Proceedings, Slope Stability 2011: International Symposium on Rock Slope Stability in Open Pit Mining and Civil

Engineering, Vancouver, Canada (September 18-21, 2011)

Comparison between Russian Code of Practice and International Style
Slope Stability Analysis
X.P. Gwynn, S. Ogorodnikov, M. Brown, A. McCracken SRK Consulting UK Ltd (SRK), Cardiff, United
Kingdom
A. Mochalov, Y. Norvatov, M. Ilyinov, K. Morozov St Petersburg Mining Institute (SPMI), St Petersburg,
Russia

Abstract
Knowledge gained from geotechnical and hydrogeological studies undertaken in parallel between an
International mining consultancy (SRK Consulting UK Ltd) and a Russian design institute (Saint Petersburg
State Mining Institute (SPMI)) has allowed for an insight into the contrasting techniques employed by both
Russian and International analysis methodologies. Russian analytical methods, which are primarily based upon
prescribed codes of practice that designate the processes for slope stability analysis and design are set out
alongside the current International analytical approaches. Some stages of the slope design process are similar
and can be compared; however as Russian and International geotechnical methods developed separately, direct
comparisons cannot always be achieved.
1 Introduction
The paper compares and contrasts the data gathering, geomechanical testing, determination of geotechnical input
parameters for stability modelling, methods of analysis and the acceptability of the outcomes in terms of the
relevant mining safety codes. There is an increasing level of exposure for International mining consultancies in
Russia and many projects will be financed by International funding companies thus resulting in projects that
have to comply with both Russian standards, to achieve Russian permitting, and International standards, to
secure funding. The objective of the paper is to provide International and Russian geotechnical design
practitioners an insight into the requirements of both systems such that they derive acceptable mine design
criteria catered to Russian/International standards. These systems are compared under the following topics:
Reporting Steps;
Data gathering: geotechnical logging and drilling;
Geotechnical testing;
Data evaluation (for input parameters) and hydrogeology;
Analytical methods;
Slope design acceptability criteria; and
Trends and future developments.
Comparisons are made using tables which set the salient points from the Russian and FSU system alongside the
International system for each topic. A short discussion is then given for each section.

2 Comparison of reporting steps between the systems
Russian and FSU System International System
Open pit slope parameters are calculated and refined
through a number of design stages.
Pre-design stage; the prospecting data is used to
develop technical-economic considerations (TES)
regarding the prospects of the deposit, which
justify further resource evaluation. Completion of
the evaluation is marked with preparation of a
technical-economic justification (TEO), of the
deposit which then justifies further exploration,
and forms the basis for development of
temporary exploration parameters which require
appropriate approval from the State Reserve
Committee (GKZ);
TEO; the preliminary exploration data is used to
identify geotechnical rock domains within pit
slopes, which get assigned approximate slope
angles using empirical tables;
TEO Konditsii; results of detailed exploration
are used to compile the technical-economic
justification of permanent parameters for
approval by the GKZ. These parameters are used
to estimate reserves. The TEO Konditsii helps to
decide on the practicability and economic
viability of investing into the proposed mine;
TEO Proekt; at the design stage slope angles are
calculated based on detailed exploration data and
incorporate information regarding the influence
of structures on pit slope stability. Pit slope
parameters are calculated on the basis of
specialized geotechnical studies; the
practicability of which is justified by the design
institutions; and
Continuous assessment during mining;
thorough evaluation of the rock mass properties,
along with pit slope deformation surveys are
carried out throughout the life of mine to revise
pit slope parameters as necessary.
The numerous stages of a slope design for a mining
project are:
Conceptual or scoping study; slope designs are
preliminary, conducted with little data and
primarily based upon the design practitioners
experience with similar rock mass conditions;
Pre-feasibility study; slope designs are based
upon (sometimes limited) drilling and testing
data. The project economics are assessed against
the likely slope angles and mine design;
Feasibility study; update and refinement of the
pre-feasibility study where costs are defined and
slope angles are honed to within a 2-3
accuracy; and
Detailed design, excavation and monitoring;
once the project economics are finalised and
financing has been achieved the detailed design
and construction of the mine commences.
