Bulletin of Engineering Geology and the Environment (2022) 81:29

https://doi.org/10.1007/s10064-021-02524-8

ORIGINAL PAPER

Novel methods for quantitative analysis of kinematic stability

and slope mass rating in jointed rock slopes with the aid of a new
computer application
Jagadish Kundu1 · Kripamoy Sarkar1 · A. K. Verma2 · T. N. Singh3

Received: 25 August 2021 / Accepted: 2 December 2021

© Springer-Verlag GmbH Germany, part of Springer Nature 2021

Abstract
Kinematic analysis is a widely used method to assess stability condition in jointed rock slopes and predict the modes of block
detachments. However, consideration of kinematic failures as crisp values (e.g., 0 for failure otherwise 1) in the conventional
analysis is a limit to the susceptibility quantification. This paper has introduced novel methods based on the adjustment fac-
tors of slope mass rating (SMR) to quantify kinematic susceptibility of planar, wedge, and topple failure modes in terms of
percentage/indices. Manual calculation of SMR is tedious and time-consuming, particularly when a large number of joints
are involved. Hence, a method has been devised for the quantitative determination of both kinematic susceptibility and SMR
with the help of a computer application. A computer application named EasySMR has been developed to automate and
ease the calculation process. The application can incorporate a large number of joint data to provide convenient numeral,
graphical and pie-chart interpretation of the kinematic susceptibility and SMR results. The algorithm has been validated with
the results of 35 rock slopes from the Himalayan region, India. A few case studies have been presented to demonstrate the
functionality of the program and enhanced capabilities which enables rigorous and accurate analysis of rock slope stability.

Keywords Computer application · Kinematic susceptibility · Slope mass rating · EasySMR

Introduction and extensive material properties, expertise, better computer

processor and dedicated software which, makes the analysis
Quick and reliable assessment of rock mass behavior is time-consuming as well as expensive. Kinematic analysis
highly valuable in rock slope engineering practices. During of rock slopes is a simple, conventional yet effective and
or after excavations of a jointed rock mass, the essential widely used method to determine the stability of a jointed
part is to check the stability conditions so that a safe and slope. In the kinematic analysis, the geometrical arrange-
stable slope design can be assured. Use of numerical meth- ments of the prevailing joints are analyzed for the possible
ods such as discontinuity deformation analysis (DDA) and modes of failures, i.e., planar, wedge, or topple. Use of ste-
distinct element methods (DEM) are much effective in deter- reonet to check the geometrical feasibility of failure in a rock
mining modes of failure and rigorous analysis of jointed slope is qualitative and time-consuming. This conventional
rock slopes (Wu 2010; Wu et al. 2017, 2018; Wu and Hsieh method of kinematic analysis can only handle a few joints,
2021). These rigorous numerical methods require precise so a representative joint from a set is generally considered.
Hence, the absence of a tight data cluster (which is common
in nature) induces erroneous results in the analysis. There-
* Kripamoy Sarkar fore, for a practical and effective investigation in a short
kripamoy.sarkar@gmail.com
time, there is a need of a computerized method that can aid
1
Department of Applied Geology, Indian Institute quick and quantitative stability analysis using numerous
of Technology (ISM) Dhanbad, Jharkhand 826004, India joint orientations.
2
Department of Mining Engineering, Indian Institute Over the years, several Rock Mass Classification (RMC)
of Technology BHU, Varanasi, Uttar Pradesh 221005, India systems have been proposed for estimation of rock mass sta-
3
Department of Earth Sciences, Indian Institute of Technology bility through empirical methods, e.g., RMR (Bieniawski
Bombay, Mumbai 400076, India 1989), RMS (Selby 1980), Q (Barton et al. 1974), and GSI

13
Vol.:(0123456789)
 29 Page 2 of 19 J. Kundu et al.

(Hoek et al. 1998). These systems are helpful for the assess- described in Table 1. Among the continuous functions that
ment of the rock mass classes/condition and associated are available for the calculation of adjustment factors, the
behavior using field and laboratory-generated data. Designers functions proposed by Tomás et al. (2007) are comprehensive
also use these systems to calculate and apply site-specific and widely used. These functions are ( given )as:
( )
remedial measures for rock slope strengthening purpose. Few F1 = 16
− 3
tan −1 1
(|𝛼| − 17) ; F2 = 16 + 195 tan
9 1 −1 17
β − 5 for
100
classification systems are also specifically designed for slope
25 500 10
planar, topple, and wedge failure; and F3 = − 30 + 13 tan−1 γ
such as SMR (Romana 1985), Slope Rock Mass Rating for planar and wedge failure; F3 = − 13 − 1 tan−1 (γ − 120) for
(SRMR, Robertson 1988), Slope Stability Probability Clas- 7
topple failure. Where 𝛼 , 𝛽 , and 𝛾 are values described sepa-
sification (SSPC, Hack et al. 2003), and Q-Slope (Bar and rately for planar, wedge, and topple failure as αP, αW, αT; βP,
Barton 2017). This study however is concerned with SMR βW, βT; γp, γw, γT respectively in Fig. 1. These notations are
due to its popularity among slope stability investigation fra- further described in Table 1 and will be used from here onwards.
ternity. The reliability of SMR makes it well-known among The functions proposed by Tomás et al. (2007) have been used
engineering geologist and rock engineering practitioners. The to determine adjustment factors in this study. Previously, though
inclusion of slope-joints orientation related correction factors there have been few attempts to analyze kinematic failure quan-
is the most advantageous feature in SMR since the unfavora- titatively, there is no method or tool to calculate slope mass
ble orientation of particular discontinuity set(s) majorly gov- rating for a large number of joints. Here, in this article, we pre-
ern rock slope failure. Initially, SMR was introduced for pla- sent new methods and a tool for quick and better quantification
nar and topple failures of rock slopes to characterize and of kinematic susceptibility and slope mass rating. We have uti-
classify the rock mass stability condition (Romana 1985). lized a vector approach to perform the calculations through a
Anbalagan et al. (1992) have modified the SMR by adding computer algorithm written in C# language. The algorithms
correction factors to the wedge type of failure. Consequently, for quantitative kinematic analysis and slope mass rating with
SMR can now quantify the stability class for the planar, a graphic user interface (GUI) have been bundled into a com-
wedge, and topple type of failures. Determination of SMR puter application named EasySMR. The EasySMR has also
through the conventional method is always time taking and been customized to provide different quantitative indices and
complicated job, which involves a four-step process as graphical outputs for better interpretation. The option to export
described in Fig. 1. Generally, the values of F1, F2, and F3 are all the calculations to an MS Excel file can help the user in
determined from the discrete table proposed by Romana further filtration and/or statistical analysis of the results.
(1985) and later modified by Anbalagan et al. (1992) as

