(PDF) Rockfall Characterisation and Structural Protection - A Review PDF

3/29/2019 (PDF) Rockfall characterisation and structural protection - a review
See all › See all › See all ›

Download citation Share
Recruit researchers
Download
Join
full-text
for free
PDF Login
21 Citations 216 References 3 Figures
nd structural protection - a review
September 2011 with 327 Reads
ein Kristian Schellenberg

eifer Isofer 10.42 · Tiefbauamt Graubünden, Chur
biouse +5
niversity of Applied Sciences and Arts Western Switzerland
gliardi
Show more authors
ely rapid process involving long travel distances. Due to these features, when an event occurs, the ability to
practically zero and, thus, the risk of injury or loss of life is high. Damage to buildings and infrastructure is
ases, therefore, suitable protection measures are necessary. This contribution provides an overview of
research on the main topics related to rockfall. It covers the onset of rockfall and runout modelling
as hazard mapping and protection measures. It is the aim of this article to provide an in-depth knowledge
and practitioners involved in projects dealing with the rockfall protection of infrastructures, who may work in
vironmental engineering, risk and safety, the earth and natural sciences.
research
bers
cations
rojects
https://www.researchgate.net/publication/283258087_Rockfall_characterisation_and_structural_protection_-_a_review 1/49
tianSee
Schellenberg
all › Author
See all content
› See all ›
Download citation Share Download full-text PDF
ky highway (B.C.). . Parameters assumed to influence the . Start and end velocities of a parabolic
cture of the source… bouncing phenomenon (Labiouse and… trajectory for different values of jump…
ristian Schellenberg Author content

Download full-text PDF
ds Earth Syst. Sci., 11, 2617–2651, 2011

azards-earth-syst-sci.net/11/2617/2011/ Natural
4/nhess-11-2617-2011 an
) 2011. CC Attribution 3.0 License. System S
all characterisation and structural protection – a revie

n1 , K. Schellenberg2 , V. Labiouse3 , F. Agliardi4 , F. Berger5 , F. Bourrier6 , L. K. A. Dorren7 , W
doff8
ss Federal Institute for Forest, Snow and Landscape Research, Zürcherstrasse 111, 8903 Birmensdo
Wepf Ingenieure AG, Thurgauerstr. 56, 8050 Zürich, Switzerland
eral Institute of Technology Lausanne EPFL, Rock Mechanics Laboratory LMR, GC C1-413 Statio
nne, Switzerland
degli Studi di Milano-Bicocca, Dip. Scienze Geologiche e Geotecnologie, Piazza della Scienza 4,
no, Italy
Mountain Ecosystems and Landscapes Research, 38402 Saint Martin d’Hères Cedex, France
UR EMGR, 2, rue de la Papeterie, BP 76, 38402 Saint Martin d’Hères Cedex, France
s, Avalanches and Protection Forest Section, Federal Office for the Environment FOEN, Bern, Switz
of Lausanne Institute of Geomatics and Analysis of Risk Amphipole 338 1015 Lausanne Switze
of Lausanne, Institute of Geomatics and Analysis of Risk, Amphipole 338, 1015 Lausanne, Switze
5 March 2011 – Revised:
21 Citations 26 July 2011
216 References – Accepted: 7 August 2011
3 Figures – Published:
Download citation27 September
Share 201 Download full-text PDF
Rockfall is an extremely rapid process involving a rockfall event from its initiation to suitable
distances. Due to these features, when an event sures. This includes a presentation of typical
ability to take evasive action is practically zero well as an extensive literature survey for the
he risk of injury or loss of life is high. Damage that are evaluated and discussed with regard
s and infrastructure is quite likely. In many cases, mance, reliability, validation, extreme loads,
uitable protection measures are necessary. This tions include
n provides an overview of previous and current
the main topics related to rockfall. It covers the – Rockfall susceptibility together with haz
kfall and runout modelling approaches, as well as and zoning.
ng and protection measures. It is the aim of this
ovide an in-depth knowledge base for researchers – Rockfall initiation and runout modelling
oners involved in projects dealing with the rock- – Design and performance evaluation of
on of infrastructures, who may work in the fields tion systems, with particular attention pa
environmental engineering, risk and safety, the countermeasures such as fences, walls,
atural sciences. bankments, ditches or forests
Rockfall hazard (or risk) can be assessed

uction approaches (Einstein, 1988), depending on t
tics of the investigated areas. Often the haza
a natural hazard that – compared to other haz- sessed along a communication (transport) rou
lly impacts only small areas. However, the dam- field records and lists of past rockfall events (
nfrastructure or persons directly affected may be often used (Luckman, 1976; Bunce et al., 199
erious consequences. It is often experienced as a 1999), but have proved to be limited. For e
ent. Therefore, it is important to provide the best May 2006 a major rockfall (5000 m3 ) killed
otection based on rigorous hazard and risk man- the main highway crossing the Alps throug
ethods. This contribution gives an overview of Tunnel in Switzerland (Liniger and Bieri, 20
ent on parameters needed to deal effectively with caused global headlines and led to somewhat
dia reporting of major rockfall incidents in
following weeks, including rockfall on the E
Correspondence to: A. Volkwein (Hopkins, 2006; Oppikofer et al., 2008).
([email protected]) event shows the difficulties of forecasting r
y Copernicus Publications on behalf of the European Geosciences Union.
A. Volkwein et al.: Review on rockfall characterisation and struc
has to be clarified why and where rocks are r

total volume or extent. The rockfall initiatio
on different factors, mostly not yet quantified,
ering, freezing/melting cycles or heavy rainfa
Subsequent trajectory analyses determine the
to be protected by measures. To account for t
tivity to just small changes in the landscape, s
dead wood, small dips, etc., stochastic analy
performed, preferably including an evaluatio
racy of the results. This is described in more d
See all › See all › See all › However, for a quickcitation

Download preliminary analysis an
Share Download full-text PDF
21 Citations 216 References 3 Figures the rockfall hazard, simpler and manual calcu
might also be useful as described in Sect. 4.4
There is a large variety of structural prote
against rockfall. These include natural prote
kfall on Sea to Sky highway (B.C.). Note the jointed of forests, semi-natural structures such as em
he source area (Canadian Press photos).
ditches and fully artificial structures such as f
or walls. The structural part of this contr
mainly on fences and galleries. A short su
night of 29 July 2008, a rockfall blocked the high- bankments is also given. Natural protectio
Sky joining Vancouver to the ski resort Whistler
forests is mentioned in Sect. 5.5.
his road is the cover picture of the well-known
anics book by Hoek and Bray (1981). The area
tensively investigated for risk analysis in the past
2 Rockfall hazard: definition, assessment
al., 1997) and still is, because of an increase in
density (Blais-Stevens, 2008) and the Olympics
Rockfall is a major cause of landslide fatality
010.
ements at risk with a low degree of exposur
difficulties exist when the goal is to assess risk (or such as traffic along highways (Bunce et a
a regional scale for a limited area or over an entire though generally involving smaller rock volu
enerally, inventories exist only in inhabited areas. to other landslide types (e.g., rock slides/ro
some studies suggest that the number of events in- rockfall events also cause severe damage to
roportion to urbanization (Baillifard et al., 2004). frastructures and lifelines due to their spatia
quence, it is necessary to find ways that allow frequency, ability to easily release and kinet
ct rockfall hazard source areas in the absence of chet, 1987b). The problem is even more re
ry or clear morphological evidence, such as scree alpine valleys and coastal areas, with a high p
olated blocks. sity, transportation corridors and tourist res
icle is structured following the typical work- protection is, therefore, of major interest to st
dealing with rockfall in practice (Vogel et al., ministrators and civil protection officers (Hun
ering rockfall occurrence and runout modelling Prioritization of mitigation actions, counterme
hazard zoning and protection measures. and land planning should be supported by roc
rockfall hazard or risk analysis (including the pro- sessment (Raetzo et al., 2002; Fell et al., 2005
ct of forests) reveals a threat to people, buildings other hand, risk analysis is needed to assess th
ctures (see Sect. 2), suitable structural protection of expected rockfall events and evaluate bot
ave to be selected according to the expected event suitability and the cost-effectiveness of diffe
and impact energies. For proper design and di- options (Corominas et al., 2005; Straub and S
of the measures, it is essential to know the mag-
e impact loads and the performance of the struc- 2.1 Rockfall hazard: a definition
knowledge can be obtained from rockfall onset
ty/ hazard analysis, numerical simulations, exper- Landslide hazard has been defined as the pr
dels or existing guidelines, and provides guidance landslide of given magnitude occurs in a g
gn of roof galleries, fences, embankments and a specified time interval (Varnes, 1984; E
natural protection system. This definition envisages the concepts of s
r, rockfall protection considerations involve not temporal frequency and intensity. Neverthe
ural protection measures but also the avoidance runout landslides, such as rockfall or rock
cture or buildings in endangered areas. Firstly, it definition of the occurrence probability need
ds Earth Syst. Sci., 11, 2617–2651, 2011 www.nat-hazards-earth-syst-sci.net
n et al.: Review on rockfall characterisation and structural protection

of landslide propagation. This meansFigures
the trans- Download citation Share Download full-text PDF
lide21mass and energy
Citations 216from the source3to
References the max-
ut distance of up to tens of kilometres for rock
and debris flows or several hundred metres for
rockfall, characterised by poor interaction be-
ng blocks with volumes up to 105 m3 (Evans and
3). Thus, rockfall hazard depends on (Jaboyed-
001; Crosta and Agliardi, 2003; Jaboyedoff et al.,
2)
obability that a rockfall of given magnitude occurs

ven source location resulting in an onset probabil-
obability that falling blocks reach a specific loca-

n a slope (i.e., reach probability), and on
ll intensity.
a complex function of block mass, velocity, rota-

mp height, significantly varying both along single
nd laterally, depending on slope morphology and
namics (Broili, 1973; Bozzolo et al., 1988; Azzoni
Agliardi and Crosta, 2003; Crosta and Agliardi,
ckfall hazard can, thus, be better defined as the Fig. 2. Definition of rockfall hazard and related p
that a specific location on a slope is reached by fied, after Jaboyedoff et al., 2001).
of given intensity (Jaboyedoff et al., 2001), and
s: Exposed elements at risk are not considere
tion of hazard. Nevertheless, hazard assessm
)j · P (T |L)ijk (1)
should be able to deal with problems characte
)j is the onset probability of a rockfall event in the ent spatial distributions of potentially expose
like (houses), linear (roads, railways) or a
(e.g., volume) class j , and P (T |L)ij k is the reach
This is the probability that blocks triggered in Moreover, targets of different shape and size
vent reach the location i with an intensity (i.e., ki- volve a different number of trajectories runnin
y) value in the class k . Since both probability and ferent rockfall sources (Jaboyedoff et al., 200
fluencing the local reach probability. Thus, as
ongly depend on the initial magnitude (i.e., mass)
events, rockfall hazard must be assessed for dif- ods should be able to account for the spati
nitude scenarios, explicitly or implicitly associ- nature of the hazard (Crosta and Agliardi, 20
erent annual frequencies or return periods (Hungr several hazard assessment methods have been
few satisfy all these requirements. They diffe
Dussauge-Peisser et al., 2003; Jaboyedoff et al.,
other in how they account for rockfall onset fr
ceptibility, estimated reach probability, and co
rd assessment obtain quantitative or qualitative hazard ratin
e, rockfall hazard assessment would require the 2.2.1 Onset probability and susceptibility
of:
The frequency of events of given magnitude (
mporal probability (annual frequency or return pe- be evaluated using a statistical analysis of
and the spatial susceptibility of rockfall events; rockfall events, taking into account the defi
able magnitude-frequency relationships (Du
D trajectory and maximum runout of falling et al., 2003; Malamud et al., 2004). They
; magnitude-cumulative frequency distribution
et al., 1999). Although this approach is wel
tribution of rockfall intensity at each location and the field of natural hazards (e.g., earthquake
each fall path. tion to landslide hazards is limited by the sca

azards-earth-syst-sci.net/11/2617/2011/
Nat. Hazardscitation
Download Earth Syst. Sci., 11, 26
by the intrinsic statistical properties of landslide the maximum extent of rockfall runout are
(Malamud et al., 2004). The frequency distribu- (Fig. 3a). However, this approach has been i
kfall volumes has been shown to be well fitted by a GIS tool (CONEFALL, Jaboyedoff and L
aw: allowing a preliminary estimation of rockfal
tibility and kinetic energy (Fig. 3b), accordin
N0 − b · logV (2) height approach (Evans and Hungr, 1993).
) is the annual frequency of rockfall with a vol- hazard assessment methodologies estimate re
ding V , N0 is the total annual frequency of rock- and intensity using 2-D rockfall numerical mo
s the power law exponent, ranging between 0.4 rock, Rouiller and Marro,1997; Rockfall Haz
ussauge-Peisser et al., 2003). According to Hungr Procedure RHAP, Mazzoccola and Sciesa, 2
), magnitude-cumulative frequency curves (MCF) Jaboyedoff et al., 2005b). This provides a
m rockfall inventories allows for the estimating description of rockfall physics and allows fo
al frequency of rockfall events in specified vol- uation of rockfall reach probability (i.e., rel
s, thus, defining hazard scenarios. Major limita- of blocks reaching specific target locations)
approach include the lack of rockfall inventories tial distribution of kinetic energy). However,
es and the spatial and temporal heterogeneity of neglects the geometrical and dynamic effec
nventories. These are possibly affected by cen- pography on rockfall, leading to a subjectiv
mpering a reliable prediction of the frequency of simulation results between adjoining 2-D fall
small and very large events (Hungr et al., 1999; Although this limitation has, in part, been ove
Peisser et al., 2003; Malamud et al., 2004). The ducing pseudo 3-D assumptions (Jaboyedoff
been completely assessed using this approach by full 3-D numerical modelling has been shown
. (1999) in the case of a section of highway. On to account for the lateral dispersion of 3-D
cale, Wieczorek et al. (1999) and Guzzetti et al. the related effects on reach probability and
ially included the MCF within the method; while ertheless, a few hazard assessment methodol
Peisser et al. (2002, 2003) and Vangeon et al. 3-D numerical modelling are available (Cros
malized the use of the MCF on a regional scale 2003, Fig. 3d).
with susceptibility mapping.
te-specific rockfall inventories are either unavail- 2.3 Hazard zoning: current practice and
eliable, the analysis of rockfall hazard can only questions
out in terms of susceptibility. This is the relative
Rockfall hazard or susceptibility mapping/zo
that any slope unit is affected by rockfall occur-
step of hazard assessment, leading to the dra
n a set of environmental conditions (Brabb, 1984).
ument useful for land planning, funding prio
eptibility (see Sect. 3) can be assessed
preliminary assessment of suitable protective
atially distributed way by heuristic ranking of se- major issue in hazard zoning is to find consi
instability indicators (Pierson et al., 1990; Can- combine onset probability or susceptibility,
nd Crosta, 1993; Rouiller and Marro, 1997; Maz- ity and intensity in a map document, especial
a and Sciesa, 2000; Budetta, 2004), probabilities cannot be evaluated.
Swiss guidelines (Raetzo et al., 2002, see
terministic methods (Jaboyedoff et al., 2004a; that rockfall hazard are zoned according to t
her et al., 2004; Derron et al., 2005) or bility (i.e., return period) and intensity (i.e., k
tistical methods (Frattini et al., 2008). thus, defining three hazard zones, namely red
low. Nevertheless, these do not explicitly a
ch probability and intensity reach probability and the spatial variability
ergy. Thus, Jaboyedoff et al. (2005b) propo
robability and intensity for rockfall of given mag- ology (Cadanav) based on 2-D numerical mo
ume)See all ›
depends on theSee all › See all ›
physics of rockfall processes hazard according to the
Download probability
citation Sharewhere blo Download full-text PDF
ography (see Sect. 216
21 Citations 4). References
The simplest methods
3 Figures de- events with a specified return period reach a s
ckfall propagation are based on the shadow an- along a 2-D profile with a given kinetic energ
ch, according to which the maximum travel dis- When only onset susceptibility can be ev
ocks is defined by the intersection of the topog- zoning is based on the combination of hazar
an energy line having an empirically-estimated reclassified values of the parameters contribu
(Evans and Hungr, 1993, Fig. 2). Unfortunately, ard to obtain suitable hazard indices. Some au
pproach there is no physical process model for and Marro, 1997; Jaboyedoff et al., 2001;
d its interaction with the ground behind and only 2005; Copons and Vilaplana, 2008) used sim
Intensity
/ Energy
High
> 300 kJ hazard
Medium
30 – 300 kJ
hazard
< 30
30kJ
kJ Low
hazard
1 – 30 y 30 – 100 y 100 – 300 y
Fig. 4. Hazard classification for rockfall in Switze
ity) of hazard maps depends on a number o