Operating the mine allows for continued
refinement of the pit slope parameters; exposure
of the rock face gives insight into the rock mass
conditions at depth. Slope performance during
the operating stage gives an insight into the
design for the remedial work required for when
the mine closes.
Discussion: The two systems have similar staged design approaches, however direct comparison of Russian
and International reporting steps as equivalents cannot be drawn. The Russian approach is heavily regulated
and must go through each stage whilst receiving approval from the regulator bodies, where the International
approach is more fluid; putting an emphasis on geotechnical risk and sensitivity assessment, and the mitigation
of these risks, throughout the project stages.

3 Comparison of data gathering: geotechnical drilling and logging
Russian and FSU System International System
Major structures in the rock mass are identified at the
exploration stage and, if required by the design
practitioner, can be further studied through additional
geotechnical drilling.
Core logging includes measurements of core pieces
and finding the average length of a core piece, which
is then used to forecast the average size of structural
blocks.
Strength properties of a fractured rock mass are
defined by Fisenkos relation (1965) between
fracturing and rock genesis, composition and tectonic
setting, which allows for the determination of the rock
mass cohesion (depending on its fracture frequency).
The input data includes intact sample strength, size
and share of structural blocks and extent of the
deformable rock mass.
If required, exploration and geotechnical drillholes are
used to supplement hydrogeological studies by
completing pumping tests, among others.
Pit slope angles are calculated for geologically
uniform zones. Each zone is represented as a cross-
section through the pit slope with detailed geological
and other data that affects pit slope parameters.
To build an understanding of the rock mass orientated
triple tube core drilling is undertaken. This data is
used to create and continually update geotechnical,
geological and structural models. Structural domains
are decided upon after stereographic analysis.
Logging of the core is performed using rock mass
characterisation methods, such as;
RQD Rock Quality Designation (Deere et al.
1967);
RMR Rock Mass Rating (Bieniawski 1989);
MRMR Mining Rock Mass Rating (Laubscher
& Jakubek 2001);
Q - Tunnelling Quality Index (Barton 1974); and
GSI (Hoek et al. 1995).
Rock mass characterisation systems produce a single
value to represent the strength properties of a rock
mass. Geotechnical domains are delineated by
assessing the distribution of the parameters in
combination with structural data.
When appropriate, geotechnical and exploration
boreholes may be used to collect hydrogeological data
through pumping tests and piezometer installations.
The layout of the geotechnical boreholes has to ensure
that their number and location are commensurate with
the variability of the conditions and the geometry of
the proposed pit.
All of the gathered data is routinely recorded into
database systems which allow for more efficient data
analysis and QA/QC of data.
Discussion: A similar volume of data is collected to identify the factors that will influence slope stability and
mining conditions, however it should be noted, that Russian and International approaches largely evolved
independently. International data collection methods are quantitative wherever possible, where Russian logging
is more descriptive. Russian drilling equipment and data collection techniques would benefit from
modernisation, such as triple tube drilling.
Both approaches are heavily based on studying rock mass strength properties, but both use different ways of
data gathering and material testing; subsequent analytical calculations are done differently and direct
comparisons are difficult.


4 Comparison of geotechnical testing
Russian and FSU System International System
Geomechanical properties are defined using core
samples from exploration and geotechnical boreholes.
Common parameters used for slope stability
calculations obtained from laboratory tests are as
follows:
UCS and tensile strength;
Youngs Modulus and Poissons Ratio;
Cohesion and angle of internal friction; and
moisture content and density.
Ultimate tensile strength is defined in a number of
ways, such as:
direct tensile test;
Brazilian tensile test; and
point load test using two opposite spherical
indenters (GOST 21153.3-85).
Direct tensile tests are used rarely. The leading
methods are the Brazilian and point load tensile tests.
The Brazilian tensile test involves compressing the
sample between flat plates or cylindrical rods.
Youngs Modulus and Poissons ratio are determined
from samples with height to diameter ratio of 2 (GOST
28985-91). The values are recommended to be
measured in the stress range of 5% to 50% of the peak
strength on the unloading branch of the deformation
curve.
