Evaluation of Open Pit Mine Slope Stability Analysis[1]
Subhamoy Ghosh
Dept. of Mining Engineering
National Institute of Technology, Rourkela
email: subhamoyanna@gmail.com
Abstract—The concept of slope stability in open cast
mines is definitely an issue of great concern because of the
significant and detrimental consequences the instabilities
can have. The major issues concerned with slope stability
in open cast mines have come to the forefront of mining
operations due to the increasing pit depth. To ensure the
safe and continuous economic operations of these mines, it
is necessary to systematically asses and manage slope
stability risk. The stability of the slopes in an open cast
mine directly influences the productivity and longevity of
the mine, therefore the collapse of which can lead to
enormous damage to the men and machinery and can also
be an economic burden to the mine production. A
comprehensive study is propagated to ensure the stability
of slopes which are aided by numerical, analytical,
physical, kinematic and empirical analyses. In this term
paper, all the parameters and empirical equations that are
responsible for determining the stability of the slope
concerned are discussed and presented along with the
application of the same in a case study of the Wardha
Valley Coal field, analyzed using kinematic and empirical
tools. The study has dealt with the classification and
prediction of the probable failure modes of the slope mass
using slope mass rating and kinematic analysis.
Keywords—Slope Stability; Rock Mass Rating(RMR);
Slope Mass Rating(SMR); Rock Quality Designation (RQD);
Kinematic Analysis; Wardha Valley Coalfield
I. INTRODUCTION
The chief requirement of an open cast mine is the
excavation of the earth surface to reach the underlying mineral
deposits of economic utility. To do so, the excavation process
requirement is the formation of slopes that are to be cut on the
earlier plane ground surface. The stability of these slopes that
are cut are crucial for the safe and economical operations of
the mine. The slope stability is also governed by the local
geological and geo-technical characteristics of the mass of
earth which forms the concerned slopes and also the prevailing
ground water conditions. In case of open cast mines, its design
of the slopes that play the role of deciding factor for effective
and efficient exploitation of underground minerals as well as
for the safety of the mine and the mine workers which controls
the economics of the operations. The increasing pit depths for
production requirements poses challenges on two conflicting
criteria of stability and production. Steepening of the slopes
curbs the economics but excessive steepening results in failure
of the slope leading to loss of life and property. The aftermath
of a slope failure can be quite devastating in terms of safety
1 Seminar & Technical Writing - MN6880
and economics which are governed by the location and extent
of the failure. Therefore, slopes if they are steep, their design
requires the desired stability along with detailed and reliable
geo-technical investigation. The primary factors that are
responsible for the stability of a typical opencast mine slope
are the shear strength parameters of the slope forming
material, presence and characteristics of the structural
discontinuities in the slope mass and the ground water
conditions. Even though a number of theories, models and
empirical relations exist which are useful tools in determining
the stability of the concerned slopes, there are always certain
uncertainties that arise while obtaining the field data for
designing the slope, thereby leading to significant errors while
classifying the rock mass.
II. ROCK MASS CLASSIFICATION SYSTEMS
Rock mass property is governed by the properties of intact
rock materials and of the discontinuities in the rock. The
behaviour if rock mass is also influenced by the conditions the
rock mass is subjected to, primarily the in situ stress and
groundwater. The quality of a rock mass quality can be
quantified by means of rock mass classifications.
A. Rock Mass Rating - RMR System [2]
The RMR system is a rock mass classification system
developed by the South African Council for Scientific and
Industrial Research (CSIR), associated with the excavation for
the mining industry (Bieniawski, 1973). Initially it
incorporated eight parameters for classification and currently
employs five basic parameters that are listed below:
• Strength of intact rock material: Uniaxial Compressive
Strength (UCS) is preferred. For rock masses of
moderate to high strength, Point Load Index is also
acceptable.
• Rock Quality Designation (RQD): It is used as
described in the next system of classification.
