Rock Slope Stability of Cliff End
Rock Slope Stability of Cliff End
Rock Slope Stability of Cliff End
Stability of
Cliff End
University of East London
U0737756
Acknowledgments
I would like to first of all thank my Mother and Father and sister for endlessly
supporting and believing in me even when I didn’t believe in myself. Without
their support, encouragement and belief, I would never be where I am today nor
would I be the man that I am today.
I would also like to thank Mr Richard Freeman for giving me the chance to take
part in this project and for giving me the chance to be supervised by him. Mr
Freeman’s advice as well as he’s encouragement and enthusiasm to help us in
any way possible was truly a source of inspiration for me to complete this
project to the best of my ability.
It is no exaggeration to say that without the help and advice from Mr Trevor
Rhoden, this project may not have been completed. He’s help, advice, and
patience with us in the laboratory tests was inspirational and for that I would like
to thank Mr Trevor Rhoden as well.
Last but not least I would like to thank all of my friends on my course, especially
Yosef Andom who from the foundation year shared the good and bad times with
me. Without the encouragement and inspiration from extraordinary friends like
Yosef Andom, Hassan Skaiky and Prajee Embogama as well as many others in
my class, this course would never have been as enjoyable. I feel honoured and
privileged to have had the chance to share this journey with them.
I confirm that no part of this coursework, except where clearly quoted and
referenced, has been copied from material belonging to other person.
Contents
Equations ........................................................................................................ 8
Preface ............................................................................................................ 9
1
Figure 2.20 – Diagram of wedge failure ................................................... 28
Figure 2.27 – Stereonet with great circles and angle of friction ............... 32
Figure 2.80 – Rock mass with layers of Sandstone and Clay .................. 78
Figure 5.1 – Soil and bits of rock on the base of the cliff ........................ 109
5
List of Table
Table 3.2 – Raw data for rock mass with layers of Sandstone and Clay . 79
Table 3.12 – Rock mass with layers of Sandstone and Clay calculations for
slake durability index................................................................................ 87
7
Equations
Is = P
De2 =
Is =
Is(50) = F x Is
σ = F/A
C = 24 Is(50)
PUNDIT Test
Vp = D/t ms-1
Average Length =
Average time =
8
Preface
The aim of this report is to investigate the rock slope stability of Cliff End.
9
CHAPTER 1 - INTRODUCTION
Rock slope engineering is a branch of Geomechanical engineering and is an
integral topic within it. The application of structural geology and rock mechanics
principles form the topic of rock slope engineering these principles lie in the
stability of a slope cut into rock as (Kliche, 1999). The topic of rock slope
engineering includes a wide range of analysis that is normally conducted and
these include, groundwater analysis, geological data collection, slope
stabilisation methods, kinematic and kinetic analysis.
Further, rock slope stability analysis is also an integral topic within Civil
Engineering. Its use and application can according to (Kliche, 1999) be found in
the following areas:
Wyllie 2004, generally agrees with Kliche 1999, and adds further to the list of
activities which require the excavation of rocks. These include
1) Projects involved in
transportation system such as
railways and highways
2) Dams for power
production and water supply
3) Industrial and urban
development
It is therefore necessary to
Figure 1.1 - (Greece Fatal Rockfall picture and
analyse rock slopes
photos, 2009)
10
effectively so that the proper measures can be undertaken in order to stabilise
them if necessary.
The above pictures show a rock fall occurring at Pennington Point. What can be
seen in the pictures is the development of the actual rock fall and also the
amount of material involved.
11
CHAPTER 2 – LITERATURE REVIEW
2.1 Discontinuities
The factors that control most rock slopes are joints, faults and fractures which
are otherwise termed discontinuities. Discontinuities represent planes of
weakness (Kliche, 1999). It is these planes of weaknesses that control the
engineering properties of the rock mass by way of splitting the rock mass into
numerous blocks.
(Simons, Menzies, & Matthews, 2001) also agrees with Kliche, in respect of
discontinuities being a major factor when it comes to slope failures. To
determine whether or not a rock slope is stable, one must take into account the
pattern, the extent and the type of discontinuity that are present within the rock
mass.
Joints
- A joint is formed in compression or tension and is structurally of small
dimension. They lack substantial shear strength in the plane of the
joint. (Palmstrom & Stille, 2010)
Fault
- Faults are defined by (Kliche, 1999) as essentially fractures which
have caused displacements due to tectonic activity. Characteristics of
a fault include crushed and sheared rock. This fracture allows the
water to flow freely which increases weathering.
Bedding fracture
- These are fractures which coincide along the bedding.
Induced fracture
- This is a discontinuity which has no geological origin. They have been
brought about by blasting, coring etc…
12
Incipient fracture
Figure 2.1 - Above are the main types of discontinuities according to size.
(Palmstrom & Stille, 2010)
In the earth’s crust, there are numerous variations of joints and faults and
(Palmstrom & Stille, 2010) mentions that it is for this reason that it is so difficult
to apply common observation and description of rocks.
13
2.2 Joints and Faults
mass into smaller and blockier Figure 2.2 – Joint (S.Aber, 2003)
structures. As (Jaeger, Cook, &
Zimmerman, 2007) mentions, this is why joints are very important in rock
mechanics. As the joints divides rock mass into different parts sliding can occur
along the joint surfaces. Another crucial factor is their influence on the paths
they provide for fluids to flow through the rock mass.
Joints exist in a variety of scales. (Blyth, 2005) mentions that well defined joints
are termed as Major joints whereas smaller breaks are minor joints. (Jaeger,
Cook, & Zimmerman, 2007) expands on this by terming the major joints as the
most important set and can be traced for tens or hundreds of meters. The minor
joints are not as important and can be seen usually intersecting the major joints
which is why they are also known as cross joints.
14
This is still not applicable to all cases though as two sets of joints have the
potential to be equally as important as each other.
(Villaverde, 2009) notes that the existence of faults at some location indicates
that a relative motion took place between its two sides at some time in the past.
15
All of the authors agree that the most important aspect in relation to
discontinuities is their spacing and orientation. (Simons, Menzies, & Matthews,
2001) gives a useful list of important characteristics of discontinuities. Their list
is as follows:
Orientation
Spacing (one dimension)
Block size and shape
Persistence
Roughness
Wall strength
Wall coating
Aperture and infilling
Seepage
Discontinuity sets
Both the initial and main concerns in regards to rock slope stability is the
orientation and spacing of the discontinuities. (Wyllie, Mah, & Hoek, 2004)
states that whilst orientation is the number one characteristic that influences
stability, there are other properties such as spacing and persistence that also
have an effect. Three examples from (Wyllie, Mah, & Hoek, 2004) are shown on
figure 2.4-2.6:
16
J1 can be seen to be widely
spaced and the persistence is
greater than the slope height of
the cut.
