Highways Consultancy Group - Highways Research Group

Rock Slope Hazard Assessment

Report

Task Reference: 652 (666) MTSC

Project Sponsor: David Patterson
Report Date: July 2010
This report is prepared by the Highways Consultancy Group/Highways Research Group (HCG/HRG).
HCG/HRG is a Consortium of four core partners, namely Mott MacDonald, Scott Wilson,
Amey Consulting and CIRIA, supported by an extensive supply chain.

The companies from the supply chain contributing to this report are:

 Mott MacDonald

The nominated Task Manager is:

Christopher Jack
Tel: 0117 906 9500
Fax: 0117 922 1924
Email: chris.jack@mottmac.com

Address:
Mott MacDonald
Prince House
43-51 Prince Street
Bristol
BS1 4PS

Issue and Revision Record

Rev Date Originator Checker Approver Description

B July Chris Jack Gareth Ian Duncan Incorporating HA comments
2010 Mason

This document has been prepared for the titled project or named part thereof and should not be relied upon or
used for any other project without an independent check being carried out as to its suitability, and prior written
authority of Mott MacDonald Limited being obtained for all tasks carried out through the Technical Consultancy
Framework; and prior written authority of Scott Wilson Ltd for all tasks carried out through the Research and
Development Framework. Mott MacDonald Limited or Scott Wilson Ltd accept no responsibility or liability for the
consequence of this document being used for a purpose other than the purposes for which it was commissioned.
Any person using or relying on the document for such other purpose agrees, and will by such use or reliance be
taken to confirm his agreement to indemnify Mott MacDonald Limited or Scott Wilson Ltd respectively for all loss
or damage resulting therefrom. Mott MacDonald Limited or Scott Wilson Ltd accept no responsibility or liability
for this document to any party other than the person by whom it was commissioned.

To the extent that this report is based on information supplied by other parties, Mott MacDonald Limited or Scott
Wilson Ltd accept no liability for any loss or damage suffered by the client, whether contractual or tortious,
stemming from any conclusions based on data supplied by parties other than Mott MacDonald Limited or Scott
Wilson Ltd respectively, and used in preparing this report.

652 (666) MTSC Page 1

RSHA Report
Executive Summary
The Highways Agency (HA) has a responsibility to ensure that its rock slope assets are safe and
adequately managed. Furthermore it is necessary to monitor the slopes for signs of deterioration to
allow for the efficient and economic maintenance of these assets.

However, the existing system used by the HA for rock slope hazard analysis has not been
implemented for the HA's assets in a manner that is effective in the long term.

The HA’s objectives for this project are to implement a system that:

1. Provides a consistent, appropriate and robust approach to initial risk assessment and
identifies key actions.

2. Ensures that subsequent condition surveys target features which may be subject to change
over time, contribute to risk assessment and trigger key actions.

3. Aligns the rock slope risk assessment process to that adopted for the earthwork asset.

4. Supports a more unified approach for wider infrastructure asset and Value Management
processes.

5. Is viable for the long-term.

6. Is cost effective.

7. Is supported by appropriate resources and competencies.

8. Effectively links with other HA research including the rock anchors project and the risk project.
Note that the rock anchors project is outside the scope of this work and will not be discussed
further in this document.

This document outlines:

 The research that has been undertaken to allow this document and a related HA Area
Maintenance Memorandum (draft AMM) to be produced.
 The different rock slope inspection systems that were considered.
 The options that were considered for implementation of the rock slope inspection system.
 The work that will be required for the draft AMM and the recommendations in this report to be
implemented in the HA.
 Details of additional work that would further improve the HA’s management of rock slopes.

Note: Subsequent to this document being prepared, the Highways Agency has decided that Option 2
in this report will be implemented as an intermediate step on the way to full implementation of
Option 3. This is accepted as a necessary expedient and as a step towards improvement. It is
intended that Option 3 will be implemented as recommended in this report once funding has been
secured.

652 (666) MTSC Page 2

RSHA Report
List of Contents

Executive Summary ................................................................................................... 2

1. Introduction.................................................................................................. 5
1.1 Background ........................................................................................................................... 5
1.2 Objective ............................................................................................................................... 5
1.3 Related documents ............................................................................................................... 6

2. Research ..................................................................................................... 7
2.1 Existing rock slope inspection systems ................................................................................ 7
2.2 Initial selections..................................................................................................................... 8
2.3 Rockfall Slope Hazard Index System (RSHI) ....................................................................... 9
2.3.1 Description ............................................................................................................................ 9
2.3.2 Advantages ........................................................................................................................... 9
2.3.3 Disadvantages ....................................................................................................................10
2.4 Rock Hazard Rating System (RHRS) .................................................................................10
2.4.1 Description ..........................................................................................................................10
2.4.2 Advantages .........................................................................................................................11
2.4.3 Disadvantages ....................................................................................................................11
2.5 Selection subsequent to Expert Group Meeting Nr.2 .........................................................11
2.6 Decision ..............................................................................................................................12

3. Options considered for implementation ..................................................... 15

3.1 Summary of options ............................................................................................................15
3.2 Option 1...............................................................................................................................15
3.3 Option 2...............................................................................................................................16
3.3.1 Description ..........................................................................................................................16
3.3.2 Advantages .........................................................................................................................16
3.3.3 Disadvantages ....................................................................................................................16
3.4 Option 3...............................................................................................................................16
3.4.1 Description ..........................................................................................................................16
3.4.2 Advantages .........................................................................................................................17
3.4.3 Disadvantages ....................................................................................................................17
3.5 Option 4...............................................................................................................................17

652 (666) MTSC Page 3

RSHA Report
3.5.1 Description ..........................................................................................................................17
3.5.2 Advantages .........................................................................................................................17
3.5.3 Disadvantages ....................................................................................................................17
3.6 Recommendation ................................................................................................................17

