Preliminary Rock-Slope-Susceptibility Assessment Using GIS and the SMR Classification

Transcription

1 Natural Hazards 30: , Kluwer Academic Publishers. Printed in the Netherlands. 309 Preliminary Rock-Slope-Susceptibility Assessment Using GIS and the SMR Classification C. IRIGARAY 1, T. FERNÁNDEZ 2 and J. CHACÓN 1 1 Departamento de Ingeniería Civil. Edificio Politécnico. Universidad de Granada, Campus de Fuentenueva s/n, 18071, Granada ( clemente@ugr.es, jchacon@ugr.es); 2 Departamento de Ingeniería Cartográfica, Geodésica y Fotogrametría, Escuela Politécnica Superior de Jaén, Universidad de Jaén, Virgen de la Cabeza, Jaen ( tfernan@ujaen.es) (Received: 23 April 2001; accepted 9 September 2002) Abstract. The geomechanical classification SMR (Slope Mass Rating) enables the preliminary assessment of the susceptibility of rock slopes to failure. The SMR index is obtained from Bieniawski s basic RMR (Rock Mass Rating) through an adjustment factor and an excavation factor. Since its appearance in 1985, this classification has been used for appraisals and preliminary studies in many countries. The method is applied automatically by a Geographic Information System (Arc-Info GIS). The present study describes the methodology used and the results obtained after mapping the failure susceptibility in rock slopes by computing the SMR index using a GIS. Data have been gathered from the Digital Elevation Model (DEM), and by the statistical analysis of the parameters measured on the slopes. The methodology has been applied to the slopes along the N-340 road between Arraijana beach and Castell de Ferro (Granada, Spain). A total of 40 slopes have been studied along a linear distance of 4 km. As a result, in addition to all the factors that determine the SMR index, the most unfavourable SMR maps as well as the corresponding mean value have been established. From a cross analysis between these two maps and the instability phenomena observed directly in the field, we conclude that the average value of the SMR index calculated for the different discontinuity sets is the most representative value of rock-slope-failure susceptibility. The results show the usefulness of the SMR s parameters to be used in GIS applications to rock-landslide hazard along roads. Key words: SMR, rock slope, susceptibility, GIS, Granada Coast. 1. Introduction Although numerous geomechanical classifications exist for analysing the stability of rock slopes (Selby, 1980; Kirkaldie, 1985; Romana, 1985; Bieniawski, 1993; Habibagahi and Katebi, 1996; Lindsay et al., 2001), some do not take into account (Kirkaldie, 1985), or only qualitatively consider (Selby, 1980), the relationship between the relative orientations of both the outcrop or slope and the discontinuities. Other classifications are difficult to apply because of the high relative value of the adjustment factors (Bieniawski, 1979). The SMR (Slope Mass Rating) geomechanical classification (Romana, 1985) provides systematics for quantifying the adjustment factors, and it is a useful method for analysing the failure susceptibility of rock slopes.

2 310 C. IRIGARAY ET AL. Figure 1. Location of the study area. The spectacular rise in computer availability over the last decade, and the development of Geographic Information Systems (GIS) for spatial analysis have generated new opportunities for a quicker and more detailed study of landslide susceptibility in general (Chacón and Irigaray, 1999) and, more specifically, of rock slope stability (Irigaray et al., 2001; Serón et al., 2001). Since its appearance, the SMR classification (Romana, 1985) has been used in numerous appraisals and prior studies in many countries (Tsiambaos and Telli, 1992; Budetta et al., 1994; Zuyu, 1995). However, its procedure has never been automated to take advantage of the powerful tools provided by Geographic Information Systems (GIS). The present paper describes the methodology used and results obtained while mapping failure susceptibility on rock slopes from computing the SMR index using the Arc-Info GIS. 2. The Study Area The study area is located on the Granada coastline (Andalusia, Spain), about km east of the city of Motril (Figure 1). Geologically, the area belongs to the Alpujarride Complex of the Internal Zones of the Betic Cordillera and is situated in the carbonate rocks of the Murtas unit, dating from the Triassic (Aldaya, 1981), though, in some areas, underlying Permo Triassic phyllites outcrop. Along the N-340 road between Arraijana beach and Castell de Ferro (Granada, Spain), 13 major rock slopes were analysed, covering an overall linear distance of