Fig. 1  The processes involved in the manual calculation of SMR RQD = rock quality designation, DS = discontinuity spacing,
and schematic diagrams with associated notations for planar, wedge, GWC = ground water condition, DC = discontinuity conditions
and flexural topple failure. UCS = uniaxial compressive strength,

13
Novel methods for quantitative analysis of kinematic stability and slope mass rating in jointed… Page 3 of 19 29

Table 1  Adjustment factors for planar, wedge, and topple failure as suggested by Romana (1985) and Anbalagan et al. (1992)
Case of slope failure Very favorable Favorable Fair Unfavorable Very unfavorable

P |αj − αs|= αp >30° 30°–20° 20°–10° 10°–5° < 5°

T |αj − αs − 180|= αT
W |αi − αs|
P/W/T F1 0.15 0.40 0.70 0.85 1.00
P |βj|= βp <20° 20°–30° 30°–35° 35°–45° > 45°
W |βi|= βw
P/W F2 0.15 0.40 0.70 0.85 1.00
T F2 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0
P |βj − βs|= γp >10° 10° – 0° 0° 0° – (−10°) < −10°
W |βi − βs|= γw
T |βj + βs|= γT <110° 110°–120° >120° – –
P/W/T F3 0 −6 −25 −50 −60
Excavation method Natural slope Pre-splitting Smooth blasting Normal blasting or Poor blasting
mechanical excavation
P/W/T F4 +15 +10 +8 0 −8

P planar failure, T toppling failure, W wedge failure, αs slope dip direction, αj joint dip direction, αi azimuth (trend) of the line of intersection,
βs slope dip, βj joint dip, βi plunge of the line of intersection

Material and methods intersections) that can potentially cause failures to the total
number of failure elements. However, the kinematic analysis
Quantification of kinematic susceptibility and SMR for a single plane/wedge provides crisp results in terms 1
or 0, (i.e. fails or do not fail) both in conventional stere-
Markland’s test is the most popular method for determin- onet analysis and the quantitative analysis developed so far.
ing plane, wedge, and flexural topple failure described in Therefore, to quantify the kinematic susceptibility, we have
Hoek and Bray (1981). According to Markland’s test, a joint developed equations based on the adjustment factors used
plane in a rock slope is susceptible to failure when αp ≤ ­200, to quantify effect of discontinuity orientations in slope mass
i.e., joint plane is parallel or sub-parallel to the slope face rating. SMR is calculated by adding adjustment factors to the
and θ ≥ βP ≥ Ф, where, θ, inclination of slope and Ф is the basic RMR, which consist of five parameters; uniaxial com-
joint friction angle. These notations are used hencefor- pressive strength (UCS), rock quality designation (RQD),
ward. For a wedge failure to occur, the conditions should be discontinuity spacing (DS), groundwater condition (GWC),
αw ≤ ­900, i.e., the plunge of the line of intersection is ± 90° and discontinuity conditions (DC). SMR does not consider
to the slope direction and θ ≥ βw ≥ Ф (as in Fig. 1). Topple the sixth qualitative parameter of RMR, (i.e., discontinuity
failure can occur in a steeply inward dipping joint parallel orientation) and incorporates semi-quantitative adjustment
or sub-parallel to the slope face (αT ≤ 10°). According to factors for better assessment of the geometrical stability of
Goodman (1989), the flexural topple involves an interlayer jointed rocks. Figure 1 depicts manual calculation steps for
slip and can happen if (90 – βT) + Φ < θ (refer Fig. 1). The SMR.
stereographic method for kinematic analysis is widely used
and documented in several books like Goodman (1989) SMR of a single plane wedge failure
and Wyllie and Mah (2017). However, this graphical pro-
cedure is time-consuming, and the plot may incur human A wedge is formed by intersection of two planes and can fail
error when the analysis involves numerous discontinuities on both the planes or on a single plane. The wedge can fail
(in hundreds or thousands). A vector approach was pro- on a single plane when dip direction of one plane lies inside
posed by Leung and Kheok (1987), which is suitable for a the included angle between slope direction and direction
simple kinematic analysis on a micro-computer. EasySMR of the line of intersection of the two planes responsible for
uses similar vector method to solve the orientations related making the wedge. Figure 2a shows an example in which
calculations. Admassu and Shakoor (2013) have introduced joint 1 and joint 2 intersect to form a wedge with the line of
failure indices for quantitative kinematic analysis, which intersection towards 29° N. The intersection direction along
is determined by the ratios of failure elements (planes and with the slope direction (10° N) forms an included angle.

13
 29 Page 4 of 19 J. Kundu et al.

Fig. 2  a Stereographic representation of wedge failure on a single the slope has a continuous variation in its azimuth from N 10° to N
plane, b stereographic representation of wedge failure on both the 50°, d kinematic analysis of a jointed curved rock slope, e graphical
intersecting planes, c a schematic diagram of the curved slope where representation of SMR for planar and wedge failure of a curved slope

The joint 1 with dip direction towards 13° lies inside the SMR calculation, it is not differentiated whether the SMR
included angle which, hence fulfills the criteria for single is for a single plane wedge failure (Fig. 2a) or for a wedge
plane wedge failure on joint 1. For a wedge sliding on both failure that slides on both the intersecting planes (Fig. 2b).
the intersecting planes, the dip direction of joint 1 and joint However, this study includes separate consideration for each
2 lies outside the included angle as in Fig. 2b. In traditional of the wedge failure type. A different approach to consider