Cohesion and internal angle of friction for hard rock
are determined using a number of methods (GOST
21153.8-88, GOST 21153.5-88): based on results of
triaxial compression and slanted shear tests or a shear
test along a plane of weakness. Hard and transitional
rock samples are mainly tested using the slanted shear
method (25/35/45), developed by VNIMI. Saw cut
shear tests are not used. Strength properties of weak
surfaces are determined by shearing a sample along a
natural fracture. Weak rocks (soils) are tested in
triaxial cells and direct shear boxes (GOST 12248-96).
Triaxial tests are completed using three options: UU,
CU and CD.
The engineering properties of the proposed pit slopes
are assessed at an early stage of a project using
empirical methods and simple field tests. These are
subsequently quantified using controlled testing in
soils and rock mechanics laboratories.
To develop an appropriate testing schedule the likely
behaviour of the rock mass and the likely failure
modes are assessed. Structure will likely play an
important role in the stability of strong rock, whereas
in weaker rock and soils, the internal strength of the
rock mass will be the controlling factor.
The most common rock tests undertaken during an
International testing program would include:
Rock Soil
Tensile Strength CD, UU, or CU Triaxial Test
Uniaxial Compressive Strength CD Shear Test
Triaxial Compressive Strength Residual Shear Test
Youngs Modulus and
Poissons Ratio
Index Testing (LL, PL, PI)
Direct Shear Test Particle size distribution
Point Load Strength Index
Unit Weight
Laboratories undertaking the rock and soil tests
generally follow procedures developed by ASTM
International (ASTM 2010), the International Society
for Rock Mechanics (ISRM) (Ulusay & Hudson
2007) and British Standards (BS 1999).
Pore pressures can have a significant influence on the
behaviour of the material, and as such effective stress
testing and analysis are required to develop material
inputs for stability analyses.
Discussion: Both geomechanical testing procedures are regulated by respective standards. Compressive and
tensile strength testing and the determination of elastic moduli procedures are similar and results can be
interchanged. Care should be taken when comparing effective stress tests. Despite detailed GOST procedures
for these tests, problems can arise during saturation of the sample and speed of shearing. As a result, results
from GOST effective stress tests should be used with caution in any International analysis.
5 Comparison of data evaluation (for input parameters) and hydrogeology
Russian and FSU System International System
Pit slope stability assessment requires the review of
the rock slope condition, including rock fracturing,
and the presence of weak surfaces such as bedding
planes, tectonic zones, major fractures and other
dislocations in a solid rock mass.
The geomechanical calculation model is based on
evaluation of the rock mass strength properties,
as well as structural and hydrogeological
peculiarities of the rock slope;
Influence of fracturing on the rock mass
properties is accounted through a structural
weakening factor, which is calculated using an
empirical formula of G.L. Fisenko (1965). In the
formula cohesion is reduced, where the angle of
internal friction is applied to the fractured rock
mass is unchanged;
The size of the unit structural block in the rock
mass is determined from direct measurements of
fracture networks in natural and man-made
outcrops. In the case of poor exposure, fracturing
is evaluated through correlation of the core
recovery and rock fracture frequency; and
Quantitative assessment of fracturing on drill
core is accounted through RQD (Deere, 1967).
All pit slope stability calculations account for
distribution of hydrostatic pressure in the rock slope.
Two and three dimensional hydrostatic pressure grids
are generated by transforming the groundwater head
values obtained from groundwater flow modelling
(e.g. MODFLOW). This data can then be used for
modelling groundwater flow conditions whilst
incorporating mining and dewatering activities.
Geotechnical modelling involves the evaluation of the
rock mass strength as well as the structural and
hydrogeological regime. Statistical analysis of the
input data is routinely conducted; this allows for the
reliability of the data and strength criteria to be
assessed. Typical strength criterion used by
International geotechnical practitioners are:
Mohr Coulomb (MC) friction angle and cohesion
evolved from soil mechanics and is best suited to
homogeneous rock masses;
Hoek Brown (HB) strength criterion was
specifically developed for rock and has been
modified/updated periodically since 1980 (Hoek
et al. 2002) and is commonly used to define rock
mass strength; and
Barton Bandis (BB) criterion is used to model the
shear strength of a discontinuity (Barton &
Bandis 1990).