• Spacing of joints: Average spacing of all rock
discontinuities is used.
• Conditions of joints: Condition includes joint aperture,
persistence, roughness, joint surface weathering and
alteration, and presence of infilling.
• Groundwater conditions: It is to account for the
groundwater inflow in excavation stability.
TABLE I. Rock Mass Classes as determined in RMR System. GSI system did not suggest a direct correlation between
rock mass quality and GSI value. However, it suggested that
RMR Ratings 81-100 61-80 41-60 21-40 20
GSI can be related to RMR using the relation; GSI = RMR - 5,
Rock Mass Class A B C D E
Description Very Good Fair Poor Very
for reasonably good quality rock mass.
good rock rock rock poor rock
rock TABLE III. Rock mass classes as determined from GSI
Average stand up 10 6 1 10 30 system.
time years months week hours minutes
for 15 for 8 m for 5 for 2.5 for 0.5 m GSI Value 76-95 56-75 35-55 21-35 < 20
m span span m m span
span span Rock Mass Very Good Fair Poor Very
Rock mass 400 300-400 200- 100- 100 Quality good poor
cohesion(Kpa) 300 200
Rock mass 45ᵒ 35ᵒ-45ᵒ 25ᵒ- 15ᵒ- 15ᵒ D. Rock Tunnel Quality Q System (Barton et al, 1974) [2]
friction angle 35ᵒ 25ᵒ
Another method of rock mass classification is the Rock
Tunnel Quality Q system. The Q system was developed as a
B. Rock Quality Designation (RQD;Deere,1964) [2] rock tunnelling quality index and was developed by the
Rock Quality Designation (RQD) was proposed with the Norwegian Geotechnical Institute (NGI). This system of
aim of quantifying rock mass quality. RQD only represents the classification was based on the evaluation of a large number of
degree of fracturing of the rock mass. It does not account for case histories of underground excavation stability. This system
the strength of the rock or mechanical and other geometric therefore serves as an index for the determination of the
properties of the joints. Therefore, RQD partially reflects the tunnelling quality of a rock mass. This particular system of
rock mass quality. rock mass quality classification finds its application in
TABLE II. Rock mass quality classification according to determining the rock quality and its stability in particularly the
RQD. cases of underground operations, therefore, may or may not be
of much importance in evalutaing the slope stability in open
RQD Rock Mass Quality pit mines. The numerical value of this Q index is as defined
25 Very poor below:
25-50 Poor Q = (RQD / Jn)×(Jr / Ja )×(Jw / SRF)
50-75 Fair Where, RQD is the Rock Quality Designation which
75-90 Good measures the degree of fracturing of the rock. Jn is the joint set
99-100 Excellent number according to the number of joint sets. Jr is the joint
roughness number which accounts for the joint surface
roughness. Ja is the joint alteration number which indicated the
C. Geological Strength Index (GSI) System (Hoek,1994) [2] degree of weathering, alteration and filling. Jw joint water
The Geological Strength Index (GSI) system was aimed to reduction factor accounting for the problems that arises due to
estimate the reduction in rock mass strength for different the intrusion of groundwater creating groundwater pressure.
geological conditions. The system gives a GSI value as SRF is the stress reduction factor which accounts for the
estimated from rock mass structure and rock discontinuity influences of in-situ stresses.
surface condition. The direct application of GSI value is to
estimate the parameters in the Hoek-Brown strength criterion TABLE IV. Rock mass quality ratings according to Q values.
for rock masses. GSI system has been modified and updated in Q Value Class Rock Mass Quality
the recent years, primarily to cover more complex geological 400 - 1000 A Exceptionally good
features, such as sheared zones. The use of GSI system 100 - 400 A Extremely good
requires careful geological examination and understanding of 40 - 100 A Very good
engineering geological features of the rock mass. 10 - 40 B Good
4 - 10 C Fair
GSI does not include the parameter of rock strength, as 1-4 D Poor
GSI was initiated to be a tool to estimate rock mass strength 0.1 - 1 E Very poor
with the Hoek-Brown strength criterion. In the Hoek-Brown 0.01 - 0.1 F Extremely poor
0.001 0.01 G Exceptionally poor
strength criterion, uniaxial strength of the rock material is used
as a base parameter to estimate the rock mass uniaxial strength
and also the triaxial strengths of the rock mass and rock The problem of slope stability of the cut slopes in the study
materials. area calls for a detailed study of the geotechnical conditions
for the scientific and the systematic mitigation. There are a
number of approaches for the assessment of slope behaviour