ferent descriptions of rockfall dynamics can
model rockfall trajectories (e.g., 2-D or 3-D, e
matical or dynamic). Moreover, complex ph
mparison of hazard maps derived for the area of as block fragmentation or the effects of veg
no (Lecco, Italy; Jaboyedoff et al., 2001; Crosta and accounted for in different ways (Crosta et
03) using different modelling approaches and zoning ren et al., 2004) and greatly influence all th
) Maximum runout area estimated by a shadow angle ponents related to rockfall propagation and,
ng the code CONEFALL (Jaboyedoff and Labiouse, hazard map. The spatial resolution of the ad
azard map obtained by applying the RHV methodology tion of topography, especially when 3-D m
Agliardi, 2003) to the reach probability and kinetic en- controls primarily the lateral dispersion of ro
ed by CONEFALL; (c) rockfall hazard map obtained by
ries and the computed dynamic quantities, thu
al modelling using the RHAP methodology (modified
local reach probability and intensity (Crosta
ccola and Sciesa, 2000); (d) rockfall hazard map ob-
D numerical modelling using the code HY-STONE and 2004). The applicability of hazard models on
thodology (modified after Crosta and Agliardi, 2003). and with different aims also depends on mo
thus, requiring tools with multi-scale assess
See all › See all › See all › ties. Major uncertainties in rockfall hazard
susceptibility
21 Citations mapping, based on the3 Figures
use of on- related to the uncertainty
Download citationof rockfall
Share onset f Download full-text PDF
216 References
ibility indicators and the shadow angle method required (e.g., Swiss Code). This is often unk
quiring that a set of scenario-based hazard m
Mazzoccola and Sciesa (2000) proposed a method- a single map are produced (Jaboyedoff et al.
AP) in which 2-D numerical simulation is used this perspective, the choice of the design blo
ch probability along profiles, later weighted ac- nario is critical to avoid either risky underesti
indicators of cliff activity (Fig. 3c). Crosta and ineffective overestimation of a hazard. Fin
003) combined reclassified values of reach sus- of mapped hazard zones is greatly influenced
and intensity values such as kinetic energy or in establishing class boundaries for paramete
t derived by distributed 3-D rockfall modelling to the hazard. These should be constrained
physically-based index (Rockfall Hazard Vector, based criteria depending on the envisaged u
s allows for a quantitative ranking of hazards, ac- (e.g. land planning or countermeasure desig
r the effects of 3-D topography (Fig. 3d) while Agliardi, 2003; Jaboyedoff et al., 2005b).
ormation about the contributing parameters. This
as implemented by Frattini et al. (2008) to include 2.4 From hazard to quantitative risk asse
ve evaluation of onset susceptibility by means of
e statistical techniques. Although hazard zoning is a useful tool for
afting hazard maps for practical purposes, it must risk analysis should be carried out to support
mind that the reliability (and practical applicabil- optimization of both structural and non-struc
azards-earth-syst-sci.net/11/2617/2011/ Nat. Hazards Earth Syst. Sci., 11, 26
l et al., 2005; Straub and Schubert, 2008). Never- < 100 000 m3 ) methods of rock slope stabil
andard risk analysis approach for rockfall is yet to well established and their application is relati
d because of the still difficult assessment of haz- the slope and the source area are well chara
ct, when a hazard is expressed as susceptibility, and Bray, 1981; Norrish and Wyllie, 1996; W
ly be assessed through relative scales or matrices 2004). However, this procedure does not giv
t al., 2004; Fell et al., 2005). The simplest form tion about time-dependence and is difficult to
risk analysis consists of analysing the distribution gional scale (Guenther et al., 2004).
at risk with different postulated vulnerability in Most rockfall source area assessment met
azard zones (Acosta et al., 2003; Guzzetti et al., on stability assessment or on rockfall activity
). However, this approach does not fully account In order to get an estimate of rockfall activit
bability of rockfall impact, the vulnerability and tories or indirect methods, such as dendroc
posed targets. Guidelines for Quantitative Risk needed (Perret et al., 2006; Corominas et al.,
QRA) based on Hong Kong rockfall inventories parameters can be used to create a hazard m
, 2003) were proposed by GEO (1998), whereas source areas, which, most of the time, involve
Schubert (2008) combined probability theory and mapping (Guzzetti et al., 1999). The param
cal modelling in order to improve risk analysis for pend mainly on the availability of existing do
termeasure structural design. Bunce et al. (1997) budget available to collect field information (
et al. (1999) quantitatively estimated rockfall risk Derron, 2005).
ways in British Columbia, based on inventories Source area susceptibility analysis has oft
events. Nevertheless, major efforts are still re- parameter rating systems derived from tunnel
erform a quantitative evaluation of rockfall risk in engineering, such as Rock Mass Rating (Bie
stributed situations (e.g., urban areas; Corominas 1993, RMR;). Its evolution to the Slope Ma
, where long runout and complex interactions be- (Romana, 1988, 1993) led to more suitable re
fall and single elements at risk occur, requiring a an explicit dependence on the joint-slope o
assessment of vulnerability. tionship. Recently, Hoek (1994) introduced
erspective,
See all › AgliardiSee
et al.
all ›(2009) proposed
See alla ›quan- Strength Index (GSI)citation
as a simplified rating
assessment framework
21 Citations exploiting the3 advantages
216 References Figures In recent years, it has been applied
Download Sharesuccessfu Download full-text PDF
erical modelling to integrate the evaluation of the bility analysis (Brideau et al., 2007). A simila
obability of rockfall occurrence, the spatial prob- proposed by Selby (1980, 1982) for geomorph
intensity of impacts on structures, their vulnera- cations. Later, with the increasing availabilit
he related expected costs for different protection vation models (DEM; Wentworth et al., 1987
In order to obtain vulnerability curves based on 1988) and of geographic information system
odels for reinforced concrete buildings, Mavrouli other techniques (heuristic and probabilistic)
inas (2010) proposed the use of Finite Element plored (Van Westen, 2004). However, this can
progressive collapse modelling. ceptually because a slope system can be descr
internal parameters (IP) and external factors (
vide a conceptual framework to describe the
ll source areas tential using the available data (Fig. 5). There
detection requires locating (1) the pre-failure
encing factors (2) the areas sensitive to rapid strength degr
to slope failure (Jaboyedoff et al., 2005a; Lero
out in Sect. 2, the rockfall hazard H at a given 1998). IP are the intrinsic features of the slope
d for a given intensity and scenario depends on ples are summarized below (Jaboyedoff and D
namely: the onset probability (i.e., temporal fre- (a) Morphology: slope types (slope angle, h
ockfall occurrence) of a rockfall instability event profile, etc.), exposure, type of relief (d
bability of propagation to a given location (see
controlling erosive processes), etc.
oyedoff et al., 2001). The latter, P (T |L)ij k , can
d by propagation modelling or by observation. In (b) Geology: rock types and weathering, va
aluate P (L), it is first necessary to identify poten- geological structure, bedding, type of
l sources, whereas their susceptibility is mainly zone, etc.
ock slope stability analysis or estimates and can
(c) Fracturing: joint sets, trace lengths, spac
d by field observations or modelling. Anyway,
intensity, etc.
kept in mind that inventories are the only direct
ive the true hazard in small areas. For rockfall (d) Mechanical properties of rocks and soil:
mited volumes (i.e., fragmental rockfall, usually tion angle, etc.
following different methods that have been p

sess the value of failure frequency P (L) in g
susceptibility mapping. GIS and related soft
to manage most of these parameters regionall
in Switzerland the 1 : 250 000 topographic v
include the cliff area as polygons (Jaboyedof
2003; Loye et al., 2009).
3.2 Methods of identification and descrip
3.2.1 Methods using regional geomechan

approaches
Basically, methods such as the Rock Fall Haz

tem (RFHRS, Pierson et al., 1990) or the Mi
d IP f kf ll ( difi d f J b d ff d L bi
d IPSee
for all
rockfall (modified
all from Jaboyedoff
See and
all › Labi- Hazard Rating System (MRFHRS,
ShareatMaerz et
aboyedoff ›and Derron,
See2005).›
21 Citations 216 References 3 Figures both P (L) and
Download | L) estimates
P (T citation the sam Download full-text PDF
as risk. Both methods are designed for talus
ty: movements or rockfall, etc. roads and have been refined in two ways, i
the number of parameters from 12 (or 18) to
geology: permeability, joint permeability, etc. (Santi et al., 2008) or by mixing them with th
eters (Budetta, 2004). These methods mix IP
ithin a given framework, the joint sets or discon- same levels.
the anisotropies that mainly control the stability In addition to the classical rock mass chara
Bray, 1981); points b to d are related to these eniawski, 1973; Romana, 1988), some metho
The link between rockfall activity and the inten- to regionalise susceptibility parameters. Usin
existing fracturing, as in fold hinges with a steep EF Mazzoccola and Hudson (1996) develop
een demonstrated by Coe and Harp (2007). tem based on the matrix interaction approach
an evolve with time due to the effects of the EF, gineering System (RES) methodology (Huds
Jaboyedoff and Derron, 2005): allows one to create a modular rock mass c
ational effects; method of slope susceptibility ranking. Bas
approach, Vangeon et al. (2001) proposed to
circulation: hydrology or hydrogeology, climate, ceptibility scale using a geotechnical rating
itation in the form of rainfall or snow, infiltration inventory, designed for a linear cliff area (Care
groundwater; Rouiller et al. (1998) developed a susceptibili
based on 7 criteria mixing IP and EF.
ering;
3.2.2 GIS and DEM analysis-based meth
n;
The first studies on rockfall using DEM or
city;
formed by Toppe (1987a), using simply the s
tectonics; terion, and by Wagner et al. (1988) and W
(1987); Wu et al. (1996); Soeters and Van
climate including freezing and thawing, sun ex- using structural data for slope modelling.
e, permafrost, which are increasingly invoked to simplest way to detect a source area is to us
n rockfall activities (Frayssines, 2005; Matsuoka threshold (Guzzetti et al., 2003), or to add so
akai, 1999; Matsuoka, 2008; Gruner, 2008); ria such as the presence of cliff areas (Jaboy
ouse, 2003). The slope threshold can be dedu
y instabilities; tailed slope angle statistical analysis permitti
tify cliff areas (Strahler, 1954; Baillifard et a
n activities (anthropogenic factors);
Loye et al., 2009). In addition, some other a
be used for assessing the susceptibility of sou
as using an index obtained by the back-anal
ts of internal parameters and external factors are propagation. This index links the source area
ive, but allow one to introduce key points for the by counting the number of intersections of
ee slopes. This can be performed either using the quality data from DEM that – regarding some
gle method (Baillifard, 2005) or the HY STONE ter than that from standard fieldwork, especia
by intersecting the trajectory simulation with the cal structures (joint sets, fractures). However,
s (Frattini et al., 2008). detailed analysis, on-site inspection using Alp
ne particular road in Switzerland, five parame- is unavoidable in order to correctly asses the a
mitySeetoallfaults,
› See all ›
nearness of a scree See all ›
slope, cliff ings, fillingsDownload
or roughness
citationof joints
Shareor to verif Download full-text PDF
p slope and proximity
21 Citations 216 to road, were used
References to obtain
3 Figures determined rock face properties.
s using a simple classical GIS approach (Bailli- At the present time, the attempt to extract in
2003). as GSI from LiDAR DEM is still utopian (Stu
or improvement related to GIS or/and the use of 2007b), but we can expect future generations
e automatic kinematical analysis (Wagner et al., DAR to allow the extraction of such informa
ller et al., 1998; Gokceoglu et al., 2000; Dorren ysis of geological structures in high resolutio
Günther, 2003; Guenther et al., 2004), which al- simulation of all possible instabilities in a slo
determine whether the discontinuity sets are able been performed at the outcrop level (Grenon
stabilities. Using the standard stability criterion giou, 2008). We can expect that such meth
d Wyllie, 1996) and a statistical analysis of the plicable on a regional scale within the next
tests, Gokceoglu et al. (2000) were able to pro- remote-sensing techniques associated with l
of probability of sliding, toppling or wedge type quisition that will provide rock parameters,
ünther (2003) and Guenther et al. (2004) used a include stability simulations. However, the
lity analysis using a Mohr-Coulomb criterion and assessment will not be reached as long as thi
of the stress state at a given depth of about 20m not account for temporal dependencies. Th
el of the DEM, also integrating in the analysis the achieved if we understand the failure mecha
ion of discontinuities such as folded bedding and degradation of the IP under the action of EF,
he number of slope failures linked to joint sets ering (Jaboyedoff et al., 2007). Expected c
the apparent discontinuity density at the ground will affect the frequency and magnitude of th
ich can also be used as an input for the rock slope need to understand their impact on rock slope
ssment and to identify the most probable failure wise we will either miss or overestimate a sig
yedoff et al., 2004b). In addition to structural tests, of potential rockfall activity.
be possible to combine several of the EF and IP,
er flow, erodible material volume, etc., to obtain
ex (Baillifard et al., 2004; Oppikofer et al., 2007). 4 Trajectory modelling
lure is mainly controlled by discontinuities. The It is important to describe the movement of
ets can be extracted from the orientation of the to- along a slope, i.e., its trajectory. This allows
DEM) using different methods and software (Der- of existing hazard susceptibility or hazard a
005; Jaboyedoff et al., 2007; Kemeny et al., 2006; certain area. In addition, the information on b
, 2006). Extracting the discontinuity sets from jump heights and spatial distribution is the b
ws one to perform a kinematic test on a regional design and the verification of protective meas
kofer et al., 2007). New techniques such as ground A description of rockfall trajectories can
AR DEM allow one to extract the full structures, tained by analytical methods (see Sect. 4.4.1
case of inaccessible rock cliffs (Lato et al., 2009; tailed analyses are needed and stochastic info
er et al., 2007a; Voyat et al., 2006). be considered, numerical approaches are reco
ide hazard assessment, many statistical or other This section, therefore, attempts to summa
chniques are now used (Van Westen, 2004); ous currently available rockfall trajectory si
and Ercanoglu (2006) classified the susceptibility els. To do this, existing models are grouped
reas using a fuzzy logic-based evaluation. ing to their spatial dimensions: (1) two-dim
trajectory models, (2) 2.5-D or quasi-3-D tra
luding remarks on source detection and (3) 3-D trajectory models, and secondly a
underlying calculation principles. Whether a
most rock slope systems have been described by
tory model is 2-D or 3-D, irrespective of its
the EFs and IPs that control stability. This pro-
culation procedure, the experience in applying
y gives approximate results, mainly because field
a knowledge of its sensitivity to parameter s
sually limited. Moreover, to assess the hazard
as how to determine model parameter values
ptibility maps remains very difficult. Neverthe-
prerequisite to obtaining acceptable results. B
ly developed technologies like photogrammetry
ren (2006) defined the latter as results with an
(Kemeny et al., 2006) permit one to extract high

s of rockfall model 2008) or as shown in Masuya et al. (1999). Th

tage of 3-D models is that diverging and conve
rockfall trajectory models the topography, as well as exceptional or surp
ries, i.e., those that are less expected at first si
a 2-D trajectory model as a model that simulates are clearly reflected in the resulting maps. A d
l trajectory in a spatial domain defined by two 3-D models is the need for spatially explicit p
an be a model that calculates along a user-defined which require much more time in the field
e (Azzoni et al., 1995) that is defined by a dis- value determination for slope profile-based t
(x or y) and an altitude axis (z). Such a profile lations.
ws the line of the steepest descent. Table 1 shows
ajority of the rockfall trajectory models belongs 4.2 Calculation approaches
p. In the second type of 2-D model rockfall tra-
e calculated in a spatial domain defined by two A second main characteristic that allows on
es x and y, e.g., a raster with elevation values or a between different rockfall trajectory models, w
ontour lines. Such models generally calculate the related to the calculation of the rebound, is the
th using topographic-hydrologic approaches and of the simulated rock in the model. As shown
d runout distance with a sliding block approach can be done firstly by means of a lumped ma
ke and van Westen, 1990; Meissl, 1998). As such is represented by a single, dimensionless poi
ls do not provide information on rebound heights. approach is the rigid body, i.e., the rock is re
real geometrical shape, which is often a sphe
D rockfall trajectory models der or ellipsoid. In general, this approach is us
ministic models mentioned above. The last
group of trajectory models defined here are 2.5- hybrid approach, i.e., a lumped mass approa
also called quasi-3-D models. These are simply ing free fall and a rigid body approach for sim
s assisted by GIS to derive pre-defined fall paths. impact and rebound (Crosta et al., 2004; Fratt
aracteristic of such models is that the direction of Agliardi et al., 2009).
trajectory in the x,y domain is independent of the Most of the rockfall trajectory models us
of the falling rock and its trajectory in the vertical a tangential coefficient of restitution for cal
act, in these models the calculation of the hori- bound of simulated rock on the slope surf
direction (in the x,y domain) could be separated tion coefficient for rolling. Details on the
from the calculation of the rockfall kinematics are, among others, presented in Guzzetti et
ound positions and heights. This means that these overview of typical values of the coefficie
ually carry out two separate 2-D calculations. The tion can be found in Scioldo (2006). The m
termines the position of a slope profile in an x,y these coefficients generally apply a probabi
the second one is a 2-D rockfall simulation along for choosing the parameter values used for
sly defined slope profile. Examples of such mod- bound calculation (see Table 1). This is
e that calculate rockfall kinematics along a slope the large variability in the real values of th
follows the steepest descent as defined using dig- due to the terrain, the rock shape and the
data, as in the model Rocky3 (Dorren and Seij- the rock during the rebound. Bourrier et a
n, 2003). sented a new rebound model that linked the
the translational and the rotational velocity b
rockfall trajectory models
the rebound based on multidimensional, stoch
els are defined as trajectory models that calcu- which gave promising results for rocky slo
ckfall trajectory in a 3-dimensional plane (x, y, also models that use deterministic approach
ach calculation step. As such, there is an in- ing the rockfall rebound. These models use m
nce between the direction of the rockfall trajec- element method (Cundall, 1971), such as the
x,y domain, the kinematics of the falling rock, Deformation Analysis (Yang et al., 2004) or
positions and heights and if included, impacts ory (Dimnet, 2002).
xamples of such models are EBOUL-LMR (De- The parabolic free falls are calculated with
nd Zimmermann, 1987), STONE (Guzzetti et al., rithms for a uniformly accelerated parabolic
omap (Scioldo, 2006), DDA (Yang et al., 2004), cept for those models that use the sliding b
Dimnet,
See all2002),
› HY-STONE
See all › (Crosta See
et al.,
all 2004)
› calculating Download
the rockfall velocityShare
citation
over its comp Download full-text PDF
for3-D (Dorren et 216
21 Citations al.,References
2004), RAMMS:Rockfall
3 Figures
t al., 2007); Rockfall-Analyst (Lan et al., 2007),
CKnROLL (Rammer et al., 2007; Woltjer et al.,
n characteristics of a selection of existing rockfall trajectory models (modified from Guzzetti et al., 2002).
programme name Reference/Year Spatial Dimensions Approach Probabilist

(Ritchie, 1963) 2-D (slope profile) Lumped-mass No
e Element Method (Cundall, 1971) 2-D (slope profile) Rigid body No
ter Rockfall Model (Piteau and Clayton, 1976) 2-D (slope profile) Lumped-mass Partly
(Azimi et al., 1982) 2-D (slope profile) Lumped-mass Yes
(Falcetta, 1985) 2-D (slope profile) Rigid body No
SIM (Wu, 1985) 2-D (slope profile) Lumped-mass Yes
(Bozzolo and Pamini, 1986) 2-D (slope profile) Hybrid Yes
L-LMR (Descoeudres and Zimmermann, 1987) 3-D (x,y,z) Rigid body No
(Labiouse et al., 2001)
G/CETE Lyon (Rochet, 1987a) 2-D (slope profile) Lumped-mass No
(Hungr and Evans, 1988) 2-D (slope profile) Lumped-mass No
4.0) (Pfeiffer and Bowen, 1989) 2-D (slope profile) Hybrid Yes
(Jones et al., 2000)
(Van Dijke and van Westen, 1990) 2-D (x,y) Lumped-mass No
(Kobayashi et al., 1990) 2-D (slope profile) Rigid body No
ap (Scioldo, 1991) 3-D (x,y,z) Lumped-mass Yes
A (Azzoni et al., 1995) 2-D (slope profile) Hybrid Yes
ll (Dr. Spang) (Spang and S onser,
¨ 1995) 2-D (slope profile) Rigid body Yes
OD 4.1 (Zinggeler et al., 1990) 2-D (slope profile) Hybrid Yes
(Krummenacher and Keusen, 1996)
EOTEST-Zinggeler (Krummenacher et al., 2008) 3-D (x,y,z) Hybrid Yes
l (Stevens, 1998) 2-D (slope profile) Lumped-mass Yes
schwindigkeit (Meissl, 1998) 2-D (x,y) Lumped-mass No
E (Guzzetti et al., 2002) 3-D (x,y,z) Lumped-mass Yes
-D (Dimnet, 2002) 3-D (x,y,z) Rigid body No
(Le Hir et al., 2006)
(Dorren and Seijmonsbergen, 2003) 2.5-D (x.y coupled Hybrid Yes
with slope profile)
ONE (Crosta et al., 2004) 3-D (x,y,z) Hybrid Yes
(Frattini et al., 2008)
(Agliardi et al., 2009)
or (Dorren et al., 2004) 3-D (x,y,z) Hybrid Yes
(Dorren et al., 2006)
(Bourrier et al., 2009a)
(Yang et al., 2004)
S::Rockfall (Christen et al., 2007) 3-D (x,y,z) Rigid body Yes
ll Analyst (Lan et al., 2007) 3-D (x,y,z) Lumped-mass Partly
ROCKnROLL (Woltjer et al., 2008) 3-D (x,y,z) Lumped-mass Yes
(Rammer et al., 2007)
eristics such as tree density and corresponding diameters can be taken into account explicitly
k-slope
See interaction
all › See all › See all › between theDownload
falling block and Share
the slope’s su
21 Citations 216 References 3 Figures are usually classifiedcitation
into two main catego Download full-text PDF
ories of falling rocks can be described as com- body and the lumped-mass methods (Giani
f four types of motion: free fall, rolling, sliding and Evans, 1988). Rigid-body methods con
ng of a falling block (Ritchie, 1963; Lied, 1977; as a body with its own shape and volume,
s, 1997). The occurrence of each of these types damental equations of dynamics and accou
pends on the slope angle (Ritchie, 1963). For of block movement, including rotation (Azzo
s, free fall is most commonly observed, whereas Cundall, 1971; Descoeudres and Zimmerma
diate slopes, rockfall propagation is a succession cetta, 1985). Lumped-mass methods consid
s and rebounds. For gentle slopes, the prevalent have either no mass or a mass concentrated
es are rolling or sliding. and do not take into account either the shap
cant number of rockfall simulation programmes or rotational movement (Guzzetti et al., 200
form trajectory analyses. The challenge is not in Hungr and Evans, 1988; Piteau and Clayton
ght simulation, but in modelling the interactions 1963; Stevens, 1998).
the slope surface’s irregularity and the rock sh

