Giancalro Cantarelli
Modelling Rockfall Protection Fences
Giancarlo Cantarelli (University of Cagliari, Italy) ・ Gian Paolo Giani (University of Parma, Italy)
Guido Gottardi (University of Bologna, Italy) ・ Laura Govoni (University of Bologna, Italy)
Abstract. The paper reports an analytical formulation of a
block impacting into a metallic net of a rockfall protection
fence able to evaluate the net elongation and its braking time;
furthermore, such formulation can determine when the barrier
provides an essentially plastic response.
The analytical procedure has been calibrated through a
comparison with the experimental results of full scale impact
tests using several blocks of different size, following the
instructions provided in the Guideline for European Technical
approval of falling rock protection kits (ETAG 027).
The results presented in the paper refer to experiments carried
out in a vertical-drop test site, which is a structure able to
accelerate a concrete block to an established speed and to
impact it, in free-fall motion, onto a sample of rockfall
protection barrier. The barrier sample is made of three
functional modules and is anchored orthogonally to a vertical
slope. The handling of the testing block, made of concrete and
in the shape of a polyhedron, is performed by a crane. In the
impact test, the block trajectory is vertical and the block
impacts into the centre of the middle functional module. No
ground contacts occurs after the impact, ensuring that there is
no energy loss but the air friction. Therefore, the kinetic energy
is a function of the sole mass and height of fall of the block. As
a result, this kind of test is particularly suitable for the purposes
of model calibration.
The test site is also provided with high-definition video
cameras for the direct measurement of both the net maximum
elongation and the braking time in dynamic conditions. Such
values, when evaluated analytically, show a remarkably good
agreement with the experimental results.
The metallic net behaviour is assumed to be elastic and the
event is described by a non homogeneous, second order
differential equation with constant coefficients, determined by
imposing the initial conditions.
The motion equation in the post impact phase is derived by
integrating the differential equation: the net maximum
elongation and the test block braking time is thus estimated.
Keywords. Rockfall protection fence, analytical modelling,
full scale modelling.
1. Introduction
The use of flexible fences as a passive measure to protect
roads and other infrastructures against rockfall is very rapidly
growing.
A rockfall protection barrier is a metallic structure made of
identical functional modules assembled in sequence for the
required length. The functional modules are made of several
components, each serving different functions. In particular, a
module consists of an interception structure and a support
structure, kept together and connected to the foundation
through various elements.
The function of the interception structure, which is
typically made of a metallic cable net (i.e. the principal net), is
to bear the direct impact of the intercepted falling rocks and to
- 103 -
transmit the relevant forces to the foundations. The principal
net is kept in position by the supporting structures, usually
made of steel posts, connected to the net either directly or by
means of other metallic components, like ropes, cables, wires,
junctions, clamps and energy dissipating devices.
Several manufacturers have developed different flexible
rockfall protection barriers that are now commonly used. As a
consequence of the ever increasing use of these structures, the
development of reliable design methods is becoming a crucial
issue, especially for the State and Federal Environmental
Agencies.
In 1996, De Col and Cocco examined the behaviour of 100
rockfall protections barriers located within the municipal
district of Trento: 70% had been installed on the sole basis of
statistical or deterministic analysis of falling rock movements
and only 15% had been suitably designed to arrest the falling
blocks. The authors observed that the most frequently
damaged components were the net, the ropes and the posts.
They also pointed out that damages were frequently caused by
the impact of small blocks (500 to 1000 N) with high velocities
(50 to 80 m/s), producing the net perforation (projectile effect).
Owing to the complexity of the structure and of the impact
characteristics, rockfall protection barriers are usually
developed on the basis of results from full scale testing. In the
last ten years, various testing standards have been developed
with the purpose of comparing design methods and ensuring
the barriers suitability and national guidelines for the
certification of cable type barriers for public purposes have
already been published, like the ETAG 027, “Guideline for
European Technical approval of falling rock protection kits”
(EOTA, 2008).
According to the ETAG 027, a rockfall protection kit is a
special type of a construction system and consists of several
components which are commercially distributed together, with
a common CE marking, and assembled on site. The rockfall
protection kit behaviour has to be assessed by full scale testing
and is made by a minimum of 3 functional modules (i.e. at least
3 fields of principal net and 4 posts). In Figures 1 and 2 a
schematic of a rockfall protection kit and relevant components,
as defined in the ETAG 027, are shown.
The full scale tests have to be carried out using concrete
blocks, whose volume and shape depend on the net nominal
height, and the main geometrical and mechanical
characteristics should be measured throughout the impact. A
simplified scheme of the test site and procedure, as
recommended in the ETAG 027, is given in Figure 3. The
overall aim of the experiments is to assess the so-called fitness
for use of the assembled kit.
The assessing method of a rockfall protection kit is usually
based on the amount of kinetic energy of the impacting block
the kit is able to stop in a full scale test. Two threshold levels of
kinetic energy are defined in the EOTA Guideline: the
maximum energy level (MEL) and the service energy level
(SEL). The barrier, once tested, is classified and named after
the energy level absorbed.
The First World Landslide Forum, 2008, Tokyo
Fig. 1 Lateral view of a rockfall protection kit (after the ETAG
027).
Fig. 2 Back view of a rockfall protection kit (after the ETAG 027).
In the paper, selected results from full scale tests carried
out according to the European guidelines are briefly described
and reported. A simple analytical model is then presented
which is intended to capture the experimental events under a
macroscopic point of view. The model scope is to provide a
reasonable estimation of the block velocity, the block braking
time and the barrier deformation, rather than to fully describe
the impact of a block onto a rockfall protection barrier.
A reasonably good agreement between the in situ
measurements and the model predictions was observed.
2. Full scale testing procedures for rockfall protection
barriers
In response to the need of design methods for rockfall
protection barriers, full scale impact tests have been carried out
since the Seventies. Franzetti and Luraschi (1974) pioneered
the approach, analyzing the behaviour of barrier samples
subjected to the impact of natural blocks rolled down a slope.
The experimental approach was more fully developed by
Smith and Duffy (1990), who introduced video-cameras to
record the event and accurately evaluate the damages
undergone by the tested barriers. Further tests have been
carried out by Duffy (1992, 1996) intended to verify the
efficiency of a barrier to withstand successive impacts.
In the experiments carried out by Ballester et al. (1996),
forces were also measured by means of dynamometers. The
test site featured a rope-way which was used to guide the
- 104 -
blocks to impact the net in a pre-established position. Through
the use of a guided trolley, the block speed at impact could be
controlled, ensuring repeatability of the experiments and thus
enabling the comparison of results.
Peila et al. (1995, 2001) established a test site in which the
blocks were thrown into the net through a trolley sliding on a
cable. The experimental set up had a capacity of 70 kN and was
able to guide the test block to impact into the net with
velocities up to 34 m/s, providing a maximum kinetic energy
level of 4,000 kJ. The tests were monitored by high resolution
video-cameras for the direct measurements of the block speed.
The maximum and final elongation of the net, the impact angle
and the braking time were measured and dynamometers were
also used to compute forces acting on the cables.
Similar tests were performed by Gottardi and Govoni
(2008) in a test site suitably designed and established
following the drafts of the EOTA guideline, during its process
of approval, and the Swiss national standards. Several
experiments were carried out on different barrier types,
subjected to the impact of blocks with a great variety of energy
levels. The test site is a vertical fall type: the block motion is
parallel to the slope and impact into the barrier sample
practically normal to it.
Fig. 3 Test site slope (after the ETAG 027).
3. Full scale modelling of rockfall protection barriers
The experimental data used in the paper for the purposes of
the analytical model calibration, refer to full scale impact tests
carried out at the Fonzaso (Belluno, Italy) test site (Gottardi
and Govoni, 2008).
The Fonzaso test site was set up by suitably profiling a
naturally subvertical slope. The test site features a crane hinged
to the ground which enables a test block, made of concrete and
in the shape of a polyhedron, to be lifted to the established
height and then automatically released.
The rockfall protection sample, made of three functional
modules (i.e. the falling rock protection kit), is connected to
the ground plates which are in turn anchored to the slope. The
interception structure consists of a principal net made of steel
cables, joined into a square or ring mesh, underlying a finer
hexagonal meshwork. Four steel posts, all provided with a
hinge at the base, support the structures through longitudinal
ropes. Upstream and side cables transfer the stresses to the
foundations and hold the structure in position. Energy
dissipating devices are placed all along the connecting ropes
and steel cables. The anchorages are all provided with load
cells recording the relevant tensile force during impact.