2 Seminar & Technical Writing - MN6880

using different modelling methods like limit equilibrium, TABLE IV. Stability classes as per SMR value
analytical and kinematic tools, physical and numerical models (Romana,1985)
as well as other intelligent models. A very economical and
safe design can be thus achieved by a systematic approach like Class I II III IV V
Slope Mass Rating (SMR, Romana,1985). SMR is used to SMR 0 - 20 21 - 40 41 - 60 61 - 80 81 - 100
Values
assess the health and failure probability of the slope and is also Rock mass Very bad Bad Normal Good Very
one of the most accepted, versatile and well accepted tool for description good
doing so. This tool also provides quick assessment about the Stability Completely Unstable Partially Stable Complete
behaviour of slopes at a given site. Therefore, the main of unstable stable -ly stable
using Slope Mass Rating (SMR) is to identify the potential Planar
Big planar Planar or along Some
hazards of rock cut slopes in open pit mines. Failure or soil like big some block No failure
or circular wedges joints and failure
III. SLOPE MASS RATING [1][2] failure many
wedge
As discussed earlier, the Slope Mass Rating (SMR) serves failure
as a powerful tool is assessing the health of a slope and also Probability 0.9 0.6 0.4 0.2 0
determines the probability of the slope undergoing failure in of failure
certain circumstances. On a wider view, Slope Mass rating is a
modified form of Rock Mass Rating (RMR) system developed Therefore, the formulae, concepts and methodologies that
by Romana (1985). SMR is an useful rating tool for evaluation are discussed above serve as effective analysing tools in
of slope instability risk based on slope face relation with the determining the slope health and also its vulnerability to
geological discontinuities. The mathematical equation undergo failure under abnormal circumstances. These rock
describing SMR and also its relationship with RMR is as mass classification tools merely serve as a theoretical
follows: approach unless their importance is checked and their
applicability and usefulness are tested in real environment.
SMR = RMR - (F1.F2.F3) +F4
Thus, these methods of rock mass classification only becomes
The explanation of the terms in the above equation are as useful when they yield reliable results as tested against the
described below: practical environment. The usefulness of the above discussed
methods of rock mass classification and their usage in
As per the above relation, it is seen that the adjustment
determining the slope health and their stability analysis are
rating of joints is the product of three factors:
discussed below with the help of a case study. The said
• The factor F1 depends on the parallelism between the methods are implemented in the study to analyse slope
joints and the slope face strike. The value of F1 stability of an open pit mine.
ranges from 1.0 - 0.15. The values are established
using the empirical relation: IV. CASE STUDY [1]
2
F1 = ( 1 - sin A )
A. Study Area
Where, A = Angle between strike slope face and Wardha Valley Coal field (WVC) is an elongated
joints. structural basin extending along NW-SE direction, with its
• F2 refers to the joint dip angle in the planar mode of coal bearing seams spreading over an area of 800 sq. km along
failure. Its value also ranges from 1.0 - 0.15. F2 can a length of 116 km situated towards the south of the city
be obtained using the empirical relation: Nagpur in the central region of India (Fig. 1). Reconnaissance
survey and primary geotechnical investigations in these mines
F2 = tan2 Bj revealed that the slope forming materials mainly are mainly
Where, Bj is the joint dip angle. composed of variable soil, shale and sandstones as overburden
followed by a composite of coal seam of 15 - 21 m thickness.
• F3 indicates the relationship between slope face and The Wardha river which flows in the close vicinity of the mine
joint dip. In planar mode of failure, F3 refers to the forms a major drainage system of the area, flowing from NW
probability of the joints daylighting on the slope face. to SE along the central part of WVC. The study mainly
This condition is favourable when the slope face and focused on the Ghugus open cast coal mine, lying exactly
the joints are parallel and is unfavourable when slopes towards the East of Wardha river. The depth of the open cast
dip 10ᵒ more than the joints. mine at the time of study was around 95 - 100 m. Some coal
seams were also found to be submerged under water
• F4 in the formula indicated the method of exploration throughout the year, particularly the lower benches. Western
which has been fixed empirically and are as follows: Coal fields Limited (WCL) has therefore taken up strip mining
Natural slope = +15; Presplitting = +10; Smooth method for Ghugus and the other mines in the area. At the
blasting = +8; Normal blasting = 0; Deficient blasting = time of the study conducted, operations were being carried on
-8; Mechanical excavation = 0. the 11th cut of the mine with further excavations down the dip