13
Novel methods for quantitative analysis of kinematic stability and slope mass rating in jointed… Page 5 of 19 29

single plane wedge failure has been represented in Fig. 2. and F3 are the factors when multiplied, provides a quanti-
Figure 2c is an illustration of a curved slope with a con- fied value on a scale of 0 to −60 based on the geometrical
vex curve whose face starts at 10° azimuth and increases arrangements of the joints and slope face. If there are “n”
as we go along the slope on the road up to an azimuth of number of joints’ orientation input for a particular site,
50°. Figure 2d exhibits the kinematic analysis of a wedge then the planar adjustment factor (p.a.f) = F1 × F2 × F3)
failure through stereographic projection of the curved slope is calculated for each joint plane. From Table 1, it is
in Fig. 2c and the joint orientations. The technique for the observed that the maximum value of − (F1 × F2 × F3) can
kinematic analysis of the curved slope has been described in be 60 for a very highly susceptible joint. Hence, the value
detail by Kundu et al. (2016). SMR value for planar failure of −(F1 × F2 × F3) for the considered failure type is divided
along Joint 1 and wedge failure due to intersection of Joint by 60 and multiplied by 100 to represent the susceptibility
1 and Joint 2 along the curved slope has been represented in percentage. For “n” number of joints, p.a.f. is summed
in Fig. 2e. The figure demonstrates varying SMR for planar up for all joints and divided by 60 × n to give the suscep-
failure (dashed black curve) and double plane wedge failure tibility index/percentage. Therefore, the Eq. 1 for planar
(red solid curve) from one direction (N 10°) to the other (N failure susceptibility index. Similar logic has been applied
50°) along the slope face. At the slope direction 10°, SMR for all other types of failure indices.
for planar failure (PSMR) = 12 and SMR for double plane �∑ �
p.a.f
wedge failure (WSMR) = 26, whereas at slope direction 25°, Planar kinematic susceptibility index = − × 100,
PSMR = 22.5 and WSMR = 12.5. Hence, we can have differ- 60 × n
ent SMR values depending upon the consideration of mode (1)
∑
of failure (i.e., single plane wedge or double plane wedge where p.a.f = summation of adjustment factors
failure) for the same detachable block. While determin- (F1 × F2 × F3) of each plane for planar failure.
ing SMR of a single plane wedge failure, we have now two In the case of wedge failure, the total number of intersections
options; we can either consider it a plane failure or a wedge formed due to “n” number of joints; Wn = n(n − 1)∕2. Hence,
failure, but the difference between PSMR and WSMR for �∑ �
w.a.f
the same block can be too large that the rating can vary by Wedge kinematic susceptibility index = − × 100,
60 × Wn
one class. Therefore, for a single plane wedge failure, at a
(2)
particular slope direction, we have conservatively consid- ∑
ered the minimum value between PSMR and WSMR in the where w.a.f = summation of adjustment factors
presented method. (F1 × F2 × F3) of all wedges.
In case of combination of two similar joints, the total number
of wedges is reduced as they would not form any intersections.
Theory and calculation Likewise,
�∑ �
t.a.f
Developed formula Topple kinematic susceptibility index = − × 100,
60 × n
(3)
To estimate the probability of a single plane to failure, ∑
we have introduced F1, F2, and F3 (the adjustment factors where t.a.f = summation of adjustment factors
in SMR) to represent the kinematic susceptibility for pla- (F1 × F2 × F3) of all planes for toppling failure.
nar, wedge, and flexural topple failures. F1, F2, and F3 can Total number of plane and intersection elements (number
be determined from the prescribed value in Table 1 or by of calculations/iterations) are (2n + Wn) i.e., “n” number for
using the continuous functions (described in the “Introduc- planar failure, “n” number for topple failure and, Wn num-
tion” section) developed by Tomás et al. (2007). F1, F2, ber of wedge failures. But, when a joint is prone to planar

Fig. 3  The figure represents the methodology followed for SMR calculation in EasySMR

13
 29 Page 6 of 19 J. Kundu et al.

Fig. 4  a Screenshot of the graphical user interface (GUI) of the program (not maximized), b sample outputs in an exported MS Excel sheet, c
the input format to be maintained in the Excel sheet so that it can be imported correctly

failure, the topple adjustment factors for it would be negli- for planar, wedge, and topple has been added and the result-
gible and when a joint is prone to topple failure, the planar ant is divided by n + Wn (only “n” number of elements have
adjustment factors would be negligible. Therefore, to calcu- been considered for planar and topple elements together).
late overall susceptibility, summation of adjustment factors Thus, after normalization and conversion to the percentage,
�∑ ∑ ∑ �
p.a.f + w.a.f + t.a.f
Overall kinematic susceptibility index = − × 100 (4)
60 × (n + Wn)

Fig. 5  Sample image of exported SMR frequency graph (left) and pie chart (right)

13
Novel methods for quantitative analysis of kinematic stability and slope mass rating in jointed… Page 7 of 19 29

Scan line surveys, window surveys, or any other suitable by the total number of iterations i.e., (2 × n) + Wn. The more
methods are followed for collection of well-distributed joint stable the slope is, the less susceptible to failure it is. As SMR
orientations in a slope (Priest 1993). With a greater number of indicates a stability number out of 100, a difference of overall
well-distributed joint data, the stability analysis becomes more SMR from 100 would indicate the slope mass susceptibility.
accurate and meaningful, but there is a need to develop a suita- �∑ ∑ ∑ �
PSMR + WSMR + TSMR
ble method for quantitative evaluation of SMR (for all the planes Slope mass susceptibility = 100 −
(2 × n) + Wn
and intersections) so that an easy interpretation can be done. (5)
Hence, to determine overall SMR for the whole slope, a param- ∑ ∑ ∑
eter called “slope mass susceptibility” has been introduced in where PSMR, WSMR, and TSMR are the summation
Eq. 5. For “n” number of joints, there are “n” number of SMR of SMR of all planes, wedges, and topples respectively.
for planar failures, “n” number of SMR for toppling failures and Computer algorithms have been developed to deter-
‘Wn’ number of SMR for wedge failures. Therefore, the summa- mine the calculations as mentioned in Eqs. 1–5 in an iter-
tion for all planar, wedge, and topple failure has been divided ative process and bundled into an application EasySMR.

Fig. 6  Algorithm flowchart for kinematic analysis and SMR for planar failure

13
 29 Page 8 of 19 J. Kundu et al.