17
2.3 Orientation
Dip and dip direction are the terminology used to record orientation. They are
defined by (Wyllie, Mah, & Hoek, 2004) as follows:
1) Dip –The dip is measured normal to the strike direction and is the
inclination angle of the plane.
2) Dip direction – this is the horizontal trace of the line of dip, which is
measured clockwise from north. (Kliche, 1999) further adds that the dip
direction is measured from 0⁰ to 360⁰. 0⁰ and 360⁰ = North, 90⁰ = East,
180⁰ = South, 270⁰ = West.
To measure the dip and dip direction, the strike is also needed. This is defined
by (Wyllie, Mah, & Hoek, 2004) as the trace of the intersection of an inclined
plane with a horizontal reference plane. A diagram is shown below by (Wyllie,
Mah, & Hoek, 2004) to illustrate the relationship between strike, dip and dip
direction.
18
Figure 2.7 - Diagram showing discontinuity orientation. Diagram on left showing
isometric view and on the right showing the plan view. (Wyllie, Mah, & Hoek,
2004)
To take dip and dip directions, a compass and inclinometer will be required.
(Simons, Menzies, & Matthews, 2001) recommends the use
of a common type of combination between a compass and
inclinometer. These include the Silva compass and the Clar
type compass. They allow for both dip and dip direction to
be taken using the same instrument.
Figure 2.8 -
Compass
19
2.4 Stereographic analysis
When the data has been collected in the field it can be expected that there will
be scatter in the data. To be able to efficiently analyse this, it is vital that a
technique is used to deal with such scatter. Stereographic projection is a
technique that allows for such data to be analysed efficiently. Several textbooks
also term stereographic projection as “Hemispherical projection” but for the
sake of simplicity, it will be referred to as Stereographical projection here.
(Kliche, 1999) mentions that the term stereographic projection literally means
the projection of solid or three dimensional drawings. Stereographical projection
is a method which is often used in rock mechanics for the analysis of planar
discontinuities such as bedding planes, faults, shear planes, and joints. Since
this technique allows data to be analysed visually rather than numerically, it is
considered a valuable technique in rock mechanics due to its simplicity.
20
Both stereonets can be seen below on figures 2.11 and 2.12:
21
Figure 2.12 - Equatorial stereonet (Hoek & Bray, 2001)
Both stereonets shown above are a common type of stereonet called an equal
area or Lambert (Schmidt) net. All of the areas of an equal area stereonet on
the surfaces of the reference sphere is represented as an equal area. This is
particularly useful as this allows the contouring of pole plots. This in turn will
lead to concentrations of poles which define preferred orientations and sets of
discontinuities.
22
(Wyllie, Mah, & Hoek, 2004) and (Kliche, 1999) both provide methods to plotting
the data onto the stereo nets and provide similar instructions.
Figure 2.13 - The figure above shows geological data and analysed on a tracing
paper courtesy of (Wyllie, Mah, & Hoek, 2004)
Data collected from the field are first plotted onto a polar stereonet. This can
either be carried out by hand or computer. The dip direction is marked from 0⁰
to 360⁰. 0⁰ and 360⁰ start from the bottom of the stereonet and 180⁰ is located
on the top of the stereonet.
23
every dip and dip direction collected. Eventually, clusters will form and each
cluster will represent a discontinuity. An example of this is shown on the figure
below.
(Simons, Menzies, & Matthews, 2001) and (Wyllie, Mah, & Hoek, 2004) contain
worked visual examples of the plotting of great circles on the equatorial
stereonet. The best and most clear step by step example is shown by (Wyllie,
Mah, & Hoek, 2004) on figure 2.16:
Figure 2.16 - Equatorial stereonet example (Wyllie, Mah, & Hoek, 2004)
24
Two discontinuity set orientations are plotted on figure 2.16. They are 50/130⁰
and 30/250⁰.
The tracing paper is rotated to either 90⁰ or 270 from the dip direction recorded.
The dip is then counted from the outer edge, representing 0⁰, to the centre,
representing 90⁰. In this case, a dip of 50⁰ is reached and the great circle is
traced that corresponds to 50⁰.
25
Figure 2.18 – stereonet with great circle
The tracing paper is rotated again so that the mark “N”, returns to its original
position. The entire procedure is repeated again for 30/250 giving a diagram as
shown in figure 2.19.
26
2.5 Slope instability mode identification
(Wyllie, Mah, & Hoek, 2004) and (Simons, Menzies, & Matthews, 2001) provide
patterns to look out for with respect to specific types of failures and both provide
explanations for those different failures. (Kliche, 1999) only goes as far as
showing the steps to making a equatorial stereonet but does not delve into what
the analysis necessarily represents.
There are four types of failure that are of main concern according to (Wyllie,
Mah, & Hoek, 2004). These include Plane failure, Wedge failure, Toppling
failure and Circular failure. (Simons, Menzies, & Matthews, 2001) agrees with
the main types of failures but also adds two more, Flexural toppling and Rock
falls. Since Plane failure, Wedge failure, toppling failure and circular failure are
the main type of failures which can be analysed using a stereonet, these will
form the main focus of this project.
27
2.5.1 Wedge failure
Pole concentrations
Line intersection
dip direction and
Figure 2.21 - Wedge
direction of sliding
failure on stereonet
(Wyllie, Mah, & Hoek,
2004)
28
2.5.2 Plane failure
Figure 2.22 - Diagram of Plane plane failure to occur, which will then allow a
failure (Wyllie, Mah, & Hoek, block of finite size to slide out of the face
2004)
(Simons, Menzies, & Matthews, 2001). A
plane failure is one of the simplest modes of failure.
Pole concentrations
Dip direction of
face and direction
of sliding
29
2.5.3 Toppling failure
Dip direction of
face and direction
of toppling
Figure 2.25 - Toppling
failure on stereonet
(Wyllie, Mah, & Hoek,
2004)
30
2.5.4 Circular failure
Randomly oriented
discontinuities.
One parameter that is left out in these stereonet examples is the angle of
friction as this will have an influence on the stability. (Wyllie, Mah, & Hoek,
2004) does not give a clear explanation as to how to plot the angle of friction
whereas (Simons, Menzies, & Matthews, 2001) does provide this.
31
Angle of Friction
at 50⁰
32
2.6 Rock instability causes
In different parts of the world, there are a wide range of conditions that
represent the wide variety of natural processes
that are taking place to shape the earth’s surface.
