weakness and deficiency of the classification systems in reflecting the actual condition of
rock mass. Some of the more inherent issue include discussions on the validity of rock quality
designation (RQD) as parameters in rock mass classifications [33-35] or the correction factors applied
to SMR (2) [12]. Perhaps more pressing in the context of Malaysia is that in most rock classification
systems, the role of water movement has not been given significant proportion in the parameters [10].
This is especially significant for local climate, with water movement being the largest contribution
factors for landslide, making up to 58% of landslide cases [2]. [10] suggests quantifying the hazard for
failure in rock slopes (figure 5), where the use of factors related to precipitation and temperature
characteristic of a study area allow adaptation of rock mass classification system to local climatic
conditions.

Figure 5. Proposed flow chart for quantification of the hazard for failure of rock cuttings [10].

[36] in their review of SMR have acknowledged some of the reported common issues found in the
system, which includes: 1) rather conservative value of the classification in general; 2) extreme values
of correction factor F3 proposed by Bieniawski is difficult to cope with in actual stability analysis of
slope; 3) the failure modes derived from SMR occurs in reality; 4) excavation method is highly
influential for slope’s stability, and is necessary to include in the system; 5) practical difficulties for
classification of slopes with berms; and 6) system does not consider the effect of slope height. It has
also been noted that the rock mass classification systems are not applicable to complex cases involving
variable slope geometric, coupled problems, and/or complex conditions of discontinuities [8]. The
system however remains widely used, as it has been proven to be a powerful system in the initial stage
of slope stability analysis, and continues to act as a common language for both engineering geologist
and geotechnical engineers. Development of remote sensing technology, in particular the Light
Detection and Ranging (LiDAR), have been incorporated into slope stability assessment and post-
failure slope investigation. In their review of the development of SMR, [36] have pointed the usage of
LiDAR that allows the generation of precise 3D point clouds from slopes which can be utilized to
obtain parameters that are relevant for SMR or other rock mass classification. Usage of LiDAR for
characterizing the parameters of rock slope (i.e. discontinuities) in local context have seen limited
usage, with recent notable case involving the stability assessment of limestone rock cave [37]. The
usage of LiDAR has been noted for its possibility of characterizing complex landslides along the
transportation route in mountainous region [38], and offer the possibility of usage alongside
conventional field data gathering due to the ability to cover large surface area in relatively short time.
249

4. Conclusion
Both kinematic analysis and rock mass classification have been established as valid and reliable
methods for assessment of rock slope stability over the years, and have continued to be widely used in
Malaysia, being widely accepted by both fields of engineering geology and geotechnical engineering.
Although some flaws and limitations to the classification system have been discussed over the years,
the simple nature of the system makes it desirable for practitioners to modify the parameters to better
fit the context of local rock mass conditions. Any subsequent modifications to the system in the
context of local conditions should consider the role of weathering and water movement in rock mass,
as they have not been given much emphasis in current scope of available systems. The usage of laser
scanning in slope stability assessment is an unexplored potential, and appears to be the next step
forward in rock mass classification for slope.

5. References
[1] Abdul Rahman H and Mapjabil J 2017 Landslides Disaster in Malaysia: an Overview Health &
the Environment Journal 8 58–71
[2] Kazmi D, Qasim S, Harahap I S H, Baharom S, Imran M and Moin S 2016 A Study on the
Contributing Factors of Major Landslides in Malaysia Civ. Eng. J. 2 669-78
[3] Tan B K 2017 Engineering geology in Malaysia – some case studies Bulletin of the Geological
Society of Malaysia 64 65–79
[4] Feng X-T and Hudson J A 2011 Rock Engineering Design (Boca Raton: CRC Press)
[5] Markland J T 1972 A useful technique for estimating the stability of rock slopes when the rigid
wedge slide type of failure is expected (London: Imperial College Rock Mechanics Research)
[6] Hocking G 1976 A method for distinguishing between single and double plane sliding of
tetrahedral wedges Int. J. Rock Mech. Min. 13 225–6
[7] Hoek E and Bray J W 1981 Rock Slope Engineering (London: Institute of Mining and
Metallurgy)
[8] Alzo’ubi A K 2016 Rock slopes processes and recommended methods for analysis International
Journal of GEOMATE 11 2520–7
[9] Raghuvanshi T K 2017 Plane failure in rock slopes – A review on stability analysis techniques.
J. King Saud Univ. Sci 31 101–9
[10] Pantelidis L 2009 Rock slope stability assessment through rock mass classification systems Int.
J. Rock Mech. Min. Volume 46 315–25
[11] Singh B and Goel R K 2011 Engineering Rock Mass Classification (Amsterdam:Elsevier Inc.
Publication)
[12] Zheng J Zhao Y Lü Q Deng J Pan X and Li Y 2016 A discussion on the adjustment parameters
of the Slope Mass Rating (SMR) system for rock slopes Eng. Geol. 206 42–9
[13] Bieniawski Z T 1979 The geomechanics classification in rock engineering applications Proc.
of the 4th International Cong. on Rock Mechanics (Rotterdam: Balkema and Swiss Society for
Soil and Rock Mechanics) pp 41–8
[14] Bieniawski Z T 1989 Engineering rock mass classifications: a complete manual for engineers
and geologists in mining, civil, and petroleum engineering (New York: John Wiley & Sons)
[15] Bieniawski Z T 1984 The design process in rock engineering Rock Mech. Rock Eng. 17 183–
90
[16] Romana M 1985 New adjustment ratings for application of Bieniawski classification to slopes
Proc. of int. symp. on the role of rock mechanism (Zacatecas: International Society of Rock
Mechanics) pp 49–53
[17] Barton N R, Lien R and Lundge J 1974 Engineering classification of rock masses for the design
of tunnel support Rock Mech. Rock Eng. 6 189–239
[18] Hoek E, Kaiser P K and Bawden W F 1995 Support of Underground Excavations in Hard Rock
(Rotterdam: Balkema)
[19] Hoek E, Marinos P and 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 B.
Eng. Geol. Environ. 57 151–60
250