4. Amendments to existing HA systems ........................................................ 19

4.1 General ...............................................................................................................................19
4.2 Area Maintenance Memorandum........................................................................................19
4.3 Pocket GAD ........................................................................................................................20
4.4 HA GDMS ...........................................................................................................................21

5. Implementation.......................................................................................... 22
6. Recommended future work ....................................................................... 24
7. References ................................................................................................ 25
Annex A - HA Rock Slope Hazard Index AMM (Draft).............................................. 26

List of Tables

Table 1 Existing rock slope inspection systems...................................................................................... 8

652 (666) MTSC Page 4

RSHA Report
1. Introduction

1.1 Background

The Highways Agency (HA) has a responsibility to ensure that its rock slope assets are safe and
adequately managed. Furthermore it is necessary to monitor the slopes for signs of deterioration to
allow for the efficient and economic maintenance of these assets.

Recent practice has been to utilise the Transport Research Laboratory (TRL) Rock Slope Hazard
Index (RSHI) system (McMillan & Matheson, 1997) for rock slope inspection. This process involves an
initial prioritisation of all rock slopes followed by more detailed assessments of those slopes with
identified problems. While this approach has been used in the past the experience of service
providers has highlighted some shortcomings in the way in which the methodology is currently
implemented in relation to the HA's rock slopes.

The key problems that have been identified with the use of the RSHI system on the HA network are:

 The system has not been effectively applied in the long-term.

 Diverse application between different service providers.
 Varying levels of competence between service providers.
 Lack of visibility to the assessment process, which is a problem as service providers change,
meaning valuable data can be lost.
 The TRL RSHI system is currently a proprietary form of analysis and is currently reliant on a
single organisation and its approved suppliers.
 Insufficient information on existing rock support and containment measures and their
condition.

1.2 Objective

The HA’s objectives for this project are to implement a system that:

1. Provides a consistent, appropriate and robust approach to initial risk assessment and
identifies key actions.

2. Ensures that subsequent condition surveys target condition features which may be subject to
change over time, contribute to risk assessment and trigger key actions.

3. Aligns the risk assessment process to that adopted for the geotechnical asset

4. Supports a more unified approach for wider infrastructure asset and Value Management
processes.

5. Is viable for the long-term.

6. Is cost effective.

7. Is supported by appropriate resources and competencies.

8. Effectively links with other HA research including the rock anchors project and the risk project.

652 (666) MTSC Page 5

RSHA Report
It is intended that this system will be used throughout the HA and it is hoped that other organisations
such as the HA’s fellow roads agencies in the United Kingdom and will adopt the system.

Two Expert Group meetings were convened with experienced rock engineering practitioners during
the duration of the project. The purpose of the meetings was to ensure the system implemented by
the HA represented best practice. The first meeting occurred early in the project while the second
meeting took place once draft versions of the documents were available for review and comment.

The following individuals were present at one or both of these meetings:

 David Patterson - HA Project Sponsor and HA Senior Geotechnical Advisor

 Alison Knight - HA Geotechnical Advisor
 Ian Duncan - Mott MacDonald, Senior Project Manager
 Chris Jack - Mott MacDonald, Engineering Geologist
 Richard Seddon - Mouchel, Senior Engineering Geologist
 Ian Nettleton - Coffey Geotechnics, Principal
 Anthony Butler - Network Rail Senior Earthworks Engineer

1.3 Related documents

A draft Area Maintenance Memorandum (AMM) has been produced which provides guidance on the
rock slope management process. Note that the draft AMM assumes that the recommendations in this
document are implemented. A copy of the draft AMM can be found in Annex A.

652 (666) MTSC Page 6

RSHA Report
2. Research

2.1 Existing rock slope inspection systems

There has been a considerable amount of research into rock slope inspection systems by many
different individuals and organisations. As a result of this research, a number of systems have been
developed, some of which have been extensively used and refined in practice.

Therefore it was decided by the HA in conjunction with the Expert Group that was convened for the
project that, if possible, an existing rock slope inspection system should be adopted by the HA rather
than creating a new system. The advantages of adopting an existing system include:

 Time and cost savings.

 Ability to compare findings with existing and future results of other infrastructure managers.
 The reassurance provided by adopting a system that has been applied successfully
elsewhere with consistent results.

Table 1 summarises the rock slope inspection systems that have been reviewed during the
preparation of this report. It should be noted that there are many other equivalent systems but
unfortunately it was not possible to review these due to a variety of reasons including:

 The relevant documents being written in different languages.

 The documents not being readily available.
 Time and budgetary constraints.

Furthermore, given that it is a key HA requirement that the system is viable in the long-term, it was
considered that systems where the basis was difficult to obtain were unlikely to meet this requirement.