2.6.1 Weathering
The process of breaking down of the minerals into new compounds is called
chemical weathering. Chemical weathering takes place by action of chemical
agents such as acids in the
air, river water and in rain.
(Blyth, 2005) notes that
although the process of
chemical weathering is slow,
they produce noticeable
effects in soluble rocks.
Chemical weathering can
decrease the amount of
inflilling in discontinuities
which can result in a
Figure 2.29 - Mechanical weathering (De Groot, decrease of shear stress of
2005)
the discontinuity. This can
cause premature slope failures due to the decrease in the angle of friction.
33
Mechanical weathering is essentially the breakdown of rock into small particles.
This is achieved by abrasion from mineral particles carried in the wind, constant
temperature changes and by impact from raindrops. In dry areas the land are
shaped by the sand constantly blasting against them during storms. Flaking of
exposed rock surfaces are produced in very hot and very cold climates where
temperature constantly changes.
The agents of erosion are rivers, wind, water waves and moving ice. This is due
to their capabilities which include loosening, carrying particles of soil and
dislodging large pieces of rock and sediment.
As the toe of the rock is eroded away over geological time, this leaves the rock
on top of the toe to overhang above the sea which is known as undercutting.
When the discontinuities control the rock slope stability, undercutting of the
34
slope will cause daylighting of the discontinuities resulting in plane, wedge or
toppling failure as well as other more complex failure mechanisms.
In climates where little rain is seen, wind is the main source of erosion. The
wind contributes to erosion through the following methods; wind carries small
particles and essentially moves it to another region. The other effect is erosion
as the suspended particles
impact on solid objects. This over
geological time, erodes rock from
the bottom which causes
overhanging of rocks which will
eventually topple.
35
2.6.3 Earthquake
the strength of the rock. Figure 2.32 – Earthquake (Man Made Earth,
2010)
When this happens, failure
and slip will occur along the fracture and this followed by a smaller rebound.
(Blyth, 2005) notes that it only takes a few centimetres of movement or less to
create a significant shock due to the amount of energy involved. Earthquake
can have devastating effects and have the potential to send severe shocks
capable of opening fissures on the ground, initiating landslides, and fault scarps.
Weak ground produces the worst effects especially in young deposits such as
sand, silt and clay.
The figure above shows two plate boundary colliding and given enough time,
they will eventually fold up in very much the same manner as an accordion. It is
36
this process that has creates the world’s mightiest mountain ranges, such as
the Alps and the Himalayas.
Figure 2.34 - Formation of a fault by plates sliding past each other. (Villaverde,
2009)
When the edges of the plate slide past each other, crust is neither created nor
destroyed, nor are there any changes on the Earth’s surface. This type of action
occurs on boundaries which are called faults.
37
2.7 Properties of the rock
(Hoek & Bray, 2001) mentions that when analysing rock slopes, the most
important factor that needs to be considered is the geometry of the rock mass
behind the slope face. (Kliche, 1999) and (Wyllie, Mah, & Hoek, 2004) also
echo these sentiments. Another factor, which is the next important factor that
needs to be considered, is the shear strength of the potential failure surface.
There are many factors that contribute to shear strength including angle of
friction, cohesion, rock mass density, surface roughness and joint continuity.
Figure 2.35 - Plot of shear displacement vs shear Shear stress again Shear
stress (Wyllie, Mah, & Hoek, 2004) displacement is shown.
38
If the test is carried out in different normal stress levels and the peak shear
strength value is gained from each of the tests, then a plot of Shear stress
against Normal stress can be plotted. This is called the Mohr diagram.
Figure 2.36 - Mohr plot of peak strength (Wyllie, Mah, & Hoek, 2004)
As can be seen on the diagram above, the features of the Mohr diagram is that
it is approximately linear and the slope of the line is equivalent to the peak
friction angle Фp of the rock surface. The point at which the line intercepts the
shear stress axis is the cohesive strength c.
(2.1)
(2.2)
39
Driving force and Restoring force
A slope that is stable has a Restoring force that is greater than the driving force.
The driving force is influenced greatly by gravity which creates a downward
movement.
A slope that is unstable has a Restoring force that is less than the driving force.
When the dip of the beds is greater than the angle of friction, driving force is
increased thus destabilising the rock mass.
The cohesion of any infilling material can decrease due to the groundwater
pressure increasing the uplifting pressure. This results in a reduction of
Restoring force as can be seen in the figure below.
Infill material
40
2.8 Rock laboratory tests
41
2.8.2 Slake durability test
The test involves the rock sample being put in a drum and then partially
submerged in water. The drum is then rotated at 20 revolutions per minute for a
period of 10 minutes. The drum is dried and the weight loss is then recorded.
The test cycle is then repeated one more time.
42
2.8.3 Pundit test
A PUNDIT (Portable Ultrasonic Non Destructive Index Tester) is used for this
test. At one end of the specimen a compressive stress pulse is generated and
the PUNDIT test records the time taken for the resulting P wave to reach the
other end.
43
2.8.4 Undrained Triaxial test
Schmidt hammer
The hammer is placed on the rock mass Figure 2.44 – Rebound Hammer
(Poyeshyar Co. Ltd, 2011)
and a spring loaded mass is released
onto the rock. The rebound is dependent on the hardness of the rock.
45
2.9 Stabilisation of rock slope
(Wyllie, Mah, & Hoek, 2004) mentions that stabilisation programs are often very
economical as the failure of a slope could bring around high costs. An example
of this can be seen on highways as even a minor rock fall can bring about
damage to vehicles as well as injury or even death to the passengers. The
failure of stabilising a slope can also bring severe traffic and indirect economic
loss. (Wyllie, Mah, & Hoek, 2004) adds that a closure of railroad and toll
highways will result in a direct loss of revenue.
Due to these
reasons, stabilising
a rock face is of
extreme importance.
Below will be a list of
stabilisation
techniques which
are commonly used
to stabilise slope.
46
2.9.1 Rock bolt
Rock bolting is a technique that is very common due to its flexibility. (Palmstrom
& Stille, 2010) mentions that it is often used for the initial support at the tunnel
sides and can often be used for the final support.
Figure 2.46 - Typical rock bolt configuration (Simons, Menzies, & Matthews,
2001)
Rock bolts are used to prevent toppling by tying together the blocks of rock so
that the effective base width is increased. They can also increase the resistance
to sliding on discontinuity surfaces. Another use for rock bolts is its use as an
anchor structure such as retaining walls and catch nets.