Geotechnical and hydrogeological teams work closely
with each other. Incorporating the hydrogeological
regime into the geotechnical model can be undertaken
using numerous methods; phreatic surfaces, Ru
coefficients, and pore pressure grids.
Integration/coupling of geotechnical and
hydrogeological models is now becoming more
prevalent. When a separate hydrogeological model is
produced it is most effective when modelled
geotechnically using a pore pressure grid. It can
simulate the pore pressures in individual layers where
a phreatic surface will only calculate the hydrostatic
pressures due to the weight of the overlaying strata.
Successful geomechanical models require synergy
between it and the hydrogeological model.
Discussion: Fundamentals of the data evaluation in Russian and International approaches have a lot in
common; the use of cohesion and friction angle to describe rock mass strength. However International
approaches make use of differing strength criterion to accommodate differing rock mass types. Both
approaches carefully assess the interaction and interconnection of geotechnical and hydrogeological conditions
at the deposit. An International approach to determining the rock mass strength would be to use data from UCS
testing in a scaling criterion such as Hoek-Brown and as such, an internal cohesion and friction angle would not
be a direct input into the stability analysis of a strong rock mass. Conversely, Russian analysis uses the Mohr-
Coulomb criterion for input into the geotechnical model and as a result, internal friction angles and cohesion
for rock and transitional material (weak rock) are determined from the slanted shear test. The results from this
test are not recognised in an International approach. International methods use statistical analysis to describe
the distribution of the rock mass parameters; Russian practices involve averaging the data, sometimes across
multiple material types before conducting analysis.

6 Comparison of analytical methods
Russian and FSU System International System
Pit slope stability analysis methods primarily depend
on the accepted calculation model, the distribution of
stresses in the rock slope and the anticipated mode of
failure. The current method used in Russia for
evaluation of pit slope stability in a homogenous rock
mass was developed by the SPMI Scientific Centre
(VNIMI) on the basis of the force polygon technique
(Kartashov et al. 1979). Principal provisions of this
technique are:
the calculation is based on limit equilibrium
conditions;
slip surface in the limit equilibrium slope rock
mass is constructed based on Fisenkos (1965)
method; and
wedge of failure, delineated by the failure
surface, is divided into blocks in limit
equilibrium state; block boundaries are drawn
along second order failure element surfaces (as in
the ultimate stress method).
Slope stability calculations for saturated homogenous
and quasi-homogenous medium can be completed in
MOFIS software, developed by SPMI Open Pit Slope
Stability Laboratory. In cases where a rock slope is
complicated with a major fault, seismicity, weak
bedding surfaces or other adversely-oriented planes,
which can coincide with the highest stresses slip
surface, slope stability calculations are completed
using the force polygon method. Apart from the
overall slope stability analysis, individual sections of
the slope (thick beds, group of benches, etc.) are also
assessed for their geomechanical peculiarities,
assuring the required Factor of Safety (FoS) for that
part of the slope.
Presently, numerical modelling does not get wide
practical appreciation in Russian pit slope stability
analysis due to insufficiently developed criteria for
assessment of slope stability analysis results and has
yet attained approval status.
The critical analytical method is dictated by the
expected failure mode; using the geotechnical design
practitioners experience helps define initial analysis
focus. The critical failure mode can be controlled
structurally, by the rock mass, or both; usually a
combination of both methods is used to design robust
slopes.
Kinematic analysis is used to assess structurally
controlled instability. The geometry of the benches
and the inter-ramps (and occasionally the overall
slope) are assessed against the discontinuities within
the rock.
The first stage of rock mass analysis makes use of
empirical methods; these are quick and simple to use,
but usually require further analysis to confirm initial
design slope angles. The most commonly used
empirical design chart was developed by Haines and
Terbrugge (1991); it uses the MRMR rating to
determine slope angles for specific heights and Factor
of Safety (FoS) requirement (this however does not
take into account structures). Initial slope angles
assessed using limit equilibrium analyses (LEA).
Failure surfaces (circular or non-circular) are
constructed through a cross section of the proposed pit
(including geometry, geological/geotechnical zones,
and water regime). The method of slices calculations
(to find FoS values) include: Morgenstern and Price
(1965), Spencer (1967, 1973) and Sarma (1973, 1975,
& 1979) (cited Read & Stacey 2009). LEA require
pre-determined failure surfaces and are considered to
be oversimplifications of the real rock mass response
to mechanical loading.