652 (666) MTSC Page 7

RSHA Report
 Table 1 Existing rock slope inspection systems
System Comments
Principal Inspection as detailed in This is the system currently employed by the HA. The current Principal Inspection is
current version of HD 41/03 very basic with regards to rock slope examinations. As a result it is considered that
the current Principal Inspection system does not adequately assess the potential
risk posed by rock slopes. For instance it is not currently possible to produce a list
of rock slope assets using the current systems.
Rock Slope Hazard Index (RSHI) Originally developed by TRL for the Scottish Office. Principal authors include
Matheson and MacMillan (1997). The original intention of the system was to
produce a database of the rock slopes in Scotland along with related hazard index
values. The system has been used in Scotland, Wales and parts of the HA network.
Modified versions have also been adopted by Network Rail and Tarmac.
Rock Slope Hazard Rating (RSHR) Intended to be the detailed inspection follow up to the RSHI system. However
development was abandoned by TRL before it was implemented, mainly due to
complexity of trying to capture the information required for a detailed inspection in a
system that scores rock slope features numerically.
Rockfall Hazard Rating System (RHRS) Originally developed and refined by the Oregon Department of Transportation.
Currently adopted in its present form by the Federal Highways Administration
(FHWA) (1990) and States including California, Oregon, Kentucky, Nevada,
Pennsylvania, Virginia, Wyoming, North Carolina, Utah and West Virginia.
Other modified versions of RHRS Some States have decided to modify the RHRS systems to suit their particular
requirements. These states include Arizona, Colorado, New Jersey, Vermont, New
York, Tennessee, Idaho, Ohio, New Hampshire and in Canada; British Columbia
and Ontario. These systems tend to be similar in many respects to the original
RHRS.
Colorado Rockfall Hazard Rating Based on the original RHRS system but modified to meet the requirements of the
System (CRHRS) Colorado Department of Transportation. The most recent version was published by
Russell et. al. (2008). This version of the RHRS has been singled out as it aims to
ensure best practice by incorporating the most useful aspects of all of the various
RHRS systems and aims to make the system less subjective and more quantitative.
Modified versions of Q system The Q system was originally developed by Barton et. al. (1974) (also called the
Norwegian Geotechnical Institute (NGI) system) for tunnelling applications. The
purpose of modifications is so the system can be applied to rock slopes.
Modified versions of RMR system Modified versions of the Rock Mass Rating (RMR) system originally developed by
Bieniawski (1973). Again the purpose of modifications is so the system can be used
on rock slopes.

2.2 Initial selections

It was decided by the Expert Group to carry the RSHI and ‘standard’ RHRS (as originally developed
by the Oregon Department of Transportation) forward for further consideration. The reasons for this
were:

 Both of these systems are well documented and information and training is available so that
these techniques can be carried out consistently.
 There is experience of using these systems in the UK.

The other systems were not selected because:

 The current HD 41/03 process inadequately measures potential risk posed by rock slopes.

652 (666) MTSC Page 8

RSHA Report
  The modified versions of the RHRS were ruled out because many of these have been
developed to meet the geological conditions unique to particular States (although this is not
the case with the recent version of the CRHRS which draws on best practice from former
RHRS systems). In addition there is more evidence of consistent and ongoing application of
the standard RHRS and as a result many more records of the application of this system
should be available. This means comparison and confirmation with existing results is a
possibility.
 The modified Q and RMR systems were ruled out as there is insufficient evidence of
widespread, consistent and systematic application of these systems with regards to rock
slopes. Also, it is difficult to determine what the accepted versions of these systems are.
Therefore these systems currently do not meet the long-term viability objective which is one of
the HA’s key requirements. Furthermore, these systems generally require detailed
measurements to be made before the assessment can be completed. This does not tie in with
the level of detail currently required by HA Principal Inspections.

2.3 Rockfall Slope Hazard Index System (RSHI)

2.3.1 Description

The RSHI system was developed by TRL who still hold the intellectual property rights (IPR). The
principal authors were Matheson and McMillan and the original work was carried out for the Scottish
Office for use on roads in Scotland, particularly those in the north-west Highlands.

The RSHI system was designed for two main purposes:

 To populate a rock slope database

 To assign a 'hazard index' to each of the slopes.

A modified system has also been adopted for use on the railway by Network Rail and for use in
quarries by Tarmac.

2.3.2 Advantages

 There is previous experience of use in UK, particularly in Scotland and on the Network Rail
infrastructure. This means examiners exist who have experience in using the RSHI system.
 Versions of the system are in use by Network Rail and Tarmac which means the system
should continue to be used in the future which should aid long-term viability.
 The system has previously been used by some HA Areas including Area 2. This means some
existing slopes on the HA network have previously been rated, allowing the scores from new
surveys to be compared with previous surveys.
 Relatively quick to complete inspection (typically 20 to 30 minutes per slope).
 Contains mainly quantitative measures which should reduce subjectivity and increase
consistency.
 There is some ongoing development, for instance Network Rail are investigating how the
system might better assess the hazards posed by weaker rocks.

652 (666) MTSC Page 9

RSHA Report
2.3.3 Disadvantages

 The RSHI system was originally developed for slopes in relatively hard igneous and
metamorphic rocks in Scotland. As a result it does not deal well with weak rocks and
interbedded sedimentary rocks found throughout much of England. Network Rail is attempting
to solve this problem by either modifying the RSHI system or introducing an alternative
system for weaker rocks. However this system is still in development.
 The RSHI system is perceived to be a 'black-box' system as the results can currently only be
processed by TRL's approved suppliers. The algorithm used to calculate the RSHI score
along with the parameters and assumptions are not available in the public domain. Concerns
about this aspect have been raised by the current service providers. The basis of the concern
is that trained and experienced geotechnical practitioners are cautious of a system where
they do not know how the result is derived.
 One possible way around the above disadvantage is an agreement with TRL. For example
Network Rail has an agreement in place that recognises TRL's Intellectual Property Rights
(IPR). This means that Network Rail has access to the algorithm, parameters and
assumptions. The HA could conceivably put in place a similar agreement but this would not
necessarily solve all of the concerns about the suitability of the system. There would likely be
a cost implication associated with an agreement and publication.
 Presently it is necessary for inspectors to attend a course run by one of TRL's approved
suppliers that is several days long before inspectors can use the RSHI system. However
given the relatively simple nature of the inspections, combined with the fact that HD41/03
requires inspectors to be engineering geologists or geotechnical engineers, it is considered
that the course may be too long, time-consuming and expensive for suitably experienced
staff. On the other hand it is doubtful that a non-geotechnical engineer could reach the
required understanding of geology and rock mechanics to reach an equivalent level of ability
in the time offered by the RSHI course. The requirement for training that appears to be
expensive and excessive could damage the long-term viability of the programme - especially
given that inspections are often carried out by younger engineers who have a higher staff
turnover rate.
 It is unclear what would happen to the system when the current trainers move on or retire. All
of these factors contribute to uncertainties over the long term viability of the programme.
 TRL do not appear to be carrying out research to improve the system. Although, as discussed
previously, Network Rail are thought to be developing the system and other organisations
such as Tarmac may have modified the system.
 The RSHI system is significantly more complicated than the current HA Principal Inspection
system and takes significantly longer to complete.