After kinematic analysis, the orientations of joints or provided input boxes. The application is also devised to
intersections are considered for SMR calculations of produce a bar chart and pie chart for each type of failure
the planar, wedge, or topple failure. We have used the so that a qualitative interpretation can be made from the
continuous functions proposed by Tomás et al. (2007) vast quantitative results. A sample of these charts is dis-
to determine the adjustment factors (discussed in the played in Fig. 5. The pie chart diagram helps to visualize
“Introduction” section). Figure 3 represents a simplistic the relative frequency of elements in each class of SMR.
methodology that has been followed to determine kin- Class I in the pie chart represents very good quality, class
ematic failure and SMR in EasySMR. A screenshot of the II—good, class III—normal, class IV—bad, and class V
application is displayed in Fig. 4. The joint orientation represents very bad quality rock mass (Romana 1985).
data of any slope should be imported in the dip and dip Another vital option in the program calculates aver-
direction format or can be incorporated manually using age SMR for a user-defined percentage of the elements.

Fig. 7  Algorithm flowchart for kinematic analysis and SMR for topple failure

13
Novel methods for quantitative analysis of kinematic stability and slope mass rating in jointed… Page 9 of 19 29

Fig. 8  Algorithm for kinematic analysis and SMR for wedge failure and susceptibility indices

13
29 Page 10 of 19 J. Kundu et al.

13
 Novel methods for quantitative analysis of kinematic stability and slope mass rating in jointed… Page 11 of 19 29

◂Fig. 9  Locations for determination of SMR and representation of Similarly, TDIFF (the difference between SA and 180 ─
SMR classes for 35 rock slopes. The locations in the google earth JDD) is determined for toppling failure, followed by TAP-
image in the center have been zoomed in to show the SMR class of
each location through color indices (as described in the right side of
DIP (the apparent dip of slope along 180 ─ JDD). Then,
the figure). Field images for selected slopes have been given at the the value of the F1, F2, and F3 factors is determined along
top and bottom of the figure with the topple adjustment factor (t.a.f), i.e., F1 × F2 × F3.
If TDIFF ≤ TLL and 90 − β + Φ < θ, then it is a yes for flex-
ural topple, and topple failure count (t.f.c.) is increased by
Elements/failure elements here refer to all the possible 1. SMR for toppling failure (TSMR) is then calculated by
planes for planar failure, topple failure and all the lines adding the t.a.f. to the basic RMR and adjustment factor
of intersection for wedge failure. For instance, a user has F 4. The process for planar and topple failure is repeated
10,000 elements including planar, wedge, and topple for “n” number of planes.
failure and the user wants to know the average SMR for In the case of wedge failure, the number of possible
lower 40% of all these elements. In this case, the applica- wedges is determined from “n” number of planes by
tion would arrange SMR of each element in an increasing n(n − 1)∕2 . For combination of planes with similar ori-
order for all the elements and then calculate average SMR entations, there will be no wedge formation. Hence, the
for the first 4000 elements. Possible interpretations of the number of wedges is reduced. The trend and plunge are
bar chart have been explained through the case studies in determined for the intersection between the planes ‘i’ and
the “Case studies” section. ‘i + 1,’ where ‘i’ varies from 0 to ‘n (n − 1) – 2.’ The value
of WAPDIP (the apparent dip of the slope along the inter-
The algorithms of EasySMR section line) is then determined, followed by the value of
WDIFF (the difference between SA and trend of intersec-
One of the advantages of EasySMR is that it analyses and tion line). Now, adjustment factors, i.e., F 1 × F2 × F3 are
helps in the easy interpretation of any number of joints that determined for both the intersecting planes and the line
are incorporated into the program. The program determines of intersection p.a.f. (i), p.a.f. (i + 1), and w.a.f. (adjust-
kinematic susceptibility and SMR for each plane and each ment factors for intersection line). If WDIFF ≤ 90 and θ ≥ β
intersection. The detailed flow chart for calculating all the (apparent) ≥ Ф, then it is a yes for wedge failure, and the
described output results/parameters and smooth execution wedge failure count (w.f.c.) is increased by 1. Then, it is
of the program has been shown in Figs. 6, 7, and 8. The checked for a single plane or double plane wedge failure.
input of parameters, i.e., basic RMR, orientation of joint(s) If the failure is on either of the planes, then WSMR is cal-
and slope, joint friction angle, the lateral limits for planar culated for the sliding plane and the intersection line, out
(PLL) and topple failure (TLL) (suggested as 20° and 10° of which the lowest is considered for further calculation.
respectively), and adjustment rating for excavation method This process is repeated for total number of intersection
are followed by an analysis of a plane or wedge. The lat- lines. The planar, wedge, and topple kinematic suscep-
eral limit is the maximum difference between strike of the tibility index is then determined using Eqs. 1, 2, and 3,
slope and joint above which there is a significant resistance respectively. Overall kinematic susceptibility index is then
towards the failure along the joint surface. For planar and determined using Eq. 4 and slope mass susceptibility from
flexural topple failure, the lateral limits are widely accepted Eq. 5. The algorithms for the calculation process are shown
as 20° and 10° respectively, and therefore, the suggested in Figs. 6, 7, and 8.
values are at these specific angles (Wyllie and Mah 2017).
However, the user can change the limits according to their
judgement or convenience. Validation and results
In case of a planar failure, a parameter PDIFF (the dif-
ference between slope azimuth, SA and joint dip direction, To validate the program, SMR determined through both
JDD) is determined, followed by PAPDIP (the apparent conventional methods and the program EasySMR are
dip of slope along JDD). Then, the value of the F1, F2, and correlated. The traditional way of determination includes
F3 factors are determined using the continuous function kinematic analysis with the help of stereonet and then
of Tomás et al. (2007) and the planar adjustment factor determining adjustment factors using the semi-quantitative
(p.a.f), i.e., F 1 × F2 × F3. If PDIFF ≤ PLL and θ ≥ β ≥ Ф, system proposed by Romana (1985). The decision of
for a plane, then it is a yes for planar failure and the pla- adjustment factors through Romana (1985) still needs
nar failure count (p.f.c.) is increased by 1. However, SMR human judgements and expertise. The program uses con-
for planar failure (PSMR) is then calculated by adding tinuous functions proposed by Tomás et al. (2007) for
the p.a.f. to the basic RMR and adjustment factor F4. the purpose. A total of 35 rock slopes along the National

13
 29 Page 12 of 19 J. Kundu et al.

calculated SMR and SMR obtained through EasySMR.