motion is more a succession of small bounces
Therefore, most rockfall models simulate
successions of free fall and bouncing phases. O
sider sliding and rolling motions (e.g., Azzo
Bozzolo and Pamini, 1986; Statham, 1979). I
a tangential damping coefficient related to th
sliding friction between block and slope is in
sliding friction is defined by means of the n
nent with respect to the soil surface of the blo
cording to Coulomb’s law. For rolling motio
Statham (1979), a fairly accurate description
using Coulomb’s law with a rolling friction
depends on the characteristics of the block (
and the slope (type and size of debris).
The transition condition between the bou
rolling mode is discussed in Piteau and C
Hungr and Evans (1988) and Giani (1992).
ition of the block velocity before and after rebound. from sliding to rolling is defined in Bozzolo e
The whole rockfall trajectory is sometimes
sliding or rolling of a mass on a sloping surfac
e other programmes that could be considered as age friction angle assumed to be representati
ng advantage of the fast and easy simulation of energy losses along the block’s path (Evans an
for lumped masses while considering geometri- Govi, 1977; Hungr and Evans, 1988; Japan
chanical characteristics of the slope and the block tion, 1983; Lied, 1977; Rapp, 1960; Toppe,
e impact (Azimi and Desvarreux, 1977; Bozzolo method (called the Fahrböschung, the shado
, 1986; Dorren et al., 2004; Jones et al., 2000; cone method) provides a quick and low-cost
et al., 1990; Pfeiffer and Bowen, 1989; Rochet, lineation of areas endangered by rockfall, ei
sta et al., 2004). or a regional scale (Jaboyedoff and Labiouse
2001).
ockfall simulations are based on a “pseudo-2-D”
see See
Sect.
all 4)
› the block’s
See all ›tangential VSee
− all ›
and nor- 4.3.2 Rebound models
locity components216
21 Citations (before rebound) 3with
References respect
t Figures Bouncing occurs when the falling block co
surface allow definition of a plane called the inci- slope surface. The height of the bounce and
(Fig. 6). Similarly, the tangential Vt+ and normal rection depend on several parameters charac
nents of the velocity after rebound also allow the pact conditions. Of the four types of movem
f a plane called the reflected plane. The angle δ during rockfall, the bouncing phenomenon is
ese two planes is called the deviation angle. The stood and the most difficult to predict.
gential and rotational ω+ velocities after rebound A number of rockfall models represent
ed from the normal, tangential and rotational ω− a simplified way by one or two overall coe
before rebound using a rebound model, and the are called restitution coefficients. Some m
ngle δ is determined, leading to the complete def- one restitution coefficient, quantifying the
he rock velocity after rebound. terms of either velocity magnitude loss (Kam
Paronuzzi, 1989; Spang and Rautenstrauch, 1
ing and rolling models Sönser, 1995) or kinetic energy loss (e.g.,
1995; Bozzolo and Pamini, 1986; Chau et
nly occurs at small velocities, when a block starts ciuoli, 1988). In this case, an assumption re
comes to rest. It is not accounted for in many bound direction is necessary to fully determ
dels because it does not entail large propagations ity vector after impact (i.e., the α + angle i
s. Pure rolling is quite a rare motion mode, except Rv coefficient is considered for the formulat
s when the boulder penetrates the soil (Bozzolo velocity loss and the RE coefficient is used
, 1986; Ritchie, 1963). The distinction between lation in terms of kinetic energy (neglecting
and sliding modes is sometimes difficult since a rotational part):
n of the two movements can occur (Descoeudres, V+ 1/2[I (ω+ )2 + m(V +
i, 1992). On stiffer outcropping materials, due to RV = and RE =
V− 1/2[I (ω− )2 + m(V
he most common definition of block rebound 4.3.3 Barrier effect of trees

fferentiation into tangential Rt and normal Rn
coefficients (Budetta and Santo, 1994; Evans and There are only a few spatial rockfall trajecto
93; Fornaro et al., 1990; Giani, 1992; Guzzetti explicitly (i.e., spatial distribution of differen
2; Hoek, 1987; Kobayashi et al., 1990; Pfeiffer stand densities, distribution of diameters a
, 1989; Piteau and Clayton, 1976; Urciuoli, 1988; DBH and species) take into account the miti
., 2000; Wu, 1985): existing forest cover (e.g., Dorren et al., 200
2004; Krummenacher et al., 2008; Woltjer et
Vn+ suya et al., 2009). These models would allo
and Rn = (4)
Vn− optimal combinations and locations of tech
cultural measures at a given site. Furthermo
ficients are used conjointly and characterise the
rockfall hazard zoning with and without the
the tangential and the normal components of the
fect of forests. Recent data describing the
ity, respectively. This definition fully determines
tive effect of trees is published in Dorren and
d direction (α + angle in Fig. 6) and no further as-
and Jonsson (2007). Older data seriously und
needed to characterise it.
energy dissipative capacity of trees, i.e., ma
rnative approach is based on impulse theory
trees were thought to dissipate up to 15 kJ i
1995; Goldsmith, 1960; Stronge, 2000) and con-
500 kJ (cf. the review on the interaction bet
hange in the momentum of the block during the
falling rocks by Dorren et al., 2007).
n and restitution phases of impact (Bozzolo et al.,
oeudres and Zimmermann, 1987; Dimnet, 2002;
See all ›
Frémond, 2000). See all › See all › 4.3.4 Modelling variability
ng to 21 Newton’s
Citations theory of shocks, the
216 References restitution
3 Figures A deterministic prediction of the interaction b
should have a constant value irrespective of the and the slope’s surface is not relevant beca
rgy (“elastic” collision) and of the impact direc- standing of the phenomena is insufficient an
ver, since this assumption does not match obser- eters are not completely characterised. Unce
veral models have been developed to account for lated to the block (shape, dimensions), the t
ency of the block velocity after rebound on the clination, roughness) and the outcropping ma
conditions before impact (Bourrier et al., 2009b; and stiffness). As a consequence, even with a
, 2002; Dorren et al., 2004; Heidenreich, 2004; survey, data collection cannot be exhaustive a
d Bowen, 1989). These models can be considered prediction should take into consideration a cer
ns to classical models based on constant restitu- Stochastic rebound models have, therefo
ients. posed (Agliardi and Crosta, 2003; Azzoni et a
on, some very detailed models have been elab- rier et al., 2009b; Dudt and Heidenreich,
the interaction between the block and the slope et al., 2002; Paronuzzi, 1989; Pfeiffer and
., 1982; Falcetta, 1985; Ushiro et al., 2000). They Wu, 1985). A model correctly assessing reb
e between impact on hard and soft ground materi- ity should separate the different sources of u
ring for the latter the penetration of the block into to randomness of characteristics or lack of d
delled with a perfectly plastic or elasto-plastic be- tify the variability associated with each of th
s for the fragmentation of blocks that can occur The variability of the bouncing phenomenon
t on hard ground, it is rarely accounted for (Az- several statistical laws that need to be calibrat
982; Chau et al., 1998a; Fornaro et al., 1990) as statistical analysis of impact results.
generally assume that unbreakable blocks propa- Back-analysis of observed events or field
than breakable ones. not feasible for this purpose because either th
apart from the rigid-body models which integrate complete or reproducible impact conditions
ental equations of motion, only a few models ac- achieve. On the other hand, extensive lab
e rotational velocity along the block path. In this ments, or thoroughly calibrated numerical s
tionship between translation and rotation is usu- be used. These approaches have already been
shed, assuming that blocks leave the ground after soils (Bourrier et al., 2009b). The challenge
rolling mode. Either sticking or slipping condi- proach is the generation of appropriate datase
nsidered at the contact surface (Chau et al., 2002; results for different ground properties and k
and Muro, 1999; Ushiro et al., 2000). ditions before rebound.
Parameters assumed to influence the bouncing phe- and Statham, 1975; Statham and Francis, 1
abiouse and Descoeudres, 1999). when the falling block size is greater than t
bris particle size, rolling is the prevailing mo
Rock Kinematics block propagates further (Bozzolo and Pamin
eristics characteristics and Hungr, 1993; Giani, 1992; Kirkby and
Ritchie, 1963; Statham and Francis, 1986).
h strength velocity (translational loose soils, increasing block weight induces
ss stiffness ... and rotational)
deformation of the soil (formation of a bigge
ess weight incidence angle
somewhat reduces the previous influence. A
tion size configuration of...
of blocks, tests carried out with cubic blocks h
h h k i
See allshape
› See all ...the
› rock at impact
See all › the impact Download
configuration (e.g., Share
impact on fac
citation Download full-text PDF
21 Citations 216 References 3 Figures ner) has a very significant influence on the blo
during and after impact (Giani, 1992; Heiden
Bouncing is found to depend significantly
evance of impact parameters of energy between the block and the slope. Th
energy of the block is converted into kinetic
ized by the number of different definitions of the bound, together with diffused and dissipated
coefficients used in computer codes, the rebound the slope material. Elastic deformation of the
cks on a slope’s surface is still a poorly understood also occurs, but, in general, can be neglected
n. In particular, modelling by means of constant sion is due to wave propagation from the imp
coefficients only as a function of the slope mate- rier et al., 2008; Giani, 1992), while energy d
ery satisfactory, at least from a scientific point-of- lated to frictional (plastic) processes inside th
d, as mentioned above, the rebound also depends during impact (Bourrier et al., 2008; Bozzo
parameters related to the boulder and its kinemat- 1986; Giani, 1992; Heidenreich, 2004) and
mpact (Table 2). Experimental investigations of block and/or soil particle fragmentation (Azi
ce of these parameters are, therefore, worthwhile Fornaro et al., 1990; Giani, 1992). The magn
g a deeper understanding of the mechanisms oc- dissipation is mainly governed by the ratio be
ing impact and to put forward mathematical ex- and the slope particles (Bourrier et al., 2008; S
etween the restitution coefficients and those pa- the soil properties (Azzoni et al., 1995, 1992
These studies also attempt to determine reliable shape and incident orientation (Chau et al., 1
he parameters used in the rebound models. 1985; Heidenreich, 2004). Energy diffusion
ental investigations were carried out both in the processes are also strongly dependent on the
Azzoni and De Freitas, 1995; Azzoni et al., of the block before impact, which is related to
er and Dorren, 2006; Bozzolo et al., 1988; Broili, its velocity before rebound V − , i.e., Ec = 1/
ns and Hungr, 1993; Fornaro et al., 1990; Gia- The effects of variations in block mass (Jon
l., 2009; Giani, 1992; Japanese highway public Pfeiffer and Bowen, 1989; Ushiro et al., 200
, 1973; Kirkby and Statham, 1975; Kobayashi velocity before rebound (Urciuoli, 1988; Ush
; Lied, 1977; Pfeiffer and Bowen, 1989; Ritchie, are different due to the linear and square depe
ham, 1979; Statham and Francis, 1986; Teraoka Another very important feature observed
0; Urciuoli, 1996; Wu, 1985; Yoshida, 1998) iments is the strong influence of the kinema
laboratory (Azimi and Desvarreux, 1977; Az- before rebound. In particular, experiments s
982; Bourrier, 2008; Camponuovo, 1977; Chau impact angles result in greater energy cons
a, 1999a, 2002, 1999b, 1998b; Heidenreich, 2004; block (Bozzolo and Pamini, 1986; Chau et
l., 2000; Kawahara and Muro, 1999; Murata and denreich, 2004; Ushiro et al., 2000; Wu, 1985
997; Statham, 1979; Ujihira et al., 1993; Ushiro a small part of the kinetic energy before im
; Wong et al., 2000, 1999; Masuya et al., 2001). ated with normal to soil surface velocity an
riments contributed to determining the most im- less energy is dissipated into the soil. On th
act parameters and to quantifying their influence significant part of the kinetic energy related t
bound. component of velocity is retained by the blo
ental investigations have shown the dependence and a part of it (up to 30 %) is transformed int
ouncing on geometrical parameters and, in par- ergy (Kawahara and Muro, 1999; Ushiro et
the roughness of the slope (usually characterised reflected rotational velocity depends, to a larg
o of block size to average debris particle size). incidence angle and on the soil type. It is g
ce of slope roughness on rebound is generally re- interaction conditions at the contact surface,
n explanation for size sorting along slopes (Kirkby or slipping (Chau et al., 2002).

e limited amount of results, most of the above- 2008; ChauDownload
et al., 2002; Heidenreich,
citation Share 2004) Download full-text PDF
experimental
21 Citations investigations were insufficient
216 References 3 Figures for tical point-of-view, the implementation in c
understanding of the phenomenon or for statis- of the mathematical relationships deduced fr
arametric analyses. Therefore, some systematic tory tests should lead to better predictions of
al investigations were carried out in laboratories can improve the determination of areas at ri
nd medium-scale models (Bourrier, 2008; Chau for sites where no rockfall events have been e
; Heidenreich, 2004). These experiments were monitored.
o analyse the influence on the rebound of param- However, from a scientific point-of-view, t
d to the ground, the block and the kinematics. restitution coefficients expressed for the ma
inly spherical) were released on different soil ma- blocks (Eqs. 3–4) is challenged (Labiouse an
different degrees of compaction either normally 2009). Indeed, from a thorough analysis o
erent incidences using specific throwing devices. the movement of blocks during impact is fo
ments were filmed using high-speed cameras. Con- of three main interdependent mechanisms: a
d experiments, controlled laboratory experiments tion (penetration), a tangential translation (sli
cisely measured and reproducible results that are tation. It is illusory to model this complexity b
larger domains. The trends obtained can, there- overall restitution coefficients expressed for
ed with confidence to improve rebound models. of the block, as adopted by most existing roc
from laboratory experiments also provide a lot of codes. Only rigid-body methods that take int
n, much of it relevant in the calibration of numer- the shape of the blocks and fully consider the
of the impact that can, in turn, be used to study tween boulder and ground material at the con
sfer during impact (Bourrier et al., 2008). How- cluding the creation of a crater) would be ab
antitative interpretation of laboratory experiments impact phenomenon.
ghtforward, because matching the similitude re-
for all the parameters involved in the dynamic 4.3.6 Concluding remarks on block-slope
be difficult (Bourrier, 2008; Camponuovo, 1977;
h, 2004). The number of different rebound models u
n results gathered from these experimental investi- simulations emphasizes that block-slope int
firm the general trends obtained in previous stud- poorly understood. This complex phenomen
ding the influence of the slope material charac- only on the ground conditions (stiffness, stren
e motion of the block during and after impact is inclination), but also on the block’s characte
e significantly influenced by the degree of com- size, shape, strength) and the kinematics bef
he soil material and somewhat less by its friction locities, collision angle, configuration of the b
rrier, 2008; Heidenreich, 2004). As for the influ- One should, therefore, keep in mind that
kinematics before impact, experiments confirm a bound models are used, the predictive ability
dency of the restitution coefficients on the block ulation is conditioned by a good calibration o
d the impact angle on the slope surface. The in- on already experienced or monitored rockfa
he latter seems to prevail (Bourrier, 2008; Chau interest. In cases where data on natural or art
; Heidenreich, 2004). Additionally, the depen- lacking for the specific site, one should be aw
lock mass and size is more marked for normal lations of rock trajectories can be very mislea
aller impact angles because energy transfer to the formed with the restitution coefficients stated
ter for normal impact (Bourrier, 2008; Heiden- or assessed from in situ rockfall events or b
). The shape of the block and its configuration events on other slopes.
were also shown to have a clear influence on the To achieve better reliability in trajectory si
he block after impact and especially on the rota- eral studies have been carried out, or are st
Finally, the large amount of experimental results to develop rebound models that account for t
r coarse soils in particular, quantifying the high the most important impact parameters. The
of the kinematics of the block after rebound de- then be calibrated by a more objective field
both the surface shape and the geometrical con- To achieve this goal, many experimental inve
f soil particles near the point of impact (Bourrier conducted, either in the field or in the labor
b, 2008). a deeper understanding of the mechanisms i
lts from the above-mentioned laboratory exper- impact and to quantify the influence of the
wed determining the most important geometri- geometrical and geotechnical parameters. A
technical parameters that influence rebound and calibration using experimental data, numerica
mathematical expressions for the restitution coef- contribute to studying energy transfer during
a function of the impact characteristics (Bourrier, assess the influence of parameters outside the

ds Earth Syst. Sci.,216
21 Citations
11,References
2617–2651, 2011
3 Figures
www.nat-hazards-earth-syst-sci.net
m these studies, mathematical expressions for the

odels’ parameters can be derived as a function of
characteristics.
ntation of the rebound models in rockfall simula-
hould provide more accurate predictions of rock-
ries and energies and consequently improve the
of areas at risk and the design of protection struc-
und model calibration
the rebound parameters used for trajectory calcu-

estimated on the basis of a rough description of
material (rock, scree deposits, loose soil), some-
lemented by information regarding its roughness,
f compaction and the vegetation cover. Now, as
by several authors who have experienced natu-
rtificial in situ rockfall (e.g., Azimi et al., 1982;
De Freitas, 1995; Falcetta, 1985; Giani, 1992;
Evans, 1988), the characteristics of motion after
conditioned by several factors other than the slope
operties, such as the weight, size and shape of the
well as their velocity, collision angle and config-
mpact. Consequently, the restitution coefficients
terise the rebound of blocks during rockfall are
unction of the slope material.
o our incomplete knowledge both of and in mod-
ouncing phenomenon and to the rather subjective
of the slope material, the reliability of the simu-
ts could be improved. This is evident when com- Fig. 7. Schematic illustration of rockfall traces on
esults provided by different models on a specific tree branches.
n by the same programme used by different users
d Dorren, 2006; Labiouse, 2004; Labiouse et al.,
limits of predictions are also clear when values sible should be detected with their (inclined)
arameters taken from the literature or obtained by the slope inclination. Additional traces above
or back-analyses of natural events on particular ing for a derivation of the jump height should
ot provide satisfactory results when used on other However, these traces usually belong to the c
of the block, whereas the traces on the groun
ve good reliability of trajectory predictions, the lower boundary. This has to be considered dea
parameters must be thoroughly calibrated at the jump heights in combination with large block
rest. For this purpose, during the field data col- even the (vertically measured) maximum ju
ticular attention should be paid to gain informa- the middle of the jump (s/2 if the inclinatio
rockfall paths of previous events, such as scars on doesn’t change significantly) can be measur
cts on slopes, damage to vegetation and accumu- most cases, however, the jump height f mu
s. Provided the numerical model is well calibrated based on the inclined jump length s . Observa
field observations, confidence in the trajectory re- following relations to be valid for characteris
See all ›
e greatly enhanced.See all › See all ›
1/6 for high
f/s = Download jumps Share
citation Download full-text PDF
d data collection and analysis f/s = 1/8 for normal jumps
lete back-analysis of the rock’s trajectory, the alti- f/s = 1/12 for shallow jumps
release and deposition positions must be known.
all traces should be recorded on a map in or- If the traces on the ground cannot be assig
n the horizontally projected length of the trajec- gle jumps because of several overlapping ro
g this, as many follow-up impact craters as pos- ries, the terrain profile of the potential trajec
Table 3. Start and end velocities of a parabolic traj

ent values of jump height
Jump height f 3.50m 3.75 m

Jump length s 30.0m 30.0 m
Inclination β 40 ◦ 40 ◦
Jump length x 22.98m 22.98 m
Jump length z 19.28m 19.28 m
Lift-off velocity vOx 13.60m s−1 13.14 m s−1

Lift-off velocity vOz 3.13m s−1 2.45 ms−1
Lift-off velocity vO 14.0m s−1 13.4m s−1
Impact velocity vEx 13.60 ms−1 13.14 m s−1

Impact velocity vEz 19.70 ms−1 19.60 m s−1
Impact velocity vE 23.9m s−1 23.6m s−1
ls of air parabola with velocity vectors.
This may allow a later modelling of the rock’s