3 Seminar & Technical Writing - MN6880

of the seam. Four locations were selected for the study and C. Locations of the Study
assessment of slope stability. Location 1:

Detailed geotechnical examination and geological

characteristics revealed that the location 1 had beds of shaley
coal and shale which were found to possess three sets of joints
named J1, J2 and J3 (Fig. 2). Bedding plane and slope were
found to dip in the same direction i.e. west, but the inclination
of the slope was found to be considerably more. The details of
the discontinuity data has been tabulated below.

Fig.1. Study are and sample collecting locations of different

coal mines.
Fig. 2. Field view of location 1 with marked joint set.
B. Methodology TABLE C:1. Orientation and discontinuities of slope
A thorough geological and geotechnical study was (Location 1).
conducted to observe the geological data, which includes the
discontinuities present in the rock mass, bedding planes, slope Joint Strike Dip angle Dip direction
geometry and hydrogeological conditions. Four different J1 N 330ᵒ 80ᵒ ENE
locations were selected within the study area from where rock J2 N 175ᵒ 55ᵒ W
samples were collected, the geo-mechanical properties of J3 N 250ᵒ 55ᵒ SE
which were determined in the laboratory. This particular study Slope N 180ᵒ 55ᵒ W
at Wardha Valley Coal field was aimed at characterizing the Bedding plane N 20ᵒ 8ᵒ W
rock mass that formed the slopes in the concerned area. To
proceed with the same, a number of rock samples were TABLE C:2. Adjustment factor for different discontinuities
collected from the field which included different types of coal, (Location 1).
shaley coal, shale and sandstones. The Uniaxial compressive
Strength (UCS) of the collected samples were determined by Conditions F1 F2 F3 F1×F2×F3
loading the NX sized core samples using Universal Testing J1 and slope 0.15 1.0 50 7.5
Machine, ( NX sized core samples refers to the samples of J2 and slope 1.0 1.0 25 25
diameter 54 mm and length to diameter ratio of 2:1, which are J3 and slope 0.65 1.0 25 16.25
used for laboratory testing).
The value of F4 is taken as zero (0) since normal blasting and
TABLE V. Uniaxial Compressive Strength of the rock
mechanical excavation is the case here.
samples.
Sl. Rock type UCS GSI
No. (Mpa) Location 2:
1 Sandstone 10 - 15 35 - 50
2 Shale 13 - 16 25 - 35 A similar geotechnical investigation at the second location
3 Shaley Coal 14 - 19 35 - 40 revealed it to possess shale and sandstone along with two
4 Coal 12 - 16 30 - 45 prominent joint sets J1 and J2 (Fig. 3). Bedding plane and slope

4 Seminar & Technical Writing - MN6880

orientation were found to be similar to that of location 1. The
rock mass was found to be highly weathered. The
discontinuity data along with their adjustment factors for
different conditions has been tabulated below.

Fig. 4. Field view of location 3 with broken rock mass.

TABLE C:5. Orientation of discontinuities and slope

(Location 3).

