Nat. Hazards Earth Syst. Sci.

, 11, 2617–2651, 2011

www.nat-hazards-earth-syst-sci.net/11/2617/2011/ Natural Hazards
doi:10.5194/nhess-11-2617-2011 and Earth
© Author(s) 2011. CC Attribution 3.0 License. System Sciences

Rockfall characterisation and structural protection – a review

A. Volkwein1 , K. Schellenberg2 , V. Labiouse3 , F. Agliardi4 , F. Berger5 , F. Bourrier6 , L. K. A. Dorren7 , W. Gerber1 , and
M. Jaboyedoff8
1 WSL Swiss Federal Institute for Forest, Snow and Landscape Research, Zürcherstrasse 111, 8903 Birmensdorf, Switzerland
2 Gruner+Wepf Ingenieure AG, Thurgauerstr. 56, 8050 Zürich, Switzerland
3 Swiss Federal Institute of Technology Lausanne EPFL, Rock Mechanics Laboratory LMR, GC C1-413 Station 18,

1015 Lausanne, Switzerland

4 Università degli Studi di Milano-Bicocca, Dip. Scienze Geologiche e Geotecnologie, Piazza della Scienza 4,

20126 Milano, Italy

5 Cemagref, Mountain Ecosystems and Landscapes Research, 38402 Saint Martin d’Hères Cedex, France
6 Cemagref, UR EMGR, 2, rue de la Papeterie, BP 76, 38402 Saint Martin d’Hères Cedex, France
7 Landslides, Avalanches and Protection Forest Section, Federal Office for the Environment FOEN, Bern, Switzerland
8 University of Lausanne, Institute of Geomatics and Analysis of Risk, Amphipole 338, 1015 Lausanne, Switzerland

Received: 25 March 2011 – Revised: 26 July 2011 – Accepted: 7 August 2011 – Published: 27 September 2011

Abstract. 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 previous and current
research on the main topics related to rockfall. It covers the
onset of rockfall and runout modelling approaches, as well as
hazard zoning and protection measures. It is the aim of this
article to provide an in-depth knowledge base for researchers
and practitioners involved in projects dealing with the rock-
fall protection of infrastructures, who may work in the fields
of civil or environmental engineering, risk and safety, the
earth and natural sciences.
a rockfall event from its initiation to suitable protective mea-
sures. This includes a presentation of typical applications as
well as an extensive literature survey for the relevant topics
that are evaluated and discussed with regard to their perfor-
mance, reliability, validation, extreme loads, etc. Contribu-
tions include
– Rockfall susceptibility together with hazard assessment
and zoning.
– Rockfall initiation and runout modelling
– Design and performance evaluation of rockfall protec-
tion systems, with particular attention paid to structural
countermeasures such as fences, walls, galleries, em-
bankments, ditches or forests

Rockfall hazard (or risk) can be assessed using different

1 Introduction
Rockfall is a natural hazard that – compared to other haz-
ards – usually impacts only small areas. However, the dam-
age to the infrastructure or persons directly affected may be
high with serious consequences. It is often experienced as a
harmful event. Therefore, it is important to provide the best
possible protection based on rigorous hazard and risk man-
agement methods. This contribution gives an overview of
the assessment on parameters needed to deal effectively with
Correspondence to: A. Volkwein
(volkwein@wsl.ch)
approaches (Einstein, 1988), depending on the characteris-
tics of the investigated areas. Often the hazard must be as-
sessed along a communication (transport) route; in this case,
field records and lists of past rockfall events (inventories) are
often used (Luckman, 1976; Bunce et al., 1997; Hungr et al.,
1999), but have proved to be limited. For example, on 31
May 2006 a major rockfall (5000 m3 ) killed two tourists on
the main highway crossing the Alps through the Gotthard
Tunnel in Switzerland (Liniger and Bieri, 2006). The event
caused global headlines and led to somewhat emotional me-
dia reporting of major rockfall incidents in the Alps in the
following weeks, including rockfall on the Eiger mountain
(Hopkins, 2006; Oppikofer et al., 2008). Another recent
event shows the difficulties of forecasting rockfall events.