.
field data, the “air parabolas” of the single jumps
ved with the corresponding velocities. The upper
er O is the starting point of a parabola, the other
ned by the lower crater E . The start velocity is
nd vE defines the next impact velocity split into
and vertical components x and z:
lift-off velocity in horizontal direction
lift-off velocity in vertical direction
impact velocity in horizontal direction
impact velocity in vertical direction
Fi 9 Lif ff di l i f
See all › See all › See all › Fig. 9. Lift-off and impact velocity for an assume
p height f is defined in the middle 3ofFigures
the jump f/s = 1/8 asDownload
a tool for citation
rapid trajectory
Shareanalyses in Download full-text PDF
g. 8). The horizontal
21 Citations 216and vertical fractions of the
References
h s with a slope inclination β are:
As an example, the series of measured val
and z = s sinβ (5) would result in the velocities shown in Table 3
dinate components of the lift-off velocity vO are assumed jump heights of 3.5 − 4.0 m result in
and impact velocities.
The determination of the start and end ve
r
g g
and vOz = (z − 4f ) (6)
f 8f vE can be simplified and speeded up by m
a total lift-off velocity of diagram that depends on the jump length s a
nation β paired with an assumed jump heig
of f/s = 1/8. Such graphics can be easily p
r
g
+ (z − 4f )2 . (7)
8f other relation of f/s .
ands for the gravitational constant g = 9.81m s−2
tical direction is used with a positive sign if di-
5 Structural countermeasures
ards. Accordingly, the impact velocity vE is
In the case of infrastructure or buildings
q r
g
vE z = x 2 + (z + 4f )2 . (8)
8f a rockfall hazard zone, either suitable newl
measures are needed or are necessitated by its kinematics (velocity and impact angle) a
oundaries of rockfall occurrence. This section of absorbing material (thickness, compactio
verview of modern protection systems and pro- rockfall protection galleries, the action on the
t summary for dams, embankments and ditches in found to depend on the structure’s stiffness.
more comprehensive state-of-the-art report deals Most of the above-mentioned studies provid
and galleries (Sects. 5.3 and 5.4). For forests, ref- data on the temporal evolution of the impact f
uld be made to a recent review of the protection of the block (measured accelerations by means
ect. 5.5. ters on the boulder and/or using image proc
speed camera films to obtain the evolution o
n of rocks on protection structures time), on the penetration of the block into the
terial and, for some of them, on the earth p
time, estimations of the impact load caused by a at the base of the cushion layer (i.e., on the
re only drawn from empirical relationships based data gathered provide information on the tra
ental observations. Then several other formu- during the impact and on the force exerted o
e developed from theoretical considerations as- Formulas were worked out to assess the m
ground behaviour to be elastic, plastic or elasto- forces, with the aim of improving the desig
he first family of relationships, derived from structures (e.g., SBB, 1998). However, these
stic contact theory, assumes that a rigid ball im- mulas must be interpreted with caution bec
astic medium (Goldsmith, 1960; Japan Road As- ness of the absorbing cushion and the bound
983; Lang, 1974; Tonello, 1988). Other formula- strongly influence the dynamics of the intera
sed on a plastic or elasto-plastic behaviour of the 1998; Montani-Stoffel, 1998).
erial (Azimi and Desvarreux, 1988; Habib, 1976; When carefully calibrated on the experim
84; Lang, 1974; Tonello, 1988). Recently, for- merically modelling the impacts can help t
derived from the penetration of nondeformable stand and quantify the energy diffusion and di
projectiles onto concrete and soil targets (Pichler the absorbing cushion. It can also contribute t
). For
See roughly
all › theSee
lastalldecade,
› manySee
efforts
all › are influence ofDownload
various parameters that could no
the21numerical modelling of the impact on rock- only in a limited range of values,
citation Shareduring th Download full-text PDF
on structures, using finite element (FE) and dis-
Citations 216 References 3 Figures
campaigns, and to improving the design of p
nt (DE) methods (Bertrand et al., 2006; Calvetti, tures.
etti et al., 2005; Magnier and Donzé, 1998; Ma-
ajikawa, 1991; Nakata et al., 1997; Nicot et al., 5.2 Embankments and ditches
et al., 2002, 2007; Plassiard et al., 2004). The
seems quite promising for studying impact prob- Embankments and ditches belong to the qua
ded that a careful calibration of the parameters is of protection measures against rockfall. The
ed. along the side of the infrastructure is efficie
r data on the action of rocks on protection struc- one of the most reliable protection measures.
hen to calibrate numerical codes, experimental are more likely to be used to protect perma
are essential. Several half-scale and full-scale Embankments are able to withstand high i
al studies have been conducted to determine the of e.g., 20 MJ (personal communication with
ilities of the cushion covering rockfall protection However, the cross sections of embankments
ften called rock sheds) for design purposes, by quire a rather large area in front of the protec
locks of different weights and shapes from var- For structural measures, like fences or galle
s on concrete slabs covered with different ab- mance of the protective system is quite well
terials (Calvetti et al., 2005; Chikatamarla, 2006; planning of protection measures does not ha
t al., 1996; Montani-Stoffel, 1998; Murata and account the deceleration process. However,
997; Sato et al., 1996; Schellenberg et al., 2008; clarified for the structural safety of earth emb
al., 1988). Other testing campaigns were car- includes the questions: What is the impact
gravel layers (Pichler et al., 2005), embankments tion of the impact energy? What is the effe
2002; Burroughs et al., 1993; Lepert and Corté, mass or impact velocity? What is the limit s
et al., 2002; Yoshida, 1999) and composite struc- bankment? What is the influence of soil pro
bert et al., 2009; Lorentz et al., 2006). Paramet- density, strength, angle of internal friction? W
es performed in the framework of these experi- tration depth? How does the cross section of a
mpaigns allowed for the determining of the most or ditch affect the interaction with the block?
actors and quantifying their influence on the im- For example and theoretically, the front fac
They are related to the block (mass, shape) and pact could be (at least partially) vertical. Thi
nto a vertical path and its rotation does not cause

ver the embankment or roll out of a ditch. In
veral impacts on rockfall embankments are docu-
ere the construction fulfilled its task for inclined
opes even with angles that represent the friction
he construction material. The geometry of the
nt should, therefore, reflect more the local geo-
undaries and can also be strongly influenced by
ce and width of a hillside catchment zone (e.g.,
red by a damping layer to dissipate energy and
ncing height). Furthermore, rather low inclined
pes of embankments covered by a damping layer
its friction angle) will prevent a rolling block to Fig. 10. Penetration and deceleration of impacting
he construction as the material reacts with ground solidated soil of thickness 0.5m and 1.3 m for dif
oon as the block induces shear forces to the slope. locities.
it should
See all be
› noted,See
thatallfor
› the designSeeofallthe
› ge-
he embankment
21 Citations (especially the inclination
216 References 3 Figuresof the Download citation Share Download full-text PDF
pe) should be done with respect to the geometry a = 0.8v 2 /(gt)
where the construction will be done. Ideally the
embankment will be rectangular to the hillslope. p = 0.8v 2 /a
leration process into soil has been investigated on
ales, i.e., small (Heidenreich, 2004), large (Labi- Thus, the relationship between penetration d
1996; Montani-Stoffel, 1998) and full scale (Ger- mum deceleration can be formulated as a fun
The main results are the maximum deceleration layer thickness (see Fig. 10). However, the
tion of blocks. Both results are important for gal- from experiments and the parameters measur
Sect. 5.3) to design the strength of the underlying pacts of rigid bodies on cushion layers after
nd the thickness of the soil layer (Labiouse et al., The cushion layer overlies a stiff construction
RA, 2008; Schellenberg et al., 2008). The dy- cannot easily be transferred to earth emban
lerating force is then usually transformed into a feature elasto-plastic deformation in the dire
quivalent force. surface (valley-side slope of the embankment
periments presented in Montani-Stoffel (1998); the measured parameters p and a are difficult
08); Pichler et al. (2005) deal with experimental field without having appropriate data on the b
in an effort to quantify forces acting on a horizon- block at the impact on the surface of an emb
f concrete slab covered by various damping lay- data from vertical falling tests on damping lay
pact in these experiments is done by free fall in a layer do not necessarily reflect the load-case
ection. Opposed to these experiments, the impact rockfall embankments, but might be used as l
ckfall embankments (being usually constructions results are available.
ompacted soils and not featuring stiff layers) will To optimize embankment dimensions, fu
bly react differently to the behaviour of the tested tests on earth embankment structures are nec
The few projects dealing with embankments built et al. (2002) and Peila et al. (2007) the p
xclusively deal with real scale experiments (Peila reinforced embankments is described show
2007) or model tests (Blovsky, 2002) made from depths of 0.6 − 1.1 m for embankments wit
nforced soil embankments. This reveals that fur- of 5 m and a height of around 4.5 m and rock
characterise the behaviour of earth embankments ergies between 2400 and 4200kJ. An overvie
ithout geogrid reinforcements are necessary. methods for embankments is given by Lambe
2008) measured the impact on soil of varying (2011) and an example of the design of a roc
f free falling blocks of 800 and 4000 kg with embankment is given in Baumann (2008).
hts varying from 2... 15 m resulting in impact en-
e range 20 to 600kJ. Based on these experiments 5.3 Rockfall protection galleries
ng formulas for the maximum deceleration a and
depth p due to an impact velocity v have been There are many different types of rockfall pro
with regard to structural design (Fig. 11). T
mon type in Switzerland is a monolithic rein
structure covered by a cushion layer (Schell
gel, 2005).

erent types of shed structures (fltr): reinforced-concrete slab, shell type, in situ reinforced concrete, and steel-con
Vogel et al., 2009).
Fig. 13. Steel-concrete composite structure for a ro

l-scale steel-concrete composite rock shed subjected gallery (Konno et al., 2008)
weight (left; Maegawa et al., 2003), gallery with PSD
ystem in Val d’Arly, France (right; taken from Masuya,
5.3.1 Cushion layer
The main function of a cushion layer is to

galleries are appropriate protective measures for absorbers (Jacquemoud, 1999). Shock wave
well-defined endangered zones with a high rate of concrete structures could cause the separation
agnitude events (Jacquemoud, 1999). While pro- cover on the soffit, so called scabbing, even f
ection against high energy impacts, galleries can less intensity than the structural capacity (He
ow maintenance solution for frequent low energy The cushion layer also dissipates some of
which the rocks accumulating on the gallery are ergy, distributes the contact stresses, decrease
given time intervals. ing on the impacted structure and also increas
king range of galleries has been estimated to be of impact. For economic reasons, locally ava
energies up to about 3000kJ (ASTRA, 2003). material is often used as a cushion material, w
ecent research which focuses on either improv- sand is generally used (Ishikawa, 1999).
mping properties of the cushion layer, increasing The dynamic force applied to the top of th
al capacity or adding energy-dissipating supports, due to a falling block is empirically give
s can provide protection for up to 5000kJ (Vogel (Montani-Stoffel, 1998). The impact force
). E-Moduli of the cushion layers ME as well
ncrete-composite galleries (Fig. 12 Maegawa radius r and the rock’s kinematic energy, exp
3) or composite sandwich structures with high- of mass m and impact velocity v .
connections (Fig. 13 Konno et al., 2008) have !0.6
ated in Japan and could provide future solutions 0.2 0.4 m × v2
applications. Pmax = 1.765× r × ME ×
2
owing section gives a summary of research related
n galleries with emphasis on the cushion layer For structural design purposes, however, th
ctural evaluation of the galleries. mitted across the interface between the cus
structure are required. Of interest are the defi
magnitude and loading area. Both, of course,

mpact process and depend on the material prop-

cushion layer.
imental research (Kishi et al., 1993), the trans-
e was found to be about 1.8 times the impact
case of a sand cushion layer or only half the im-
or a special three layer cushion system (Ishikawa,
e transmitted force, which is the load acting on
es, can also be determined numerically. A sim-
hod using an ordinary FE code, assuming one-
l stress wave propagation and elastic-plastic soil
was used to estimate the stress distributions for
mall impact loads (Sonoda, 1999).
dvanced FE models (e.g., LS-DYNA code) are
del entire galleries including the cushion layer
e to match results from large scale tests (Kishi
). In the latest simulations for the cushion layer,
ning model is used, in which parameters are de-
y curve fitting using experimental data (Ghadimi-
et al., 2009).
al simulations, by means of the DE method, have
d for rockfall impact on embankments (Plassiard
, 2009) and could potentially lead to future im-
in the design of rockfall protection galleries. It
en proposed to simulate the processes taking place
ushion layer by a rheological model (Calvetti and
2009) or by a simplified nonlinear spring describ-
rall relationship between force and rock penetra-
e cushion layer (Schellenberg, 2009).
Fig. 14. Alternative cushion layers: (top) Fence b
ction of the cushion material can significantly im-
cellular glass material (Schellenberg, 2008), (bot
capacity of the gallery. The energy dissipation sandwich structure (Lorentz et al., 2008).
t materials and mixtures has been studied in cen-
s, with the result that a mixture of sand-rubber
%) with clay lumps seems to be an efficient cush- 5.3.2 Structural evaluation
l (Chikatamarla, 2006).
e tests in Japan showed that the impact forces can To date guidelines for the design of rockfal
stantially reduced by the above-mentioned three- been published in Switzerland and in Japan (
orbing system (TLAS), which is composed of an Japan Road Association, 2000). In both
nded polystyrol) layer, a reinforced concrete core equivalent force is applied, which apart from
sand layer (Nakano et al., 1995). A large-scale and velocity depends mostly on the geotechn
tzerland with foam glass as cushion layer mate- of the cushion layer. This approach is simple
owed promising results (Schellenberg et al., 2007, ticing engineers, but presents difficulties in
. Lorentz et al. (2008) investigated the perfor- the complex dynamic processes during the i
andwich structures composed of two or three re- mary of older formulations for the impact fo
ncrete layers separated by tyres (Fig. 14bottom). Montani-Stoffel (1998) and a comparison of t
nt approach to dissipate energy without a cushion culation methods can be found in Casanovas
PSD system (Pare-blocs Structurellement Dissi- Based on a system of multiple degrees
posed in France and shown in Fig. 12 right. The impact loads (Comité-Euro-International du B
ected to direct impact and energy absorbing de- new analytical model has been proposed fo
laced at the slab supports (Tonello, 2001). Test rockfall galleries, which allows predicting
scale of 1/3 are presented in (Berthet-Rambaud, bending failure (Schellenberg et al., 2008, Fig
The time histories of the spring forces ar
See all › See all › See all › the equations of motion

Download with Share
citation the given mas Download full-text PDF
21 Citations 216 References 3 Figures properties described above. The peak loads ar
based results and can be compared with the r
critical sections of the slab.
b) c) d) e)
em with multiple degrees of freedom (SMDF) (a) and (b), from the section of a gallery to the model definition
ement relationship of the springs for (c) cushion layer, (d) shear behaviour and (e) global bending stiffness (fr
009).
5.4 Flexible protection systems
Today, one of the most common protection m

rockfall is the use of flexible protection syste
ers are usually installed like fences along the
infrastructure or in front of buildings acting a
tection system, i.e., they are meant to stop a
Much research has already been performed
ers in recent years. At first, the research wo
on the general ability of flexible systems to
ding capacity of protection gallery Axen-Süd for dif-
falling rocks (Sect. 5.4.1). Later, the empha
t masses (from Schellenberg, 2009).
to improve our knowledge of such barriers, e
systematic and extensive testing (Grassl, 200
s model relative values between the maximum uations (Spang and Bolliger, 2001) or numeri
the load bearing capacities for punching (η2 ) and (see Sect. 5.4.5). The knowledge gained ther
lure (η3 ) are obtained, leading to an iterative pro- basis for standardization as described in Sect.
structural design. the research is usually rather application-orien
cedure is particularly suitable for the evaluation of out in close cooperation with the manufacture
leries. Figure 16 shows the ratio values reached published results consider just one barrier typ
ith different masses falling from different heights still would be possible to compare the differ
ery Axen-Süd in Switzerland. Future evaluations garding their performance, braking distance,
penetration relationship of the rock into the cush- etc., as done by Gerber and Volkwein (2007).
ould improve this model. Today, after several decades of developmen
years, significant advances have been made re- ment, a typical flexible rockfall protection sys
merical simulations to aid structural design (Kishi a steel net attached longitudinally to so-called
Masuya and Nakata, 2001). The simulations al- The nets with mesh openings ranging from 5–
led evaluation of the structure and its response to from chain-link meshes, wire-rope nets or ste
pactSee all ›
(Fig. See all ›
17). This See all ›
approach, however, requires ter being concatenated like a historical
Download citation Share byrni Download full-text PDF
al data for calibration
21 Citations and significant
216 References resources,
3 Figures from the torpedo protection nets used in front
application in practice. Such efforts, though, are ships in the 2nd World War. Only limited kn
he development of design guidelines and for eval- on the use of alternative net materials (Tajim Ad
cal sections and parametric influences. The support ropes (rope section diameter 1
advances in understanding the structural perfor- spanned between steel posts with typical len
ockfall galleries, there are still large uncertain- and 7 m and field spacings varying between 5
ng the definition of design situations. Therefore, posts are fixated by ground plates either by c
c methods are attractive tools because the uncer- or hinged support with additional upslope ro
be better quantified. In addition, future develop- head. Details regarding the state-of-the-art p
e design of new protection galleries or the eval- including suggestions for load measurements
xisting sheds might involve evaluating the failure Turner et al. (2009). Additional ropes may be
for different design situations and select the de- ing on the individual systems. Connections
ons based on overall risk acceptance criteria. are usually achieved by drilled anchors. For
neral view of an FE analysis model of an impacted rock shed and the resulting crack patterns for different loa
2009).