A laser sensor, located just above the barrier, is used to
measure the speed of the block before the impact.
Video-cameras, suitably located at the test site, record the
barrier behaviour throughout the test.
A schematic layout of the experimental set up is illustrated
in Figure 4 and relevant pictures are given in Figure 5.
Fig. 4 Schematic side and front view of the Fonzaso (Italy) test
site.
Fig. 5 Pictures of the Fonzaso (Italy) test site.
- 105 -
Giancalro Cantarelli
In the impact test the concrete block is released from the
hoisting arm and, in free-fall motion, impacts the middle
functional module of the barrier sample. Such a procedure
ensures that no block-ground contact occurs at any stage of the
test, therefore the energy loss is solely due to the negligible
contribution of air friction. Therefore, the kinetic energy of the
block at impact may be simply evaluated from the initial
potential energy. As a result, the relevant data are the height of
fall (ΔH) and the mass (m) of the concrete block. Such tests are
thus easily replicable and particularly suitable for the purposes
of model calibration.
Results here presented refer to full scale impact tests
involving seven different models of rockfall protection barriers,
belonging to five different energy level classes, according to
the ETAG 027. The barriers are named CTR 05/07/B (Class 2,
energy level 500 kJ), CTR 10/04/B (Class 3, energy level 1,000
kJ), CTR 20/04/B (Class 5, energy level 2,000 kJ), CTR
20/04/A (Class 5, energy level 2,000 kJ), CTR 30/04/A (Class
6, energy level 3,000 kJ), OM CTR 30/04/A (Class 6, energy
level 3,000 kJ), OM CTR 50/07/A (Class 8, energy level
greater than 4,500 kJ), where letter A identifies barriers with
ring cable net and letter B barriers with square cable net.
A sample of each of these barriers was subjected to one
launch performed at a value of kinetic energy greater than the
corresponding energy level class (MEL test). A further launch
at a lower energy level, greater than 1/3 of the energy level
class (first launch of a SEL test), was also performed onto a
new sample of the rockfall protection barriers CTR 05/07/B,
CTR 10/04/B, CTR 20/04/A and OM CTR 30/04/A.
During the impact, the following quantities were
measured: the speed of the concrete block, the maximum
downhill displacement of the net in dynamic conditions (the kit
maximum elongation), the time elapsed between the first
contact between the block and the net and the maximum net
elongation (the kit braking time) and the tensile forces acting at
the anchorages. At the end of the test, the minimum distance
between the lower and upper longitudinal ropes (the kit
residual height), the travel of the energy dissipation devices
and the net final elongation were also measured.
The data of interest for the purposes of the model
calibration are: the block speed, vimp, the braking time ts, and
the maximum elongation of the barrier Dm. Such data are
summarized in Table 1 together with the relevant test details.
4. Analytical modelling of rockfall protection barriers
The main assumptions of the analytical model are as
follows. At the initial time t0 = 0, corresponding to the instant
at which a block of mass m impacts into the barrier, the initial
velocity v0 is directed normally to the net which is placed at an
angle α (varying between 0 and π/2) to the vertical direction.
According to the experiments at the Fonzaso test site
(Gottardi and Govoni, 2008), here the model angle α is π/2 and
the model initial velocity v0 is vertical in direction (see Figure
4).
If the motion of the block, assumed as a lumped mass, is
linear and only the elastic component of the deformation of the
system is considered, the net elongation throughout the impact
can be described by the equation
k
&s& = g sin α − s (1)
m
where the constant parameter k > 0 is the net elastic coefficient.
Expression (1) is a non-homogeneous, second-order linear
The First World Landslide Forum, 2008, Tokyo