The R 2 value of 0.94 for linear regression represents a
less scattered data, while the slope of the regression line
(1.03) represents an insignificant variation from the 1:1
line. The maximum difference between SMR in both the
determination process is 9, and the average difference
is 3.14. Hence, the results obtained through EasySMR
are reliable. The variation in the results between manual
calculation and EasySMR is due to the fact that manual
calculation involves representative discontinuity orienta-
tions and adjustment factors from Table 1 while EasySMR
includes all the joints and continuous functions proposed
by Tomás et al. (2007).

Case studies

In order to demonstrate the capabilities of the com-

puter application “EasySMR,” two critical jointed rock
slopes (slope 1 and slope 2) along National Highway-05,
Fig. 10  The plot of SMR determined for manual calculation using Himachal Pradesh, India, were selected for the study. The
conventional method vs. SMR determined through EasySMR
slopes are considered to be critically stable as few rock
blocks are visually concluded to have failed and larger
Highway-05 (Fig. 9) corridor of the Himalayas in northern portions of the slopes may fail with slightest trigger or
India have been considered to validate the equations. Figure with progressive weathering. Detailed field investigation
10 shows a correlation graph plotted between manually of the slopes was followed by determining basic RMR,

Fig. 11  The unstable zone in

slope 1; a shows block failure,
b with evidence of the failure
encroaching upward with time

13
Novel methods for quantitative analysis of kinematic stability and slope mass rating in jointed… Page 13 of 19 29

SMR, and kinematic analysis. Slope 1 is located near for slopes 1 and 2 respectively. Kinematic analysis and
the Nathpa Hydroelectric project (Fig. 11) and slope 2 SMR for slope 1 were calculated using the obtained orien-
(Fig. 12) in the Wangtu region; both in the district Kinn- tation data of 60 number of joints. Analysis for 60 joints
aur, Himachal Pradesh, India. A total of 60 joints for each should produce 60 elements for planar failure, 60 for top-
of the rock slopes were collected through window survey. ple failure and 60 × (60 − 1)/2 i.e. 1770 wedge elements
Dry friction angles for joints were determined through tilt which make total number of elements to be 1890. Instead,
test at the field and found to be 28° and 27° for slopes 1 the program created 1769 number of wedge elements
and 2, respectively. This has to be noted that the consid- making the total to be 1889 elements. This is because
ered friction angle is the average of friction angles for all two joints have similar orientations and therefore can-
three sets of joints. Slopes 1 and 2 have the Basic RMR not make an intersection to form a wedge. Out of 1889
47 and 65, respectively. The list of all the joints for slope elements, 23 planar, 524 wedges (including single and
1 and slope 2 has been given in Table 2. Figure 11 shows double plane failure), and 1 topple failure are prone to
the unstable slope 1 with signatures of encroaching failure failure. Quantitative estimation of failure potential out
towards the top of the slope. of these large set of data would be fair enough to repre-
Results of kinematic analysis and SMR have been sent the condition of the whole slope. The rock mass in
exported to MS Excel and represented in Tables 3 and 4 slope 1 is calculated to be 74.8% susceptible to failure

Fig. 12  A critical jointed rock

slope infested with 3 near per-
pendicular sets of joints forming
unstable cuboid rock blocks

13
 29 Page 14 of 19 J. Kundu et al.

and overall kinematically 38.30% susceptible to failure take adjustment factors from SMR rather than the number
by the computer program using Eqs. 4 and 5 respectively. of kinematically permissible failures, so the kinematic
In terms of planar, wedge, and flexural topple kinematic susceptibility indices provide the probability of failure
failures, the slope is 30.60%, 38.50%, and 1.50% suscep- rather than failure quantity. In addition, the application
tible respectively (Eqs. 1, 2, and 3). The average SMR provides the frequency of SMR in a bin interval of 5 and a
for all the elements (100%) is 24.8. Likewise, for slope pie chart of all the classes (class I to V, represented as 1 to
2, the average SMR is 54.6. For slope 2, out of a total 5 in the chart) for further interpretations. The frequency
of 646 failure elements, 3 are planar, 643 are wedges. graph and pie charts of slope 1 and 2 for all failure ele-
There is no flexural topple failure predicted in slope 2. ments, planar failure elements, wedge failure elements,
Slope 2 has a slope mass susceptibility of 45.4%, planar and topple failure elements are presented in Fig. 13. For
kinematic susceptibility 9.2%, wedge kinematic suscep- SMR frequency of all failure in slope 1, though the aver-
tibility of 18.2%, topple kinematic susceptibility of 1.7%, age SMR is 24.8, most of the elements fall in a SMR bin
and overall kinematic susceptibility of 17.9%. It can be value of 0–5. Also, the corresponding pie chart represents
seen that, though slope 2 has 0 topple failure, it shows a higher number of elements in class V. Hence, the pre-
topple kinematic susceptibility of 1.7%. This is because vention or protection measure should be taken according
the equations for susceptibility calculation (Eqs. 1 to 4) to class V of SMR.

Table 2  List of orientations of the collected joints from slopes 1 and 2

Slope 1 Slope 2
J-1 J-2 J-3 J-1 J-2 J-3
Dip (°) Dip Dip (°) Dip Dip (°) Dip Dip (°) Dip Dip (°) Dip Dip (°) Dip Direction
Direction (°) Direction (°) Direction (°) Direction (°) Direction (°) (°)

53 14 78 269 29 183 50 116 77 243 80 321

54 5 80 284 41 170 44 95 72 226 74 352
58 5 85 278 31 182 49 92 59 249 75 337
39 1 86 265 38 186 39 101 70 246 72 330
53 9 88 288 40 189 52 91 66 242 81 318
42 11 82 250 32 180 43 102 65 269 82 323
55 23 75 272 42 203 49 95 65 261 79 337
44 27 75 275 39 193 44 62 68 226 75 325
57 2 80 255 28 183 37 89 64 257 74 323
49 14 73 270 44 162 52 59 70 259 78 334
51 14 79 293 39 179 49 87 63 227 80 335
50 17 75 274 38 191 52 91 75 239 82 325
32 358 70 294 29 181 43 77 61 287 75 325
47 9 81 270 38 187 40 125 65 255 80 334
45 19 88 277 40 189 42 70 66 253 78 341
42 5 87 288 29 182 58 236 74 332
36 359 32 181 68 245 72 337
37 25 38 183 72 234 79 340
53 26 34 181 63 286 73 330
59 15 51 182 79 335
54 22 41 183 78 341
44 19 75 350
45 9 81 338
62 330
85 329
69 319