ferent types of energy absorbing barrier components (friction of tensioned rope between friction plates, fricti
steel pipe circle narrowing under tension and elongating spiral structures) and mesh types (original anti-subma
iced rope net, ring net, rope net with clamps).
ost systems have additional energy absorbing el- a gallery structure. They are quickly installe
ched to the ropes. Such elements deform plas- tle equipment. Their performance is effectiv
large displacements (up to 2m) increasing the reliable. The impact on the landscape durin
f the supporting structure. Figure 18 shows some is low and a certain transparency afterwards
king elements. The barriers are usually erected by Due to their wide range of energy retention
ting teams according to the manufacturer’s instal- ble fence systems can be used for most app
ual that comes with the barrier. finally, an increasing number of manufactu
e various advantages favouring flexible nets for healthy competition, guaranteeing continuou
ngly wide distribution. They are cheaper com- and improvements with a parallel reduction i
other protection systems, e.g., about one tenth of
to around 5000 kJ. However, it must be state

related to flexible fence systems generally inv
tion between a research institute and a particu
ufacturer focusing only on its own products
Volkwein, 2004; Nicot, 1999; Wienberg et
et al., 1998). There are only few studies w
different net systems. For instance, Gerber
(2007) analysed the performance of different
ther soft or hard dynamic decelerating proces
ing understanding of fence systems and the
ciple mode of operation for rockfall attenuating system haviour also allows the use of various net-t
et al., 2010) and system sketch for typical hanger net resist impact forces caused by other natura
t). as avalanches (Margreth, 1995), falling slidi
wein et al., 2009; Hamberger and Stelzer,
flows (Wendeler, 2008) or shallow landslides
r, there are some limiting factors in the case of 2008).
rriers. Long-term protection against corrosion
aranteed; working life is defined in EOTA (2008) 5.4.2 Standardization
or even shorter if installed in aggressive environ-
ditions). If a barrier has experienced at least one It is important for the planning and design of e
zed See
rockfall
all › event,See
it isallusually
› deformed
See allresult-
› tion systems that their behaviour is well under
duced barrier height
21 Citations 216after a successfully
References resisted
3 Figures oughly verified. Thiscitation
Download also ensures
Sharean efficien Download full-text PDF
ent. Further, after large-sized rockfall events, the investment. Due to the complex, dynamic and
etention capacity might be reduced requiring im- scribe decelerating process a typical barrier
intenance. Therefore, regular inspection is neces- on prototype testing. This procedure has als
installed barriers to prevent reduced performance to produce standardization guidelines definin
of, e.g., barriers being partially filled by small performance limits of solid barriers.
d, etc. Flexible barriers cannot be used if the ex- The first guideline world-wide was initiated
act energies are too high or if the calculated block in 2000 (Gerber, 2001a). This guideline defi
would overtop the barriers reaching the object to procedures that allow a posteriori evaluation
d. If the place of installation is also subject to with respect to the maximum energy retentio
in winter, up till now a rockfall protection sys- actual rope forces, the braking distance, the re
been capable of withstanding the dynamic snow height, the performance for small and medium
reth, 1995; Nicot et al., 2002b,a). In such a case, events and the corresponding maintenance w
ives would be a partial removal and re-installation In 2008, the European Guideline ETAG 027
or an alternative protection measure such as gal- (EOTA, 2008; Peila and Ronco, 2009.). By le
pean Commission to the Member States, the
cent years new rockfall mitigation measures have 2008 was considered the date of its availab
easing attention. So-called attenuating systems cability. ETAG 027 defines a testing proce
o stop a falling rock, but to catch it and to guide it the Swiss guideline and – after successful sys
a controlled manner (see Fig. 19). Such barriers identification testing of the main component
led Hybrid Barriers or Hanger Nets (Glover et al., ter initial factory production inspection by th
kal et al., 2011a). proval body – allows the producers to attach
ing for the barrier on the basis of relevant EC
torical development and current research notified certification body and EC declaration
by the manufacturer. The basis for issuing
old-type fences were able to withstand just small cate is the European technical approval as the
ents. Only in the early 1990s, with research on monized technical specification, issued by an
falling rocks efficiently, was the dynamics of the entitled for these tasks and the implementati
g process considered and used to design new re- production control system on the basis of th
ems (Hearn et al., 1992). This also included the accompanying the European technical appro
nt of fences with retention capacities of up 50kJ cal for such a broad guideline that many dif
ynamic design approaches (Duffy, 1992; Duffy have to be combined and formulated. This u
1993). Since then continuous research and engi- a quasi-minimum standard requiring Nation
velopment has increased their retention capacities Documents for the single member states.
ferent
Seetesting
all › methodsSeeforallrockfall
› protection systems:
See all ›
ry (left) with impact including rotation, but imprecise Fig. 21. Standardized test blocksShare
Download citation for flexible ro Download full-text PDF
ion;21cable car guided
Citations 216oblique
References(middle)3 and vertical
Figures systems related to a regular cube with edge lengt
ct with precise impact location. the approval guidelines of Switzerland (left, Ger
2008) and the European Union (right, EOTA, 2008
lso be borne in mind that there will always be load

de the scope of the guidelines, such as eccentric For the tests, mainly two different setups a
es, post or rope strikes, high or low speed rockfall pending on how the falling rock is accele
the same impact energy, etc., (Wienberg et al., guidance of test blocks along a track cable o
wein et al., 2009). drops (see Fig. 20, Gerber, 2001b). The barr
ally installed with an inclination so that an im
tween barrier and rockfall trajectory of 60◦ (
mensioning
or ±20◦ between barrier and reference slope (
obtained. This represents a typical situation f
e protection fence is suitable for a specific site it
when impacting a barrier in the field.
ocated in the field in such a way that it covers
The test results are retrieved using differen
tories and that the falling rock does not come to
systems. The geometry of the barrier befor
n the road to be protected, or reaches the clear-
test is surveyed using leveling instruments
n of road or railway during deceleration process.
with additional manual measurements of brak
ence system is selected according to the expected
gations, post inclinations, etc. The braking
mpact energy obtained with the aid of geologi-
falling rock can be obtained either from f
e. The arrangement of the barrier in the field has
analysis of high-speed video recordings (m
he installation instructions given in the accompa-
per second recommended) or from numerica
ual. A ready-made design load for the anchors
the block’s internal acceleration measuremen
o the measured rope forces during prototype tests
> 1 − 2 kHz recommended).
.4.4) is sometimes available online (BAFU Bun-
The typical test boulders are specially man
Umwelt, 2011). In Switzerland, a partial safety
crete elements (see Fig. 21) with different m
3 has to be applied in compliance with (SIA261,
to guideline energy classes with an impact v
e load side. The safety of anchorage (e.g., micro-
mum 25 m s−1 . This velocity is considered be
and anchors) has to be guaranteed according to
range of rockfall events.
). Shu et al. (2005) describe results from anchor-
In recent years the investigations
trated more on the testing of attenua
e.g., Glover et al. (2010). Here, oblique impa
d testing and vertical testing impossible due to the a
the falling block, but to deviate it and simpl
verify and validate the setup for newly-developed trajectory.
tection fences, full-scale field tests are necessary.
g was performed from the beginning (Hearn et al., 5.4.5 Numerical modelling
y, 1992) and continues to the present day (Zaitsev
). A summary of flexible barrier testing to with- Flexible rockfall protection barriers have re
all up to 2008 can be found in Thommen (2008). opment stage where considerable effort wou
the testing methods have not changed signifi- to extend their rockfall retention capacity.
, due to better measurement methods, more de- ing numerical simulation enables a more effi
ts can be obtained, as shown for example in Got- ment or optimization of new types due to a
ovoni (2010). ber of expensive prototype field tests. In addi
lowsSee theallsimulation
› See all › See all ›
of designed barriers by con- 5.5 Forests Download citation Share Download full-text PDF
ecial21load cases that216
Citations cannot be reproduced
References in field
3 Figures
speed rockfall, post/rope strikes, etc.), as well as The most natural type of protection is a fores
metrical boundary conditions for individual topo- effect is basically due to the barrier effect (
tuations or the influence of structural changes on tion) of standing and lying trees. Whether th
ormance (Fornaro et al., 1990; Mustoe and Hut- is effective or not is determined by the size
993; Akkaraju, 1994; Nicot et al., 1999, 2001; ergy of the rock, the total basal area that is av
al., 2002; Anderheggen et al., 2002; Volkwein, cept the falling rock, as well as the tree spec
aran et al., 2006). Apart from the numerical mod- Dorren, 2007). In rockfall protection forests,
ll protection systems, also single components can the basal area is important as it comprises b
d numerically. Related work has been done, for of the forest (how many tree stems per hecta
nergy dissipating elements (del Coz Dı́az et al., and the diameter distribution of the trees. T
er, 2001; Dhakal et al., 2011b) or net rings (Nicot total basal area is the total area covered by all
Volkwein, 2004). section, usually measured at breast height, pe
formations causing geometrical nonlinearity, the area is, therefore, expressed in m2 ha−1 . The
simulation period and nonlinear material be- an effective protection forest is about 10m2 h
uires explicit FE analysis strategies such as the forest with 25 m2 ha−1 will be able to provi
ferences Method used e.g., by Bathe (2001); An- level of protection against rockfall. This, how
et al. (1986). This provides a detailed view of the on the previously mentioned factors (rock e
ynamic response. It can also deliver information and length of forested slope, etc.). An assessm
ing and degree of utilisation of any modelled sys- tective function of the forest can be carried ou
uration. The simulation of the falling rock should sessment tools and protection forest guideline
count large three-dimensional displacements and et al., 2005; Berger and Dorren, 2007) or with
When impacting a steel net at any location, spe- rockfall trajectory models that account for th
algorithms prevent the net nodes from penetrat- of single trees (e.g., Dorren, 2010; Rammer e
k permitting only tangential movements. All slid- Various research investigations have been
taking place in the model usually occur over long obtain a detailed knowledge of the capacity
nd also cause friction between the various compo- stop falling rocks, as shown in the fundamen
the state of the art of rockfall and forest int
ow, different strategies to model flexible rockfall ren et al., 2007). It is generally agreed that
e been pursued. The design of a special tailor- trees are required in a rockfall protection
are allows one to focus on the relevant details and well-structured stands with a wide diameter d
wanted parts and, therefore, speeds up the compu- a mosaic of different forest development pha
cot et al., 1999; Volkwein, 2004). Such an ap- best rockfall protection. Experiments have sho
facilitates the setup of different barrier models, small trees are capable of stopping large rock
software elements are already optimized for the a large part of the kinetic energy has already
omponents. This method, however, needs a large during preceding impacts against large trees.
ime until usable results are available. Therefore, The repartition of large and small trees, wh
common multi-purpose FE codes is also recom- corresponds to the height of the trees, is referr
ecause it saves the time-consuming development tical forest structure. Furthermore, the higher
unctions (Fornaro et al., 1990). This again is at the sity, the higher the contact probability, but th
ideal element properties or performance. Finally, on the rock size since small rocks have a l
act models, e.g., with a numerically much simpli- probability than large rocks. A problem in p
formance, allow the simulation with systems that management is that dense forest stands canno
t been fully explored. over a long period of time by having thick t
ss of the approach adopted to simulate a flexible stability. Therefore, a compromise has to be
results of the simulations should be validated by an optimal protective function while assurin
ockfall field tests measuring the cable and support ity and renewal (Brang, 2001). The numbe
ell as accelerations and the trajectory of the falling and their spatial repartition is referred to as
forest structure. An important characteristic
the horizontal structure that determines the pr
rockfall is the length and number of gaps and
forest.

azards-earth-syst-sci.net/11/2617/2011/
Nat. Hazardscitation
Download Earth Syst. Sci., 11, 26
last decade, research on the interaction between susceptibility vs. rockfall hazard shoul
d protection forest has intensified. Examples are It is also important to have a thorough kn
(2010) and Jonsson (2007), who studied the me- extreme variations of trajectories within
ability and energy absorption of single trees. A They define the decisive fractiles releva
n the protective capacity of a single tree and the ping process. However, all this is of
a forest stand has been made by Kalberer (2007). reliability of models with a proper phys
l. (2009) investigated the protective effect of dif- checked properly.
ice stands. Le Hir et al. (2006), Rammer et al.
Dorren (2010) have proposed new approaches for – Secondly, a specific design level has to b
fined for protection measures. This can
forest in rockfall trajectory models. Monnet et al.
wed, by way of an example, how laser-scanning quantifying the risk level, the vulnerabi
used for the automatic characterisation of rock- tection countermeasures and the involve
cycles of the mitigation measure and for
on. Advances in dendro-geomorphology provide
duction. Of course, standardized evalu
d spatiotemporal analysis of the silent witnesses
(e.g., Schneuwly and Stoffel, 2008). Important fication procedures for the countermeas
subjects in this area are the effect of lying stems defined.
trajectories, decomposition of lying and standing – Further, more discussion on what is the b
and the optimal protection forest stand character- sify a single rockfall event is needed. It
fferent rockfall settings (coppice stands, homoge- factorily described using either the ener
h forest, maximum gap length, etc). impulse in Ns. The first is more com
of-the-art, but the latter is sometimes m
considering impact and rebound effects.
ary and outlook
– Finally, it is becoming increasingly im
kfall hazard issues and estimation of the risk searchers from different disciplines to
are considered essential. Research on rockfall- collaboration. Today’s demands on ap
cs is an important task and advances are clearly efficiency rule out isolated studies lack
addition, structural countermeasures also based Such collaboration could result in valuab
nty models are also of practical interests. This ar- this paper or a book on rockfall (Lamb
ore, consists of four main chapters, namely rock- 2011).
rockfall source areas, trajectory modelling and
ountermeasures. Acknowledgements. Without the work of a lot of
al simulation nowadays allows for a calculation wide this summary article wouldn’t contain so m
ies at a very high level of precision (see Sect. 4). The authors further thank E. G. Prater for the ha
e, the rockfall process can be simulated using the improvement of this article, Johanna Scheidegger
the reference list and two reviewers who did an ex
based on highly detailed laser scans as input, etc.
uch a detailed level would also require the consid-
Edited by: T. Glade
he block’s shape, its exact position before the re- Reviewed by: M. Mölk and another anonymous re
Therefore, an alternative approach also has its va-
e is no essential need for sophisticated simulation
estimate the velocities in rockfall events. A few References
ble impact locations and some basic mathematics
nt to calculate the trajectory (see Sect. 4.4.1). The Acosta, E., Agliardi, F., Crosta, G. B., and Rios A
f impact locations on the ground, the inclinations gional rockfall hazard assessment in the Benasq
Pyrenees) using a 3-D numerical approach, in:
em and – if available – above ground traces on
Conference – Mediterranean Storms, 555–563
es permit the definition of the block’s lift-off and Illes Balears, Mallorca, Spain, 2003.
ocities.
See allThis
› contribution
See all › includes the
Seeformulas
all › Agliardi, F. and Crosta, G.: High resolution three-
o calculate the velocities and with the3 Figures
possibility merical modelling
Downloadof rockfalls,Share
citation Int. J. Rock. Download full-text PDF
l presentation.
21 Citations 216 References 455–471, 2003.
the questions needing attention in the immediate Agliardi, F., Crosta, G. B., and Frattini, P.: I
e are some suggestions: fall risk assessment and countermeasure desi
elling techniques, Nat. Hazards Earth Syst. Sci
, there is a definite need to improve the prediction doi:10.5194/nhess-9-1059-2009, 2009.
babilities in hazard and risk assessment in order to Akkaraju, L.: Dynamic Analysis of Cable Structur
quantify the risk of rockfall and to improve haz- sis, University of Colorado, Boulder, masterthe
d risk maps. In this context, in addition rockfall Colorado at Boulder, 1994.
and Ercanoglu, M.: Determination of the rockfall Bathe, K.-J.: Finite Element Methoden, Springe
an urban settlement area by using a rule-based 2001.
aluation, Nat. Hazards Earth Syst. Sci., 6, 941–954, Baumann, P.: Lastfälle und Bemessungsansatz be
94/nhess-6-941-2006, 2006. in: FAN – Herstkurs 2008, Fachleute Naturge
n, E., Elmer, H., and Maag, H.: Nichtlineare Finite- Bellinzona, 2008.
Methoden: Eine Einführung für Ingenieure, Institut für Berger, F. and Dorren, L.: Objective comparison
k, Zürich, 1986. els using real size experimental data, in: Disas
n, E., Volkwein, A., and Grassl, H.: Computational debris flows, slope failures and landslides, 245
n of Highly Flexible Rockfall Protection Systems, Academy Press, Inc, Tokyo, Japan, 2006.
Fifth World Congress on Computational Mechanics Berger, F. and Dorren, L. K. A.: Principles of the to
V), edited by: Mang, H., Rammerstorfer, F., and Eber- for quantifying the rockfall hazard below a p
er, J., Vienna University of Technology, 2002. Schweizerische Zeitschrift für Forstwesen, 158
einschlag – Naturgefahr für die Nationalstrassen, Berthet-Rambaud, P.: Structures rigides soumise
richt der ASTRA Expertengruppe, Tech. rep., Bunde- et chutes de blocs: modélisation du comportem
trassen, 2003. caractérisation de l’interaction phénomène-ouv
SBB: Einwirkungen auf Steinschlagschutzgalerien, sis, Universite Grenoble, 2004.
, Tech. rep., Bundesamt für Baudirektion SBB, 18 Bertrand, D., Nicot, F., Gotteland, P., and Lambe
rn, 1998. a geo-composite cell using discrete analysis, Co
nwirkungen infolge Steinschlags auf Schutzgalerien, 32, 564–577, 2006.
., Bundesamt für Strassen, Baudirektion SBB, Eid- Bieniawski, Z. T.: Engineering classification of join
he Drucksachen- und Materialzentrale, 2008. Trans. S. Afr. Inst. Civ. Engrs, 15, 335–344, 19
and Desvarreux, P.: Calcul de chutes de blocs Bieniawski, Z. T.: Classification of rock masses
cation sur modèle réduit, Association pour le the RMR system and future trends, Comprehen
ement des recherches sur les glissements de terrain, 3, 553–573, 1993.
1977. Blais-Stevens, A.: Landslide Hazards and their mit
d Desvarreux, P.: Les chutes de pierres: Exemple No2 sea to sky corridor, British Columbia, in: 4th
de protection), Stage paravalanches, E.N.P.C., Paris, ference on Geohazards: from causes to manag
Locat, J., Perret, D., Turmel, D., Demers, D.,
Desvarreux, P., Giraud, A., and Martin-Cocher, J.: Quebec, Canada, 2008.
de calcul de la dynamique des chutes de blocs – Appli- Blovsky, S.: Model tests on protective barriers ag
etude
´ du versant de la montagne de La Pale (Vercors), 15th EYGEC – European Young Geotechnical
e liaison des laboratoires des ponts et chaussées, 122, ference, 2002.
982. Bourrier, F.: Modélisation de l’impact d’un bloc
nd De Freitas, M.: Experimentally gained parameters, terrain naturel, application à la trajectograph
or rock fall analysis, Rock Mech. Rock Eng., 28, 111– blocs, Ph.D. thesis, Institut Polytechnique de G
. ble, 2008.
La Barbera, G., and Zaninetti, A.: Analysis and predic- Bourrier, F., Nicot, F., and Darve, F.: Physical proc
ck falls using a mathematical model, Int. J. Rock Mech. granular layer during an impact, Granular Matt
709–724, 1995. 2008.
Rossi,
SeeP.all
P.,› Drigo, E.,
SeeGiani,
all › G. P., and See
Zaninetti,
all › A.: Bourrier, F., Download
Dorren, L., Nicot, F.,Share
citation Berger, F., an
servation of rockfall216
21 Citations analysis parameters,3 in:
References Sixth In-
Figures wards objective rockfall trajectory simulation u Download full-text PDF
l Symposium of Landslides, 307–314, Rotterdam, The impact model, Geomorphology, 110, 68–79, 20
ds, 1992. Bourrier, F., Eckert, N., Nicot, F., and Darve, F.: B
esamt für Umwelt: Zugelassene Steinschlagschutzsys- tic modeling of a spherical rock bouncing on a
ch. rep., Swiss Federal Office for the Environment, Hazards Earth Syst. Sci., 9, 831–846, doi:10.51
p://www.umwelt-schweiz.ch/typenpruefung, 2011. 2009, 2009b.
: Detection par SIG des zones rocheuses à fortessus- Bozzolo, D. and Pamini, R.: Simulation of rock fa
s d’éboulement, Ph.D. thesis, University of Lausanne, side, Acta Mech., 63, 113–130, 1986.
Bozzolo, D., Pamini, R., and Hutter, K.: Rockf
, Jaboyedoff, M., and Sartori, M.: Rockfall hazard mathematical model and its test with field dat
along a mountainous road in Switzerland using a GIS- national Symposium on Landslides, 555–563, B
ameter rating approach, Nat. Hazards Earth Syst. Sci., damm, Lausanne, Switzerland, 1988.
2, doi:10.5194/nhess-3-435-2003, 2003. Brabb, E.: Innovative approaches to landslide haza
, Jaboyedoff, M., Rouiller, J. D., Couture, R., Locat, ping, 4th International Symposium on Landsli
haud, G., and Gamel, G.: Towards a GIS-based hazard 1984.
nt along the Quebec City Promontory, in: Landslides Brang, P.: Resistance and elasticity: promisi
n and stabilization, edited by: Lacerda, W., Ehrlich, A., the management of protection forests in the
M., and Sayao, A., 207–213, Taylor & Francis, Que- Forest Ecol. Manage., 145, 107–119, doi
da, 2004. 1127(00)00578-8, 2001.
A., Stead, D., Roots, C., and Orwin, J.: Geomorphol- Chau, K. T., Wu, J., Wong, R., and Lee, C.: The co
ngineering geology of a landslide in ultramafic rocks, tution for boulders falling onto soil slopes with
City, Yukon, Eng. Geol., 89, 171–194, 2007. dry density and water content, in: Internationa
situ tests for the study of rockfall, Geologia Applicata Slope Stability Engineering: Geotechnical and
logia, 8, 105–111, 1973. tal Aspects, 1355–1360, Matsuyama, Japan, 19
elations between scree slope morphometry and dynam- Chau, K. T., Wong, R., and Wu, J.: Coefficient
umulation processes, in: Meeting on Rockfall dynamics rotational motions of rockfall impacts, Int. J. R
ctive works effectiveness, 11–23, Bergamo, Italy, 1977. 39, 69–77, 2002.
Assessment of rockfall risk along roads, Nat. Hazards Chau, K. T., Wong, R., Liu, J., and Lee, C.: Rockfa
t. Sci., 4, 71–81, doi:10.5194/nhess-4-71-2004, 2004. for Hong Kong based on rockfall inventory, R
nd Santo, A.: Morphostructural evolution and related Eng., 36, 383–408, 2003.
s of rockfalls in Campania (southern Italy): A case Chau, K. T., Wong, R., and Lee, C. F.: Rockfall P
g. Geol., 36, 197–210, 1994. Kong and some new Experimental Results fo
, Denk, M., Shimojo, K., Roth, A., and Volkwein, Restitution, Int. J. Rock Mech. Min., 35, 662–6
scale experiments on shallow landslides in combina- Chikatamarla, R.: Optimisation of cushion mate
flexible protection barriers, in: First World Landslide protection galleries, Ph.D. thesis, Swiss Federal
9–102, United Nations University, Tokyo, 2008. nology ETHZ, Zurich, 2006.
., Cruden, D., and Morgenstern, N.: Assessment of the Christen, M., Bartelt, P., and Gruber, U.: RAMM
om rock fall on a highway, Can. Geotech. J., 34, 344– system for snow avalanches, debris flows and
. on IDL., PFG Photogrammetrie – Fernerkund
D., Henson, H. H., and Jiang, S.: Full scale geotextile mation, 4, 289–292, 2007.
er wall testing, analysis and prediction, Geosynthetics’ Coe, J. A. and Harp, E. L.: Influence of tectonic fo
susceptibility, American Fork Canyon, Utah, US
Distinct Element evaluation of the rock-fall design load Earth Syst. Sci., 7, 1–14, doi:10.5194/nhess-7-1
rs, Rivista Italiana di Geotecnica, 3, 63–83, 1998. Comité-Euro-International du Béton, C.: Concrete
and Di Prisco, C.: An uncoupled approach for the de- Impact and Impulsive Load, Lausanne, 1988.
ckfall protection tunnels, Struct. Eng. Int., 19, 342–347, Copons, R. and Vilaplana, J.: Rockfall susceptib
l l F h l i l i t
large scale: From geomorphological inventor
Di See all ›C., and Vecchiotti,
Prisco, See all › M.: Experimental
See all › and land use planning,
DownloadEng. Geol., 102,
citation 142–151, 2 Download full-text PDF
Share
study of rock-fall impacts
21 Citations on granular 3soils,
216 References Rivista
Figures Corominas, J., Copons, R. J. M., Vilaplana, J.,
Geotecnica, 4, 95–109, 2005. Amigo, J.: Quantitative assessment of the residu
o, G.: ISMES experience on the model of St. Martino, fall protected area, Landslides, 2, 343–357, 200
ng on Rockfall dynamics and protective works effec- Crosta, G. B. and Agliardi, F.: A methodology for
25–38, Bergamo, Italy, 1977. rockfall hazard assessment, Nat. Hazards Ear
and Crosta, G.: Hazard and risk assessment in rock- 407–422, doi:10.5194/nhess-3-407-2003, 2003.
areas, Risk Reliability in Ground Engineering, Thomas Crosta, G. B. and Agliardi, F.: Parametric evalu
993. persion of rockfall trajectories, Nat. Hazards Ea
Ratto, S., and Zanolini, F., eds.: Prévention des mouve- 583–598, doi:10.5194/nhess-4-583-2004, 2004.
versants et des instabilités de falaises, Programme In- Crosta, G., Agliardi, F., Frattini, P., and Imposa
– Falaises, Méditerranée occidentale et Alpes latines, dimensional hybrid numerical model for roc
tion des méthodes d’étude des éboulements dans l’arc Geophys. Res. Abstr., 6, 2004.
1. Cundall, P.: A computer model for simulating pr
M.: Dimensionamiento de galerias de proteccion scale movements in blocky rock systems, in:
esprendimientos de rocas, Master’s thesis, Universitat Rock Mech., 1, Paper No. II–8, Nancy, France,
ca de Catalunya, 2006. del Coz Dı́az, J., Nieto, P. G., Castro-Fresno, D.
Mongiovi, L., and Frenez, T.: Dynamic Finite Element Hernández, J.: Nonlinear explicit analysis and
of Interceptive Devices for Falling Rocks, Int. J. Rock haviour of a new ring-type brake energy dis
, 303–321, 2002. and experimental comparison, Appl. Math. Com
97-1 – Eurocode 7 – Geotechnical Design, Tech. rep., 1582, 2010.
Committee for Standardization, Brussels, 2010. Derron, M.-H., Jaboyedoff, M., and Blikra, L. H.
Chan, L. C. P., Wu, J. J., Liu, J., Wong, R. H. C., and sessment of rockslide and rockfall hazards usin
: Experimental studies on rockfall and debris flow, in: stadhornet, Norway), Nat. Hazards Earth Syst.
Seminar on Planning, Design and Implementation of doi:10.5194/nhess-5-285-2005, 2005.
ow and Rockfall Hazards Mitigation Measures, 115– Descoeudres, F.: Aspects géomécaniques des instab
gkong, China, 1998a. rocheuses et des chutes de blocs, Publications de
Wong, R., Liu, J., Wu, J. J., and Lee, C. F.: Shape ef- de mécanique des sols et des roches, 135, 3–11
he coefficient of restitution during rockfall impacts, in: Descoeudres, F. and Zimmermann, T.: Three-dime
ational Congress on Rock Mechanics, 541–544, Paris, calculation of rockfalls, in: Sixth International C
999a. Mechanics, pp. 337–342, International Societ
Montreal, Canada, 1987. Rotterdamm, Lausanne, Switzerland, 1988.