Numerical modelling is increasingly used to model
slope displacements/deformation. Numerical models
can incorporate distinct structural elements as well as
the rock mass characteristics within a stability
analysis.
Discussion: Russian and International slope stability evaluation methods evolved independently. Both
approaches tend to use software; however specialised commercial geotechnical software is more commonly
used by International geotechnical practitioners. Software packages must be approved by the Russian
regulatory bodies before they can be accepted; it is common that design institutes produce their own software
programs as these are more easily accepted by the regulatory bodies. Russian practitioners are increasingly
using numerical modelling software in their evaluations, although slope design criteria approval by the
regulatory bodies requires that only accepted software results are reported. It is considered that numerical
modelling requires further testing in practical conditions, along with continued development, before becoming
accepted by regulatory bodies and subsequently becoming routinely used by Russian geotechnical practitioners.
7 Comparison of slope design acceptability criteria
Russian and FSU System International System
The pit slope Factor of Safety (FoS) is considered a
design reliability criterion. The acceptable pit slope
FoS is set depending on:
reliability of rock strength test results;
reliability of input geological data;
method of hydrogeological coupling; and
accuracy of slope stability calculation method.
The factor of safety depends on the deposit evaluation
stage and the level of reliability of obtained input data
used in calculations. The FoS amounts to:
FoS 1.5 is used at a stage of the open pit design
based on drilling data and analysis method
(and/or if the slope is in tectonically disturbed
hard or semi-hard rock masses);
FoS 1.3: the deposit mining stage based on rock
slope face observations and deformation analysis
(and/or if the slope is composed of weak sandy
and clay material); and
FoS 1.2: at the end of the mine life and for
ultimate pit slopes based on long-term survey
monitoring data.
Stability of open pit slopes at the above prescribed
FoS does not completely rule out potential
deformation of the rock slope, but the likelihood of
development of dangerous failure displacement is
eliminated. The forecasted magnitude of pit slope
deformation at various factors of safety, accepted
based on Russian Regulations, is estimated as follows:
FoS 1.3: the rock slope dominantly experiences
elastic deformation, relative horizontal
deformation of surface at the open pit surface
outline does not exceed 1x10
-3
m;
FoS 1.3 1.2: relative horizontal deformation
reaches the value of 1 5x10
-3
m; the ground
surface becomes fractured, overall long-term
displacement for slope higher than 100 m
amounts to 200-300 mm; and
FoS 1.2 1.1: horizontal deformation can reach
30x10
-3
m; toppling failure is possible, overall
displacement becomes critical.
Slope design acceptance criteria are evolving based on
monitoring technology, and regulation and mine
owner safety philosophy. Internationally, Factor of
Safety (FoS) and Probability of Failure (PoF) continue
to be the routine acceptance criteria for pit slope
design. Numerical analysis can be used to provide a
FoS by using the strength reduction factor technique.
Variations to the resisting forces (shear strength,
surface roughness, etc.) and driving forces (pore
pressures, seismic coefficients, etc.) require that a FoS
of greater than 1.0 achieved through design (usually
1.2 1.5).
The variability in the resisting and driving forces is
used to calculate the Probability of Failure. Each
variable is randomly selected using its statistical
distribution, and a FoS is calculated for thousands of
iterations; the PoF is the ratio of the number of FoS
results below 1.0, over the number of calculations run.
The advantage of a PoF calculation is that the
variation of the input parameters is accounted for.
Acceptable FoS and PoF values are shown below
(after Priest & Brown 1983, cited Read & Stacey
2009).
Consequence
of Failure
Description
Mean
FoS
Min
PoF
Not serious
Failure of bench or temporary
slope
1.3 10%
Moderately
serious
Any permanent slope 1.6 1.0%
Very serious
Greater than 50m high slope or
slopes affecting major mine
structures (e.g. haul road)
2.0 0.3%
It is accepted that some pit slopes are designed with
an anticipated slope deformation. In such instances
risk/consequence analysis is carried out with the
objective of ensuring the risk of injury to personnel,
equipment loss and force majeure will be within
internationally acceptable levels.