[20] Singh H Huat B B K and Jamaludin S 2008 Slope Assessment Systems: A Review and
Evaluation of Current Techniques Used for Cut Slopes in the Mountainous Terrain of West
Malaysia Electron. J. Geotech. Eng. 13 1–24
[21] Mohd Razib A M, Goh T L, Mazlan N A, Abdul Ghani M F, Tuan Mohamed T R, Rafek A G,
Serasa A S, Chen Y and Zhang M 2018 A Systematic Approach of Rock Slope Stability
Assessment: A Case Study at Gunung Kandu, Gopeng, Perak, Malaysia Sains Malaysiana 47
1413–21
[22] Nkpadobi J I, Raj J K and Ng T F 2016 Classification of cut slopes in weathered meta-
sedimentary bedrocks Earth Sci. Res. J. 20 J1–9
[23] Abd Rahim I, Hj Tahir S, Musta B and Omang S A K 2009 Lithological Unit Thickness
Approach For Determining Intact Rock Strength (IRS) of Slope Forming Rock Material Of
Crocker Formation Borneo Science 25 23–32
[24] Abd Rahim I 2011 Rock mass classification system of the Crocker formation in Kota Kinabalu
for rock slope engineering purpose, Sabah, Malaysia (Unpublished doctoral dissertation)
(Malaysia: Universiti Malaysia Sabah)
[25] Abd Rahim I 2015 Geomechanical classification scheme for heterogeneous Crocker Formation
in Kota Kinabalu, Sabah, Malaysia Borneo Science 36 12–20
[26] Rafek A G and Goh T L 2015 Engineering Geology for Society and Territory – Volume 2, ed G
Lollino et al (Switzerland: Springer International Publishing) pp 787–90
[27] Rafek A G, Mohd Jamin N H, Goh T L, Simon N and Hussin A 2016 Systematic Approach to
Sustainable Rock Slope Stability Evaluation Procedia Chem. 19 981–5
[28] Rafek A G and Goh T L 2012 Correlation of Joint Roughness Coefficient (JRC) and Peak
Friction Angles of Discontinuities of Malaysian Schists Earth Science Research 1 57–63
[29] Raj J K 1985 Characterisation of the weathering profile developed over a porphyritic biotite
granite bedrock in Peninsular Malaysia Bulletin of the International Association of Engineering
Geology 32 121–8
[30] Raj J K 1998 The failure of a slope cut into the weathering profile developed over a porphyritic
biotite granite J. Asian Earth Sci. 16 419–27
[31] Raj J K 2010 Soil-moisture retention characteristics of earth materials in the weathering profile
over a porphyritic biotite granite Current Research in Geoscience 1 12–20.
[32] Alavi Nezhad Khalil Abad S V, Tugrul A, Cokceogluc C and Jahed Armaghanic D 2016
Characteristics of weathering zones of granitic rocks in Malaysia for geotechnical design Eng.
Geol. 200 94–103
[33] Palmström A 2005 Measurements of and correlations between block size and rock quality
designation (RQD) Tunn. Undergr. Sp. Tech. 20 362–77
[34] Pells P J, Bieniawski Z T, Hencher S R and Pells S E 2017 Rock quality designation (RQD):
time to rest in peace Can. Geotech. J. 54 825–34
[35] Chen Q and Yin T 2018. Should the Use of Rock Quality Designation Be Discontinued in the
Rock Mass Rating System? Rock Mech. Rock Eng. 52 1075–94
[36] Romana M, Tomás R and Serón J B 2015 Slope Mass Rating (SMR) geomechanics
classification: thirty years review 13th ISRM Int. Cong. of Rock Mechanics (Montreal, 10-13
May)
[37] Idrees M O and Pradhan B 2018 Geostructural stability assessment of cave using rock surface
discontinuity extracted from terrestrial laser scanning point cloud Journal of Rock Mechanics
and Geotechnical Engineering 10 534–44
[38] Razak K A, Hasan R C, Aitin A, Sheng L C, Mohamed Z, Qalam-A'Zad and Abu Bakar R 2014
Hyperspatial resolution of ground based remote sensing for natural limestone characterization:
A critical input for rock slope hazard assessment in the tropics 35th Asian Conf. on Remote
Sensing 2014 (ACRS 2014) (New York: Curran Associates, Inc) pp 90–5.

Acknowledgments
The authors would like to acknowledge the research support provided by Universiti Malaysia Pahang
under Geran Universiti Malaysia Pahang, grant number RDU190345.