Published by Copernicus Publications on behalf of the European Geosciences Union.

2618 A. Volkwein et al.: Review on rockfall characterisation and structural protection
Fig. 1. Rockfall on Sea to Sky highway (B.C.). Note the jointed
structure of the source area (Canadian Press photos).
During the night of 29 July 2008, a rockfall blocked the high-
way Sea to Sky joining Vancouver to the ski resort Whistler
(Fig. 1). This road is the cover picture of the well-known
rock mechanics book by Hoek and Bray (1981). The area
has been extensively investigated for risk analysis in the past
(Bunce et al., 1997) and still is, because of an increase in
population density (Blais-Stevens, 2008) and the Olympics
Games in 2010.
Further difficulties exist when the goal is to assess risk (or
hazard) on a regional scale for a limited area or over an entire
territory. Generally, inventories exist only in inhabited areas.
Moreover, some studies suggest that the number of events in-
creases in proportion to urbanization (Baillifard et al., 2004).
As a consequence, it is necessary to find ways that allow
one to detect rockfall hazard source areas in the absence of
any inventory or clear morphological evidence, such as scree
slopes or isolated blocks.
This article is structured following the typical work-
flow when dealing with rockfall in practice (Vogel et al.,
2009), covering rockfall occurrence and runout modelling
approaches, hazard zoning and protection measures.
When a rockfall hazard or risk analysis (including the pro-
tective effect of forests) reveals a threat to people, buildings
or infrastructures (see Sect. 2), suitable structural protection
measures have to be selected according to the expected event
frequency and impact energies. For proper design and di-
mensioning of the measures, it is essential to know the mag-
nitude of the impact loads and the performance of the struc-
tures. This knowledge can be obtained from rockfall onset
susceptibility/ hazard analysis, numerical simulations, exper-
iments, models or existing guidelines, and provides guidance
on the design of roof galleries, fences, embankments and
forests as a natural protection system.
However, rockfall protection considerations involve not
only structural protection measures but also the avoidance
of infrastructure or buildings in endangered areas. Firstly, it
Nat. Hazards Earth Syst. Sci., 11, 2617–2651, 2011
has to be clarified why and where rocks are released and the
total volume or extent. The rockfall initiation also depends
on different factors, mostly not yet quantified, such as weath-
ering, freezing/melting cycles or heavy rainfall (see Sect. 3).
Subsequent trajectory analyses determine the areas that have
to be protected by measures. To account for their high sensi-
tivity to just small changes in the landscape, such as bedrock,
dead wood, small dips, etc., stochastic analyses are usually
performed, preferably including an evaluation of the accu-
racy of the results. This is described in more detail in Sect. 4.
However, for a quick preliminary analysis and estimation of
the rockfall hazard, simpler and manual calculation methods
might also be useful as described in Sect. 4.4.1.
There is a large variety of structural protection measures
against rockfall. These include natural protection by means
of forests, semi-natural structures such as embankments and
ditches and fully artificial structures such as fences, galleries
or walls. The structural part of this contribution focuses
mainly on fences and galleries. A short summary for em-
bankments is also given. Natural protection by means of
forests is mentioned in Sect. 5.5.
2 Rockfall hazard: definition, assessment and zonation
Rockfall is a major cause of landslide fatality, even when el-
ements at risk with a low degree of exposure are involved,
such as traffic along highways (Bunce et al., 1997). Al-
though generally involving smaller rock volumes compared
to other landslide types (e.g., rock slides/rock avalanches),
rockfall events also cause severe damage to buildings, in-
frastructures and lifelines due to their spatial and temporal
frequency, ability to easily release and kinetic energy (Ro-
chet, 1987b). The problem is even more relevant in large
alpine valleys and coastal areas, with a high population den-
sity, transportation corridors and tourist resorts. Rockfall
protection is, therefore, of major interest to stakeholders, ad-
ministrators and civil protection officers (Hungr et al., 2005).
Prioritization of mitigation actions, countermeasure selection
and land planning should be supported by rockfall hazard as-
sessment (Raetzo et al., 2002; Fell et al., 2005, 2008). On the
other hand, risk analysis is needed to assess the consequences
of expected rockfall events and evaluate both the technical
suitability and the cost-effectiveness of different mitigation
options (Corominas et al., 2005; Straub and Schubert, 2008).
2.1 Rockfall hazard: a definition
Landslide hazard has been defined as the probability that a
landslide of given magnitude occurs in a given area over
a specified time interval (Varnes, 1984; Einstein, 1988).
This definition envisages the concepts of spatial location,
temporal frequency and intensity. Nevertheless, for long-
runout landslides, such as rockfall or rock avalanches, the
definition of the occurrence probability needs to account for
www.nat-hazards-earth-syst-sci.net/11/2617/2011/
A. Volkwein et al.: Review on rockfall characterisation and structural protection 2619
A. Volkwein et al.: Rockfall review

