DATE: October 15, 2018

TO: Chief Engineer, South Dakota Department of Transportation

CC: Engineering team of South Dakota Department of Transportation
FROM: Abhishek Ray, Student
Department of Geology and Geological Engineering, SDSM&T
SUBJECT: Assessment of the Existing Roadcut along Hwy 16 near Rockerville, SD

A new road cut has been proposed to run perpendicular to the existing roadcut along Highway 16
near Rockerville, SD. To make the road a stable slope cut must be made that will run
perpendicular to the existing road. The purpose of this report is to present the classification of the
rock mass using the RMR, Q, GSI and Hoek Brown Failure Criterion to eventually design the
rock slope of the resulting rock slope.
From the Schmidt Hammer tests on rock samples collected from the outcrop we got a median
value of 49 corrected for the 90˚ downward angle of inclination (-3 because the median was 52
the hammer was placed on the rock samples). The lowest 13 of the 24 readings were discarded
and the remaining 11 were used. Taking the median helped avoid the excessively erroneous
values affecting the estimate. Using a lump sample from the road cut, the unit weight was
2.7g/cm3. The unconfined compressive strength using the rebound values was 34621.48 psi or
238.9 MPa from the Schmidt Hammer test.
According to the GSI strength index for jointed rock the area had a rating of 65.
Additionally, small rock samples were tested. The rock samples were tested using point load test.
Values, D (distance between the platens when loading is first applied), W (smallest width
perpendicular to the loading direction), and LP (failure line pressure (kpa)) were calculated
during the test. The mean values from the point load test were 70.9 MPa for rocks in the
perpendicular foliation to the σ3 and 40.4 MPa for rocks in the parallel foliation to the σ3.
Having solved the index tests, it was able to do RMR and Q classifications. Enclosed tables 1
and 2 show the parameters used to classify the rock using RMR and Q classification systems.
RMR results shows that the rock has a rating of 65 over 100. The Rock Mass Rating for this
outcrop had a total rating of 63 which is a class II thus receives a classification of “good rock”. Q
results give a value of 1.21, which classifies the rock as weak. RMR and Q classification were
correlated using equations 2 and 3. RMR correlation result is 45.7 and Q correlation result is
10.3. Values are very distant, studies in more depth must be realized to have more reliable
results.
Next, updated Hoek and Brown failure criterion was performed. Following variables were
assigned to be able to estimate the friction and cohesion of the rock. GSI was estimated to be 65,
disturbance factor was assigned a 0.7 value, and a value of 12 (schist) was assigned to variable
Mi. Equation 4 was used to be able to perform the test. Results give a friction angle of 52˚ and
cohesion of 0.58 MPa (see graph). Values seem good but this criterion would be more useful for
a project that requires underground excavation. Table 3 shows values used to be able to calculate
σ3 in table 4.
Lastly, a kinematic assessment of rock failure was performed with collected dip and dip
directions of joints present in the rock. Results show that there is no kinematic possible failures
for existing slope and proposed cuts. At the 85˚ slope both dip direction 310 and 130 were
considered to mimic the perpendicular road cut to the existing plane.
Even though some test results suggest that proposed new road design will be able to construct,
more in-depth studies must be realized to the rock to make a trustful decision.
Please do not hesitate if you have any concerns with my studies. You may contact me at
abhishek.ray@mines.sdsmt.edu or reach me at 605-389-0486.
ENCLOSURES:
Tables:

Table 1. RMR Classification

Uniaxial compressive strength of the rock material 40. MPa 12
RQD 55 13
Spacing discontinuity 110.1 mm 8
Slightly rough
Condition of discontinuity surface 25
Groundwater conditions Damp 10
Orientation of discontinuities Favorable -5
Total 63

Class Number II
Avg. Stand Up Time 1 year for 10 m span
Cohesion of rock mass (kPa) 300-400
Friction angle of rock mass (deg) 35-45
 Table 2. Q Classification

RQD1 55
Joint set number 6
Joint set roughness number 1.5 (Rough or irregular, planar)
Joint alternation number 1
Joint water reduction factor 1.0
Stress reduction factor 7.5
Q 1.21

Table 3. Hoek & Brown Failure Criterion

Uniaxial Compressive
Strength 120.89
Mb 1.687
S 0.00147
A 0.504
Sigma 3 see table 4

Correlation between RMR and Q

RMR 45.71558324
Q 10.3122585

Using this the RQD was estimated because there were no cores collected
Table 4. Sigma 1 values according to sigma 3 values using equation 4.

0 18.72377541
10 77.10260582
20 113.1329546
30 143.3709756
40 170.5283919
50 195.6929436
60 219.4317502
70 242.0850565
80 263.8760387
90 284.9604702
100 305.4521896

Equations:

𝑈𝐶𝑆 = 10(1.348 log(𝛾𝑅)+1.675) Eq. 1

𝑅𝑀𝑅 = (9𝐿𝑛𝑄) + 44 Eq. 2

𝑅𝑀𝑅−44
𝑄 = 𝑒( 9
)
Eq. 3

𝜎
𝜎1 = 𝜎3 + 𝜎𝑐𝑖 (𝑀𝑏 𝜎 3 + 𝑠)𝑎 Eq. 4
𝑐𝑖
Figure 1 Hoek Brown Failure Criterion

Figure 2 Existing Road Cut and the 2 major joint sets

Figure 3 And when put into Rocplane a F.S. 3.2 was received.

Figure 4 The proposed road cut is at 85˚ (DD-130)

Figure 5 F.S. 2.1

Figure 6 Dip-85, DD- 310

Figure 7 F.S. 2.2

Now looking at existing cut (80,40) using Swedge. and the wedge sliding function in rocplane,
F.S. was calculated as 0.99

Figure 8 Failure plane at 80/40

Figure 9 Set selected in Set 1 (49/50 and 51/41)

Figure 10 Failure plane for 85/130

Figure 11 For Dip=85, Dip Direction=130, Set selection (53/114 and 59/136) yielded a FS of 1.09

Figure 12 Failure plane for 85/310

Figure 13 For Dip=85, Dip Direction=310, Set selection (38/329 and 54/242) yielded a FS of 1.09