Discussion: The closest parameter in comparing Russian and International approaches is acceptability criteria
for the open pit design. The general evaluation concept is very similar; differences are minor and are mainly
associated with ranges of acceptable factor of safety for different mining conditions. The approaches differ in
the use of PoF; International practitioners, using the power of computer packages, can calculate PoF values
from model simulations. Even though the input data is used as average values, Russian methods incorporate the
variability of input data into the decision of the appropriate FoS value to be used as the acceptance criteria.

8 Trends and future developments
Russian and FSU System International System
In order to improve reliability of slope stability
analysis and determine the optimal open pit slope
parameters, scientific research and practical
developments should concentrate on the following
aspects.
Improvement of the quality of core recovered
from geotechnical boreholes and collected for
laboratory tests. Assessment of geomechanical
properties of rocks requires uniform introduction
of the advanced triple tube drilling method;
Enhancement of methods of photogrammetry and
laser scanning applied in rock face mapping;
Development of 3D slope stability analysis and
its integration in the open pit design practice;
Further development and perfection of the pit
slope optimization method, assuming economic
viability and safety;
Development of a method for calculation of
probability of failure of the pit slope;
Development of methods for forecasting and
calculation rock slope deformation, as well as
methods for assessment of slope stability based
on observed displacements; and
Development of methods and instruments for
automated remote monitoring of rock slope
deformation, including techniques for in-situ
monitoring of displacement within the rock mass.
International slope design techniques and
methodologies are continually developed to take
advantage of advancements in technology and
research. Advancing technology, along with its
benefits, requires increased training and time in which
the geotechnical design practitioner must invest to
obtain the benefits.
There is a trend for automated and digital methods to
be used for data collection. Digital photographs of
core can be automatically scaled and ordered for ease
of logging using programs such as ScanLIM (EPC
2010) and CoreProfiler (CSIRO 2007). Acoustic
televiewer systems are able to scan the sides of a
drilled borehole from which structural data can be
collected. These systems are able to capture some
data (aperture, spacing, basic infill), however
roughness and joint strength will continue to be
logged by traditional methods. Rock face mapping is
now being undertaken using remote data capture
techniques; photogrammetry and laser scanning.
Studies are more focused on economic impacts of
slope failures using cost/benefit analysis. By
introducing risk as a factor whilst optimising the slope
angle, safety can be quantified against economic
impact. This actively looks at acceptable levels of
slope failure as long as they can be managed safely
whilst ensuring that the potential slope failure mode is
quantified and understood.
Three dimensional analysis is becoming prevalent for
modelling rock slopes as it can represent geotechnical
zones that vary with depth, along strike of the pit wall
and anisotropic situations. Advancement in computing
power has allowed for the coupling of the
geomechanical and the hydrogeological model, such
as FLAC 7.0 (Itasca, 2011) and COMSOL
Multiphysics 4.2 (COMSOL AB, released mid 2011).
Discussion: Both approaches indicate the need for further improvement of existing methods of rock mass
assessment, analytical methods and calculations. Expected Russian advancements in slope stability design
methods and techniques, such as remote data capture, automated slope monitoring and incorporation of PoF in
to analyses are already being routinely used in International projects. Specialised software packages indicate
that there is convergence of approaches; integration of these into routine geotechnical practices will continue
internationally. Advancement of Russian slope design methodologies and the acceptance of these new methods
by the regulatory bodies can be anticipated in the short to medium term.
9 Conclusions
International geotechnical studies are self-regulating; the Russian approach is structured, controlled and
regulated by state authorities. The International approach allows for continuous and timely improvement of
existing methods based on practicability and necessity of such changes Russian and International approaches are
quite comparable on many aspects, but it should be noted that many of criteria described are not compulsory for
Russian regulatory and supervisory authorities; consequently, these are not routinely used by Russian
geotechnical practitioners, not least for regulatory approval.
The reporting steps go through similar stages using increased confidence in pit slope parameters to refine the
design. Russian and International testing methods differ so that some results are not useable in the others
analysis stage. However, some rock mass parameters are universal and are routinely measured by both methods
and are interchangeable. Differences in the two techniques are shown during the data evaluation stage; where
International approaches use varying strength criteria to reduce testing data (depending on rock mass type),
Russian approaches use a structural weakening factor based upon the block size of the rock mass (which in turn
is catered to the specific rock mass). It is the analytical methods where the largest difference is present.