the concept of landslide propagation. This means the trans-

2.2 Ha
fer of landslide mass and energy from the source to the max-
imum runout distance of up to tens of kilometres for rock In princi
avalanches and debris flows or several hundred metres for uating:
fragmental rockfall, characterised by poor interaction be-
tween falling blocks with volumes up to 105 m3 (Evans and a. the
Hungr, 1993). Thus, rockfall hazard depends on (Jaboyed- riod
off et al., 2001; Crosta and Agliardi, 2003; Jaboyedoff et al., b. the
2005b, Fig. 2) blo
– the probability that a rockfall of given magnitude occurs c. the
at a given source location resulting in an onset probabil- alon
ity Exp
init
– the probability that falling blocks reach a specific loca- pro
tion on a slope (i.e., reach probability), and on teri
exp
– rockfall intensity. way
sha
The latter is a complex function of block mass, velocity, rota- traj
tion and jump height, significantly varying both along single (Jab
fall paths and laterally, depending on slope morphology and reac
rockfall dynamics (Broili, 1973; Bozzolo et al., 1988; Azzoni able
et al., 1995; Agliardi and Crosta, 2003; Crosta and Agliardi, haz
2004). Rockfall hazard can, thus, be better defined as the Fig.2.2.Definition
Fig. Definitionof
of rockfall
rockfall hazard
hazard and related
related parameters
parameters(modi-
(modi- haz
probability that a specific location on a slope is reached by fied,after
fied, afterJaboyedoff
Jaboyedoff etet al.,
al., 2001).
2001).
few
a rockfall of given intensity (Jaboyedoff et al., 2001), and ano
expressed as: Exposed elements thatat risk are blocks
not considered in the defini- or s
– the probability falling reach a specific loca-
tion oftion hazard. Nevertheless, bin
Hij k = P (L)j · P (T |L)ij k (1) on a slope (i.e. reachhazard assessment
probability), and onapproaches
should be able to deal with problems characterised by differ- rati