differential equation with constant coefficients (i.e. an The net elongation depends also on the boundary
harmonic motion equation). conditions (i.e. the net restraints), which determine the way the
Substituting k = ω2 , the solution of the differential interception structure is allowed to move relatively to the
m supporting and connecting components. Boundary conditions
equation (1) can be written as follows may vary with the energy level class of the barrier. Since the
g experiments presented here involved samples of barriers of
s (t ) = c1 cos ωt + c2 sin ωt + 2 sin α
~
. different energy classes, different deformation mechanisms
ω were observed.
For the given initial conditions, the constant c1 and c2 Therefore, if the analytical model is applied to estimate the
assume the following values maximum elongation of a rockfall protection barrier in a full
g scale test, the net elastic coefficient k should be treated as an
c1 = − sin α, equivalent coefficient depending on the stiffness of the
ω2 assembled system, which in turn depends on its components
v0 (cable nets, ropes, cables, energy dissipating devices), and on
c2 =
ω the boundary conditions. Values for k are listed in Table 1.
The equation which describes the block motion after the
impact then becomes 6. Analytical model calibration
g sin α In Table 1 selected data obtained from the full scale test on
s(t ) = (1 − cos ωt ) + v0 sin ωt rockfall protection barriers (Gottardi and Govoni, 2008) are
ω2 ω presented together with the outcome of the analytical model
and the block velocity can be then expressed by the equation predictions.
. g sin α
s(t ) = sin ωt + v0 cos ωt Test n°. m vimp Dm ts vm k tc η
ω Barrier
name
[kg] [m/s] [m] [sec] [m/s] [kgf/m] [sec]