2.4 Rock Hazard Rating System (RHRS)

2.4.1 Description

The standard RHRS was developed by the Oregon Department of Transportation based on earlier
work by Wyllie. The system was subsequently adopted by a number of other US and Canadian States
and is currently promoted by the FHWA. This version of the RHRS is the most widely adopted and it
has the most experience of use, is the easiest to find information on and the most widely cited.

652 (666) MTSC Page 10

RSHA Report
2.4.2 Advantages

 Specialist knowledge of rock engineering not required. However, as a minimum, the inspector
would need to be an engineering geologist or geotechnical engineer.
 Quick – typically takes no more than 5 minutes to fill out the proforma.
 Easy for engineering geologists and geotechnical engineers to understand – no need for
external training course, all necessary training information is available online and an
engineering geologist or geotechnical engineer would be able to train themselves via self-
directed learning.
 Widely adopted – proposed system is recommended by the FHWA and adopted by a number
of other US states.
 Process has been refined over many years to its present level of development.
 Designed to accommodate both harder and weaker rock slopes.
 The results of thousands of slope surveys in the US are available for comparison and
calibration.
 The system is recommended by Hoek, Wyllie and Mah and is also cited in other publications.
 Research into the system is ongoing which demonstrates its wide acceptance, viability and
potential for long-term improvement.
 Does not require any equipment that the examiner would not already have on a Principal
Inspection.
 Similar in complexity to current Principal Inspection.
 All information and research is easily available. Scoring is open and transparent so the
examiner can develop a feel for the weighting of the system.

2.4.3 Disadvantages

 The system is not considered to be perfect for all geologies, which is why some American and
Canadian States have modified the process to a greater or lesser extent.
 Many of the assessment criteria are qualitative and subjective rather than quantitative.
However this is not necessarily a disadvantage – as stated by Evert Hoek “the aim of a rock
mechanics engineer is not to calculate accurately but judge soundly.”
 Does not include consideration of remedial works that may have been installed.

2.5 Selection subsequent to Expert Group Meeting Nr.2

On the basis of the above considerations a draft version of the AMM incorporating the standard
RHRS was produced for review and comment at the Expert Group meeting Nr.2 on the 3rd of April
2009. The discussion at this meeting was wide ranging, however, a number of key points emerged.

 The HA still wanted a simple and quick system that tied in with their requirements for Principal
Inspections.
 The HA restated that they did not want a proprietary system.
 RSHI was preferred by a number of members of the expert group. In addition, it was felt that
the RSHI represented current UK practice.
 The standard RHRS was felt to be too subjective.

652 (666) MTSC Page 11

RSHA Report
  Some members of the group felt that a training course would be required for the standard
RHRS to achieve consistent results due to its subjectivity.
 The HA was willing to consider modifying an existing system as no system met the HA’s
requirements in its present form. Past precedent of scoring was considered to be desirable
but not essential. There is a large amount of existing RSHI inspection data. Coffey
Geotechnics have indicated that their database contains approximately 60 HA slopes and the
Network Rail database contains a very large number of slopes.

As a result of the above considerations, it was felt on reflection that the Colorado RHRS (Russell et.
al. 2008) should also be considered as an alternative to the standard RHRS. This decision was made
after the Expert Group meeting Nr. 2 as the HA indicated that a system without a long track record
was a possibility provided the system was adequate for the intended purpose.

If a long track record is not required, then the CRHRS offers some significant advantages over the
standard RHRS:

 Incorporates best practice from several US and Canadian states.

 Still relatively quick and simple, although there are more parameters than the standard RHRS
so takes longer to complete, but still not as long as the RSHI (probably 10 to 15 minutes per
slope).
 Much more quantitative and less subjective than standard RHRS
 Separates Hazard from Risk - not done in either RHRS or RSHI

However the system at present is not adopted outside of Colorado, there is little prior experience of its
use and it is not widely cited as yet. Therefore field trials would be required before the scoring could
be calibrated for the HA.

2.6 Decision

Subsequent to the Expert Group meeting Nr.2 it became apparent that TRL would be willing to
consider publishing the research, methodology and algorithm for the RSHI system.

This was a significant change, as previously a significant disadvantage of the RSHI system was the
fact that it is a proprietary system and the background information was unavailable.

On the balance of all of the previous considerations it was decided by the Expert Group that the RSHI
system should be adopted if available for the following key reasons:

 The expert group consensus is that this is the most appropriate system for initial inspections
in the UK.
 There is previous experience of its use in the UK.
 It should be possible to obtain the previous inspection results and populate HAGDMS with the
previous survey information.

However, it is recommended that the following shortcomings of the RSHI system are addressed
before it is adopted:

652 (666) MTSC Page 12

RSHA Report
  The HA would need to obtain full access to the research, methodology and algorithm.
 It would be desirable if the HA could gain access to existing RSHI databases and upload the
information therein to HAGDMS.
 The requirement for a lengthy training course before inspectors can use the system should be
removed.
 It would be desirable to access Network Rail’s research on improving the system for
inspection of weak and interbedded rock slopes. It is not certain what point this research is at
and it may be that the HA could participate in this research.
 More detail is required on rock support and containment measures and the condition of these
aspects. Note that this would also apply to the CRHRS system, if it were adopted. It will also
be necessary to incorporate consideration of systems such as vegetation retention systems.
 More information is required concerning weathering to allow deterioration to be monitored in
the long term.