Bhandary, N. P., Yatabe, R., and Kinoshita, N.: Numer- EOTA: ETAG 027 – guideline for the European te
tigation of the effects of idealized rock-block shapes of falling rock protection kits, Tech. rep., Europ
ct points on the performance of Long-span Pocket-type for Technical Approvals, Brussels, 2008.
in: 46th National Conference on Geotechnical En- Evans, S. and Hungr, O.: The assessment of rock
pp. 1185–1186, Japanese Geotechnical Society JGS, base of talus slopes, Can. Geotech. J., 30, 620–6
an, 2011a. Falcetta, J.: Un nouveau modèle de calcul de traj
Bhandary, N. P., Yatabe, R., and Kinoshita, N.: Con- rocheux, Revue Française de Géotechnique, 30
modeling of friction damper for numerical simulation Fell, R., Ho, K., Lacasse, S., and Leroi, E.: A fram
pan Pocket-type Rock-net, in: Annual Conference of slide risk assessment and management, in: Land
iety of Civil Engineers JSCE, pp. 1185–1186, Shikoku agement, edited by: Hungr, O. and E., F. R. C. R
Kagawa, Japan, 2011b. and Francis, London, 2005.
Mouvement et collisions de solides rigides ou Fell, R., Corominas, J., Bonnard, C., Cascini, L
les, Ph.D. thesis, Ecole Nationale des Ponts et Savage, W.: Guidelines for landslide susceptib
, Paris, 2002. risk zoning for land use planning, Eng. Geol., 1
and Frémond, M.: Instantaneous collisions of solids, Fornaro, M., Peila, D., and Nebbia, M.: Block fal
eanSee
Congress
all › on Computational
See all › MethodsSeeinallApplied
› – application of a numerical simulation progr
and Engineering, 11–17, Barcelona, Spain, 2000. cases, in: Download
6th International
citation Congress
Share IAEG, Download full-text PDF
nd Berger, F.: Stem breakage
21 Citations of trees and3energy
216 References Figuresdissi- Netherlands, 1990.
rockfall impacts, Tree Physiol., 26, 63–71, 2006. Frattini, P., Crosta, G., Carrara, A., and Agliardi, F
and Seijmonsbergen, A.: Comparison of three GIS- rockfall susceptibility by integrating statistical
dels for predicting rockfall runout zones at a regional based approaches, Geomorphology, 94, 419–43
omorphology, 56, 49–64, 2003. Frayssines, M.: Contribution à l’évaluation de l’
K. A., Berger, F., and Putters, U. S.: Real-size ex- rocheux (rupture), Ph.D. thesis, Université Jose
and 3-D simulation of rockfall on forested and non- Frehner, M., Wasser, B., and Schwitter, R.: Nachh
slopes, Nat. Hazards Earth Syst. Sci., 6, 145–153, folgskontrolle im Schutzwald – Wegleitung fü
94/nhess-6-145-2006, 2006. men in Wäldern mit Schutzfunktion, Tech. re
Berger, F., Jonnson, M., Krautblatter, M., Moelk, M., Office for the Environment FOEN, Bern, 2005.
M., and Wehrli, A.: State of the art in rockfall - for- Frémond, M.: Rigid bodies collisions, Phys. Lett.
ctions, Schweizerische Zeitschrift für Forstwesen, 158, 1995.
2007. GEO: Landslides and boulder falls from natural
K. A.: Rockyfor3D revealed – description of the com- risk guidelines, GEO Report 75, Geotechnical
ockfall model, Tech. rep., EcorisQ, http://www.ecorisq. fice, Civiel Engineering Department, Hong Kon
Gerber, W.: Richtlinie über die Typenprüfung v
K. A., Maier, B., Putters, U. S., and Seijmonsbergen, gegen Steinschlag, Tech. rep., Bundesamt für U
mbining field and modelling techniques to assess rock- Landschaft (BUWAL), Eidgenössische Forschu
mics on a protection forest hillslope in the European Bern, 2001a.
morphology, 57, 151–167, 2004. Gerber, W.: Vergleich zwischen Vertikal- und Sc
Heidenreich, B.: Treatment of the uncertainty in a zur Typenpr¨ ufung von flexiblen Steinschlsch
ensional numerical simulation model for rock falls, in: Tech. rep., Eidg. Forschungsanstalt für Wald, S
nal Conference on Landslides – Causes, Impacts and schaft WSL, Birmensdorf, 2001b.
easures, 507–514, Davos, Switzerland, 2001. Gerber, W.: Einwirkungen bei Steinschlag, in: F
Flexible Wire Rope Rockfall Nets, in: Soils, Geology, 2008, Fachleute Naturgefahren Schweiz, Bellin
dations – Rockfall prediction and Control and landslide Gerber, W. and Volkwein, A.: Different flexible R
ries (Transportation Research Record No. 1343), 30– comparative Results from Type Testing, Geophy
Res. B., 1992. 2007.
and Haller, B.: Field Tests of Flexible Rockfall Barri- Ghadimi-Khasraghy, S., Kishi, N., and Vogel, T.
roc. Transportation Facilities through Difficult Terrain, ulation of consecutive rockfall impacts on rei
Wu, J. T. and Barrett, R. K., 465–473, Balkema, 1993. slabs, Tech. rep., 33rd IABSE Symposium, Su
isser, C., Helmstetter, A., Grasso, J.-R., Hantz, D., tructure, Environment Friendly, Safe and Re
ux, P., Jeannin, M., and Giraud, A.: Probabilistic Bangkok, Thailand, 2009.
to rock fall hazard assessment: potential of histor- Giacomini, A., Buzzi, O., Renard, B., and Giani,
analysis, Nat. Hazards Earth Syst. Sci., 2, 15–26, tal studies on fragmentation of rock falls on i
94/nhess-2-15-2002, 2002. surfaces, Int. J. Rock Mech. Min., 46, 708–715,
isser, C., Grasso, J.-R., and Helmstetter, A.: Statistical Giani, G. P.: Rock Slope Stability Analysis, T
f rockfall volume distributions: Implications for rock- Balkema, 1992.
mics, J. Geophys. Res. Sol. Ea., 108, 1–11, 2003. Glover, J., Volkwein, A., Dufour, F., Denk, M., and
H.: Landslide risk assessment procedure, in: 5th In- fall attenuator and hybrid drape systems – design
l Symposium on Landslides, 2, 1075–1090, Balkema, siderations, in: Third Euro-Mediterranean Sym
Geomaterials and Structures, edited by: Darve, F., Fédérale de Lausanne, Lausanne, 2004.
, El Fatmi, R., Hassis, H., and Zenzri, H., 379–384, Heierli, W.: Viadotto Bosco di Bedrina No2 – S
010. Verhalten von Kies – Sand – Dämpfungsschic
C., Sonmez, H., and Ercanoglu, M.: Discontinuity con- Dipartimento Pubbliche Costruzioni, Ufficio S
obabilistic slope failure risk maps of the Altindag (set- Bellinzona, 1984.
egion inall
See Turkey,
› Eng. Geol.,
See all › 55, 277–296,
See2000.
all › Herrmann, N.: Experimentelle Erfassung des Beto
W.: 21Impact, The theory and physical behaviour of col- Schockwellen, Ph.D.citation
Download thesis, THShare
Karlsruhe, 200 Download full-text PDF
ds, Edward Arnold Publishers,
Citations Dover, 1960.
216 References 3 Figures Hoek, E.: Rockfall: a computer program for predi
and Govoni, L.: Full-scale Modelling of Falling jectories, ISRM News J, 2, 4–16, 1987.
tection Barriers, Rock Mech. Rock Eng., 43, 261–274, Hoek, E.: Strength of rock and rock masses, ISRM
07/s00603-009-0046-0, 2010. 1994.
hoto-interpretation and mapping of the landslides trig- Hoek, E. and Bray, J.: Rock Slope Engineering
the Friuli earthquake (1976), Bulletin of the Interna- London, 3rd edn., 1981.
ociation of Eng. Geol., 15, 67–72, 1977. Hopkins, M.: Eiger loses face in massive rock
.: Experimentelle und numerische Modellierung des nature.com/news/2006/060717/full/news06071
hen Trag- und Verformungsverhaltens von hochflex- Hudson, J. A.: Rock Engineering systems: Theo
hutzsystemen gegen Steinschlag, Ph.D. thesis, Eid- Ellis Horwood, Chichester, 1992.
he Technische Hochschule Zürich, 2002. Hungr, O. and Evans, S.: Engineering evaluatio
and Hadjigeorgiou, J.: A design methodology for rock rockfall hazards, in: 5th International Symp
sceptible to wedge failure using fracture system mod- slides, 1, 685–690, Balkema, Rotterdamm, La
g. Geol., 96, 78–93, 2008. land, 1988.
Climatic and meteorological influences on rockfall and Hungr, O., Evans, S., and Hazzard, J.: Magnitude
(“Bergsturz”), in: Protection of populated territories rockfalls and rock slides along the main transpo
ds, debris flow, mass movements and avalanches, 26– of south-western British Columbia, Can. Geot
008, 147–158, 2008. 238, 1999.
, Carstensen, A., and Pohl, W.: Automated sliding sus- Hungr, O., Fell, R., Couture, R., and Eberhardt, E
y mapping of rock slopes, Nat. Hazards Earth Syst. Sci., Management, Taylor and Francis, 2005.
, doi:10.5194/nhess-4-95-2004, 2004. Ishikawa, N.: Recent progress on rock-shed stud
SLOPEMAP: programs for automated mapping of Joint Japan-Swiss Scientific Seminar on Impac
al and kinematical properties of hard rock hill slopes, Falls and Design of Protection Structures, 1–6, K
Geosci., 29, 865–875, 2003. 1999.
Carrara, A., Cardinali, M., and Reichenbach, P.: Land- Jaboyedoff, M. and Derron, M.-H.: Integrated risk
rd evaluation: a review of current techniques and their cess for landslides, in: Landslide risk manage
n in a multi-scale study, Central Italy, Geomorphology, Hungr, O., Fell, R., Couture, R. R., and Eberha
16, 1999. lor and Francis, 2005.
Crosta, G., Detti, R., and Agliardi, F.: STONE: a com- Jaboyedoff, M. and Labiouse, V.: Preliminary ass
gram for the three dimensional simulation of rock-falls, fall hazard based on GIS data, in: 10th Intern
Geosci., 28, 1079–1093, 2002. on Rock Mechanics ISRM 2003 – Technology
Reichenbach, P., and Wieczorek, G. F.: Rockfall haz- mechanics, 575–578, Johannesburgh, South Afr
sk assessment in the Yosemite Valley, California, USA, Jaboyedoff, M., Baillifard, F., Hantz, D., Heid
rds Earth Syst. Sci., 3, 491–503, doi:10.5194/nhess-3- Mazzoccola, D.: Terminologie, in: Prévention
2003. de versants et des instabilités de falaises, edite
Reichenbach, P., and Ghigi, S.: Rockfall hazard and Ratto, S., and Zanolini, F. E., 48–57, 2001.
sment along a transportation corridor in the Nera Val- Jaboyedoff, M., Baillifard, F., Philippossian, F., an
al Italy, Environ. Manage., 34, 191–208, 2004. Assessing fracture occurrence using ”weighted
ote sur le rebondissement des blocs rocheux, in: Rock- sity”: a step towards estimating rock instability h
mics and protective works effectiveness, ISMES publi- ards Earth Syst. Sci., 4, 83–93, doi:10.5194/n
90, 123–125, Bergamo, Italy, 1976. 2004.
M. and Stelzer, G.: Neue Erkenntnisse aus Tests von Jaboyedoff, M., Baillifard, F., Couture, R., Locat,
hen Seilsperren – Auswirkungen auf die Baupraxis, New insight of geomorphology and landslide p
, Trumer Schutzbauten, Kuchl, 2007. tion using DEM, in: Landslides: Evaluation a
Barrett, R. K., and McMullen, M. L.: CDOT Flex- edited by Lacerda, W. A., Ehrlich, M., Fontou
kfall Fence Development, Testing and Analysis, in: Sayo, A., 191–198, Taylor & Francis, London,
ology, and Foundations – Rockfall prediction and Con- Jaboyedoff, M., Baillifard, F., Derron, M.-H., Co
ndslide case histories (Transportation Research Record J., and Locat, P.: Switzerland modular and evo
), pp. 23–29, Transportation Research Board, National hazard assessment methods, in: Landslide and a
Press, Washington, D.C., 1992. by: Senneset, K., Flaate, K. A., and Larsen, J., I
B.: Small and half scale experimental studies of rock- Jaboyedoff, M., Dudt, J. P., and Labiouse, V.: An
cts on sandy slopes, Ph.D. thesis, Ecole Polytechnique rockfall hazard zoning based on the kinetic energ