International approaches routinely use LEA and numerical modelling for rock mass slope stability analysis,
where Russian analysis is primarily conducted using LEA. Both Russian and International designs are based
upon the FoS as the acceptance criteria; there are differences in the choices of the FoS value used for a particular
slope, however the values chosen are very similar. The comparatively unregulated natural of the International
approach allows for the introduction and rapid acceptance of new technologies and methodologies. Russian
regulatory bodies prefer to carefully evaluate before accepting new techniques, slowing their use by Russian
practitioners for official geotechnical studies. It must be noted that Russian use of numerical geomechanical
modelling, and other geotechnical software is however significantly increasing.
There is a need for both International and Russian geotechnical design practitioners to have a good and robust
understanding of both geotechnical analysis systems. This allows for continued inter-cooperation, and creation
of mine design criteria that is tailored to the specific mining region, regardless of the origin of the geotechnical
practitioners working on the project.
10 References
10.1 Russian and FSU Projects
Bock, H. (ed) (1983). An introduction to rock mechanics. Moscow, Mir.
Deere, D.U., Hendron, A.J., Patton, F.D., Cording, E.J. (1967). Design of surface and near surface construction
in rock. In Fairhurst (ed), Failure and breakage of rock, Proceedings of the 8th U.S. Symposium of Rock
Mechanics. Society of Mining Engineers of the American Institute of Mining, Metallurgical and
Petroleum Engineers, New York, pp. 237302.
Fisenko, G.L. (1965). Open pit and waste dump slope stability. Moscow, Nedra.
Kartashov, Yu.M., Matveev, B.V., Mikheev, G.V., Fadeev A.B. (1979). Rock strength and deformability,
Moscow, Nedra.
Geotechnical, hydrogeological and environmental studies during deposit exploration and mining (2002).
Moscow.
GOST 21153.2-84. Rock. UCS strength testing methods.
GOST 21153.3-85. Rock. Uniaxial tensile strength test methods.
GOST 21153.5-88. Rock. Compressive shear test method.
GOST 21153.8-88. Rock. Triaxial compressive strength test methods.
GOST 28985-91 Rock. Methods for determination of deformation moduli from UCS test.
GOST 12248-96 Soils. Methods for determination of strength and deformation properties.
Jagger C. (1975). Mechanics of rock and engineering structures. Moscow, Mir.

Methodological recommendations for technical-economic justification of parameters for solid mineral reserve
estimation (excluding coal and oil shales) (2007). Moscow.
Methodological guidelines for assessment of geotechnical conditions during deposit exploration (2000).
Moscow.
Methodological manual for assessment of geotechnical conditions on open-pittable coal deposits (1986).
Leningrad, Nedra.
Methodological instructions on determination of open pit and waste dump slope angles and open pit bench batter
angles for future and active mines (1972). Leningrad, Nedra.
Slope stability guidelines for open cast coal-mining operation (1998). Saint Petersburg.
10.2 International Projects
ASTM International (2010) Annual Book of ASTM Standards; ASTM International: West Conshohocken, PA.
Barton, N.R., Bandis, S.C. (1990). Review of predictive capabilities of JRC-JCS model in engineering practice.
In Barton & Stephansson (eds.), Rock joints, Proceedings of the International Symposium on Rock Joints,
Loen, Norway. Balkema, Rotterdam, pp. 603610.
Barton, N.R., Lien, R., Lunde, J., (1974). Engineering classification of rock masses for the design of tunnel
support. Rock Mechanics 6(4): 189239.
Bieniawski, Z.T. (1989). Engineering Rock Mass Classifications. Wiley, New York.
British Standards Institution (1999). Code of practice for site investigation, BS 5930:1999. Her Majestys
Stationary Office, London.
COMSOL AB (2011). COMSOL Multiphysics 4.2 Geomechanics Module, Stockholm, Sweden,
http://www.comsol.com /products/multiphysics/
CSIRO (2007). CoreProfiler - rapid and consistent capture of drill core observations. CSIRO Australia.