whose zero is 1.CTR

30/04/A
9540 25.72 5.20 0.36 14.4 263614 0.310 586

1 ⎛ ωv0 ⎞ 2.CTR
6760 25.78 4.65 0.32 14.5 230224 0.280 644
tc = arctg ⎜⎜ − ⎟⎟ (2)
20/04/A
3.CTR
ω ⎝ g sin α ⎠ 20/04/A
2285 25.48 4.20 0.26 16.1 92283 0.260 532
4.CTR
6855 25.62 4.30 0.32 13.4 269534 0.260 747
corresponding to the maximum elongation of the net: 20/04/B
5.CTR
3320 25.74 3.50 0.22 15.9 194289 0.210 873

(g sin α )2 + ω2v02
10/04/B
g sin α +
sm = s (tc ) =
6.CTR
. (3) 10/04/B
1085 25.42 2.80 0.19 14.7 97029 0.170 919

ω2
7.CTR
1610 25.44 2.95 0.17 17.3 130442 0.179 950
05/07/B
8.CTR
If the block is modeled as a point of mass m, then it 05/07/B
540 25.49 2.40 0.15 16.0 65221 0.146 984

becomes apparent that the net response to the impact (i.e. k) is 9.CTR
50/07/A
16200 25.45 5.60 0.39 14.4 391349 0.330 611
independent from the block size. One way to account for such 10.OM
CTR 9560 25.61 5.35 0.30 17.8 254122 0.306 565
a crucial feature, is to introduce a positive constant μ such as 30/04/A
11.OM
k = μA (4) CTR 3430 25.80 3.90 0.22 17.7 167363 0.230 736
30/04/A
In equation (4), A is the area of the contact surface between vimp: measured impact velocity;
the block and the net. Given the difficulties in providing a Dm: measured maximum elongation of the barrier;
ts: measured braking time;
value for A, it is convenient to express the coefficient k as a vm: average velocity evaluated in the braking phase;
linear function of the block mass m tc : computed time;
k: computed net elastic coefficient corresponding to the experimental Dm;
2 η: dimensional constant, see equation (5).
k = ηm 3 (5)
Tab. 1 Comparison between experimental and analytical
where η is a positive constant, hereinafter referred to as net
results.
constant. If the block is modeled as homogenous and
sphere-shaped, equations (4) and (5) are equivalent and the net
Data of test n° 5 refer to an experiment in which a block of
constant η is a function of the block density.
mass m = 3,320 kg impacted in free fall motion into a sample
of barrier CTR 10/04/B with measured velocity v0 = 25.74 m/s.
5. On the deformation mechanism of rockfall protection
The maximum elongation of the barrier, as measured after the
barriers
impact, was Dm = 3.5 m and the braking time, as evaluated by
In a full scale test on a rockfall protection kit, the
the video-camera frames, was ts = 0.22 s. The analytical model,
interception structure, which bears the direct impact of the test
with α = π/2 and k = 194,285 kgf/m, a value corresponding to
block, undergoes large elasto-plastic deformations and
Dm, gives a prediction of braking time tc = 0.21 s, in good
transfers the impact forces to the support structures and to the
agreement with the measured braking time ts.
connection components, typically cables and ropes anchored to
From equation (5) a net constant η = 872.77 may be
the ground, usually provided with elements able to dissipate
calculated and used to estimate the maximum elongation and
the kinetic energy through the development of permanent
braking time of any sphere-shaped block impacting with
deformations (i.e. energy dissipating devices). The travel of
constant μ into the same type of rockfall protection kit. The test
such elements, together with the deformation of the
block shape, a polyedron with flattened corner, as suggested in
interception structure, determine the downhill displacement of
the ETAG 027, can be in fact reasonably approximated by a
the principal net with respect to the initial position (i.e. the net
spherical block (Figure 6).
elongation).