47
Rock bolts being used to
prevent toppling failure
Figure 2.47 - Applications of rock bolts and anchoring. (Simons, Menzies, &
Matthews, 2001)
48
2.9.2 Shotcrete
The term shotcrete is used for a sprayed concrete which comprises of mortar
and aggregate which can be as large as 20mm thick. (Simons, Menzies, &
Matthews, 2001) also notes that the term gunite is also used to describe a
similar sort of material but with smaller aggregate.
Three different shotcrete methods are in use today as (Palmstrom & Stille,
2010) mentions:
49
Figure 2.48 – Shotcrete used for reinforcing of unstable fragments
and small blocks
50
2.9.3 Anchored Wired mesh
51
2.10 Site selection
For this research project, a site needed to be selected to assess its rock slope
stability. The selection of the site was based on a number of different
requirements which had to be agreed on with the supervisor. The following were
the requirements:
1) Hastings
2) Fairlight Cove
3) Cliff End
4) Pex Hill quarry
5) Derbyshire quarry
6) Paragon beach
7) Tenby beach
Although pictures on Google maps show that Tenby and Paragon beach clearly
have unstable rocks to analyse, to get to the site would take approximately 5
hours by car. This was deemed too far. Pex Hill quarry and Derbyshire quarry
were also far away with approximately a 4 hour car journey to get there. It was
not clear there was easy access to the site either so a site visit to the quarries
would be a last resort. Out of all of the sites listed above, the Hastings area was
the closest with a 2 hour drive which had Fairlight Cove and Cliff End close to
its proximity.
From satellite imagery provided by Bing Maps, the coast along Hastings to Cliff
End were potential sites.
52
Figure 2.51 – map of site
The first site visited was the coast along Hasting on October 2nd 2010. There were amples of parking space and the site was very easily
accessible.
53
As can be seen on the
pictures taken, the site is
not easy to work on.
Although there is
evidence of plane failure
from the rubble at the
bottom, it would not be
comfortable or safe to
work on this site.
Furthermore, a warning
sign on the front of the
entrance also gave
indication as to the level
of safety on the site as
can be seen on the
photograph taken to the
left.
54
Figure 2.53 – Map of Fairlight
Driving along the coast of Hastings, Cliff End was eventually reached. Cliff End
provided very easy access to the site from the car park as can be seen below.
55
After roughly a 5 minute walk, the Cliffs of Cliff End could be seen.
56
Figure 2.57 – Cliff End site
Walking along the coast was not possible on this day due to the high tides but
this site showed some evidence of instability due to the orientation of the
discontinuities present.
After showing pictures of the site to the supervisor, it was eventually agreed that
the Cliff End site would form the subject for this research project.
57
Car Park
Site
58
2.11 Geology of Cliff End
The Cliff End site at East Sussex which starts from Haddock’s reversed fault to
just after the Cliff End faults consist mainly of layers of Ashdown Beds, Cliff End
Sandstone and Wadhurst Clay.
The Cliffs have reached their current state by constant wave erosion over
geological time and it is estimated by (Villagenet, 2011) to have eroded at a rate
of 0.6 metres per year. This would indicate that during 1066 the cliffs were
approximately a further 550 metres out.
Figure 2.59 – Sketch of Cliff End site. (British Geological Survey, 1987) A=
Ashdown beds CE= Cliff End Sandstone W= Wadhurst Clay.
Approximately 6000 years ago, after the last Ice Age, the sea level was
approximately 45 meters lower than it is at present due to the Polar Regions
having more ice. At that time, a forest grew when England was still joined by a
land bridge to the continent.
The sea level began to rise as the climate became warmer. This caused the
Polar Regions to have their ice slowly melt away causing sea levels to rise
above the level of the forest. The consequences were that the forest drowned
but the wood is still preserved today in salt water and mud.
Pictures taken of Cliff End on the next page illustrate the remains of the
submerged forest.
59
Figure 2.60 – Submerged forest. (Chadwick, Submerged Forest, Cliff End,
2010)
Figure 2.61 – submerged forest (Chadwick, Submerged Forest, Cliff End, 2010)
60
Cliff End
Figure 2.62 – Topographical features of the Hastings area (British Geological Survey, 1987)
61
Figure 2.63 – Structural geology of the Hastings area (British Geological Survey, 1987)
62
Figure 2.64 - Sketch of Cliff section between Haddock’s Reversed Fault and Cliff End (British Geological Survey, 1987)
63
Looking beyond
Haddocks reverse fault
on page 54, the cliff
line has a height of
approximately 20-30
meters which goes as
far as Cliff End. Soft
Wadhurst Clay shales
Figure 2.65 – Cliff End site cut into the upper part
of the cliff which gives
rise to a strip of densely wooded, slipped terrain from which material sometimes
falls to the beach. Within these shales is where the Cliff End Bone Bed occurs
which is a few meters above the top of the Cliff End Sandstone in the top of the
cliff.
Beneath the base of the Cliff End sandstone, a 1m band of shales with a 0.1 m
bed of clay-ironstone gives rise to a notch in the cliff which marks the
intersection of the Wadhurst Clay and the Ashdown Beds. Up to 15 m of
sandstones lie beneath the notch with thin silty mudstone bands which are
exposed above the beach.
64
There are scattered exposures at the cliff top in the wadhurst clay which
comprises of 16 m of shales and subordinate siltstones with clay ironstone
nodules. There are also fish and plant debris and bivalve moulds at some
horizons.
There are faunal remains at the site which include fish and teeth and some
reptilean bone fragments and teeth. These remains give valuable data as to the
evolutionary lineages within their groups.
Ashdown Beds
They are from the early Cretaceous period, specifically the Berriasian age which
ranges from 140 million to 145.5 million years ago.
65
Wadhurst Clay
The wadhurst clay mainly consists of grey mudstone which weathers at the
surface to heavy, orcreous mottled, greenish grey and khaki clays. Other
lithologies include sandstone, siltstone, conglomerate, clay ironstone and shelly
limestone. Thin beds of shelly limestone, rich in Neomiodon and Viviparus, are
also present throughout. The top metre of the Wadhurst Clay contains stiff clay
stained red by penecontemporaneous weathering.
Wadhurst Clay are from the early Cretaceous period, specifically the
Valanginian age which ranges from 136 million to 140 million years ago.
66
Normal observed
fault
Ashdown formation
Wadhurst Clay
Figure 2.68 - Edina Digimap 2011 showing bedrock on the Cliff End area.
67
Figure 2.69 – Stratigraphical column (British Geological Survey, 1987)
68
2.12 Travel log
Arrived on the Cliff End site early morning at 8:00 am where the tide was low.