Joint Strike Dip angle Dip direction

J1 N 10ᵒ 81ᵒ W
Fig. 3. Field view of location 2 with marked joint set and J2 N 100ᵒ 60ᵒ SSW
highly weathered rock mass. J3 N 50ᵒ 70ᵒ NW
Slope N 180ᵒ 60ᵒ W
TABLE C:3. Orientation and discontinuities of slope Bedding plane N 20ᵒ 6ᵒ W
(Location 2).
TABLE C:6. Adjustment factor for different discontinuities
Joint Strike Dip angle Dip direction (Location 3).
J1 N 180ᵒ 30ᵒ W
J2 N 185ᵒ 60ᵒ W Conditions F1 F2 F3 F1×F2×F3
Slope N 180ᵒ 45ᵒ W J1 and slope 0.15 1.0 50 7.5
Bedding plane N 20ᵒ 8ᵒ W J2 and slope 0.70 1.0 6 4.2
J3 and slope 0.85 1.0 25 21.25
TABLE C:4. Adjustment factor for different discontinuities
(Location 2). The value of F4 is taken as zero (0) since normal blasting and
mechanical excavation is the case.
Conditions F1 F2 F3 F1×F2×F3
J1 and slope 1.0 0.57 25 14.25 Location 4:
J2 and slope 1.0 1.0 60 60.0
Shaley coal, shale and sandstone formed the slope in this
Same as that of location 1, the value of F4 is zero (0) here location which was found to be traversed by two set of joints
since it is the case of normal blasting and mechanical marked as J1, J2 and J3 (Fig. 5). Bedding plane and slope were
excavation. found to dip in the same direction but the slope in this location
was found to be steeper compared to that of location 3.
Location 3: Investigations revealed the strata to be highly weathered
thereby indicating continuous spalling due to the presence of
The slope concerned in location 3 was found to be vertical joints having less spacing as compared to the inclined
composed of shale and sandstone having three sets of joints joints. The discontinuity data along with their adjustment
marked as J1, J2 and J3 (Fig. 4). Geotechnical and geological factors for different conditions has been tabulated next.
examinations revealed the slope to be steeply inclined as
compared to that of location 1 and location 2. The joint sets J 2
and J3 were found to be forming a wedge. The discontinuity
data along with their adjustment factors for different
conditions have been tabulated below.

5 Seminar & Technical Writing - MN6880

 of the figures 2 and 4 clearly indicates that the possible failure
modes are planar and wedge type.

Similarly, locations 2 and 4 falls under the SMR Class IV,

which is considered of being 'bad' rock. The stability of these
slope faces were observed to be as unstable and chances of
failure being planar and toppling with a failure probability of
0.6.

TABLE VI. RMR, RQD and SMR Values of different

locations.

Parameters Location Location Location Location

1 2 3 4
UCS in Mpa 10 - 15 13 - 16 14 - 19 12 - 16
Fig. 5. Field view of location 4 with vertical joints. (Rating) 2 2 2 2
RQD from Jv 30 - 45 25 - 40 40 - 55 30 - 50
TABLE C:7. Orientation of discontinuities and slope (Rating) 8 8 13 8
(Location 4). Spacing of 40 -90 40 - 100 20 - 40 15 - 40
discontinuities
Joint Strike Dip angle Dip direction in cm
(Rating) 15 15 10 10
J1 N 45ᵒ 75ᵒ SE
Conditions of Rough Slightly Rough Slightly
J2 N 10ᵒ 90ᵒ - discontinuities surfaces rough surface rough
Slope N 180ᵒ 70ᵒ W slightly surface slightly surface
Bedding plane N 20ᵒ 7ᵒ W weathered highly weathered highly
weathered weathered
TABLE C:8. Adjustment factor for different discontinuities
(Location 4). (Rating) 25 20 25 20
Ground water Dry Dry Dry Damp
condition
Conditions F1 F2 F3 F1×F2×F3
(Rating) 15 15 15 10
J1 and slope 0.75 1.0 25 18.75
RMR basic 65 60 65 50
J2 and slope 0.55 1.0 50 27.5
F1 0.6 1.0 0.57 0.65
F2 1.0 0.78 1.0 1.0
Since normal blasting and mechanical excavation were F3 33.33 42.5 27.0 37.5
employed therefore the value of F4 is taken as zero (0). F4 0 0 0 0
F1 × F 2 × F 3 19.99 33.15 15.39 24.37
D. Analysis of Slope
SMR Values 45.01 26.85 49.61 25.63
Stability of slopes in open pit mines always form an SMR Class III IV III IV
important concern since stable slopes are important for the Rock Mass Normal Bad Normal Bad
open pit mines to function as per their productivities and Description
economics. Rock mass characterization forms that tool to Stability Partially Unstable Partially Unstable
classify the slopes in open pit mines. Slope Mass rating (SMR) stable stable
is the most common classification scheme which is frequently Planar Planar
used by many researchers for the stability analysis of cut along Planar or along Planar or
slopes. SMR also helps us to understand the rock mass Failure some big some big
joints and wedges joints and wedges
behaviour of the slopes in surface mines, which always poses
many many
serious problems due to the increase in depth and slope angle. wedges wedges
The problem of slope stability also finds itself to be more Probability of
aggravated due to various geological complexities. In this case failure 0.4 0.6 0.4 0.6
study, all the locations have different joint density with the
bedding planes having a dip slope. The Rock Mass Rating
(RMR) weightages obtained and subsequently their Slope
Mass Rating (SMR) value as obtained are tabulated in Table E. Kinematic Analysis of Slopes
VI. The slopes under study were subjected to kinematic slope
SMR ratings of locations 1 and 3 fall under the SMR Class stability analysis using the Stereonet plots. Kinematic analysis
III, which is described as 'normal' rock mass and is partially is also an easy to use tool for carrying out the analysis of
stable with probability of failure of 0.4. A careful observation planar and wedge failures in rock slopes. The structural data