3 PRELIMINARY ROCK-SLOPE-SUSCEPTIBILITY ASSESSMENT km. The study zone was limited to the surface area between the road and a height of 15 to 20 m above the slope cuts. Some of these slopes have been divided into sections, either because they were curved in plan or because lithological or (T1-a to T11-b) in structural differences have been detected. In total, 40 slope units have been studied (Figure 2), which can be considered homogeneous in terms of their geomechanical characteristics. 3. The Methodology During various field surveys made over the summers of 1998 and 1999, a detailed geomechanical characterisation was performed. A total of 40 slope units were analysed, measuring more than 3500 discontinuities and characterizing 32,600 geomechanical parameters (characteristics of the discontinuities, spacings, uniaxial compressive strength, weathering, presence of water, etc.). Four discontinuity sets were identified at each slope site by using the DIPS 5.0 software package (Rocscience, 2000). Once the discontinuity sets were identified, a simple statistical analysis of the geomechanical data was made to compute values (mean for numeric data and mode for alphanumeric data) that were representative of each analysed parameter (Table I). The preliminary susceptibility to failure for the rock slopes was analysed in terms of the SMR (Slope Mass Rating) geomechanical classification (Romana, 1985). The SMR index (ranging between 0 and 100) was determined from Bieniawski s basic RMR (Rock Mass rating) (Bieniawski, 1979), from an adjustment factor, calculated as the product of three sub-factors: F 1 F 2 F 3, as well as from an excavation factor (F 4): SMR = RMR + (F 1 F 2 F 3) + F 4 (For negative results, SMR = 0), where F 1 depends on the parallelism between the slope face and discontinuity strikes (values from 0.15 to 1); F 2 refers to the discontinuity dip angle in the planar mode of failure (values from 0.15 to 1); F 3 is the relationship between the slope angle and discontinuity dip (values from 0 to 60); and F 4 depends on the method used to excavate the slope (values from 8 to 15) (Table II). The main goal of the following sub-chapters is not to describe the parameters but to determine how to integrate them into a GIS, how these parameters are stored in a GIS layer and how are they combined to obtain RMR and SMR PRIMARY VARIABLES REFERRING TO THE SLOPES The variable SLOPES represents the basic work unit. It has a polygonal topology and is determined by digitalisation of the different mapped slope units. The variable includes the following fields: NAME: Slope identification.

4 312 C. IRIGARAY ET AL. Table I. General characteristics and mean geomechanical parameters of the slope T1-a. Mean values of discontinuities (85 measurements): Set Dip Dip direction Spacing (m) Continuity Sub-continuous Not continuous Continuous Not continuous Roughness Slightly rough Smooth Slightly rough Slightly rough Infilling No Clay Calcite No Aperture (mm) > Weathering Slightly Slightly Slightly Slightly weathered weathered weathered weathered Groundwater Dry Dry Dry Dry Slope unit: T1-a. Excavation method: Normal blasting. Maximum altitude: 12.5 m. Length: 110 m. Strike: N330. Dip: 80. Shape: Rectilinear. Lithology: Limestone-dolomitic marbles with alternating clear white and dark ones from centimetres to decimetres in thickness. Age: Triassic. Support measures: None. Breaks visible: Formation of several decimetric wedges with low risk of falling. Uniaxial compressive strength: 37 MPa. SUPPORT: Support measures: none, scaling; protection (toe ditch, nets); reinforcement (spot bolting, systematic bolting); concreting; drainage; toe walls, etc. FAILURES: Type of instability and degree of damage: planar failures (none, serious, critical); toppling failures (none, minor, serious); wedges (very few, several, many); complete soil-type breaks (none, some). UCS-MPA: Uniaxial compressive strength of the intact rock, in MPa. Determined as the mean of 10 greater values found in the sclerometric test (ISRM, 1978). EXCAVA: Excavation method used in the slope. Its range is from 8 to15, according to Romana (1985): deficient blasting, ( 8), blasting or mechanical (0), smooth blasting (8), pre-splitting (10) and natural slopes (15).