This allowed 6 hours of investigation before the tide returned. This day was
spent observing the site, selecting the faces to analyse and to take dip and dip
directions. The aim was to take as many dip and dip directions as possible.
Arrived on the Cliff End site early morning at 9:00 am where the tide was low.
The main focus of this day was again to take as many dip and dip directions as
is possible. By the time the high tide started to arrive, 722 dip and dip direction
readings were taken.
70
2.12.3 November 18th 2010
Having arrived at Cliff End at 10 am, and having taken enough dip and dip
directions, the focus of attention could be placed elsewhere. The task for this
day was to do a topographical survey, take Schmidt hammer readings, take the
angle of friction and to also take back rock samples to the Laboratory for testing.
136 2800
032 720
138 980
065 2850
022 740
138 2400
042 650
132 20500
028 400
121 1250
Table 2.1 – Topographical survey
71
The readings were then used in AutoCad to create a topographical survey of
the faces to be analysed.
Face 2
Face 4
Face 8
Face 5
Face 1
Face 9
Face 3
Face 7
Face 10 Face 6
Face 10 Face 1
72
Angle of friction
using the inclinometer. To get the Figure 2.75 – Taking the angle of friction
angle of friction of the clay, a sample of the clay needs to be taken to the
laboratory and a tri-axial test needs to be performed.
Hard Sandstone 37
73
Schmidt Hammer test
74
Dip and dip direction data – sample. All 722 points can be found in the appendix
6 06 98 37 89 042 68 10 052
7 03 98 38 08 089 69 13 112
8 02 30 39 02 120 70 15 118
10 04 50 41 10 100 72 31 082
12 02 58 43 81 112 74 85 132
75
Discontinuity description
Discontinuities have a typical height of 1100 mm, width of 960 mm and a length
of 2000 mm. Cliff End consists of the same discontinuities throughout the entire
site.
76
Geological Strength Index
The rock was blocky and had a moderately weathered surface. Using the
Geological strength index, the rock mass was in the range of 40-50 which is a
moderately strong rock.
77
2.13 Petrology1
Hard Sandstone
1
Rock Mass Description sheets for both rock types can be found in the appendix
78
CHAPTER 3 – LABORATORY/FIELD RESULTS
To gain the strength characteristics of the rock mass, a point load test needs to
be performed. The pundit test will help gain the uniaxial compressive index
which will then be used to check against a uniaxial compressive index chart.
The table below are the raw results gained from the experiment.
Hard Sandstone
Table 3.2 – Raw data for rock mass with layers of Sandstone and Clay
The table on the next page shows the calculations to get the Uniaxial
compressive index
79
Hard Sandstone
Force at Length of Axial Area De2=4A/π De (mm) Is=P/Dee F= (De/50)0.45 Is(50)=F x Is Average Is
Loading (mm) (mm)2
Failure (N) (mm2)
Height Average
length
10600 25.2 64.14 1616.33 2057.97 45.36 5.15 0.96 4.93 5.62
Is = 5.62 N/mm2
Average F = 0.90
80
Mixture of Sandstone and Clay
Force at Length of Axial Area De2=4A/π De (mm) Is=P/Dee F= (De/50)0.45 Is(50)=F x Is Average Is
Loading (mm) (mm)2
Failure (N) (mm2)
Height Average
length
560 25.48 47.28 1204.69 1533.86 39.16 0.37 0.90 0.33 3.79
Is = 3.79 N/mm2
Average F = 0.85
81
Description Point Load Strength Index Equivilant Uniaxial
(MPa) Compressive Strength
(MPa)
Table 3.5 – Point load strength index (Franklin and Brox, 1972)
The Hard Sandstone has a point load index of 5.05 MPa which indicates very
high strength with a Equivilant Uniaxial Compressive Strength of 50 – 160. The
rock mass with the mixture of Sandstone and Clay has a point load index of
3.21 MPa which also represents very high strength with a Equivilant Uniaxial
Compressive Strength of 50 – 160. Both the Hard Sandstone and the rock mass
with the mixture of Sandstone and Clay can be classified by Hoek’s rock
classification table, seen on table 3.6, as being strong to very strong.
82
Table 3.6 Classification of rock by strength (Hoek, E, & Marinos, P, 2000)
83
3.1.1 Results
The Hard Sandstone had a point load strength index of 5.05 MPa and the
mixture of Sandstone and Clay had a point load strength index of 3.21 MPa.
Is = P
De2 = 4A/π
F= (De/50)0.45
Is(50)=F x Is
84
3.2 Pundit test
A PUNDIT (Portable Ultrasonic Non Destructive Index Tester) is used for this
test. At one end of the specimen a compressive stress pulse is generated and
the PUNDIT test records the time taken for the resulting P wave to reach the
other end. The table below shows the raw results for the PUNDIT test
43.2 230
45.3 230
63.5 145
The table on the next page shows the calculations to get the Average Velocity
(ms-1)
VP = D/t
85
3.3 Slake durability
The test involves the rock sample being put in a drum and then partially
submerged in water. The drum is then rotated at 20 revolutions per minute for a
period of 10 minutes. The drum is dried and the weight loss is then recorded.
The test cycle is then repeated one more time. This is all to test how prone a
rock mass is to weathering.
The table below are the raw results gained from the slake durability test
Sample Initial mass (g) After Cycle 1 mass Dry mass (g)
(g)
Mix of clay and 310.9 269.4 250.0
sandstone
Hard Sand Stone 301.9 302.9 299.7
Sample Initial mass (g) After Cycle 2 mass Dry mass (g)
(g)
Mix of clay and 250.0 251.3 235
sandstone
Hard Sand Stone 299.7 300.6 299
Hard Sandstone
Test Initial weight Final weight (g) Slake durability Average slake
number (g) index (%) durability index (%)
Table 3.11 – Hard Sandstone calculations for average slake durability index
86
Mix of Sandstone and Clay
Test Initial weight Final weight (g) Slake durability Average slake
number (g) index (%) durability index (%)
Table 3.12 – Rock mass with layers of Sandstone and Clay calculations for
slake durability index
3.3.1 Results
Using the table above, the Hard Sandstone has an average slake durability
index of 99.52 % which means that it has very high durability. The first and
second cycles were both slightly above 99% which was expected.
The Rock mass which contained a mix of Sandstone and Clay had a slake
durability index of 80.41% on the first cycle and 94% on the second cycle.
87
3.4 Consistency limit
The cone penetrometer method for liquid limit is reliant on the relationship
between the moisture content and the penetration of the soil sample by the
cone.