As some of these aspects involve significant additional research, or are dependant on the work of
outside parties, it may not be possible to incorporate all of these aspects within the scope of the
current Task Order. However, it is recommended that all of these aspects are eventually
implemented.

If the TRL RSHI method does not become available then the CRHRS would also be a very good
system. The key reasons for this are:

 All of the information on the system is available in the public domain.

 The system is simpler and quicker to use than the RSHI, reducing the amount of training
required and saving time during Principal Inspections.
 The system is closer in the level of detail required to the current Principal Inspection than the
RSHI system. This will mean there is less of a mismatch between the level of detail required
during inspections and the system can be more easily incorporated into the HA's existing
systems such as Pocket GAD and HA GDMS.
 The CRHRS system is better at assessing sedimentary and interbedded geological
formations which are more common than harder rock formations on the HA's assets.

An additional reason why it would be beneficial to adopt the modified CRHRS system is that the use
of two systems in the UK (RSHI and the newest version of CRHRS) would likely help to provoke
discussion, debate and research in the topic of rock slope inspection systems. Ultimately this may
lead to better versions of both systems being developed.

The following modifications would need to be made before the CRHRS could be used by the HA:

 Change parameters from imperial into metric.

 Change some of the terminology to that used in the UK.
 Modifications of the guidance to suit the UK and the HA’s requirements
 Additional data on rock dowels, bolts and anchors.

652 (666) MTSC Page 13

RSHA Report
A completely bespoke system has not been developed as the requirement for a completely new
system does not appear to exist. Furthermore, developing such a system to the level where it was of
a similar system to those existing would likely take several years.

The remainder of this document and the associated draft AMM (contained in Annex A) assumes that
the RSHI system is adopted by the HA.

652 (666) MTSC Page 14

RSHA Report
3. Options considered for implementation

3.1 Summary of options

The following options were considered for the implementation of the RSHI system within the HA.

 Option 1 – do nothing.
 Option 2 – publication of the AMM without any further work. The RSHI data would be
captured on paper forms and in inspection reports but not in Pocket GAD. The records would
need to be scanned and uploaded to HA GDMS manually.
 Option 3 – publication of the AMM with Pocket GAD and HA GDMS being modified to include
a ‘Rock Slope’ observation in which the RSHI information could be recorded. However in this
scenario the RSHI information could not be easily manipulated in the manner that much of the
other data on HA GDMS can be.
 Option 4 – publication of the AMM along with amendments to Pocket GAD and HA GDMS to
fully incorporate the RSHI system.

3.2 Option 1

The HA's existing systems do not allow effective preliminary assessment of the hazards and risks
posed by rock slopes. This is because rock slopes often present little or no visible indication that a
failure is about to occur while the present Principal Inspections record visible defects or those that
have already occurred. Therefore the current system generally misses the main hazards posed by
rock slopes. Furthermore the observations and defects that can currently be recorded during a
Principal Inspection do not cover many rock slope aspects and do not provide nearly enough
information to allow any kind of meaningful assessment of rock slope condition.

Another significant problem with the current system is that it is not possible to determine from
HA GDMS how many rock slope assets the HA have or the condition of these slopes. Therefore it is
currently very difficult, if not impossible, for the HA to quantify the hazards and risk their rock slope
assets present or to estimate the required budget for inspection, assessment, maintenance and
remediation of these assets.

Note that the costs for remedial works to rock slopes following failures tend to be very high due to
difficulties in access and the requirements for traffic management. Often the slopes are steep and
roped access techniques are necessary. This means that a regular and consistent inspection regime
is very cost effective as potential problems can be identified and resolved before significant costs are
incurred.

The consequence of ineffective assessment of these slopes is increased maintenance and

remediation costs and increased risk of disruption and injury to the road user.

For all of these reasons it is recommended that Option 1 (do nothing) is not selected.

652 (666) MTSC Page 15

RSHA Report
3.3 Option 2

3.3.1 Description

This option could be considered as a way of minimising the changes that would need to be made to
existing HA systems to incorporate the RSHI system. Under this option an AMM would be issued
detailing how the RSHI system should be carried out within the HA. No changes would be proposed
to other documents or systems such as Pocket GAD and HAGDMS.

In this scenario, the inspector would need to take additional paper proformae with them when carrying
out Principal Inspections to record the RSHI information as the data would not be captured by Pocket
GAD. The RSHI would be included in an inspection report which would need to be scanned and
manually uploaded to the reports database on HAGDMS.

3.3.2 Advantages

 Relatively quick and inexpensive to implement.

3.3.3 Disadvantages

 Potential for system to be ineffectively implemented or for information to be lost. Requires

inspector to remember to bring RSHI paper forms to site, these could get damaged by rain,
blown away or otherwise lost. Inspector then needs to incorporate RSHI forms into an
inspection report which would then need to be uploaded to HAGDMS.
 Related to the above point, it is possible that inspectors may forget to bring the required forms
and therefore the inspections would need to be repeated. This would incur unnecessary cost,
add inertia to the inspection system and could potentially lengthen the inspection process of
rock slopes.
 In addition it would be more difficult to ensure an auditable information trail obtained for
quality assurance purposes.
 Possible for RSHI part of the system to be unknown, forgotten or ignored by Managing
Agents and could also lead to confusion. Considered that this may compromise long-term
viability.

On the basis of the above considerations, Option 2 could serve as a useful step to full implementation
that would be relatively easy to implement in the short-term.

3.4 Option 3

3.4.1 Description

In this option a ‘Rock Slope’ observation would be added to Pocket GAD and HA GDMS. The RSHI
data would then be inputted directly into this observation in Pocket GAD (simply as raw factual data
that cannot be manipulated) or a scan of the paper forms could be uploaded to HA GDMS. However,
the actual RSHI data could not be manipulated in any way and the slopes would have to be scored
separately. This option solves many of the concerns of Option 2 without requiring significant and
potentially costly modifications to Pocket GAD and HA GDMS.