5 PRELIMINARY ROCK-SLOPE-SUSCEPTIBILITY ASSESSMENT 313 Table II. Ratings for RMR geomechanical classification (Bieniawski, 1979), joint adjustment rating for joints and adjustment rating for methods of excavation of slopes (Romana, 1985) Bieniawski (1979) Ratings for RMR Parameter Ranges of values 1 Strength of Point-load > For this low range, intact rock strength uniaxial compressive material index strength test is preferred (Mpa) Uniaxial > <1 compressive strength (MPa) Rating Drill core quality RQD (%) <25 Rating Spacing of discontinuities >2 m m mm mm <60 mm Rating Condition of Very rough surfaces. Slightly Slightly rough Slickensided Soft gouge discontinuities Not continuous. rough surfaces. surfaces. Or >5 mmor No separation. surfaces. Separation gouge Separation Unweathered wall rock Separation <1 mm. <5 mmthick. >5 mm. <1 mm. Highly Or Continuous Slightly weathered Separation weathered walls 1 5 mm. walls Continuous Rating

6 314 C. IRIGARAY ET AL. Table 2. Continued Bieniawski (1979) Ratings for RMR Parameter Ranges of values 5 Groundwater Completely dry Damp Wet Dripping Flowing in joint Rating Joint Adjustment Rating for Joints (Romana, 1985) Case Very favourable Favorable Fair Unfavorable Very unfavourable P αj αs > <5 T αj αs 180 P/T F P βj < >45 P F T F P βj βs > ( 10 ) < 10 P βj + βs < >120 P/T F P = plane failure αs = slope dip direction αj = joint dip direction T = toppling failure βs = slope dip βj = joint dip Adjustment Rating for Methods of Excavation of Slopes (Romana, 1985) Method Natural slope Prespliting Smooth Regular Deficient blasting blasting blasting F SMR = RMR + (F 1 F 2 F 3) + F 4

7 PRELIMINARY ROCK-SLOPE-SUSCEPTIBILITY ASSESSMENT PRIMARY VARIABLES REFERRING TO THE DISCONTINUITIES From SLOPES polygons, the simple statistical analysis of the discontinuities and the DIPS 5.0 software (Rocscience, 2000), the SETi variables are constructed, where i refers to each discontinuity set present at each slope site and varies from 1 to 4. These new variables have a polygonal topology as in the case of SLOPES and include the following fields: NAME: Slope identification, as in SLOPES. DIP: Dip of the discontinuity set. DIPDIR: Dip direction of the set. AS-M: Average spacing of the discontinuity set, in metres. PERSIS: Persistence or continuity of each set of discontinuities, following Romana (1992) (values from 0 to 5). ROUGH: Roughness and infilling of the discontinuities, following Romana (1992) (values from 0 to 10). APERT: Aperture of the joints, following Romana (1992) (values from 0 to 9). WEATH: Weathering conditions of discontinuities, following Romana (1992) (values from 0 to 6). FLOW: Groundwater inflow parameter in the joints, as proposed by Bieniawski (1979) (values from 0 to 15). Each set of discontinuities (field DIP and DIPDIR) were identified using the software DIPS 5.0 (Rocscience, 2000). After identification of the sets of discontinuities, the rest of the fields were established from the statistical analysis (mean or mode) of the data referring to the geomechanical parameters of each set (spacing, persistence, roughness, weathering, etc.) DEM-DERIVED VARIABLES The Digital Elevation Model (DEM) was developed from both linear (contour lines and streamlines) and point data (single points) by means of the Topogrid interpolation function (Arc-Info). The topographic and cartographic information used was prepared by Granada Province Council in 1998 to a 1:2,000 scale and an equidistance of 1 m. The resulting DEM has a cell size 2 2m. The slope map (SLOPE) and aspect map (ASPECT) of the study area were drawn from the DEM, using the Slope and Aspect functions (Arc-Info), respectively SECONDARY VARIABLES The secondary variables have a grid structure and were established using the primary variables and/or the DEM-derived variables.