This test must be performed due to the layer of Clay that runs along the site.
Tin number Mass of empty tin Mass of tin plus Mass of tin plus
(g) “wet” soil (g) “dry” soil (g)
5.9 5.3 16.3 14.7
Ave = 27.1
2 3.6, 3.6, 4.1 139 3.7 16 27.1
Ave = 3.8
3 9.7, 10.2, 10.5 99 3.5 24.4 20.3
Ave = 10.1
4 15.5, 15.0, 15.0 136 3.5 33.8 14
Ave = 15.2
Table 3.15 – Liquid limit test results: raw results gained from the Liquid limit test
The table on the next page shows the calculations necessary to classify the soil.
88
Mass of tin (g) Mass of tin plus wet soil (g) Mass of tin plus dry soil (g)
89
30
25
20
Penetration
15
Linear (Penetration)
10
0
0.00 5.00 10.00 15.00 20.00 25.00 30.00 35.00
Water content %
90
Figure 3.2 – Soil classified as clay with low plasticity.
91
3.4.1 Results
This test has confirmed that the soil is clay with low plasticity.
92
3.5 Undrained Triaxial test
The specimen for the triaxial test was prepared and the computer attached to
the triaxial test produced the necessary Mohr Circle so that the angle of friction
of the clay could be gained. The figure below shows the Mohr circle created.
For the rest of the results, please refer to the appendix.
15⁰
Results
With the aid of computer software, Mohr’s circle’s were created for the clay
sample. The angle of friction for the Clay was measured at 15⁰.
93
3.6 Goodman and Bray Chart
From figure 3.4 on the next page, DS1, 3 and 5 are stable. DS2, 4 and 5 fall into
the toppling and sliding to toppling zones.
94
DS1 Zone C: DS2 DS4 DS6
DS3 Toppling only
DS5
95
CHAPTER 4 – STABILITY OF THE SITE
This part of the project will investigate the stability of the Cliff End site. A
topographical survey was taken which contains 10 faces and all 10 faces were
analysed with the aid of a stereonet software called “Stereonet 32”.
Face 9
Face 4 Face 1
Face 2
Face 5
Face 10
Face 8
Face 7
Face 3
Face 6
Face 1
Face 10
96
4.1 Stereographic projection
A total of 722 Dip and Dip directions were taken of the Cliff End site. All 722
were typed into the stereonet 32 software and the programme determined 6
discontinuities with the value of both their dip and dip direction marked with a ▲
on the polar stereonet.
DS1 4 308
DS2 64 035
DS3 09 023
DS4 73 123
DS5 10 079
DS6 88 100
97
Hard
Mixture of Sandstone
Sandstone
and clay
Clay
The figure above shows all 6 discontinuity sets plotted with 3 angles of friction.
For a Plane failure to occur the dip of the face must be greater than the dip of
the discontinuity and the dip direction of both the face and discontinuity must be
similar, +-20⁰. The angle of friction must also be less than the discontinuity set.
For a Wedge failure to occur, the intersection of two discontinuities must have a
dip direction similar to that of the face (+-20⁰) as well as having a dip less than
that of the face. The intersection must also be less than the intersection.
Hard Sandstone 37
Clay 15
Table 4.2 – Angle of Friction
98
Face 1 = 84/136
Plane failure along discontinuity set 4. All other discontinuities sets are stable.
Face 1
Face 2 = 89/032
99
Face 3 = 89/138
Face 4 = 82/065
Wedge failure along DS2 and DS4. All other discontinuities are stable.
100
Face 5 = 81/022
Wedge failure along DS2 and DS6. Plane failure along DS2. All other
discontinuities are stable.
Face 6 = 84/138
101
Face 7 = 83/042
Plane failure along DS2. Possible wedge failure along DS2 and DS6. Possible
wedge failure along DS4 and DS2. All other discontinuities are stable.
Face 8 = 89/132
102
Face 9 = 88/028
Plane failure along DS2. Wedge failure along DS2 and DS6. Possible wedge
failure along DS2 and DS4. All other discontinuities are stable.
Face 10 = 85/121
103
CHAPTER 5 - Discussion
Hard sandstone and the rock containing a mixture of mainly Sandstone and
Clay, found on the site, were tested in the Slake durability test. Hard sandstone
was found to have a consistent slake durability index on both cycle 1 and cycle
2 with a slake durability index of 99.52 %. This confirms that the Hard
sandstone is highly resistant to weathering which suggests that the particles
within the Hard sandstone are very well cemented.
The rock mass that contained a mixture of mainly Sandstone and Clay did not
have consistent results through both cycles. The first cycle had a slake
durability index of 80.41% and the second had a slake durability index of 94%.
Using Gamble’s Slake durability scale, this would mean that the durability range
lies from low durability to medium high durability which is a significant difference.
The reason for this is that the rock mass initially contained a layer of clay which
disintegrated in the first cycle. In the second cycle, the rock mass no longer has
the clay inside so the difference in weight from the initial weight to the final
weight is far less than the first cycle’s initial and final weight.
It is important to note though that the slake durability test does not take into
account other mechanical or physical process such as fractures as a result of
heat expansion or contraction and freeze thaw cycles.
The Pundit test was used to test the pulse velocity of the Hard sandstone and
the rock mass containing mainly a mixture of Sandstone and Clay. As expected,
the pundit test showed that the Hard sandstone was more dense. The Hard
sandstone had a pulse velocity of 4955.21 ms-1 and the rock mass with a
mixture of Sandstone and Clay had a pulse velocity of 2737.64 ms -1. This is due
to the higher density of the Hard Sandstone which reduces air voids and
imperfections.
The point load test was used to give an indication as to what the strength of the
rock samples were. The Hard Sandstone had a point load index of 5.05 MPa
which indicates very high strength with a Equivilant Uniaxial Compressive
104
Strength of 50 – 160 MPa. The rock mass with the mixture of Sandstone and
Clay has a point load index of 3.21 MPa which also represents very high
strength with a Equivilant Uniaxial Compressive Strength of 50 – 160 MPa.
Before the point load test, it was predicted that the hard sandstone and the
mixture of Sandstone and Clay would be classified as rocks with high to very
high strength due to the Schmidt hammer readings that were taken on the site.
The laboratory test results confirmed these readings with the Hard Sandstone
having a point load strength index of 5.05 MPa and the mixture of Sandstone
and Clay having a point load strength index of 3.21 MPa.
To classify the soil found on site, the consistency limit test had to be performed.