6 Seminar & Technical Writing - MN6880

which is obtained is geometrically plotted in an equal area net
for establishing the mode and probability of failure.
To begin with it, it is crucial to know what a stereonet is
and how the plot of a stereonet is helpful in this particular case
of slope stability analysis.
Stereographic Projections:
In geometry, stereographic projection is a particular type
of mapping (function) that projects a sphere onto a plane. The
projection is defined on the entire sphere except at one point
which is the 'projection point'. Stereographic projection
mappings are always smooth and bijective and also preserved
the angles at which the curves meet. It is neither isometric nor
area preserving i.e. it preserves neither distances nor the areas
of the represented figures. The stereonets are also referred to
as 'pole plots', used for plotting the dip and dip directions. Pole
plots provide an immediate visual depiction of pole
concentrations. All natural discontinuities have a certain
variability in their orientations that results in scatter of the
pole plots (Fig. 6).
Fig. 6. A typical stereo plot representing the case of a
wedge failure. [4]
However, there's a difference between the stereonet and
the equal area net. On the equal area net, equal areas on the
reference sphere remain equal on the projection, which is not
the case with the stereonets. The situation is similar to map
projections of the earth. Some projections sacrifice accuracy
of area to preserve spatial relationships, while others do the
opposite. In preserving area, the equal area net does not
preserve angular relationships. The construction of the equal
area net does not allow the correct measurements of angles,
however, and this net may reliably be used even when angular
relationships are involved. Because the structural geologists
7 Seminar & Technical Writing - MN6880
are commonly concerned with the relative density of their
data, a matter requiring accurate area projection, use equal
area net exclusively.
The equal area net is arranged rather like a globe of the
earth with north-south lines that are analogous to the
meridians of longitude and east-west lines that are analogous
to parallels of latitude. The north-south lines are called 'great
circles' and east-west lines are called as 'small circles'. The
perimeter of the net is called the 'primitive circle'. [3]
Kinematic Analysis of Slopes (Contd.)
It is observed at location 1 that the geological feature is
characterized by the intersection of three joint sets that are
present, showing the possibility of wedge failure as
represented by the plot in Fig. 7a. Joint set J3, which are
parallel to the slope forms a critical failure plane. The results
of which are supported by the field observation of that
particular location as represented in Fig. 2.
Fig.7a. Equal area stereonet plot of Location1.
Now, it is observed at location 2 that there are two joint
sets which are found to run parallel to the slope face. Dip of
the joint J2 is found to be steeper as compared to that of joint
J1, resulting in daylighting on the slope face (Fig. 3). Thereby,
resulting in a chance of planar failure as represented by the
plot 7b.