where P (L)j is the onset probability of a rockfall event in the ent –spatial
rockfall intensity. of potentially exposed targets, point-
distributions 2.2.1 O
magnitude (e.g., volume) class j , and P (T |L)ij k is the reach like (houses), linear (roads, railways) or areal (villages).
The latter targets
Moreover, is a complex function
of different of block
shape mass,
and size arevelocity,
likely toro-in-
probability. This is the probability that blocks triggered in The freq
tationa and
volve jump number
different height, significantly
of trajectoriesvarying
runningboth
outalong
fromsin-
dif-
the same event reach the location i with an intensity (i.e., ki- be evalu
gle fall
ferent paths and
rockfall laterally,
sources depending
(Jaboyedoff on slope
et al., 2005b,morphology
Fig. 2), in-
netic energy) value in the class k. Since both probability and rockfall
and rockfall dynamics (Broili, 1973; Bozzolo
fluencing the local reach probability. Thus, assessment et al., 1988;
meth-
intensity strongly depend on the initial magnitude (i.e., mass) magnitu
Azzoni et al., 1995; Agliardi and Crosta, 2003; Crosta and
of rockfall events, rockfall hazard must be assessed for dif- ods should be able to account for the spatially distributed 2003; M
Agliardi, 2004). Rockfall hazard can thus be better defined
ferent magnitude scenarios, explicitly or implicitly associ- nature of the hazard (Crosta and Agliardi, 2003). Although tude - cu
as the probability that a specific location on a slope is reached
several hazard assessment methods have been proposed, very 1999). A
ated to different annual frequencies or return periods (Hungr by a rockfall of given intensity (Jaboyedoff et al., 2001), and
few satisfy all these requirements. They differ from one an- of natura
et al., 1999; Dussauge-Peisser et al., 2003; Jaboyedoff et al., expressed as:
other in how they account for rockfall onset frequency or sus- slide haz
2005b).
ceptibility, estimated reach probability, and combine them(1)to by the in
Hijk = P (L) j · P (T |L)ijk
obtain quantitative or qualitative hazard ratings. (Malamu
2.2 Hazard assessment
where P (L)j is the onset probability of a rockfall event in fall volu
2.2.1 Onset probability
the magnitude (e.g. volume) andclass j, and P (T |L)ijk is the
susceptibility law:
In principle, rockfall hazard assessment would require the
evaluating of: reach probability. This is the probability that blocks trig- log N (V
gered
The in the same
frequency event reach
of events of given location i with
themagnitude an intensity
(volume) should
(a) the temporal probability (annual frequency or return pe- be(i.e. kinetic energy)
evaluated using value in the class
a statistical k. Since
analysis of both probabil-of
inventories where N
riod) and the spatial susceptibility of rockfall events; ity and intensity
rockfall events, strongly
taking intodepend on thethe
account initial magnitude
definition of (i.e.
suit- ume exc
mass)
able of rockfall events, rockfall
magnitude-frequency hazard must
relationships be assessed for
(Dussauge-Peisser fall, and
(b) the 3-D trajectory and maximum runout of falling etdifferent
al., 2003; magnitude
Malamud scenarios,
et al., explicitly
2004). They or implicitly
are alsoassoci-
called and 0.7 (
blocks; ated to different annualfrequency
magnitude-cumulative frequencies or return periods
distributions (MCF;(Hungr
Hungr et al. (19
etetal.,
al.,1999).
1999; Dussauge-Peisser
Although this approachet al., 2003; Jaboyedoff
is well et al.,in
established derived f
(c) the distribution of rockfall intensity at each location and 2005b).
the field of natural hazards (e.g., earthquakes), its applica- frequenc
along each fall path. tion to landslide hazards is limited by the scarce availability