This is a test that is reliant on the relationship between the water content and
the plastic limit of the sample. The liquid limit was 30% and the plastic lndex
was 17%. Using the soil classification graph, the soil was found to be clay with
low plasticity. Before the test, it was expected that the laboratory test would
show that the soil sample was clay. This is due to various sources that
discussed Wadhurst Clay in great detail as well as geological maps that gave
indication of Wadhurst Clay on the site. By touch and feel, it was also expected
for the Clay to be of low plasticity. This test has confirmed that the soil is indeed
Clay with low plasticity.
As an early indication of the rock strength, the Schmidt hammer reading was an
quick and easy test to carry out. The Hard Sandstone was stronger with an
average reading of 33 whilst the rock with mixture of mainly Sandstone and
Clay had a reading of 27. It must be noted that this is only a measure of the
exterior strength of the rock mass and not an indication of the strength that is
inside the rock. Based on these initial readings, there was an expectation to the
behaviour of these rocks in the laboratory tests.
105
5.3 Analysis of Stereographic projection.2
Face 1
The stereonet only shows a plane failure which runs along discontinuity set 4
(DS4). The face can be seen to have a dip which is less than DS4. Face 1
having a dip of 84⁰ and DS4 123⁰ respectively. The face also has a similar dip
direction to discontinuity set 4 with 136⁰ and 123⁰ respectively which is within +-
020⁰. This means that DS4 is within the danger zone, therefore the stereonet
shows a plane failure for this face under all angles of friction.
Face 2
The stereonet shows a wedge failure occurring along discontinuity set 2 (DS2)
and discontinuity set 6 (DS6). The point at which DS2 and DS6 intersect is
greater than all three angles of friction. The dip direction of the intersection is
015⁰ and the dip direction of the face is 032⁰ which indicates that the
intersection is in the danger zone. The dip of the face is also greater than the
intersection which all add up to indicate a wedge failure along DS2 and DS6.
DS4 and DS2 also intersect but with a dip direction of 66⁰, it clearly does not fall
into the danger zone.
There is also a plane failure along DS2. This is due to the dip of DS2 being
greater than all three of the angles of friction as well as having a dip direction of
035⁰ which is very similar to that of the face’s 032⁰. The dip of the face (89⁰) is
also greater than DS2 (64⁰) which meets the conditions for a plane failure to
occur.
Face 3
On this stereonet, a plane failure is existent along DS4. The dip of the face (89⁰)
is greater than that of DS4 (73⁰) and the dip direction of the face (138⁰) is within
2
When the phrase “entire angles of friction” is page 98 for the values of each angle of friction.
106
+- 20⁰ of DS4 (123⁰). DS4 also has a dip which is greater than all three angles
of friction. This places DS4 in the danger zone and due to this, plane failure
occurs along this discontinuity set
Face 4
On this stereonet, a wedge failure occurs along DS2 and DS4. As can be seen
on the stereonet, DS2 and DS4 intersect at a point where its dip direction (66⁰)
is almost identical to that of the dip direction of the face (65⁰). The dip of the
intersection (60⁰) is less than the dip of the face (82⁰) and the intersection’s dip
is greater than all three angles of friction. This places the intersection in the
danger zone which indicates a wedge failure.
Face 5
This stereonet shows a wedge failure along DS2 and DS6. The point at which
DS2 and DS6 intersect has a dip direction of 15⁰ of and the face has a dip
direction of 022⁰ which are similar. The intersection has a dip (15⁰)lower than
that of the face (81⁰) but greater than that of all angles of friction which places
the intersection in the danger area.
There is also a plane failure on this stereonet. DS2 has a dip direction (035⁰)
which is similar to that of the face (022⁰). The dip of DS2 (64⁰) is also less than
the dip of the face (81⁰) but greater than all three angles of friction which places
DS2 in the danger area. This results in a plane failure along DS2.
Face 6
This stereonet shows a plane failure along DS4. The dip direction of the face is
138⁰ which is similar to DS4’s dip direction of 123⁰. The dip of DS4 (73⁰) is also
less than that of the face’s dip of 84⁰ but greater than all of the angles of friction
which means that DS4 lies within the danger zone thus, resulting in a plane
failure.
107
Face 7
This stereonet shows a plane failure along DS2. The dip direction of the face
(042⁰) is similar to that of DS2 (035⁰). The dip of DS2 (035⁰) is also greater than
all three angles of friction as well as being lower than that of the dip of the face
(83⁰). This places DS2 in the danger zone thus resulting in a plane failure.
Face 8
This stereonet shows another plane failure along DS4. DS4 has a dip direction
of 123⁰ which is similar to the dip direction of the face (132⁰). The dip of DS4 is
73⁰ which is less than the dip of the face which is 89⁰ but is greater than all
three angles of friction. This means that DS4 lies within the danger zone thus
resulting in a plane failure.
Face 9
On this stereonet a wedge failure exists along DS2 and DS6. The point at which
they intersect is 15⁰ which is similar to the dip direction of the face which is 028⁰.
The dip of the intersection (60⁰) is also less than the dip of the face (88⁰) but
greater than all three angles of friction. This means that the intersection lies
within the danger zone thus forming a wedge failure.
There is also a plane failure along DS2 due to its dip direction (035⁰) being
similar to that of the dip direction of the face (028⁰), its dip (035⁰) being less
than that of the face’s dip (88⁰) but greater than all three angles of friction. This
places DS2 in the danger zone thus resulting in a plane failure along DS2.
Face 10
This stereonet shows a plane failure only along DS4. The dip direction of the
face (121⁰) is very similar to that of the dip direction of DS4 (123⁰). The dip of
DS4 (73⁰) is less than that of the dip of the face (85⁰) but greater than that of all
three angles of friction. This places DS4 in the danger zone thus resulting in a
plane failure along DS4.
108
5.4 Comments on stability
Discontinuity set 1, 3 and 5 took no part in any failure of the face since the dip
was on all three discontinuity sets were less than all three of the angles of
friction. The main discontinuity sets were 2, 4 and 6. When the orientation of the
face was SE°, only a plane failure would occur along discontinuity set 4. When
the orientation of the face was towards NE°, NNE° and ENE° there were plenty
of instances where both wedge and plane failures would occur. The only
exception to that was face 7 which had a dip direction not similar to the two
intersections. It is then reasonable to assume that a wedge and plane failure is
to be expected if the orientation of the face is towards NE°, NNE° and ENE°.
The Goodman Bray Chart, Figure 3.4 on page 84, confirms that there are no
failure along Discontinuity set 1, 3 and 5. Discontinuity set 2, 4 and 6 are prone
to Sliding and toppling failure according to the Goodman Bray Chart.