8 316 C. IRIGARAY ET AL. Variable V1: Uniaxial Compressive Strength Parameter Bieniawski (1993) proposes a curve for the calculation of this parameter. In the study area, the uniaxial compressive-strength data, gathered with the use of a sclerometer (ISRM, 1978) vary between 18 and 40 MPa. For this value range, the aforementioned curve fits the following formulae: V 1 = UCS V 1 = UCS V 1 = UCS if UCS < 20 MPa if 20 UCS < 30 MPa if 30 UCS 40 MPa The variable UCS (uniaxial compressive strength) is determined by transforming the polygon SLOPES (UCS-MPA field) into a grid. Variable V2: RQD (Rock Quality Designation) Parameter For the calculation of this parameter, Bieniawski (1993) proposes a curve, which approximately fits the following formulae: V 2 = RQD if RQD 20% V 2 = RQD if 20 < RQD < 40% V 2 = 0.2 RQD if RQD 40% The RQD is usually calculated from the core recovery percentage (Deere et al., 1967). Since no borehole was available for this study, the RQD was estimated using the formula proposed by Palmstrom (1982): RQD = Jv RQD = 100 if Jv 4.5m 1 if Jv < 4.5m 1 where Jv is the volumetric joint and it is count as: Jv = (1/ASi) ASi being the average spacing, expressed in metres, for each set of discontinuities. The ASi variables are obtained by transforming the SETi polygons (AS-M field) into a grid. Variables V3i: Joint Spacing Parameter Bieniawski (1993) proposes a curve for calculating the parameter in terms of the average spacing for each set of discontinuities. In the study area, the average spacing between discontinuities is always less than 1 m. For values lower than 1 m, the aforementioned curve approximately fits the following formula: V 3i = 5.17 (ASi) ASi + 5

9 PRELIMINARY ROCK-SLOPE-SUSCEPTIBILITY ASSESSMENT 317 Variables V4i: Parameter for the Condition of Discontinuities This parameter was evaluated by the partial parametric evaluation of the joints (Romana, 1992), according to which this parameter is calculated as the sum of 4 sub-parameters referring to the discontinuities: V 4i = PERSISi + ROUGHi + WEATHi + APERTi The variables PERSISi, ROUGHi, WEATHi and APERTi are established by transforming the SETi polygons (PERSIS, ROUGH, WEATH and APERT fields) into a grid. Variables V5i: Groundwater Inflow Parameter for Each Discontinuity Set These variables are determined by transforming the SETi polygons (FLOW field) into a grid Variables RMRi: Rock Mass Rating for Each Set of Discontinuities Calculated as the sum of V1, V2, V3i, V4i and V5i RMRi = V 1 + V 2 + V 3i + V 4i + V 5i Variables F1i: Adjustment Factor Due to the Parallelism between the Strike of Each Set of Discontinuities and the Strike of the Slope Surface The adjustment sub-factor F1 was established empirically with values ranging between 1 and 0.15 (Romana, 1985). The following expression (Romana, 1997) was used here for its calculation: F 1i =[1 sin(dipdiri ASPECT) ] 2 The strikes for the sets of discontinuities (DIPDIRi) were established by transforming the SETi polygons (DIPDIR field) into a grid. The strike of the slope surface was determined by the variable ASPECT (aspect map). Variables F2i: Adjustment Factor Due to the Dip of Each Discontinuity Set in the Planar Mode of Failure The adjustment sub-factor F2, established empirically with values ranging between 1 and 0.15 (Romana, 1985), can be fitted to the following relationships (Romana, 1997): F 2i = tan 2 DIPi F 2i = 1 if DIPi 45 ifdipi > 45

10 318 C. IRIGARAY ET AL. The dip for each set of discontinuities (DIPi) was determined by transforming the SETi polygons (DIP field) into a grid. Variables F3i: Adjustment Factor due to the Relationship between the Dip of Each Set of Discontinuities and the Slope Dip The adjustment sub-factor F3 corresponds to the values proposed by Romana (1997) for plane failures or toppling failures. The F3i variables, estimated by considering the most unfavourable type of failures, vary from 0 to 60, depending on the relationship between DIPi and SLOPE. Variable F4: Adjustment Factor Due to the Excavation Method Established by transforming the SLOPES polygons (EXCAVA field) into a grid. Variables SMRi: Slope Mass Rating for Each Set of discontinuities Established as: SMRi = RMRi + (F 1i F 2i F 3i) + F 4 4. Results Following the methodology described, and using the tools provided by Arc-Info, we drew maps of each of the variables involved in the calculation of the SMR index for each discontinuity set in each slope (RMRi, F1i, F2i, F3i and F4 maps). The result was the most unfavourable SMR index map, drawn for each location as minimum value of the 4 SMRi maps corresponding to each of the discontinuity families of each slope (SMRMIN). In addition, by arithmetic mean, we calculated the mean value of all the SMRi computed (SMRAV). 5. Discussion. Evaluation of Susceptibility The preliminary failure susceptibility of the rock slope was evaluated in terms of the SMR values computed, according to Table III (Romana, 1985). At this point, which of the SMRi values computed should be considered in order to evaluate susceptibility to failure? In principle, the most unfavourable value for SMR index (SMRMIN) could be taken into account. Nevertheless, a series of prior considerations were made, such as assuming that all the discontinuity sets are present at each of the slopes studied, which turns out to be more unfavourable than expected. Furthermore, the SMR index appears, in general, to be slightly pessimistic; that is, the real behaviour of the slopes was better than predicted by this classification (Tsimbaos and Telli, 1991; Budetta et al., 1994; Zuyu, 1995; Romana, 1996; Romana, 1997). The possible causes of this effect are broadly debated.