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

2620 A. Volkwein et al.: Review on rockfall characterisation and structural protection
of data and by the intrinsic statistical properties of landslide
inventories (Malamud et al., 2004). The frequency distribu-
tion of rockfall volumes has been shown to be well fitted by
the power law:
logN (V ) = N0 − b · logV (2)
where N (V ) is the annual frequency of rockfall with a vol-
ume exceeding V , N0 is the total annual frequency of rock-
fall and b is the power law exponent, ranging between 0.4
and 0.7 (Dussauge-Peisser et al., 2003). According to Hungr
et al. (1999), magnitude-cumulative frequency curves (MCF)
derived from rockfall inventories allows for the estimating
of the annual frequency of rockfall events in specified vol-
ume classes, thus, defining hazard scenarios. Major limita-
tions to this approach include the lack of rockfall inventories
for most sites and the spatial and temporal heterogeneity of
available inventories. These are possibly affected by cen-
soring, hampering a reliable prediction of the frequency of
either very small and very large events (Hungr et al., 1999;
Dussauge-Peisser et al., 2003; Malamud et al., 2004). The
hazard has been completely assessed using this approach by
Hungr et al. (1999) in the case of a section of highway. On
a regional scale, Wieczorek et al. (1999) and Guzzetti et al.
(2003) partially included the MCF within the method; while
Dussauge-Peisser et al. (2002, 2003) and Vangeon et al.
(2001) formalized the use of the MCF on a regional scale
merging it with susceptibility mapping.
Where site-specific rockfall inventories are either unavail-
able or unreliable, the analysis of rockfall hazard can only
be carried out in terms of susceptibility. This is the relative
probability that any slope unit is affected by rockfall occur-
rence, given a set of environmental conditions (Brabb, 1984).
Onset susceptibility (see Sect. 3) can be assessed
– in a spatially distributed way by heuristic ranking of se-
lected instability indicators (Pierson et al., 1990; Can-
celli and Crosta, 1993; Rouiller and Marro, 1997; Maz-
zoccola and Sciesa, 2000; Budetta, 2004),
– by deterministic methods (Jaboyedoff et al., 2004a;
Guenther et al., 2004; Derron et al., 2005) or
– by statistical methods (Frattini et al., 2008).
2.2.2 Reach probability and intensity
The reach probability and intensity for rockfall of given mag-
nitude (volume) depends on the physics of rockfall processes
and on topography (see Sect. 4). The simplest methods de-
scribing rockfall propagation are based on the shadow an-
gle approach, according to which the maximum travel dis-
tance of blocks is defined by the intersection of the topog-
raphy with an energy line having an empirically-estimated
inclination (Evans and Hungr, 1993, Fig. 2). Unfortunately,
with this approach there is no physical process model for
rockfall and its interaction with the ground behind and only
Nat. Hazards Earth Syst. Sci., 11, 2617–2651, 2011
the maximum extent of rockfall runout areas is estimated
(Fig. 3a). However, this approach has been implemented in
a GIS tool (CONEFALL, Jaboyedoff and Labiouse, 2003)
allowing a preliminary estimation of rockfall reach suscep-
tibility and kinetic energy (Fig. 3b), according to the energy
height approach (Evans and Hungr, 1993). Many existing
hazard assessment methodologies estimate reach probability
and intensity using 2-D rockfall numerical modelling (Matte-
rock, Rouiller and Marro,1997; Rockfall Hazard Assessment
Procedure RHAP, Mazzoccola and Sciesa, 2000; Cadanav,
Jaboyedoff et al., 2005b). This provides a more accurate
description of rockfall physics and allows for a better eval-
uation of rockfall reach probability (i.e., relative frequency
of blocks reaching specific target locations) and of the spa-
tial distribution of kinetic energy). However, 2-D modelling
neglects the geometrical and dynamic effects of a 3-D to-
pography on rockfall, leading to a subjective extension of
simulation results between adjoining 2-D fall paths (Fig. 3c).
Although this limitation has, in part, been overcome by intro-
ducing pseudo 3-D assumptions (Jaboyedoff et al., 2005b),
full 3-D numerical modelling has been shown to be required
to account for the lateral dispersion of 3-D trajectories and
the related effects on reach probability and intensity. Nev-
ertheless, a few hazard assessment methodologies based on
3-D numerical modelling are available (Crosta and Agliardi,
2003, Fig. 3d).
2.3 Hazard zoning: current practice and unresolved
questions
Rockfall hazard or susceptibility mapping/zoning is the final
step of hazard assessment, leading to the drafting of a doc-
ument useful for land planning, funding prioritization or the
preliminary assessment of suitable protective measures. The
major issue in hazard zoning is to find consistent criteria to
combine onset probability or susceptibility, reach probabil-
ity and intensity in a map document, especially when formal
probabilities cannot be evaluated.
Swiss guidelines (Raetzo et al., 2002, see Fig. 4) require
that rockfall hazard are zoned according to the onset proba-
bility (i.e., return period) and intensity (i.e., kinetic energy),
thus, defining three hazard zones, namely red, blue and yel-
low. Nevertheless, these do not explicitly account for the
reach probability and the spatial variability of kinetic en-
ergy. Thus, Jaboyedoff et al. (2005b) proposed a method-
ology (Cadanav) based on 2-D numerical modelling to map
hazard according to the probability where blocks involved in
events with a specified return period reach a specific location
along a 2-D profile with a given kinetic energy.
When only onset susceptibility can be evaluated, hazard
zoning is based on the combination of hazard indicators or
reclassified values of the parameters contributing to the haz-
ard to obtain suitable hazard indices. Some authors (Rouiller
and Marro, 1997; Jaboyedoff et al., 2001; Derron et al.,
2005; Copons and Vilaplana, 2008) used simple methods for
www.nat-hazards-earth-syst-sci.net/11/2617/2011/
A. Volkwein et al.: Review on rockfall
review characterisation and structural protection 2621
A. A. Volkwein
Volkwein et al.:
et al.: Rockfall
Rockfall review 55