CSIRO (2005). Sirovision - 3D imaging mapping system. CSIRO Australia.
Deere, D.U., Hendron, A.J., Patton, F.D., Cording, E.J. (1967). Design of surface and near surface construction
in rock. In Fairhurst (ed), Failure and breakage of rock, Proceedings of the 8th U.S. Symposium of Rock
Mechanics. Society of Mining Engineers of the American Institute of Mining, Metallurgical and
Petroleum Engineers, New York, pp. 237302.
Earth Products China Limited (2010). ScanLIM - Core Imaging and Archiving. Hong Kong, China.
Haines, A., Terbrugge, P.J. (1991). Preliminary estimate of rock slope stability using rock mass classification
systems. In 7
th
Congress of International Society of Rock Mechanics, Aachen, Germany, pp. 887892.
Hoek, E. (1983). Strength of jointed rock masses. Gotechnique 33: 187223.
Hoek, E., Carranza-Torres, C.T., Corkum, B. (2002). Hoek-Brown failure criterion - 2002 edition. In Hammah et
al. (eds.), Proceedings of the Fifth North American Rock Mechanics Symposium, Toronto. University of
Toronto Press, Toronto, pp. 267273.
Hoek, E., Kaiser, P.K., Bawden, W.F. (1995). Support of Underground Excavations in Hard Rock. Balkema,
Rotterdam.
Itasca Consulting Group, Inc. (2011). FLAC - Fast Lagrangian Analysis of Continua. Version 7.0. Itasca,
Minneapolis.
Karzulovic, A., Read, J. (2009). Rock mass model. In Read & Stacey (eds.), Guidelines for Open Pit Slope
Design. CSIRO Publishing, Collingwood, pp. 83139.
Laubscher, D.H., Jakubec, J. (2001). The MRMR rock mass classification of jointed rock masses. In Hustrulid &
Bullock (eds.), Underground Mining Methods: Engineering Fundamentals and International Case
Studies. Society of Mining Engineers, AIME, New York.
Marinos, P., Hoek, E. (2000). GSI A geologically friendly tool for rock mass strength estimation. In Proc.
GeoEng2000 Conference, Melbourne, pp 14221442.
Morgenstern, M.G., Price, V.E. (1965). The analysis of the stability of general slip surfaces. Geotehcnique 15:
79138.
Priest, S.D., Brown, E.T. (1983). Probabilistic stability analysis of variable rock slopes. Transactions of
Institution of Mining and Metallurgy, Section A: Mining Industry 92: A1-12.
Read, J., Stacey, P. (2009). Guidelines for Open Pit Slope Design. CSIRO Publishing, Collingwood.
Rocscience (2010). Dips A program for the graphical and statistical analysis of structural geology data using
spherical projection techniques. Rocscience Inc., Toronto.
Rocscience (2010). RocData A program for the analysis of rock and soil strength data, and the determination
of strength envelopes and other physical parameters. Rocscience Inc., Toronto.
Rocscience (2010). RocPlane A program for performing planar rock slope stability analysis and design.
Rocscience Inc., Toronto.
Rocscience (2010). Swedge A program for evaluating the geometry and stability of surface wedges in rock
slopes. Rocscience Inc., Toronto.
Sarma S.K. (1973). Stability analysis of embankments and slopes. Geotechnique 23: 423433.
Sarma S.K. (1975). Seismic stability of earth dams and embankments. Geotechnique 25: 743761.
Sarma S.K. (1979). Stability analysis of embankments and slopes. Journal of Geotechnical Engineering, ASCE
105: 15111524.
Spencer, E. (1967). A method of the analysis of the stability of embankments assuming parallel inter-slice
forces. Geoetchnique 17: 1126.
Spencer, E. (1973). Thrust line criterion in embankment stability analysis. Geoetchnique 23: 85100.
Ulusay, R., Hudson, J.A.. eds. (2007) The Blue Book - The Complete ISRM Suggested Methods for Rock
Characterization, Testing and Monitoring: 1974-2006.
Wesseloo, J., Read, J. (2009). Acceptance criteria. In Read & Stacey (eds.), Guidelines for Open Pit Slope
Design. CSIRO Publishing, Collingwood, pp. 221236.