Fig. 7b. Equal area stereonet plot of Location 2.
Location 3 is found to possess three sets of joint forming a
wedge between the slope face and joint sets J2 and J3 as
represented in the Figure 8a. Since J1 is found to be steeply
inclined towards the slope, there is a likelihood of a toppling
failure (Fig. 4) as represented by the pole plot 8a.
Fig. 8a. Equal area stereonet plot of Location 3.
Location 4 is found to possess two sets of joint. J 1 is seen
to be steeply inclined with the slope face (Fig. 5) which would
result in toppling as the probable mode of failure as similar to
location 3. The joint J2 is represented as a vertical joint (Fig
8b). The slope face in location 4 is found to be steeper than all
8 Seminar & Technical Writing - MN6880
the other locations. Here, it is noticed that the joint have
almost a similar strike with variation in dip amount.
Fig 8b. Equal area stereoplot of Location 4.
F. Conclusion of the Case Study
The four vulnerable locations that were selected to carry
out this study, were examined using a slope mass rating
classification scheme which were further investigated through
kinematic analysis. The maximum three joint sets were
observed at a particular location. The slopes in the studied
location were found to have same strike direction with slight
variations in their inclination towards west. The bedding had
as dip slope towards west gently inclined at an angle between
6ᵒ - 8ᵒ. The SMR study of the different locations indicated that
the rock mass are partially stable to unstable with probability
of failure 0.4 - 0.6 (SMR Class III-IV), which is further
confirmed by kinematic analysis.
The observed failures are found to be of wedge, toppling
and planar mode matching with the field investigations and
observations. Therefore, with the analysis, it was concluded
that for long term stability and sustainability, the slope
required immediate attention to prevent and mitigate chances
of failure in order to enhance the productivity of the mine.
V. CONCLUSION
Since the discussion is in terms of open pit mines, the
conclusion must also be made in terms of open pit mines as
well. Decisions regarding mine operations, including the
workings or closures of a particular mine in an widespread
coal field, are based on the costs of operation, amount of ores
to be extracted, working feasibilities, safety criteria and last
but not the least, the value of the product on the national and
international markets. The requirements of these conditions
for the effective and efficient workings of the mines have
certainly placed new demands on the rock engineers to design
slopes on a scale never attempted before. Modern management
and analyses methods such as the ones described earlier, can
and should be used to systematically asses, analyze and
manage the risks[5] and probable failures associated with
slope instabilities.
To go about with the analysis and determination of
probable slope failures in an open cast mine at its sensitive
locations, a certain rules and guidelines must be followed,
since it is never justifiable to conclude anything on the basis of
randomness. Therefore, the above discussed concepts of rock
mass characterization such as Rock Mass rating (RMR), Rock
Quality Designation (RQD), Geological Strength Index (GSI)
System, Slope Mass Rating (SMR) serve as models or tools to
analyse the slopes under concern and help the engineer to
reach to a particular conclusion about their failure types and
also probabilities. Also the application of these tools must be
guided with thorough geological and geotechnical
investigations of the slopes under study, the conclusions of
which have already been conceptualised from a large number
of case histories around the world. Thus, in this term paper,
the various concepts of rock mass classifications have been
discussed along with their applications in the practical field
with the help of a case study as no theory is meaningful unless
otherwise applied for practical analysis.

VI. ACKNOWLEDGMENT
The term paper has been completed under the guidance
and assistance of many people and I take immense pride in
honouring them along with the completion of this term paper.
I heartily thank all the supportive people for their assistance.

VII. REFERENCES
[1] Dhananjai Verma, Rahul Thareja, Ashutosh
Kainthola and T.N Singh, "Evaluation of open pit
mine slope stability analysis", International Journal
on Earth Sciences and Engineering, Vol. 04, No. 04,
August 2011, pp. 590-600.

[2] K.U.M Rao, "Rock Mechanics and ground control",

Course material for Singareni Collieries Limited
(SCCL Ltd.), Ramagundem, Andhra Pradesh.

[3] Stephen Taylor, "ES 406 Structural Geology lab

manual", Western Oregon University, pp. 59-60.

[4] Duncan C. Wyllie, Christopher W. Mah, "Rock Slope

Engineering, Civil and Mining 4th edition," Sapon
Press (Taylor and Francis Group), London and New
York, pp. 160.

[5] K.S Karam, M.C He, L.R Sousa, "Slope stability risk
management in open pit mines", Conference
paper,December2015(https://www.researchgate.net/p
ublication/283716636)

9 Seminar & Technical Writing - MN6880

10 Seminar & Technical Writing - MN6880