652 (666) MTSC Page 16

RSHA Report
3.4.2 Advantages

 HA GDMS could be interrogated to produce a list of rock slopes, greatly improving the HA's
ability to quantify their rock slope assets and aiding the planning of repeat inspections and
long-term asset management.
 All of the RSHI information could be easily and reliably stored and retrieved, aiding asset
management, repeat inspection and deterioration assessment.
 Provides a much more reliable audit trail for quality assurance purposes.
 Relatively easy to implement in Pocket GAD and HA GDMS relative to Option 4.

3.4.3 Disadvantages

 RSHI information cannot be manipulated in a sophisticated way, meaning that the potential
benefits associated with assessing whole-life costing, cost modelling and scenario modelling
would be considerably more difficult to realise.
 It would be more difficult to calculate the RSHI scores as this would have to be undertaken as
a separate exercise once the inspection was complete.

3.5 Option 4

3.5.1 Description

In this option the RSHI system will be intimately built into Pocket GAD and HA GDMS.

3.5.2 Advantages

 Would result in a consistent and integrated system which stands a greater chance of being
viable in the long-term.
 RSHI data could be manipulated and a score would be generated automatically.
 Would provide an excellent audit trail for quality assurance purposes.
 Data would be used to populate central data reporting, allow inclusion in whole life costing
modeling, scenario modeling and long term trend analysis.

3.5.3 Disadvantages

 Significant additional work required to modify Pocket GAD and HA GDMS.

3.6 Recommendation

On the basis of the above considerations, Option 3 is recommended. The key reasons for this are:

 Option 1 leaves the HA at significant risk of unplanned expense and possible road user injury
as a result of rock slope failure.
 Option 2 is not considered to improve on the HA's current management of rock slopes as this
option is likely to have a number of fundamental and ongoing problems with consistent
application. This threatens consistency and long-term application.

652 (666) MTSC Page 17

RSHA Report
  Option 4 would be the ideal solution. However, given the relatively modest number of rock
slopes thought to be present on the HA network it is considered that this option would be
disproportionately expensive and would not represent a cost effective solution.

Therefore, Option 3 is recommended as this option would significantly improve on the HA's current
management of rock slopes. This option would ensure that the RSHI system was consistently applied
and the required information was reliably captured. It is considered that the modest amendments
required to Pocket GAD and HA GDMS would represent a cost effective way of significantly improving
the HA's management of its rock slope assets.

As detailed in the draft AMM (see Annex A) the implementation of the RSHI system would allow a
score to be derived for each rock slope. This RSHI score is directly related to actions that service
providers have to undertake to manage and maintain the rock slope asset. In this way the RSHI
system will significantly improve unified risk assessment.

The draft AMM explains how the RSHI system fits within the existing HA geotechnical asset
management system from inspection planning through uploading and reviewing the data on
HA GDMS and onto repeat inspections.

The remainder of this document assumes that Option 3 is selected.

652 (666) MTSC Page 18

RSHA Report
4. Amendments to existing HA systems

4.1 General

None of the proposed changes fundamentally alter the HA’s existing earthwork management
systems. Rather, these changes aim to improve the existing system with regards to the inspection of
rock slopes.

4.2 Area Maintenance Memorandum

The draft AMM that is linked with this document (see Annex A) has been prepared to allow the
implementation of the RSHI system in the HA in the short to medium term. Ultimately, to achieve the
goal of widespread, consistent and long-term implementation it would be necessary for the
information in the draft AMM to be incorporated into an updated version of HD 41.

The following comments supplement those already in the draft AMM.

 The draft AMM has been written in a format similar to that generally employed by the HA.
 It is not intended that the final version of the AMM will be released until all of the appropriate
changes have been made to Pocket GAD and HA GDMS. All aspects of the system will then
be simultaneously implemented.
 The draft AMM has been prepared to supplement the guidance in HD 41/03 and should not
contradict anything in HD 41/03.
 In addition it has been written to fit within the processes outlined in HD 22/08.
 The document has been written to try and make it applicable to other Overseeing
Organisations (OO) such as Scotland, Wales and local authorities; rather than just the HA.
 The draft AMM does not explain specifically what changes have been made to Pocket GAD
and HA GDMS – these will be obvious from the systems themselves once they have been
changed.
 Section 3 of the draft AMM describes how the RSHI system will fit within the HA’s existing
systems. This implementation document explains the details of how the system will be
implemented.
 Section 4: the detailed inspections and assessment section has been left as simple as
possible so as to not restrict practitioners unnecessarily. In addition, good guidance is already
available and the draft AMM and this document could not hope to recreate the scope of
existing guidance.
 Draft AMM Section 4.1: it has been left open for the Designer’s Geotechnical
Advisor(DGA)/Managing Agent’s Geotechnical Liaison Engineer(MAGLE)/Overseeing
Organisation (OO)/HA to determine who qualifies as a suitably experienced rock slope
inspector.
 Draft AMM Sections 4.9, 4.10, 4.11, 4.12 and 4.13 have been included to ensure that this is a
requirement for considerations beyond the basic rock slope.
 The risk elements in the RSHI (traffic, sighting etc.) could be used to help make decisions at
the Value Management stage. However, this will need to be carefully considered as there is
potential to conflict or confuse if these have already been included in a RSHI numerical
assessment.

652 (666) MTSC Page 19

RSHA Report
  Once the RSHI score has been calculated and the 'Rock Slope' observation added to
HA GDMS it is intended that the MAGLE will have the opportunity to approve the RSHI score
and the suggested Risk Level. If the MAGLE does not agree they will be given the opportunity
to adjust the Risk Level, although justification will be required.