11 PRELIMINARY ROCK-SLOPE-SUSCEPTIBILITY ASSESSMENT 319 Table III. Stability classes according to the SMR (Romana, 1985) Class SMR Description Stability Failures Treatment V 0 20 Very poor Very unstable Large planar or Reexcavation soil-like failures IV Poor Unstable Planar or large Extensive wedges corrective III Fair Partially stable Some joints or Systematic many wedges II Good Stable Some blocks Occasional I Very good Fully stable None None Thus, for example, with regard to this trend some authors contend that the index SMR seeks to evaluate long- term behaviour, while in many cases the observations made correspond to recent slopes where the highest degree of instability has not yet been reached (Romana, 1996). Other researchers ascribe this tendency to the medium-to-high values ( 25, 50, 60) attributed to factor F3 for from fair to very unfavourable taken directly from the Bieniawski classification (Budetta et al., 1994). Still another explanation is that this fact arose for not having taken into account the effect of the height of the slope in calculating the SMR index (Tsimbaos and Telli, 1991; Zuyu, 1994; Romana, 1996), and some authors have even proposed a correction factor for height (Zuyu, 1994; Romana, 1996). For these reasons, a less unfavourable SMRi value was considered, such as the arithmetic mean of all of the computed ones (SMRAV). In order to determine which of these two possibilities better fits the actual field data, compared the degree of instability noticed at each slope site (field FAILURES of the SLOPES variable) was compared with these two variables (SMRMIN and SMRAV). Table IV shows the results of the cross-analysis between the minimum SMR index and the average SMR and the degree of instability observed. A correspondence might be expected between the SMR value (susceptibility class) of a given cut slope and its behaviour (instability class). Slopes classified as very bad should behave as very unstable, and those bad as unstable, etc.. That is to say, in theory, all the cases should concentrate along the diagonal of the matrix, in such a way that the closer they approach the results reached with the theoretic situation, the better the variable used in the appraisal of the behaviour of the slope. With the use of the minimum SMR value (SMRMIN), only in 9 cases (22.5%), was a correspondence found between the stability observed and the preliminary susceptibility computed. In 19 cases, the failure susceptibility was one degree higher (these correspond to the 3 cases classified as susceptibility class V but with instability behaviour of IV, and to the 16 cases of susceptibility class IV with instability behaviour III). In 8 slopes it was two degrees higher (2 cases classified as susceptibility class V with instability