Along the Cliff End site, it has been identified that the most common type of
failures are plain failure and wedge failure depending on the orientation of the
face. There was also a more immediate concern due to the debris and small
rocks that would occasionally fall from the top of the cliff. Putting on a hard hat
is enough to avoid injuries but it is not recommended for the general public to
walk along the cliff face without a hard hat.
To avoid any
immediate danger, it is
highly recommended
that anchored wire
mesh is used on the
site. This will divert the
small blocks of rock
that could fall off the
Figure 5.1 – soil and bits of rock on the base of the cliff, onto the base of
cliffs
the slope safely.
109
Shotcrete is then recommended due to the ability to decrease the chance of
rockfalls and sliding of small rocks. Local residents could find this to be not as
aesthetically pleasing.
Before applying
any of these
methods, it is
important to take
the time to check
the tide times as
the tides only allow
a 5-6 hour window
It remains questionable whether it is worth the time and effort to use methods
such as rock bolting to stabilise the 0.5 km of cliffs as this does not pose any
immediate danger to the
public or to properties as
there are none at the
base of the cliff. Warning
signs are recommended
to be placed near the cliff
to urge people who want
to walk along this area to
stay clear from the cliff. Figure 5.3 – Bits of rock on the shore
Tourists often come to Cliff End to walk along the coast and take in the sites
that Cliff End has to offer. Since there is no immediate danger to them as long
as they keep a distance from the cliff, then there should be no need to tarnish
the site which many come to see.
110
CHAPTER 6 - Conclusion
The Cliffs have reached their current state by constant wave erosion over
geological time and it is estimated by (Villagenet, 2011) to have eroded at a rate
of 0.6 metres per year. This would indicate that during 1066 the cliffs were
approximately a further 550 metres out.
The site consisted of Hard Sandstone, Wadhurst Clay and Cliff End sandstone
which were taken to the lab and tested upon. The sandstones were proven to
be highly durable, strong rock.
The clay is a major factor when it comes to the instability of the cliffs as the
angle of friction is 15⁰ and is more prone to erosion than the Sandstones.
Through stereographic projection, it was proven that wedge failures would only
occur if the face’s orientation was facing towards NE°, NNE° and ENE°. Plane
failure could occur anywhere from NE° to SE°. Failures would tend to occur
along discontinuity sets 2, 4 and 6. Discontinuity sets 1, 3 and 5 had a dip less
than the entire angle of friction hence no failure would occur along those
discontinuity sets.
There are a number of remedial actions that have been proposed in the short
term such as shotcrete and using anchored wired mesh but this could make the
site less aesthetically pleasing. It is recommended to hold a consultation with
the local residents to decide on what remedial actions should take place.
111
Bibliography
Greece Fatal Rockfall picture and photos. (2009, December 17). Retrieved
November 13, 2010, from Sulekha.com:
http://newshopper.sulekha.com/greece-fatal-rockfall_photo_1096453.htm
British Geological Survey. (1987). Geology of the country around hastings and
Dungeness sheet memoir 320/321. Geological memoir.
British Geological Survey. (2010, February 19). Rock fall at Pennington Point.
Retrieved 11 20, 2010, from British Geological Survey:
http://www.bgs.ac.uk/landslides/penningtonPoint.html
Byrd, C. (2010, November 1). Mushroom rock pinnacle - wind and sand erosion.
Retrieved 02 26, 2011, from Flickr:
http://www.flickr.com/photos/christopherbyrd/5282084764/
De Groot, K. (2005, 03 02). The changing surface of the earth. Retrieved 02 26,
2011, from British Columbia School Superintendents Association:
112
http://www.bcssa.org/newsroom/scholarships/great8sci/Earth/Changing_
Surface/Changing_Surface.html
Hoek, E., & Bray, J. (2001). Rock Slope Engineering. London: Spon Press.
Lee, D.-H., Yang, Y.-E., & Lin, H.-M. (2007). Assessing slope protection
methods for weak rock slopes in Southwestern Taiwan. Engineering
Geology 91 , 100-116.
Man Made Earth. (2010, 03 01). Earthquake. Retrieved 02 26, 2011, from Man
Made Earth: http://www.manmadeearth.com/earthquake
Norton, M. (2008, May 3). Joints (geology. Retrieved 02 26, 2011, from
Wikipedia: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Joints_Caithness.JPG
Palmstrom, A., & Stille, H. (2010). Rock Engineering. London: Thomas Telford.
Poyeshyar Co. Ltd. (2011, 01 01). Non destructive Concrete Testing. Retrieved
03 06, 2011, from Poyeshyar Co. Ltd:
http://www.poyeshyar.com/CNDT.HTM
S.Aber, J. (2003, August 01). Fractures and Faults 1. Retrieved 02 26, 2011,
from Emporia State University:
http://academic.emporia.edu/aberjame/struc_geo/faults/faults1.htm
Simons, N., Menzies, B., & Matthews, M. (2001). A short course in Soil and
Rock Slope Engineering. London: Thomas Telford.
113
Sulekha.com. (2009, 12 17). Greece fatal Rockfall. Retrieved 02 27, 2011, from
Sulekha.com: http://newshopper.sulekha.com/greece-fatal-
rockfall_photo_1096453.htm
Villagenet. (2011, 02 13). The cliffs of Sussex and Erosion. Retrieved 03 15,
2011, from www.villagenet.co.uk:
http://www.villagenet.co.uk/history/0000-sussexcliffs.html
Wyllie, D. C., Mah, C. W., & Hoek, E. (2004). Rock slope engineering: civil and
mining. Oxon: Institute of Mining and Merallurgy.
114
CHAPTER 8 – APPENDIX
Field data
115
Discontinuity data
6 06 98 37 89 042 68 10 052
7 03 98 38 08 089 69 13 112
8 02 30 39 02 120 70 15 118
10 04 50 41 10 100 72 31 082
12 02 58 43 81 112 74 85 132
116
94 70 043 126 70 131 158 74 120
117
190 74 104 222 80 134 254 05 184
118
287 81 120 319 45 071 351 90 102
119
383 60 104 415 04 310 447 01 302
120
478 08 300 510 80 120 542 85 114
121
574 87 008 606 14 032 638 60 010
122
670 85 038 702 57 026
691 62 015
692 62 010
693 64 015
694 65 016
695 63 018
696 76 038
697 72 038
698 64 036
699 60 030
700 64 031
701 58 032
123
124
125
Lab Data
126
Undrained Triaxial compression test
127
128
129
130
131
132
133