13
 Table 3  Results for slope 1 kinematic analysis and SMR calculated through EasySMR and exported to an Excel file
Location Slope_1

Basic RMR 47 Average SMR of lowest 100 % data is 24.8

Slope angle 78 Total failure count 548 Slope mass susceptibility 74.8%
Slope direction 15 Planar 23 Planar kinematic susceptibility 30.6%
Angle of friction 28 Wedge 524 Wedge kinematic susceptibility 38.5%
Adjustment for excavation 0 Topple 1 Topple kinematic susceptibility 1.5%
Planar lateral limit 20 Topple lateral limit 10 Overall kinematic susceptibility 38.30%
Planar Topple Wedge
ID Planar failure SMR Flexural topple SMR Sl. no Joint A Joint B Trend Plunge Failure On joint Towards SMR
1 Yes −8.7 No 44.1 1 1 2 22.6 52.7 Primary double both 22.6 −3.7
2 Yes −1.1 No 44.1 2 1 3 59.4 43 Primary double both 59.4 35.2
3 Yes −1.4 No 44 3 1 4 302.7 23.1 No NA −8.7
4 Yes 9 No 46.7 4 1 5 11.5 53 Primary single 1 14 −9
5 Yes −5.3 No 44.1 5 1 6 290.3 8.3 No NA −8.7
6 Yes −3.8 No 45.6 6 1 7 353.5 51.2 Primary single 1 14 −9
Novel methods for quantitative analysis of kinematic stability and slope mass rating in jointed…

7 Yes −3.5 No 44 7 1 8 74.6 33.1 Primary single 8 27 4

8 Yes 3.7 No 44.6 8 1 9 43.2 49.2 Primary double both 43.2 27.5
9 Yes 3.2 No 44 9 1 10 104 0 No NA 47
10 Yes −8 No 44.2 10 1 11 104 0 No NA 47
… … … … … … … … … … … … … …
… … … … … … … … … … … … … …
60 No 47 No 46.9 1769 59 60 269.6 2.9 No NA 40.1
Page 15 of 19
29

13
 29

13
Page 16 of 19

Table 4  Results for slope 2 kinematic analysis and SMR calculated through EasySMR and exported to an Excel file
Location Slope_2

Basic RMR 65 Average SMR of Lowest 100 % data is 54.6

Slope angle 82 Total failure count 646 Slope mass susceptibility 45.4%
Slope direction 210 Planar 3 Planar kinematic susceptibility 9.2%
Angle of friction 27 Wedge 643 Wedge kinematic susceptibility 18.2%
Adjustment for excavation 0 Topple 0 Topple kinematic susceptibility 1.7%
planar lateral limit 20 Topple lateral limit 10 Overall kinematic susceptibility 17.9%
Planar Topple Wedge
Id Planar failure SMR Flexural topple SMR Sl. no Joint A Joint B Trend Plunge Failure On Joint Towards SMR
1 No 65 No 65 1 1 2 76 42.4 No NA 56.9
2 No 65 No 65 2 1 3 99.2 48.8 No NA 56.9
3 No 65 No 65 3 1 4 53.1 28.5 No NA 56.9
4 No 65 No 65 4 1 5 112.6 50 No NA 56.9
… … … … … … … … … … … … … …
15 No 65 No 65 15 1 16 163.7 38.7 Primary double both 163.7 54.1
16 No 49.2 No 61.8 16 1 17 153.8 43.3 Primary double both 153.8 55
17 Yes 26.5 No 61.9 17 1 18 178.4 28.9 Primary double both 178.4 55.2
18 No 50.9 No 61.9 18 1 19 170.6 34.6 Primary double both 170.6 53.7
19 No 49.8 No 61.8 19 1 20 170.1 34.9 Primary double both 170.1 53.7
… … … … … … … … … … … … … …
60 No 65 No 65 1767 59 60 241.9 30.2 Primary double both 241.9 54.1
J. Kundu et al.
Novel methods for quantitative analysis of kinematic stability and slope mass rating in jointed… Page 17 of 19 29

Fig. 13  SMR of slope 1 an slope 2 failure elements represented in frequency graph and respective classes in pie charts for all failure elements,
planar failure elements, wedge failure elements, and topple failure elements

Discussion and conclusions addition to the application in rock slopes, recently, SMR
classification system has also been applied to check stability
The SMR is considered an indicator of stability of a jointed in open pit mines (Prasetya et al. 2015; Zakaria et al. 2016;
rock slope (Pantelidis 2009) and it provides a detailed Morales et al. 2019) and detect rockfall hazards in moun-
quantitative definition for the correction factors to indicate tainous region (Triana and Hermawan 2020; Albarelli et al.
geometrical instability (Romana et al. 2015). The general 2021). When there is such a wide application of the classi-
practice of SMR determination involves consideration of fication system, the ratings should be determined in a more
representative joints in a rock slope followed by kinematic precise way. A major limitation of conventional method is
analysis of those few joints and addition of the correction that only a few numbers of joints (usually one from each set
factor (F1 × F2 × F3) + F4 (Table 1) of critical failure ele- of joint) are involved in the calculation of SMR, which may
ment to the basic RMR. The conventional method is com- incur high degree of inaccuracy and hence cause inappro-
plex to calculate manually and time-consuming. For this priate decision regarding engineering design. Consideration
reason, there have been a few attempts through graphical of only mean joints for the analysis gives equal weightage
and computer methods to simplify the determination pro- to each set of joints but, in reality, the frequency of each
cess of SMR. Tomás et al. (2012) have proposed a graphical set of joints is not generally the same, and therefore, the
approach to simplify the process. Pastor et al. (2019) have influence of each joint set on the stability of slope is differ-
also developed a MATLAB-based open-source software ent. One way of being precise in the determination of SMR
(SMRTool) to determine SMR. Several works have been is to consider numerous joints in the analysis so that the
done to assess rock slope stability on the basis of slope mass biases in the results are reduced. The joints/discontinuities
rating (Singh et al. 2014, 2015; Sarkar et al. 2016; Mahanta should be collected in such a way that relative proportion
et al. 2016; Siddique et al. 2017; Sardana et al. 2019). In of joint sets in the sample is similar to the population i.e.