12 320 C. IRIGARAY ET AL. Table IV. Number of slopes obtained as a result of the cross-analysis between damage observed in the slopes studied and the susceptibility evaluated using the minimum SMR index ( ) and using the average SMR (+) Susceptibility V. Very IV. Bad III. Normal II. Good I. Very bad good Instability V. Very unstable 0 ( ) 0( ) 0( ) 0( ) 0( ) 0(+) 0(+) 0(+) 0(+) 0(+) IV. Unstable 3 ( ) 2( ) 0( ) 0( ) 0( ) 0(+) 4(+) 1(+) 0(+) 0(+) III. Partially stable 2 ( ) 16( ) 7( ) 0( ) 0( ) 0(+) 0(+) 25 (+) 0(+) 0(+) II. Stable 0 ( ) 1( ) 0( ) 0( ) 0( ) 0(+) 0(+) 1(+) 0(+) 0(+) I. Fully stable 0 ( ) 4( ) 5( ) 0( ) 0( ) 0(+) 0(+) 5(+) 4(+) 0(+) class III, 1 case classified as susceptibility class IV with instability class II and 5 cases classified as susceptibility class III with instability class I). Finally, in 4 cases it was three degrees higher (classified as susceptibility class IV with instability class I). It can therefore be stated that the susceptibility evaluation according to the minimum SMR index is not very good and is too conservative, since the stability values in the present study generally proved lower than those actually observed. On consideration of the average SMR (SMRAV), the results of this cross-analysis were: in 29 slopes (72.5%) the computed preliminary susceptibility adjusted perfectly to the degree of stability observed, 1 slope had a susceptibility class one degree lower than the instability observed, and 10 slopes had a susceptibility higher than observed (5 were one degree higher and 5 were two degrees higher). As seen above, the calculation of SMR of the most unfavourable set (SMRMIN) was determined by the statistical analysis of the individual discontinuities that constitute this set. Each geomechanical parameter of the set was evaluated as the mode or mean of the parameters of the individual discontinuities. This implies that the evaluation of each parameter of the family will always be equal to or more unfavourable than the evaluation of the same parameter in each of the individual discontinuities that constitute the set. The result was that the SMRMIN calculated will in general be more unfavourable than the real stability of the discontinuities in the slope. The calculation of the SMRAV minimizes this effect, and therefore the correspondence with the real stability will be greater. In conclusion, with the criteria adopted in this study, it is preferable to evaluate the failure susceptibility

13 PRELIMINARY ROCK-SLOPE-SUSCEPTIBILITY ASSESSMENT 321 of rock masses using the average value of the SMR indices computed for each discontinuity set. Figure 2 shows the susceptibility map drawn using this criterion. Two types of landslide-susceptibility maps can be differentiated using the SMR: (1) susceptibility maps for natural slopes or real ones, such as the one presented in the present work; and (2) susceptibility maps for future slopes having a prefixed geometry and orientation. In the first case, the SIG constitute a highly appropriate tool for automating the process of preparing these maps. In the second case, the problem is much more complex and cannot be undertaken in a 2-D system. In any case, it should not be forgotten that these susceptibility maps should not be used alone, but rather in the context of an overarching process of engineering design and only in preliminary and/or planning phases. 6. Conclusions Landslide-susceptibility maps provide valuable information on the conditions of stability over wide areas, which is of great use both in the planning phase of major public works and in their actual design, when adopting adequate prevention and correction measures. However, this type of geomechanical calculation should not be used on its own and is only valid in the preliminary and/or planning phases. Geomechanical classifications in general and, more specifically, SMR, allow failure susceptibility of rock masses to be qualitatively evaluated. The SMR classification is quite straightforward, quick and can be applied in natural and cut slopes using the tools provided by Geographic Information Systems. The automation of this calculation requires the acceptance of a number of hypotheses, which are generally more unfavourable than the real-life conditions. Therefore, the average value of the SMR index computed for the different discontinuity sets has been considered to be the most representative value of rock-slope failure susceptibility. Comparing the susceptibility map thus drawn with the instability observed in the field reveals that the proposed methodology explains quite efficiently the spatial distribution of the instability phenomena. The results show the usefulness of the SMR parameters to be used in GIS applications to rock fall hazard along roads. This is particularly evident for the preparation of slope failure-susceptibility maps at detailed scales for cutting new roads or widening existing ones. Nevertheless, data relative to discontinuities or intact rock masses and their mechanical properties must be gathered from outcrops or drilling and the quality and statistical significance of these data will determine the resulting GIS modelling of landslide susceptibility. Acknowledgements This research has been financed by the CICYT Project Cartografía y Análisis de movimientos de masa y riesgos asociados en taludes y laderas excavadas en macizos rocosos metamórficos mediante un Sistema de Información Geográfica:

14 322 C. IRIGARAY ET AL. Figure 2. Rock slope failure susceptibility map (average SMR). Stability classes refer to Table III. T1-a to T11-b: slope units.