4.3 Pocket GAD

At present, the recommendations on how to incorporate the system within Pocket GAD are general in
nature. Technical details of how the system will be incorporated will follow after consultations with the
system developers.

Some trials would also be required on a beta version of the system before it went live for the HA
network. In Section 6, it is suggested that all of the HA’s rock slopes are inspected in one complete
round – this would be the ideal opportunity to do this.

It is intended that the following changes will be made to Pocket GAD if Option 3 is implemented.
However if Option 2 is adopted by the HA as a interim step towards full implementation of Option 3
then many of the proposed modifications to Pocket GAD will not initially be made. Reference should
also be made to the HD41 Guidance Note, dated 2010 for further information.

 A ‘Rock Slope’ observation would be added.

 The RSHI system would be incorporated into Pocket GAD. However, the information would
be ‘dead’ i.e. it would not be possible to manipulate the information or use it to derive the
RSHI score.
 The inspector will be required to identify whether the slope is a soil or rock slope. The
definition of rock used will be as in the draft AMM. If necessary, the examiner will be able to
call up the definition to help them decide. If the slope is indicated to be a rock slope then the
RSHI data would become available and would need to be completed in addition to the normal
Principal Inspection information.
 Data from previous RSHI inspections, where these exist, will be attached/completed as
observations in Pocket GAD.
 During subsequent inspections the inspector would be able to check the information in
previous observations and compare it to the present condition. This should generally speed
up the process considerably and potentially allow changes in long-term condition to be
monitored.
 In relation to the above point it is recommended that after the initial inspection that most of the
factual RSHI data (whether in the form of scanned paper copies or raw factual data) becomes
locked and can only be altered by the MAGLE. The information that would remain available
for change would include aspects that are likely to change over time such as weathering
condition. This would mean that data is not unnecessarily changed.
 The guidance on the RSHI system available in the draft AMM should also be made available
in Pocket GAD if possible. This could take the form of a help menu or a Portable Document
Format (PDF) file.
 Within the observation an input box would be required for the RSHI score. This would need to
be calculated from the inspection data as a separate exercise. Once the score was calculated
it would be entered and the Risk Level would be automatically allocated. It is likely that the

652 (666) MTSC Page 20

RSHA Report
 score will generally be entered directly into HA GDMS rather than Pocket GAD. However if
the score is entered into Pocket GAD then the inspector will be able to see the assigned Risk
Level. If the inspector does not agree with the Risk Level they will be given the opportunity to
comment on this and provide their assessment of the risk, but they will not be able to change
the actual Risk Level (although it is proposed that the MAGLE will be able to do this in
HA GDMS, see Section 4.4).

4.4 HA GDMS

At present the recommendations on how to incorporate the system within HA GDMS is general in
nature. Technical details of how the system will be incorporated will follow after consultations with the
system developers. Reference should also be made to the HD 41 Guidance Note, dated 2010 for
further information.

All of the changes required to ensure the RSHI system is fully incorporated into Pocket GAD (Section
4.3) would also need to be made to HA GDMS. In addition the data form Pocket GAD would need to
be easy to upload to HA GDMS and vice versa.

It would also be necessary to ensure all of the relevant RSHI could be inputted manually into
HA GDMS if need be, for instance if the actual inspection was done on the paper form.

652 (666) MTSC Page 21

RSHA Report
5. Implementation
Details of how the RSHI would fit within the existing HA geotechnical asset management systems,
how it would work and be used in practice and how the RSHI scores relate to Risk Level and the
maintenance strategy are provided in the draft AMM (see Annex A).

This section assumes that Option 3 is implemented. However if the HA decide to adopt Option 2 as a
step towards full implementation of Option 3 then some of these proposed stages will not occur until
later.

Note that all of the following items, with the exception of Stage 2, are outside the scope of the current
project scope.

Stage 1 HA to reach agreement with TRL that allows the HA access to the RSHI research,
methodology, guidance, algorithm and database.

Stage 2 Finalise documents required from this Task Order (draft AMM and this report).
However, these documents will not be issued at this point although they will be
available to those beta testing the RSHI system.

Stage 3 Make required modifications to Pocket GAD and HA GDMS so beta versions of the
system can be used in subsequent initial inspections.

Stage 4 Undertake desk based exercise to pre-populate HA GDMS with existing TRL
information. Sources of information would include existing information on HA GDMS,
rock slope records provided by MA's, data from existing TRL databases such as that
maintained by Coffey Geotechnics (if available).

Stage 5 Plan a round of inspections to populate the RSHI database. The aims of this exercise
would be to beta test the RSHI system and allow a baseline of data to be inputted
into HA GDMS. To ensure cost effectiveness the inspections would prioritise rock
slopes that have not been inspected or have not been inspected in a long time and/or
are high risk.

Stage 6 Assemble team to inspect the rock slopes identified in Stage 5 in one complete round
to populate the RSHI data in HA GDMS using the beta version of Pocket GAD and
HA GDMS. It is envisaged that the inspections will be carried out by two man teams
from a variety of organisations. One member of the team will be trained in the RSHI
system and will be drawn from an HA area that has a relatively large number of rock
slopes. The other member of the team will be from the geotechnical team's local HA
area. The inspector trained in the RSHI system would ensure that the baseline data
was reliable and consistently obtained and would train the local team member. The
local inspector would ensure that all of the appropriate quality, health and safety
aspects were in place and items such as traffic management was arranged and in
place. This approach should ensure that the systems are carried out safely and to a
high standard. It will also assist the dissemination of the knowledge of the system
and help ensure that a wide base of knowledge is quickly established.

652 (666) MTSC Page 22

RSHA Report
Stage 7 Inspection data to be uploaded to HA GDMS and RSHI scores to be calculated.