13
 29 Page 18 of 19 J. Kundu et al.

relative proportion of joint sets in the whole slope section SMR to avoid any negative consequences. It is also advised
under consideration. Secondly, there should be reduction of to use the indices (Eqs. 1 to 5) only for a large number of
human error and human judgements by introducing a com- discontinuity orientations that are collected in a such a way
puterized method. Finally, there should be indices which that the frequency of different joint sets in the collected data
can derive quantitative meaning from calculations resulted should be similar to the actual field condition. Using these
from involvement of numerous joints. Though there are a indices (Eqs. 1 to 5) while considering only mean joints of
few available computer applications, none of them satisfy all each sets or biased joint data collection can be misleading,
these three requirements. EasySMR, therefore, is designed but the kinematic susceptibility and SMR values for individ-
to fulfil all the basic requirements described above. Another ual joints and intersections provided in the generated table
crucial advantage is that none of the existing application of EasySMR are safe to use.
known to the authors differentiates between the single plane
and double plane wedge failure, whereas this function has Funding This study is funded by the DST (NRDMS) New Delhi [Sanc-
tion No: NRDMS /02/68/017(G); dated 02/08/18].
been newly formulated and added to EasySMR. Detection of
single plane wedge failure would find its immense applica- Code availability Name of code: EasySMR. Developer and contact
tion in the design of rock block stitching methods. address: Jagadish Kundu, Department of Applied Geology, Indian
When it comes to interpreting kinematic results and SMR Institute of Technology (Indian School of Mines) Dhanbad, Dhanbad
values from a large number of planes and wedge, EasySMR Jharkhand – 826004, India. Mobile number: (+91) 9709658454, and
e-mail: jagadishkundu92@gmail.com. Year first available: 2020. Hard-
gives several output parameters like different kinematic and ware required: Dual-core processor, memory 500 MB. The software
slope mass susceptibility indices/ percentages and failure required: Operating system Windows 7 or higher. Program language:
counts. This makes it easy to get a clear picture of planar, C#. Program size:139 Mb. Link to the codes: https://​github.​com/​
wedge, and topple failure separately as well as the overall jagad​ishku​ndu/​EasyS​MR.​git ; Link to the application: https://​jkundu.​
com/​easys​mr.
stability condition. Additionally, EasySMR produces graphi-
cal and pie chart representations of SMR frequencies. The pie
charts and frequency graphs provide freedom to the user for
visual judgements of the number of failure elements in differ-
References
ent ranges of SMR which would help to optimize the design of Admassu Y, Shakoor A (2013) DIPANALYST: a computer program
support measures. The import and export options give more for quantitative kinematic analysis of rock slope failures. Comput
freedom to the user for smooth operation and interpretation Geosci 54:196–202. https://​doi.​org/​10.​1016/j.​cageo.​2012.​11.​018
of the data, mainly when dealing with a large number of Albarelli DSNA, Mavrouli OC, Nyktas P (2021) Identification of
potential rockfall sources using UAV-derived point cloud. Bull
joints. The computer software DIPANALYST, developed by Eng Geol Environ 80:6539–6561. https:// ​ d oi. ​ o rg/ ​ 1 0. ​ 1 007/​
Admassu and Shakoor (2013) efficiently performs quantitative s10064-​021-​02306-2
kinematic analysis but does not calculate SMR. EasySMR, on Anbalagan R, Sharma S, Raghuvanshi TK (1992) Rock mass stability
the other hand, determines SMR and kinematic susceptibility evaluation using modified SMR approach. In: Proceedings of the
6th National Symposium on Rock Mechanics. p 258–268
indices. While DIPANALYST uses only the failure counts and Bar N, Barton N (2017) The Q-slope method for rock slope engineer-
failure elements to derive its indices, EasySMR uses an inno- ing. Rock Mech Rock Eng 50:3307–3322. https://d​ oi.o​ rg/1​ 0.1​ 007/​
vative way to combine the effects of geometrical adjustment s00603-​017-​1305-0
factors from SMR and failure elements to provide kinematic Barton N, Lien R, Lunde J (1974) Engineering classification of rock
masses for the design of tunnel support. Rock Mech 6:189–236
susceptibility indices, which are more robust. Bieniawski ZT (1989) Engineering Rock Mass Classification. Wiley,
However, few precautions should be considered while Chichester
using the program “EasySMR.” It is evident that F3 value for Goodman RE (1989) Introduction to Rock Mechanics, 2nd edn. John
planar and wedge failure changes suddenly for the value of γ Wiley & Sons Ltd, New York
Hack R, Price D, Rengers N (2003) A new approach to rock slope
in between +10 to −10 (refer Fig. 1c in Tomás et al. 2007). stability – a probability classification (SSPC). Bull Eng Geol
Note that the angle “γ” in the current article which expresses Environ 62:167–184. https://​doi.​org/​10.​1007/​s10064-​002-​0155-4
dip relationship between a plane or wedge intersection with Hoek E, Bray JW (1981) Rock Slope Engineering Revised, 3rd edn.
respect to slope angle for planar, wedge, and topple failure The Institution of Mining and Metallurgy, London
Hoek E, Marinos P, Benissi M (1998) Applicability of the Geological
as described in Fig. 1 refers to the angle “C” in Tomás et al. Strength Index (GSI) classification for very weak and sheared rock
(2007). A similar precaution should be considered in case of masses: the case of the Athens Schist Formation. Bull Eng Geol
topple failure for the C value between 110° and 120° (refer Environ 52:151–160
Fig. 1d in Tomás et al. 2007). Such a substantial change Kundu J, Mahanta B, Tripathy A, Sarkar K, Singh TN (2016) Stabil-
ity evaluation of jointed rock slope with curved face. Indorock
in F3 incurs a significant variation in final SMR value. As 2016:971–978
F3 is dependent on slope angle, it is advised to change the Leung CF, Kheok SC (1987) Computer-aided analysis of rock slope
slope angle by ± 5° and check the SMR value. If SMR value stability. Rock Mech Rock Eng 20:111–122. https://​doi.​org/​10.​
changes significantly, it is advisable to consider the lower 1007/​BF014​10042