15 PRELIMINARY ROCK-SLOPE-SUSCEPTIBILITY ASSESSMENT 323 Aplicación a la cuenca de Gualchos-Rubite-Polopos-Sorvillán (Granada), Ref. AMB C References Aldaya, F.: 1981, Mapa geológico de España, E. 1:50.000, 1056 (Albuñol), Segunda serie, IGME, Madrid, Mapa y memoria explicativa, 39 pp. Bieniawski, Z. T.: 1979, The geomechanics classification in rock engineering applications, ISRM Montreux, Proc. 4th Int. Cong. on Rock Mech., Balkema, Rotterdam, pp Bieniawski, Z. T.: 1993, Classification of rock masses for engineering. The RMR system and future trends, in J. Hudson (ed.), Comprehensive Rock Engineering, Pergamon Press, London, vol. 3, pp Budetta, P., Calcaterra, D., and Santo, A.: 1994, Engineering-geological zoning of potentially unstable rock slopes in Sorrentine Peninsula (South Italy), 7th Int. IAEG Cong., Balkema, Rotterdam, pp Chacón, J. and Irigaray, C.: 1999, Previsión espacial de movimientos de ladera y riesgos asociados mediante S.I.G., in Luis Laín Huerta (ed.), Los Sistemas de Información Geográfica en los Riesgos Naturales y el Medio Ambiente, pp Deere, D. U., Hendron, A. J., Patton, F. D., and Cordin, E.: 1967, Design of surface and near-surface construction rock, American Institute of Mining, Metallurgical and Petroleum Engineers, Failure and Breakage of Rock, 8th U.S. Symp. on Rock Mech., Minneapolis, Minesota, pp Habibagahi, G. and Katebi, S.: 1996, Rock mass classification using fuzzy sets, Iranian Jour. of Sci. and Tech. 20(3), Irigaray, C. Fernández, T, and y Chacón, J Evaluación de la estabilidad en taludes rocosos. Aplicación del SMR mediante un S.I.G., V Simposio Nacional Taludes y Laderas Inestables, Madrid, vol. I, pp ISRM suggested methods: 1978, Quantitative description of discontinuities in rock masses, Int. Jour. Rock Mech. and Min. Sci. 15, Kirkaldie, L.: 1985, Rock Classification System for Engineering Purposes, ASTM STP 984, Cincinnati, Ohio, 167 pp. Lindsay, P., Campbell, R. N., Fergusson, D. A., Gillard, G. R., and Moore, T. A.: 2001, Slope stability probability classification, Waikato Coal Measures, New Zealand, Int. Jour. of Coal Geology 45(2 3), Palmstrom, A.: 1982, The volumetric joint count a useful simple measure of the degree of rock jointing, Proc. 4th Congress IAEG, Delhi, vol. 5, pp Rocscience: 2000, DIPS (5.00) Windows, Rocscience, Inc., Toronto, Ontario. Romana, M.: 1985, New adjustment ratings for application of Bieniawski classification to slopes, in ISRM Zacatecas, Int. Symp. on the Role of Rock Mechanics, pp Romana, M.: 1992, Métodos de corrección de taludes según la clasificación Geomecánica SMR, III Simposio Nacional sobre Taludes y Laderas Inestables, La Coruña, vol. II, pp Romana, M.: 1997, El papel de las clasificaciones geomecánicas en el estudio de la estabilidad de taludes, in Alonso et al. (eds.),iv Simposio nacional sobre taludes y laderas inestables, Granada, vol. III, pp Selby, M. J.: 1980, A rock mass strength classification for geomorphic purposes: with tests from Antarctica and New Zealand, Z. Geomorph NF 24(1), Serón, J. B., Romana, M., Montalar, E., Cruzado, J. M., and Denia, J. L: 2001, Aplicación de la clasificación geomecánica SMR mediante un Sistema de Información Geográfica (SIG), V Simposio Nacional Taludes y Laderas Inestables, Madrid, vol. I, pp

16 324 C. IRIGARAY ET AL. Tsiambaos, G. and Telli, D.: 1992, Application of rock mass classification system on stability of limestones slopes, in Bell (ed.), Landslides, Proceedings of the International Symposium on Landslides, Balkema, Rotterdam, pp Zuyu, C.: 1995, Recent developments in slope stability analysis, in Fujii (ed.), Proc. 8th Int. ISRM Congress, Vol. 3, pp