- 106 -

With η = 872.77 and m = 1085 kg, equations (2) and (3)
give a prediction of 2.87 m for the maximum barrier elongation
and a braking time tc = 0.175 sec. Such values are consistent
with the corresponding experimental data measured in test n° 6
(i.e. Dm = 2.80 m and ts = 0.19 s).
In order to assess the ability of the analytical model to
capture the main features of the full scale tests, all 11
experiments have been modeled. A good agreement between
experimental data and model results, independently of block
dimension and barrier type, can be observed in Table 1, where
the values of the net constants k and η are also reported. Notice
that such parameters tend to be greater for the lower energy
level barriers, which were designed with more restrictive
boundary conditions (see Section 5).
Fig. 6 Schematic of a test block (after the ETAG 027).
7. Shortcomings of the energy level approach to assess the
capacity of a rockfall protection barrier
In the available published testing standards (e.g. ETAG
027, Swiss guidelines for the approval of rock protection kits),
an approach entirely based on the energy level is used to
classify and assess rockfall protection barriers from full scale
testing.
Experimental data have shown that the tensile forces
mobilised at the anchorages increase as the maximum
elongation of the barrier increases (Gottardi and Govoni, 2008).
As a consequence, one might suggest that a procedure to assess
the efficiency of a rockfall barrier based on its maximum
elongation could be also adopted as an appropriate criterion,
and a rockfall protection barrier deemed efficient with respect
to all the impacts that produce a maximum elongation less
than critical.
The simple analytical model presented here can be suitably
applied to explain the advantages of such an alternative
approach.
With reference to the rockfall protection barrier 10/04/B
already examined, let us consider the following two cases:
1) A sphere-shaped block of mass m = 24,990 kg
impacting into the barrier with speed v0 = 25.74 m/s: the
analytical model would predict a maximum elongation Dm = 5
m.
2) A block of mass m = 3,320 kg impacting into the barrier
with the same speed v0 = 25.74 m/s. The shape of the block is
non-spherical and its contact surface is 1/3 of a spherical block
with the same mass (i.e. k = 194,289/3 kg/m): the analytical
model would now predict a maximum elongation Dm = 6.28 m.
If the critical maximum elongation is taken for instance 5
m, the block would damage the barrier in case 2, producing a
greater net displacement, whilst it would not cause any damage
in case 1, despite having a 8 times higher kinetic energy!
According to the model, parameters other than the energy
- 107 -
Giancalro Cantarelli
level (like the area of the contact surface) can be vital for the
assessment of the response of a rockfall protection barrier and
therefore care should be taken in the use of the energy level
criterion, since a barrier which has proved to be able to suitably
stop a block of a given kinetic energy, might not be able to stop
any block of the same energy level.
8. An alternative method for assessing the efficiency of a
rockfall protection barrier
A simple method for estimating the mass of blocks which a
barrier can stop is here suggested, according to the maximum
elongation criterion. From equation (3) it is easy to deduce
2sm g sin α + v02
ω2 =
sm2
which, combined with equation (5), gives
3
⎛ ηsm2 ⎞
m = ⎜⎜ ⎟
2 ⎟ (6)
⎝ 2sm g sin α + v0 ⎠
where m is the mass of the sphere-shaped block and η is the net
constant. If the maximum velocity vmax and the critical
elongation sc are known, since form equation (6)
3
⎛ ηsc2 ⎞
mc = ⎜⎜
2 s g sin α + v 2
⎟
⎟ , (7)
⎝ c max ⎠
it is easy to show that any sphere-shaped block of mass m < mc
with impact velocity v0 < vmax produces a barrier elongation
Dm less than critical.
In other words, the net is able to absorb the kinetic energy
of any spherical block having a mass smaller than mc. Such
value may be thus named critical mass mc.
To account for non-spherical shapes, equation (7) can be
modified in the following way
3
⎛ i ηsc2 ⎞
mc = ⎜⎜ 2
⎟
⎟ (8)
⎝ 100 2sc g sin α + vmax ⎠
where i (0 < i < 100) is a safety factor: the net is considered
able to stop a block of m < mc, even if the contact surface is the
i % of a spherical block with the same mass.
With reference to the rockfall protection barrier 10/04/B (η
= 872.77), let us assume sc = 5 m, v0 = 30 m/s and i = 66%.
Equation (8) gives mc = 3,095. The net can be then considered
able to stop blocks of mass m not greater than 3095 kg and
contact surface equal to 2/3 of an equivalent spherical block
with the same mass.
Concluding remarks
The design of protection methods against falling rocks first
involves the evaluation the possible paths of detachable blocks.
Such analysis includes geomechanical surveys and site
investigations necessary to an appropriate rockfall modelling,
which enables to predict trajectories, velocities and kinetic
energies assumed by the blocks during their fall.
Within the area interested by the installation of passive
measures to protect roads and other infrastructures, the correct
position of a structure able to catch the falling blocks is often
evaluated by selecting the location corresponding to the
minimum kinetic energy of the blocks (Giani, 1992; 1997;
Giani et al., 2004). The block kinetic energy is thus the most
relevant parameter for the design of a rockfall protection
structure.
The First World Landslide Forum, 2008, Tokyo