13
Novel methods for quantitative analysis of kinematic stability and slope mass rating in jointed… Page 19 of 19 29

Mahanta B, Singh HO, Singh PK et al (2016) Stability analysis of Siddique T, Pradhan SP, Vishal V et al (2017) Stability assess-
potential failure zones along NH-305, India. Nat Hazards ment of Himalayan road cut slopes along National Highway
83:1341–1357. https://​doi.​org/​10.​1007/​s11069-​016-​2396-8 58. India Environ Earth Sci 76:759. https://​doi.​org/​10.​1007/​
Morales M, Panthi KK, Botsialas K (2019) Slope stability assessment s12665-​017-​7091-x
of an open pit mine using three-dimensional rock mass modeling. Singh PK, Kainthola A, Singh TN (2015) Rock mass assessment along
Bull Eng Geol Environ 78:1249–1264. https://​doi.​org/​10.​1007/​ the right bank of river Sutlej, Luhri, Himachal Pradesh. India Geo-
s10064-​017-​1175-4 matics Nat Hazards Risk 6(3):212–223. https://​doi.​org/​10.​1080/​
Pantelidis L (2009) Rock slope stability assessment through rock mass 19475​705.​2013.​834486
classification systems. Int J Rock Mech Min Sci 46(2):315–325 Singh R, Umrao RK, Singh TN (2014) Stability evaluation of road-cut
Pastor JL, Riquelme AJ, Tomás R, Cano M (2019) Clarification of slopes in the Lesser Himalaya of Uttarakhand, India: conventional
the slope mass rating parameters assisted by SMRTool, an open- and numerical approaches. Bull Eng Geol Environ 73:845–857.
source software. Bull Eng Geol Environ 78:6131–6142. https://​ https://​doi.​org/​10.​1007/​s10064-​013-​0532-1
doi.​org/​10.​1007/​s10064-​019-​01528-9 Tomás R, Cuenca A, Cano M (2012) A graphical approach for slope
Prasetya I, Narendra R, Wiramsya A, Sophian I, Muslim D (2015) mass rating (SMR). Eng Geol 124:67–76. https://​doi.​org/​10.​
RMR and SMR as slope stability preliminary studies of rajaman- 1016/j.​enggeo.​2011.​10.​004
dala limestone mine area. In: Proceedings of 10th Asian Regional Tomás R, Delgado J, Serón JB (2007) Modification of Slope Mass
Conference of IAEG. p 1–5 Rating (SMR) by continuous functions. Int J Rock Mech Min
Priest SD (1993) Discontinuity analysis for rock engineering. Chapman Sci 44:1062–1069. https://​doi.​org/​10.​1016/j.​ijrmms.​2007.​02.​004
& Hall, London, p 31 Triana K, Hermawan K (2020) Slope mass rating-based analysis
Robertson AM (1988) Estimating weak rock strength. In: Proceedings to assess rockfall hazard on Yogyakarta Southern Mountain.
of the SME Annual 427 meeting, Society of Mining Engineering. Indonesia Geoenviron Disasters 7:24. https://​doi.​org/​10.​1186/​
Phoenix, p 1–5 s40677-​020-​00164-w
Romana M (1985) New adjustment ratings for application of Bieniawski Wu JH (2010) Compatible algorithm for integrations on a block domain
classification to slopes. In: Proceedings of the International Sym- of any shape for three-dimensional discontinuous deformation
posium on the role of rock mechanics, ISRM, Zacatecas, p 49–53 analysis. Comput Geotech 37(1–2):153–163. https://​doi.​org/​10.​
Romana M, Tomás R, Serón JB (2015) Slope Mass Rating (SMR) 1016/j.​compg​eo.​2009.​08.​009
geomechanics classification: thirty years review. In: ISRM Con- Wu JH, Hsieh PH (2021) Simulating the postfailure behavior of the seis-
gress 2015 Proceedings - International Symposium on Rock mically- triggered Chiu-fen-erh-shan landslide using 3DEC. Eng
Mechanics, Quebec, Canada, May 10 to 13 2015. ISBN: 978–1- Geol 287:106113. https://​doi.​org/​10.​1016/j.​enggeo.​2021.​106113
926872–25–4, 10. Wu JH, Lin WK, Hu HT (2017) Assessing the impacts of a large slope
Sardana S, Verma AK, Singh A et al (2019) Comparative analysis failure using 3DEC: The Chiu-fen-erh-shan residual slope. Com-
of rockmass characterization techniques for the stability pre- put Geotech 88:32–45
diction of road cut slopes along NH-44A, Mizoram, India. Wu JH, Lin WK, Hu HT (2018) Post-failure simulations of a large
Bull Eng Geol Environ 78:5977–5989. https://​doi.​org/​10.​1007/​ slope failure using 3DEC: The Hsien-du-shan slope. Eng Geol
s10064-​019-​01493-3 242:92–107. https://​doi.​org/​10.​1016/j.​enggeo.​2018.​05.​018
Sarkar K, Singh AK, Niyogi A et al (2016) The assessment of Wyllie DC, Mah CW (2017) Rock slope engineering: Civil and mining, 4th
slope stability along NH-22 in Rampur-Jhakri Area, Himachal edn. CRC Press, Boca Raton. https://​doi.​org/​10.​1201/​97813​15274​980
Pradesh. J Geol Soc India 88:387–393. https://​doi.​org/​10.​1007/​ Zakaria Z, Oscar AW, Sabila ZS, Jihadi LH (2016) Modified slope
s12594-​016-​0500-z mass rating for slope design in open-pit mining. In: ISRM Interna-
Selby MJ (1980) A rock mass strength classification for geomorphic tional Symposium - EUROCK 2016, ISRM-EUROCK-2016–103
purposes: with tests from Antarctica and New Zealand. Z Geo-
morpho 24:31–51

13