ation degree, Nat. Hazards Earth Syst. Sci., 5, 621–632, Krummenacher, B. and Keusen, H.: Rockfall sim
94/nhess-5-621-2005, 2005b. ard mapping based on Digital Terrain Modell (
M., Metzger, R., Oppikofer, T., Couture, R., Derron, Geologist, 12, 33–35, 1996.
ocat, J., and Turmel, D.: New insight techniques to an- Krummenacher, B., Schwab, S., and Dolf, F.: Asse
k-slope relief using Dem and 3D-imaging cloud points: hazards by three calculations of rockfall behavio
-3D, in: Rock mechanics: Meeting Society’s Chal- plinary Workshop on Rockfall Protection, edite
d demands. 1st Canada-US Rock Mechanics Sympo- A., Labiouse, V., and Schellenberg, K., 49–51
ted by: Eberhardt, E., Stead, D., and Morrison, T., 1, search Inst. WSL, Morschach, Switzerland, 200
d Francis, Vancouver, Canada, 2007. Labiouse, V.: Fragmental rockfall paths: comparis
J.: Swiss guideline for the design of protection gal- on Alpine sites and experimental investigation
ckground, safety concept and case histories, in: Joint pacts, in: 9th International Symposium on Lan
iss Scientific Seminar on Impact Load by Rock Falls 466, Balkema, 2004.
gn of Protection Structures, 95–102, Kanazawa, Japan, Labiouse, V., Descoeudres, F., and Montani, S.: Ex
of rock sheds impacted by rock blocks, Struct. E
Dorren, L., Berger, F., Fuhr, M., and Köhl, M.: Impli- 176, 1996.
coppice stand characteristics on the rockfall protection Labiouse, V. and Heidenreich, B.: Half-scale expe
Forest Ecol. Manag., 259, 124–131, 2009. rockfall impacts on sandy slopes, Nat. Hazards
Association: Rockfall Handbook, Tokyo, Japan, 1983. 9, 1981–1993, doi:10.5194/nhess-9-1981-2009,
Association: Manual for anti-impact structures against Labiouse, V., Heidenreich, B., Desvarreux, P., V
cks, Tokyo, Japan, 2000. and Guillemin, P.: Études trajectographiques, in
ghway public corporation: Research report on rock mouvements de versants et des instabilités de fa
ts, 1973. Carere, K., Ratto, S., and Zanolini, F., 155–2
., Higgins, J., and Andrew, R.: Colorado Rockfall 2001.
n Program Version 4.0, Tech. rep., Colorado Depart- Lambert, S. and Bourrier, F.: Design of rockfall pr
Transportation, Denver, http://dnr.state.co.us/geostore/ ments: a critical review, Earth Surf. Proc. Land
fo.aspx?productid=MI-66, 2000. Lambert, S. and Nicot, F., eds.: Rockfall enginee
Energy absorption of trees in a rockfall protection 1-84821-26-5, 464 pages, John Wiley & Sons,
D. thesis, ETH Zürich, Zürich, 2007. York, London, 2011.
M.: Quantifizierung und Optimierung der Lambert, S., Gotteland, P., and Nicot, F.: Exper
ldleistung gegenüber Steinschlag, Ph.D. thesis, the impact response of geocells as components
dwigs-Universität, Freiburg im Breisgau, 2007. tection embankments, Nat. Hazards Earth Syst.
Onda, S., Masuya, H., and Tanaka, Y.: Fundamen- doi:10.5194/nhess-9-459-2009, 2009.
restitution coefficient and frictional coefficient of rock Lan, H., Martin, D., and Lim, C.: RockFall ana
th Symposium on Impact Problems in Civil Engineer- tension for three-dimensional and spatially dis
6, 2000. hazard modeling, Comput. Geosci., 33, 262–27
. and Muro, T.: Effect of soil slope gradient on mo- Lang, H.-J.: Erdgasleitungen in der Gemeinde Inn
ckfall, in: International Symposium on Slope Stability sitgas AG, Zurich, 1974.
ng, 2, 1343–1348, Matsuyama, Japan, 1999. Lato, M., Diederichs, M. S., Hutchinson, D. J.,
Turner, K., and Norton, B.: LIDAR for Rock Mass Optimization of LIDAR scanning and processi
ization: Hardware, Software, Accuracy and Best- structural evaluation of discontinuities in roc
in: Workshop on Laser and Photogrammetric Methods Rock Mech. Min., 46, 194–199, 2009.
Mass Characterization: Exploring New Opportunities, Le Hir, C., Dimnet, E., and Berger, F.: Étude d
Colorado, USA, 2006. phie des chutes de blocs en forêts de montagne,
nd Statham, I.: Surface stone movement and scree for- Chaussées, 263/264, 85–101, 2006.
Geol., 83, 349–362, 1975. Lepert, P. and Cort´
e, J.: Etude en centrifugeuse de
akano, O., Matsuoka, K., and Nishi, H.: Field test on blocs rocheux sur un remblai de protection, in
capacity of a sand cushion , J. Struct. Eng., 39A, 1587– 1988.
3 (in Japanese). Leroueil, S. and Locat, J.: Slope Movements – Ge
kada, S., and Konno, N.: Numerical Impact Response acterization, Risk Assessment and Mitigation,
of Rockfall Protection Galleries, Struct. Eng. Int., 19, European Conf. on Soil Mechanics and Geotec
2009. ing, edited by: Lisac and Szavits-Nossan, Balke
Y., Harp, E., and Kagawa, T.: Simulation of Rock- tia, 1998.
ered by earthquakes, Rock Mech. Rock Eng., 23, 1–20, Lied, K.: Rockfall problems in Norway, ISMES
51–53, 1977.
shikawa, H., Okada, S., and Kishi, N.: Prototype im- Liniger, M. and Bieri, D.: A2, Gotthardautobahn
f t l t it t k h d i I ll 31 M i 2006 B t il dM
of steel-concrete composite type rock-sheds, in: In- nellen vom 31 Mai 2006, Beurteilung und Mass
narySee all ›
workshop See all ›protection,
on rockfall See all
edited by› Volk- Soc. Suisse Mécanique
Download Soles Roches,
citation Share 153, 81– Download full-text PDF
Labiouse, V., and Schellenberg,
21 Citations 216 ReferencesK., 46–48, Swiss Fed.
3 Figures Lorentz, J., Donzé, F., Perrotin, P., and Plotto,
Inst. WSL, Morschach, Switzerland, 2008. tal study of the dissipative efficiency of mult
ure against rockfall impact, Revue européenne de génie Matsuoka, N.: Frost weathering and rockwall ero
295–308, 2006. eastern Swiss Alps: Long-term (1994-2006) ob
Perrotin, P., and Donzé, F.: A new sandwich design morphology, 99, 353–368, 2008.
for protection against rockfalls, in: Interdisciplinary Matsuoka, N. and Sakai, H.: Rockfall activity fro
on rockfall protection, edited by Volkwein, A., Labi- during thawing periods, Geomorphology, 28, 30
and Schellenberg, K., Swiss Fed. Research Inst. WSL, Mavrouli, O. and Corominas, J.: Vulnerability
h, Switzerland, 2008. forced concrete buildings to damage by rockf
boyedoff, M., and Pedrazzini, A.: Identification of po- 7, 169–180, http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s10
ckfall source areas at a regional scale using a DEM- 10.1007/s10346-010-0200-5, 2010.
morphometric analysis, Nat. Hazards Earth Syst. Sci., Mazzoccola, D. and Sciesa, E.: Implementation an
653, doi:10.5194/nhess-9-1643-2009, 2009. different methods for rockfall hazard assessm
. H.: Rockfalls and Rockfall inventory data: some Alps, in: 8th International Symposium on Land
ns from Surprise Valley, Jasper National Park, Canada, 1040, Balkema, Rotterdam, Cardiff, UK, 2000.
f. Proc., 1, 287–298, 1976. Mazzoccola, D. F. and Hudson, J. A.: A compreh
T.: Mechanical stability and growth performance of rock mass characterisation for indicating natural
D. thesis, University of Bern, Bern, 2010. Q. J. Eng. Geol. Hydroge., 29, 37–56, 1996.
K., Yoshida, H., Fujii, T., Shiomi, M., and Ohmori, Meissl, G.: Modellierung der Reichweite von F
ght falling tests on the rock-shed composed of CFT- beispiele zur GIS-gestützten Gefahrenbeurteilu
in: Tubular Structures X, edited by: Jaurrieta, A. C., Institut für Geographie. Univ. Innsbruck, 1998.
A., and Alonso, A., 533–540, Swets & Zeitlinger, Lisse, Meissl, G.: Modelling the runout distances of roc
ographic information system, Z. Geomorphol.
Youssef, A., and Fennessey, T. W.: New Risk- 2001.
nce Rockfall Hazard Rating System for Missouri High- Monnet, J., Mermin, E., Chanussotz, J., and Ber
ng Digital Image Analysis, Environ. Eng. Geosci., 11, detection using local maxima filte-ring: a pa
2005. ity analysis, in: Silvila-ser 2010, 10th Internati
A. and Donzé, F.: Numerical simulations of impacts on LiDAR Applications for Assessing Forest E
iscrete element method, Mech. Cohes.-Frict. Mat., 3, Freiburg, Germany, 2010.
1998. Montani-Stoffel, S.: Sollicitation dynamique de l
., Turcotte, D., Guzzetti, F., and P., R.: Landslide in- galeries de protection lors de chutes de blocs, Ph
and their statistical properties, Earth Surf. Proc. Land., Polytechnique Fédérale de Lausanne, Lausanne
11, 2004. Murata, S. and Shibuya, H.: Measurement of imp
: Snow Pressure Measurements on Snow Net Systems, rockfall prevention walls and speed of falling ro
e colloque, 241–248, Chamonix, 1995. dle size slope model, in: 2nd Asia-Pacific Conf
Design Method of Structures under Impact Action by & Impact Loads on Structures, 383–393, Melb
of Performance Based Design, Japan Society of Civil 1997.
, Committee of Structural Engineering, Subcommittee Mustoe, G. G. W. and Huttelmaier, H.: Dynamic
g Performance Based Design of Structures against Im- Rockfall Fence by the Discrete Element Method
on, 2007. in Civil Engineering, 8, 423–437, 1993.
and Kajikawa, Y.: Numerical analysis of the collision Nakano, O., Sato, M., Kishi, N., Matsuoka, K., a
falling rock and a cushion by distinct element method, Full scale impact tests of PC multi-girder with
Methods and Advances in Geomechanics, 493–498, sorbing system, in: 13th International Conferenc
201–206, 1995.
and Nakata, Y.: Development of numerical model com- Nakata, Y., Masuya, H., Kajikawa, Y., and Okada
tinct element and finite element methods and applica- sis of Impact Behaviour of Rock-Shed by Com
ck shed
Seeanalysis,
all › in: Proc. Japan
See all › Soc. Civil
SeeEng.,
all ›710-I, tinct Element Method and Finite Element Meth
Japan, 2001. Pacific Conference on Shock &
Download citation Impact Load Download full-text PDF
Share
Tanaka, Y., Onda, 216
21 Citations S., References
and Ihara, T.: Evaluation
3 Figures of 403–410, Melbourne, Australia, 1997.
s on slopes and Simulation of the Motion of Rock Falls Nicot, F.: Etude du comportement méchanique d
in: Joint Japan-Swiss Scientific Seminar on Impact ples de protection contre les éboulements roche
Rock Falls and Design of Protection Structures, 21–28, Ecole Centrale de Lyon, 1999.
a, Japan, 1999. Nicot, F., Nouvel, P., Cambou, B., Rochet, L., an
Ihara, T., Onda, S., and Kamijo, A.: Experimental Etude du comportement mecanique des ouvrage
Some Parameters for Simulation of Rock Fall on Slope, tection contre les eboulements rocheux, Revue f
h Asia-Pacific Conf. on Shock and Impact Loads on civil, 3, 295–319, 1999.
, 63–69, Japan, 2001. Nicot, F., Cambou, B., and Mazzoléni, G.: Design
Amanuma, K., Nishikawa, Y., and Tsuji, T.: Basic straining Nets from a Discrete Element Modell
imulation with consideration of vegetation and appli- Rock Eng., 34, 99–118, 2001.
protection measure, Nat. Hazards Earth Syst. Sci., 9, Nicot, F., Gay, M., Boutillier, B., and Darve, F.:
3, doi:10.5194/nhess-9-1835-2009, 2009. teraction between a Snow Mantel and a Flexibl
e Element Method, in: Proc. Num. Models in Geome- enbamkments – a numerical discrete approac
UMOG VIII, edited by: Pande, G. N. and Pietruszcak, national Congress on Numerical Models in Ge
03, Swets & Zeitlinger, 2002a. MOG, 609–614, Ottawa, Canada, 2004.
y, M., and Tacnet, J.: Interaction between a Snow Man- Plassiard, J.-P. and Donzé, F.-V.: Rockfall Impac
Flexible Structure: A new Method to Design Avalanche Embankments: A Discrete Element Method A
d Reg. Sci. Technol., 34, 67–84, 2002b. Eng. Int., 19, 333–341, 2009.
otteland, P., Bertrand, D., and Lambert, S.: Multi-scale Raetzo, H., Lateltin, O., Bollinger, D., and Tripe
to geo-composite cellular structures subjected to im- sessment in Switzerland – Code of practice for m
rnational Journal for Numerical and Analytical Meth- B. Eng. Geol. Environ., 61, 263–268, 2002.
omechanics, 31, 1477–1515, 2007. Rammer, W., Brauner, M., Dorren, L., Berger, F.
and Wyllie, D.: Landslides – Investigation and mitiga- Validation of an integrated 3D forest – rockfall
Rock slope stability analysis, edited by: Turner, A. and Res. Abstr., Vol. 9, 04634, Vienna, 2007.
R. L., Transportation Research Board, special report Rammer, W., Brauner, M., Dorren, L. K. A.,
National Academy Press, Washington, DC, 1996. Lexer, M. J.: Evaluation of a 3-D rockfall mod
T., Jaboyedoff, M., and Coe, J. A.: Rockfall hazard at est patch model, Nat. Hazards Earth Syst. Sc
l Campground, Uinta National 150 Forest: Part 2. DEM doi:10.5194/nhess-10-699-2010, 2010.
in: 1st North American Landslide Conference, edited Rapp, A.: Recent development of mountain slope
efer, V. R., Schuster, R. L., and Turner, A. K., AEG and surroundings, northern Scandinavia, Geog
ublication no. 23, 1351–1361, Vail, Colorado, USA, 200, 1960.
Ritchie, A.: Evaluation of rockfall and its contr
T., Jaboyedoff, M., and Keusen, H.-R.: Collapse at the search record, 17, 13–28, 1963.
ger flank in the Swiss Alps, Nat. Geosci., 1, 531–535, Rochet, L.: Development of numerical models fo
propagation of rock-falls, 6th Int. Congress on
.: Probabilistic approach for design optimization of 479–484, 1987a.
rotective barriers, Q. J. Eng. Geol., 22, 175–183, 1989. Rochet, L.: Application des modèles numériques
d Ronco, C.: Technical Note: Design of rockfall net l’étude des éboulements rocheux, Bulletin de li
d the new ETAG 027 European guideline, Nat. Hazards toires des ponts et chaussées, 150–151, 84–95,
t. Sci., 9, 1291–1298, doi:10.5194/nhess-9-1291-2009, Romana, M.: Practice of SMR classification for sl
5th International Symposium on Landslides, B
izza, S., and Sassudelli, F.: Evaluation of Behaviour of damm, Lausanne, Switzerland, 1988.
Restraining Nets by Full Scale Tests, Rock Mech. Rock Romana, M.: A geomechanical classification for sl
1–24, 1998. rating, Comprehensive Rock Engineering, Pe
astiglia, C., Oggeri, C., Guasti, G., Recalcati, P., and 1993.
P.: Testing
See all ›and modelling
See allgeogrid
› reinforced
See allsoil
› em- Rouiller, J.-D. and Marro, C.: Application de
s subject to high energy rock impacts, in:3 Figures
7th Interna- MATTEROCK à lévaluation
Download danger lié aux Download full-text PDF
citation duShare
ference on geosynthetics,
21 Citations 2002.
216 References Geologicae Helvatiae, 90, 393–399, 1997.
geri, C., and Castiglia, C.: Ground reinforced embank- Rouiller, J. D., Jaboyedoff, M., Marro, C., Phlip
rockfall protection, design and evaluation of full scale Mamin, M.: Pentes instables dans le Pennique
dslides, 4, 255–265, 2007. rock: une methodologie
´ dáuscultation des falais
offel, M., and Kienholz, H.: Spatial and temporal rock des éboulements majeurs potentiels, Rapport
ty in a forest stand in the Swiss Prealps – a dendrogeo- vdf Hochschulverlag AG an der ETH Zürich,
gical case study, Geomorphology, 74, 219–231, 2006. land, 1998.
nd Bowen, T.: Computer Simulation of Rockfalls, Bul- Santi, M. P., Russel, C. P., Higgins, J. D., and Sp
e Association of Engineering Geologists, 26, 135–146, fication and statistical analysis of the Colorado
Rating System, Eng. Geol., 104, 55–65, 2008.
Hellmich, C., and Mang, H.: Impact of rocks onto Sasiharan, N., Muhunthan, B., Badger, T., Sh
Design and evaluation experiments, Int. J. Impact Eng., radine, D.: Numerical analysis of the
78, 2005. wire mesh and cable net rockfall protection
A., Davis, S. A., and Van Vickle, R.: Rockfall Hazard Geol., 88, 121–132, doi:10.1016/j.enggeo.20
stem Implementation Manual, Oregon, 1990. //www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/B6V63
nd Clayton, R.: Computer Rockfall Model, in: Meet- 74d8147926832f9eb71fccc4859396f4, 2006.
ockfall Dynamics and Protective Works Effectiveness, Sato, M., Kishi, N., Iwabuchi, T., Tanimoto, T.,
ISMES Publication, 123–125, Bergamo, Italy, 1976. Shock Absorbing Performance of Sand Cushio
nd Clayton, R.: Discussion of paper C̈omputerized de- Pacific Conference on Shock and Impact Load
ck slopes using interactive graphics for the input and 393–400, Singapore, 1996.
¨ Cundall, P., in: Proceedings of the
geometrical databy Schellenberg, K.: On the design of rockfall pro
posium on Rock Mechanics, Minneapolis, USA, 62– No. 17924, ETHZ, Institute of Structural Eng
2008.
Donzé, F., and Plotto, P.: High energy impact on Schellenberg, K.: On the design of rockfall prote
tical approach for a performance based design, SVH Statham, I.: A simple dynamic model of rockfal
09. cal principles and model and field experiments
, K. and Vogel, T.: Swiss Rockfall Galleries – Impact ternational Colloquium on Physical and Geome
Structures and Extreme Events, 302–303 and CD– 237–258, Bergamo, Italy, 1979.
LIS099.PDF, 1–8, IABSE Symposium Lisbon 2005, Statham, I. and Francis, S.: Hillslope processes,
urich, 2005. scree accumulation and weathering on the deve
, K. and Vogel, T.: A Dynamic Design Method for mountain slopes, edited by: Abrahams, A., A
Protection Galleries, Struct. Eng. Int., 19(3), 321–326, Winchester, 1986.
Stevens, W. D.: Rocfall: A tool for probablistic
, K., Volkwein, A., Roth, A., and Vogel, T.: Large- of remedial measures and prediction of rockfa
act tests on rockfall galleries, in: 7th Int. Conference sis, University of Toronto, http://www.rocscie
& Impact Loads on Structures, 17–19 October 2007, pdf/rf 3.pdf, 1998.
Bejing, 2007. Strahler, A. N.: Quantitative geomorphology of
, K., Volkwein, A., Denk, M., and Vogel, T.: Falling scapes, in: Compt. Rend. 19th Intern. Geol. Con
sts on rock fall protection galleries with cushion layers, 1954.
sciplinary Workshop on Rockfall Protection, edited by: Straub, D. and Schubert, M.: Modelling and manag
A., Labiouse, V., and Schellenberg, K., Swiss Fed. in rock-fall hazards, Georisk, 2, 1–15, 2008.
Inst. WSL, Morschach, Switzerland, 2008. Stronge, W. J.: Impacts mechanics, Cambridge
D. M. and Stoffel, M.: Changes in spatio-temporal pat- Cambridge, 2000.
ockfall activity on a forested slope – a case study using Studer, C.: Simulation eines Bremsrings im Stein
omorphology, Geomorphology, 102, 522–531, 2008. tem, Master’s thesis, Eidgenössische Techni
Slope instability recognition, analysis, and zonation, Zürich, diplomarbeit am Institut für Baustatik u
ap: See
analisi
all ›statisticaSee
del rotolamento
all › dei See
massi,
all 81–84,
› ETH Zürich, 2001.
991.21 Citations 216 References 3 Figures Sturzenegger,Download
M., Stead, D., Froese,
citation C., Moreno, Download full-text PDF
Share
User guide ISOMAP & ROTOMAP – 3D surface off, M.: Mapping the geological structure of T
g and rockfall analysis, http://www.geoandsoft.com/ Alberta: A critical interpretation of field, D
nglish/rotomap.pdf, 2006. based techniques, in: Rock mechanics: Meeting
: A rock mass strength classification for geomorphic lenges and demand. 1st Canada-US Rock Me
with tests from Antartica and New Zealand, Z. Geo- sium, edited by: Eberhardt, E., Stead, D., and
gie, 24, 31–51, 1980. Taylor & Francis Ltd, Vancouver, Canada, 2007
Controls on the stability and inclinations of hillslopes Sturzenegger, M., Yan, M., Stead, D., and Elm
n hard rock, Earth Surf. Proc. Land., 7, 449–467, 1982. tion and limitations of ground-based laser scann
Muhunthan, B., Badger, T. C., and Grandorff, characterisation, in: Rock mechanics: Meetin
d testing of anchors for wire mesh and cable lenges and demands. 1st Canada-US Rock Me
fall slope protection systems, Eng. Geol., 79, sium, edited by: Eberhardt, E., Stead, D., and
doi:10.1016/j.enggeo.2005.01.008, http://www. 29–36, Taylor & Francis, London, Vancouver, C
rect.com/science/article/B6V63-4FWKDWV-1/2/ Tajima, T., Maegawa, K., Iwasaki, M., Shin
a77ea868edf8184abb781f6d, 2005. Kawakami, K.: Evaluation of Pocket-type R
wirkungen auf Tragwerke, Tech. rep., Schweizerische Scale Tests, in: IABSE Symposium Bangkok
e und Architekten, Bern, 2003. able Infrastructure. Environment Friendly Safe
nd Van Westen, C.: Slope instability recognition, anal- ficient, 96, IABSE reports, International Assoc
zonation, in: Landslides – Investigation and Mitiga- and Structural Engineering, 2003.
cial Report 247, edited by Turner, A. and Schuster, R., Teraoka, M., Iguchi, H., Ichikawa, T., Nishigaki, Y
Trans. Res. B., National Research Council, National Analysis of motion for rock falling on a natura
Press, Washington, D.C., USA, 1996. digital video image, in: 5th Symposium on Im
A study on the simple estimation method of impact Civil Engineering, 87–90, Japan, 2000.
e one dimensional stress wave analysis, in: Joint Japan- Thommen, R. A.: Testing of various types of rock
entific Seminar on Impact Load by Rock Falls and De- rope mitigation barrier: an overview of testing
otection Structures, 43–50, Kanazawa, Japan, 1999. Highway Geology Symposium, Santa Fe, 2008
d Bolliger, R.: Vom Holzzaun zum Hochenergienetz – eralités et approche de modèles si
Tonello, J.: Gén´
cklung des Steinschlagschutzes von den Anfängen bis paravalanches, E.N.P.C., Paris, 1988.
nwart, Geobrugg Schutzsysteme, Romanshorn, 2001. Tonello, J.: Couverture pare-blocs structurelle
d Rautenstrauch, R.: Empirical and mathematical ap- Tech. rep., METL/DRAST, Label IVOR
to rockfall protection and their practical applications, Génie Civil, http://www.equipement.gouv.fr/rec
nternational Symposium on Landslides, 1237–1243, ivor, 2001.
Rotterdamm, Lausanne, Switzerland, 1988. Toppe, R.: Terrain models – A tool for natural
d Sönser, T.: Optimized rockfall protection by “Rock- IAHS, Publication, 162, 1987a.
8th Int. Congr. Rock Mech., 3, 1233–1242, Tokyo, Toppe, R.: Avalanche formation, movement and
Terrain models – a tool for natural hazard mapp
2, 629–638, 1987b. Wentworth, C. M., Ellen, S. D., and Mark, S. D.:

Duffy, J. D., and Turner, J. P.: Post Foundations for sis of regional engineering geology using GIS,
Rockfall Fences, in: Proc. 60th Highway Geology Sym- Francisco, California, 1987.
009. Wieczorek, G. F., Morrissey, M. M., Iovine, G., an
Takagai, N., and Iwasa, T.: An experimental study on fall potential in the Yosemite Valley, California
teristics of the impact load of falling rock, International Geological Survey, 1999.
f Surface Mining and Reclamation, 7, 81–89, 1993. Wienberg, N., Weber, H., and Toniolo, M.: Te
Sperimentazione sulla caduta di blocchi lungo un barriers – behind the guideline, in: Interdiscip
lla formazione calcareo-dolomitica della Penisola Sor- on rockfall protection, edited by Volkwein, A
onvengo sul tema, in: Convengo sul tema: Cartografia and Schellenberg, K., 114–116, Swiss Fed. Res
aggio dei movimenti franosi, 35–54, Bologna, Italy, Morschach, Switzerland, 2008.
See all › See all › See all › Woltjer, M., Download

Rammer,citation
W., Brauner, M., Seidl, Download full-text PDF
Share
Giornata di Studio 216
21 Citations su La protezione contro
References la caduta
3 Figures and Lexer, M.: Coupling a 3D patch model and
versanti rocciosi, 29–36, Torino, Italy, 1996. ule to assess rockfall protection in mountain fo
Shinohara, S., Tanida, K., and Yagi, N.: A study on Manag., 87, 373–388, 2008.
n of rockfalls on Slopes, in: 5th Symposium on Impact Wong, R., Ho, K., and Chau, K. T.: Shape and me
in Civil Engineering, 91–96, Japan, 2000. ties of slope material effects on the coefficient
and van Westen, C.: Rockfall hazard: a geomorpho- rockfall study, in: 4th North American Rock M
plication of neighbourhood analysis with ILWIS, ITC sium, 507–514, Seattle, Washington, USA, 200
, 40–44, 1990. Wong, R.H., Ho, K., and Chau, K. T.: Experiment
C.: Geo-information tools for landslide risk assess- fall simulation, in: Construction challenges into
overview of recent developments, in: 9th International 92–97, Hong-Kong, China, 1999.
m on Landslides, Balkema, 2004. Wu, S.: Rockfall evaluation by computer simulatio
M., Hantz, D., and Dussauge, C.: Rockfall predictibil- Research Record, 1031, 1–5, 1985.
babilistic approach combining historical and geome- Wu, T. H., Wilson, H. T., and Einstein, H. H.: Lan
tudies, Revue Française de Géotechnique, 95/96, 143– gation and mitigation, 1996.
. Wyllie, D. C. and Mah, C. W.: Rock slope engine
.: IAEG Commission on Landslides & other Mass Mining, Spon Press, 4 edn., 2004.
nts, in: Landslide hazard zonation: a review of prin- Yang, M., Fukawa, T., Ohnishi, Y., Nishiyama,
practice, 63, UNESCO Press, Paris, 1984. rakawa, Y., and Mori, S.: The application of 3-d
biouse, V., and Masuya, H.: Rockfall Protection as an with a spherical rigid block for rockfall simula
ask, Struct. Eng. Int., 19(3), 321–326, 2009. Mech. Min., 41, 1–6, 2004.
A.: Numerische Simulation von flexiblen Stein- Yoshida, H.: Movement of boulders on slope an
utzsystemen, Ph.D. thesis, Eidgenössische Technische Recent studies on rockfall control in Japan, Tec
le Zürich, 2004. Yoshida, H.: Recent experimental studies on ro
, Roth, A., Gerber, W., andVogel, A.: Flexible rockfall Japan, in: Joint Japan-Swiss Scientific Seminar
ubjected to extreme loads, Struct. Eng. Int., 19, 327– by Rock Falls and Design of Protection Struct
. Japan, 1999.
ncella, R., Forlani, G., and Ferrero, A. M.: Advanced Yoshida, H., Masuya, H., and Ihara, T.: Experimen
s for geo structural surveys in modelling fractured rock pulsive Design Load for Rock Sheds, Struct. En
pplication to two Alpine sites, in: Symposium on Rock 61–74, 1988.
s (USRMS), American Rock Mechanics Association Zaitsev, A., Sokovikh, M., and Gugushvily, T.: Fi
006. structures for railway track protection in rocky
Leite, E., and Olivier, R.: Rock and debris-slides risk International Conference on Physical Modellin
n Nepal – A user-friendly PC system for risk mapping, (ICPMG 2010), Zurich, 2010.
ternational Symposium on Landslides, edited by Bon- Zinggeler, A., Krummenacher, B., and Kienh
2, 1251–1258, A. A. Balkema, Rotterdam, Lausanne, schlagsimulation in Gebirgswäldern, Berichte u
nd, 1988. der Geographisches Institut der Universität Fr
: Murgangrückhalt in Wildb¨ achen. Grundlagen zu Pla- 1990.
Berechnung von flexiblen Barrieren, Ph.D. thesis, In-
Structural Engineering, ETH Zurich, diss ETH No.
08.
References (216)

e of21theCitations
most hazardous landslide phenomena
216 References that can cause fatalities to people and damages to structures
3 Figures
2] [3] . Protection structures are installed for reducing rockfall risk in inhabited areas. These can be classified
k instability is prevented) and passive (if the blocks are intercepted and stopped before reaching the targets).
ost adopted solutions in case of cliffs close to transportation route or to inhabited areas [6]. Other types of
ems comprise embankment and ditches, rockfall protection galleries and flexible protections systems, such as
rious technical solutions exist [4]. ...
cedure to evaluate the degree of conservation of rockfall drapery meshes

le
Valerio De Biagi · Daniele Peila
all models, rock interaction with the substrate is represented by coefficients of restitution, a ratio that defines
after impact in both normal and tangential directions (e.g. Volkwein et al., 2011 ). In RAMMS the process of
a substrate is represented as a function of 'slippage' through near-surface material, a complex interaction
ncludes sliding of a block through material until maximum frictional resistance is reached, and angular
by contact forces cause the block to be launched from the ground (Glover, 2015;10 Leine et al., 2013). ...
e soil moisture content for rockfall hazard assessment

le
e Zimmer · Christopher White · Tim Davies
des and debris flows, rockfalls impact relatively small areas. However, due to high frequency and
e from rockfalls to infrastructure and human beings can be significant, especially in mountainous areas, (i.e.,
f North America, the Alps of Europe, and the southwestern mountain in China (Evans et al., 2011; Volkwein et
ckfall Impacts on Geogrid Reinforced Soil and EPS Absorption Cushions

le
Yang Liu · Dongpo Wang · Siming He
ajectory of falling rocks was described as combinations of four types of motion: free fall, rolling, sliding and
motion, a succession of rockfalls impacting the slope surface, is the least understood and the most difficult to
s of motion (Volkwein et al., 2011) and is controlled by the coefficients of restitution in computer simulations.
he estimation of the coefficient of restitution must be ensured. ...
gle on the coefficient of restitution in rockfall analysis based on a medium-scale laboratory test
le
Jiang · Shengguo Cheng · Cong Mao
des See
and debris
all › flows,See
rockfalls
all › impact relatively small
See all › areas. However, due to high frequency and
e from Download citation Share Download full-text PDF
21 rockfalls
Citationsto infrastructure and human
216 References 3 beings
Figurescan be significant, especially in mountainous areas, (i.e.,
f North America, the Alps of Europe, and the southwestern mountain in China (Evans et al., 2011; Volkwein et
ckfall Impacts on Geogrid Reinforced Soil and EPS Absorption Cushions

le
eight of some impacts seems unrealistically high. For example, the second bounce has a jump height (f ) of ∼
) of ∼ 50 m, resulting in a f/s ratio of ∼ 1/3 when the characteristic f/s ratios for high, normal and shallow
1/12 respectively, as suggested by Volkwein et al. (2011). ...
ck analysis and trajectory modeling of a coseismic rockfall in Lefkada island, Greece

le
teriou Pavlos · Dimitrios Zekkos · John Manousakis
barrier effect of trees during rockfall events is mainly considered in order to answer the question as to what
n will have in hindering rockfall events from affecting populated areas ( Stokes et al. 2005 , Volkwein et al.
ource of Inspiration for Energy Dissipation in Load Bearing Systems and Facades
able
eorg Bauer · Traian Nicu Toader · Werner Sobek
Shape Back-Analysis: Methods and Implications

le
D. Jean Hutchinson · Paul-Mark Difrancesco · Zac Sala
ect Highly Risk Traffic Routes Against Rockfall (Case Study) [in Persian]
-text available
Rahim Hassani · Navid Mahmoodian
mitations of seismic rockfall monitoring

le
maz Mohadjer · Jens M. Turowski · Niels Hovius

Show more
Recommendations
Discover more publications, questions and projects in Protection
Project
FLEXSTOR - Solutions for flexible operation of storage hydropower in changing environmental and market conditions
Pedro Manso · Philipp Meier · Anton J. Schleiss · [...] · Vlad Hasmatuchi
Solutions for flexible operation of storage hydropower in changing environmental and market conditions. Dealing with challenges with
un-mastered risks, in view of facilitating hydropower renewal, ... [more]
View project
Project
New Springer Journal: Euro-Mediterranean Journal for Environmental Integration
Nabil Khélifi · Hamed Ben Dhia · Tarek Abichou · [...] · Aymen Amine Assadi
The Euro-Mediterranean region is currently facing not only political, economical, and social challenges, but also an ever growing
environmental degradation, that have turned environmental and resou ... [more]
View project

21 Project
Citations 216 References 3 Figures
A free and open-source webGIS based learning environment for environmental risk (RISKGIS)
Zar Chi Aye · Marc-Henri Derron · Roya Olyazadeh · [...] · Johann Luthi
RiskGIS is an interactive web-GIS based application for students in learning and understanding of how environment risk systems
function. It is developed based on open-source software solutions, ba ... [more]
View project
Project
CHANGES
C.J. Van Westen · Thea Turkington · Haydar Yousif Hussin · [...] · Mihai Micu
http://www.changes-itn.eu The CHANGES network (Changing Hydro-meteorological Risks – as Analyzed by a New Generation of
European Scientists) aimed to develop an advanced understanding of how global ... [more]
View project
Article Full-text available
Rockfall characterisation and structural protection - A review

August 2011 · Natural hazards and earth system sciences
Axel Volkwein · Kristian Schellenberg · Vincent Labiouse · [...] · Michel Jaboyedoff
Rockfall is an extremely rapid process involving long travel distances. Due to these features, when an event occurs, the ability to take
evasive action is practically zero and, thus, the risk of injury or loss of life is high. Damage to buildings and infrastructure is quite
likely. In many cases, therefore, suitable protection measures are necessary. This contribution provides an overview of ... [Show full
abstract]
View full-text

21 Citations
Article 216 References
Full-text available 3 Figures
A Novel DEM Approach to Simulate Block Propagation on Forested Slopes

October 2017 · Rock Mechanics and Rock Engineering
David Toe · Franck Bourrier · Luuk Dorren · Frédéric Berger
In order to model rockfall on forested slopes, we developed a trajectory rockfall model based on the discrete element method (DEM).
This model is able to take the complex mechanical processes at work during an impact into account (large deformations, complex
contact conditions) and can explicitly simulate block/soil, block/tree contacts as well as contacts between neighbouring trees. In this
... [Show full abstract]
View full-text
Mechanical resistance of coppice stems derived from full-scale impact tests

July 2013 · Earth Surface Processes and Landforms
Oliver Jancke · Frédéric Berger · Luuk Dorren
Broadleaf coppice forests have the capacity to mitigate the threat posed by rockfall in many mountainous regions. Other forest types
alike the rockfall protective effect is determined by the mechanical resistance of the coppice tree stems. In addition, the rockfall
protective function of coppice forests is enhanced by specific stem aggregations (clumps) that have a rock interception and retention
... [Show full abstract]
View full-text
New Cadanav methodology for quantitative rock fall hazard assessment and zoning at the local scale
August 2014 · Landslides
Jacopo Maria Abbruzzese · Vincent Labiouse
Rock fall hazard zoning is a challenging yet necessary task to be accomplished for planning an appropriate land use in mountainous
areas. Methodologies currently adopted for elaborating zoning maps do not provide satisfactory results though, due to uncertainties
and related assumptions characterising hazard assessment. The new Cadanav methodology, presented in this paper, aims at
improving ... [Show full abstract]
View full-text
Discover more

Ad
About Support Business solutions
News Help center Recruiting

Company FAQ Advertising
Careers
© ResearchGate 2019. All rights reserved. Imprint · Terms · Privacy

(PDF) Rockfall Characterisation and Structural Protection - A Review PDF

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

(PDF) Rockfall Characterisation and Structural Protection - A Review PDF

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

(PDF) Rockfall Characterisation and Structural Protection - A Review PDF

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

What is the topic of the document?

What is the topic of the document?

What are some methods discussed for modeling rockfall behavior?

What are some methods discussed for modeling rockfall behavior?

3/29/2019 (PDF) Rockfall characterisation and structural protection - a review

See all › See all › See all ›

nd structural protection - a review

September 2011 with 327 Reads

ein Kristian Schellenberg

Show more authors

ristian Schellenberg Author content

ds Earth Syst. Sci., 11, 2617–2651, 2011

all characterisation and structural protection – a revie

Rockfall hazard (or risk) can be assessed

y Copernicus Publications on behalf of the European Geosciences Union.

A. Volkwein et al.: Review on rockfall characterisation and struc

has to be clariﬁed why and where rocks are r

See all › See all › See all › However, for a quickcitation

ds Earth Syst. Sci., 11, 2617–2651, 2011 www.nat-hazards-earth-syst-sci.net

n et al.: Review on rockfall characterisation and structural protection

See all › See all › See all ›

obability that a rockfall of given magnitude occurs

obability that falling blocks reach a speciﬁc loca-

a complex function of block mass, velocity, rota-

See all › See all › See all ›

A. Volkwein et al.: Review on rockfall characterisation and struc

ds Earth Syst. Sci., 11, 2617–2651, 2011 www.nat-hazards-earth-syst-sci.net

n et al.: Review on rockfall characterisation and structural protection

1 – 30 y 30 – 100 y 100 – 300 y

Fig. 4. Hazard classiﬁcation for rockfall in Switze

ity) of hazard maps depends on a number o

azards-earth-syst-sci.net/11/2617/2011/ Nat. Hazards Earth Syst. Sci., 11, 26

A. Volkwein et al.: Review on rockfall characterisation and struc

ds Earth Syst. Sci., 11, 2617–2651, 2011 www.nat-hazards-earth-syst-sci.net

n et al.: Review on rockfall characterisation and structural protection

following different methods that have been p

3.2 Methods of identiﬁcation and descrip

3.2.1 Methods using regional geomechan

Basically, methods such as the Rock Fall Haz

azards-earth-syst-sci.net/11/2617/2011/ Nat. Hazards Earth Syst. Sci., 11, 26

A. Volkwein et al.: Review on rockfall characterisation and struc

ds Earth Syst. Sci., 11, 2617–2651, 2011 www.nat-hazards-earth-syst-sci.net

See all › See all › See all ›

n et al.: Review on rockfall characterisation and structural protection

s of rockfall model 2008) or as shown in Masuya et al. (1999). Th

azards-earth-syst-sci.net/11/2617/2011/ Nat. Hazards Earth Syst. Sci., 11, 26

A. Volkwein et al.: Review on rockfall characterisation and struc

programme name Reference/Year Spatial Dimensions Approach Probabilist

ds Earth Syst. Sci., 11, 2617–2651, 2011 www.nat-hazards-earth-syst-sci.net

n et al.: Review on rockfall characterisation and structural protection

the slope surface’s irregularity and the rock sh

azards-earth-syst-sci.net/11/2617/2011/ Nat. Hazards Earth Syst. Sci., 11, 26

A. Volkwein et al.: Review on rockfall characterisation and struc

he most common deﬁnition of block rebound 4.3.3 Barrier effect of trees

ds Earth Syst. Sci., 11, 2617–2651, 2011 www.nat-hazards-earth-syst-sci.net

n et al.: Review on rockfall characterisation and structural protection

azards-earth-syst-sci.net/11/2617/2011/ Nat. Hazards Earth Syst. Sci., 11, 26

A. Volkwein et al.: Review on rockfall characterisation and struc

See all › See all › See all ›