Stage 8 Data to be reviewed in HA GDMS and approved or otherwise by MAGLEs. As

detailed in the draft AMM, the RSHI scores are related directly to Risk Level which
provides the MAGLEs with the maintenance actions that they have to perform. These
actions will be the responsibility of the MAGLE.

Stage 9 Carry out feedback review to HA and:

 Review and amended scoring if required.
 Provide final suggestions for improvement.

Stage 10 Based on the information from the feedback review, make final improvements to draft
AMM, Pocket GAD and HA GDMS.

Stage 11 Formerly issue AMM and simultaneously release the versions of Pocket GAD and
HA GDMS that contain RSHI onto the live system.

Stage 12 Subsequently, rock slopes are to be reviewed at intervals established by RSHI

inspections by local MAs as part of their Principal Inspections. Local MAs will also be
responsible for any maintenance actions if required. It is considered that these tasks
will be made easier by the baseline of reliable information that will have been
established by the above process.

If all of these stages are carried out then the system should be consistently applied and viable in the
long-term.

Having trialled the system, it is not considered that inspectors who meet the HA’s requirements for
Principal Inspections will need additional training to carry out the inspections. However the course that
the HA GDMS support team currently provides on Principal Inspections and Pocket GAD could
include training on the system if required.

652 (666) MTSC Page 23

RSHA Report
6. Recommended future work
Note that the following work is outside the scope of the current Task Order.

 The draft AMM has been significantly modified following on from the Expert Group meeting
Nr.2 to incorporate the RSHI system. It is recommended that a final meeting of the Expert
Group is carried out to review the remaining details.
 As discussed earlier in this report, the RSHI system currently does not deal very well with
weak and interbedded rocks. It is recommended that additional work is carried out to improve
this aspect. One possible approach would be to find out if Network Rail research in this area
has made progress.
 There may be scope to undertake a collaborative research effort to establish an improved and
definitive version of the RSHI system to ensure best practice and consistency across UK
practice. Such a system would address the weak/interbedded rock issues and the effort could
involve the HA, Network Rail and TRL amongst others.
 To further aid consistency and long-term application, it is recommended that the contents of
the draft AMM are incorporated into the revised HD 41 when it is issued.
 In the medium to long-term it is recommended that Option 4 in Section 3 of this report is
eventually implemented. This will further ensure consistency and long-term application and
will resolve the fundamental lack of elegance associated with Option 3 which will be the
inability of Pocket GAD and HA DGMS to automatically calculate the RSHI score or
manipulate the data.
 Update the Network Maintenance Manual (NMM) and the Route Maintenance Management
System (RMMS) to ensure the whole of the HA asset management system is operating in a
holistic manner to manage the hazards and risks posed by rock slopes.
 Additional guidance documents could be produced for rock slope assessment and design.
Network Rail have documents that cover these aspects and work could be undertaken to
provide similar documents for the HA. This would help with the overall aim of ensuring the
HA’s rock slope assets are safely, effectively and efficiently managed.
 Research could be undertaken into the long-term condition assessment of rock masses using
work such as that of Nicholson (2004) as a basis.
 Research could also be undertaken into the long-term deterioration of rock support (dowels,
bolts, anchors) and rock containment measures (mesh, netting etc.)

652 (666) MTSC Page 24

RSHA Report
7. References
BARTON, N.R., LIEN, R. & LUNDE, J. 1974. Engineering classification of rock masses for the design
of tunnel support. Rock Mechanics, 6, 189-239.
BIENIAWSKI, Z.T. 1973. Engineering classification of jointed rock masses. Civil Engineer in South
Africa. 15, 335-344.
BRITISH STANDARDS INSTITUTION 2003. BS EN ISO 14689-1:2003. Geotechnical investigation
and testing - Identification and classification of rock - Part 1: Identification and description.
British Standards Institution.
HIGHWAYS AGENCY. 2003. HD 41/03 - Maintenance of Highway Geotechnical Assets. Design
Manual for Roads and Bridges, 4.1.3.
HIGHWAYS AGENCY. 2008. HD 22/08 - Managing Geotechnical Risk. Design Manual for Roads and
Bridges, 4.1.2).
HOEK, E. 2007. Practical Rock Engineering. Available from the RocScience website
http://www.rocscience.com/hoek/PracticalRockEngineering.asp
NICHOLSON, D.T. 2004. Hazard assessment for progressive, weathering-related breakdown of
excavated rock slopes, 37, 327-346.
MCMILLAN, P. & MATHESON, G.D. 1997. A two stage system for highway rock slope assessment.
International Journal of Rock Mechanics and Mining Science Geomechanics Abstracts, 34
(3-4), 196.
MCMILLAN, P. & MATHESON, G.D. 1998. Rock slope hazard assessment: a new approach. In:
MAUND, J.G. & EDDLESTON, M. (eds) Geohazards in Engineering Geology. Engineering Geology
Special Publications, 15. Geological Society, London, 177-183.
PIERSON, L.A., DAVIS, S.A. & VAN VICKLE, R. 1990. Rockfall Hazard Rating System
Implementation Manual. Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) Report,
FHWA-OR-E.G.-90-01.
RUSSELL, C.P., SANTI, P. & HUMPHERY, D. 2008. Modification and statistical analysis of the
Colorado Rockfall Hazard Rating System. Report No. CDOT-2008-7. Colorado School of
Mines & Colorado Department of Transportation, Available from
http://www.dot.state.co.us/Publications/PDFFiles/crhrs.pdf
WYLLIE, D.C. & MAH, C.W. 2004 Rock slope engineering civil and mining. 4th Edition. Spon Press.

652 (666) MTSC Page 25

RSHA Report
Annex A - HA Rock Slope Hazard Index AMM (Draft)

652 (666) MTSC Page 26

RSHA Report