However, a design procedure entirely based on the energy
level criterion can be not fully adequate in certain
circumstances, since parameters other than the kinetic energy,
such as the area of the contact surface between the block and
the interception net, may be crucial for the barrier deformation.
It is therefore important, when using the energetic approach, to
take into consideration also the shape, size and mass of the
block having the prescribed energy level.
The shortcomings of the energetic approach becomes
crucial if the rockfall protection barrier is installed with the
aim of protecting areas against debris flows or snow
avalanches. Such circumstances are not considered in the
ETAG 027, yet the barrier are widely used with such purposes.
According to the prediction of the model presented herein,
for a given energy level, the greater the contact surface the
smaller the maximum net elongation. Although such
simplified model cannot be applied to suitably describe debris
flows or snow avalanches, it can be observed that the
maximum elongation undergone by a barrier subjected to the
impact of debris or snow should be reasonably less than that of
a rock block. Being equal the energy level, it is in fact realistic
to expect that the area of the contact surface between the rock
and the net is much smaller.
di protezione. Hevelius, Benevento.
Giani G.P., Giacomini A., Migliazza M., Segalini A. (2004).
Experimental and theoretical studies to improve rock fall
analysis and protection work design. Rock Mech. Rock
Engng, 37 (5), 369-389.
Gottardi G., Govoni L. (2008). Full scale modelling of rockfall
protection barriers. DISTART Technical Report,
University of Bologna.
Peila D., Pelizza S., Sassudelli F. (1995). Prove in scala reale
su barriere paramassi deformabili a rete. GEAM 86,
147-153.
Peila D., Pelizza S., Sassudelli F. (1998). Evaluation of
behaviour of rockfall restraining nets by full scale tests.
Rock Mech. Rock Engng., 31 (1), 1-24.
Smith D.D., Duffy J.D. (1990). Field tests and evaluation of
rockfall restraining nets. TL-90/05. Final report, California
Dept. Of Transportation. San Luis Obispo, Ca.

Acknowledgments
The authors would like to thank Mr. Diego Dalla Rosa and
the Consorzio Triveneto Rocciatori of Fonzaso (Belluno, Italy)
for the use of the experimental data presented in the paper.

References
Ballester Munoz F., Fonseca J.L.F., Torres Vilas J.A. (1996)
Protection contra desprendimientros de rocas – Pantallas
dinamica. Ministerio de Fomento. Secretaria de Estado de
Infraestructures y Trasportes, Diretion General de
Carreteras.
Cantarelli G., Giani G.P. (2006). Analisi dei metodi di verifica
dell’efficienza di reti di protezione contro la caduta di
massi, Rivista Italiana di Geotecnica, XL (3), 23-31.
De Col R., Cocco S. (1996). Motivazioni tecniche ed
economiche per la standardizzazione di prove sulle opere
paramassi nella Provincia Autonoma di Trento. Giornata
di studio “La protezione contro la caduta di massi dai
versanti rocciosi”, Associazione Georisorse e Ambiente,
Torino, 65-72.
Duffy J.D. (1992). Field tests of flexible rockfall barriers,
Brugg Technical Note.
Duffy J.D. (1996). Field tests and evaluation of hi-tech low
energy chain link rockfall barrier. Report N° CA/05-96-01,
California Dept. of Transportation. San Luis Obispo. Ca.
EOTA (2008). Guideline for European technical approval of
falling rock protection kits (ETAG 027), February 2008,
Brussels.
Franzetti S., Luraschi D. (1974). Due nuovi metodi di
prevenzione e protezione dalla caduta di masse rocciose su
centri abitati e opere civili. Le strade (10).
Gerber W. (2001). Guideline for the approval of rockfall
protection kits. Swiss Agency for the Environment, Forests
and Landscape (SAEFL) and the Swiss Federal Research
Institute WSL Berne.
Giani G.P. (1992). Rock slope stability analysis. Balkema,
Rotterdam, NL.
Giani G.P. (1997). Caduta di massi - Analisi del moto ed opere

- 108 -