Intensity
Intensity
/ Energy
/ Energy

High
> 300 kJ High
hazard
> 300 kJ hazard

Medium
30 – 300 kJ Medium
30 – 300 kJ hazard
hazard

< 30 kJ Low
< 30 kJ Low
hazard
hazard

1 – 30 y 30 – 100 y 100 – 300 y Onset probability

1 – 30 y 30 – 100 y 100 – 300 y Onset probability
/ return period
/ return period

Fig. 4. Hazard classification for rockfall in Switzerland

Fig.
Fig.4.4.Hazard
Hazardclassification
classificationfor
forrockfall
rockfallininSwitzerland
Switzerland

scale assessment capabilities. Major uncertainties in rockfall

scale
ity)
hazardassessment
of hazard
mapping capabilities.
maps depends
are also Major
related ontoathe uncertainties
number inofrockfall
of factors.
uncertainty Dif-
rockfall
hazard
ferent mapping are also related to the uncertainty
onset frequency when required (e.g. Swiss Code). This is of-to
descriptions of rockfall dynamics can be of rockfall
adopted
onset
model frequency
rockfall thus
ten unknown, when required
trajectories
requiring (e.g.
(e.g.,
that 2-D Swiss
a set Code).
orof3-D, This is kine-
empirical,
scenario-based of-
haz-
Fig. 3. Comparison of hazard maps derived for the area of Mt. ten unknown,
matical or thus
dynamic). requiring
Moreover, that a set of
complex
ard maps rather than a single map are produced (Jaboyedoff scenario-based
phenomena, haz-
such
Fig. 3. Comparison
Fig.S.Martino (Lecco, ofItaly;
3. Comparison
hazardJaboyedoff
of hazard
maps derived for 2001;
et al.,
maps derived
the area of Mt.
for theCrosta
area and
of ard maps
asetblock rather
al., 2005b). than athis
fragmentation
From single
or themap are the
effects
perspective, produced
of choice (Jaboyedoff
vegetation,
of the maydesign be
S.Martino (Lecco, Italy; Jaboyedoff et al., 2001; Crosta and etaccounted
al., 2005b). forFrom this perspective,
in different ways to the
(Crosta choice
et al.,ofrisky
the design
2004; Dor-
Mt.Agliardi,
S. Martino 2003) usingItaly;
(Lecco, different modelling
Jaboyedoff et approaches and zoning
al., 2001; Crosta and block volume scenario is critical avoid either under-
Agliardi, 2003) using different modelling approaches and zoning block
methods.
Agliardi, 2003)a) Maximum
using differentrunout area estimated
modelling by a shadow
approaches angle
and zoning ren etvolume
estimation orscenario
al., 2004) and is critical
greatly
cost-ineffective to avoid all
influence
overestimation either ofrisky
the ahazard under-
hazard. com-
Fi-
methods. a) using
Maximum runout area estimated by a shadow angle estimation or cost-ineffective overestimation of a hazard.
approach
approach using
the code CONEFALL
the codeobtained
CONEFALL
(Jaboyedoff
methods. (a) Maximum runout area estimated by a shadow angle
(Jaboyedoff
and Labiouse,
andmethodology
Labiouse,
ponents
nally, therelated
extent to rockfall hazard
of mapped propagationzones isand, thus,
greatly the Fi-
final
influenced
2003); using
b) hazard
the map by applying the RHV nally, themap.
extentThe ofinmapped hazard zones
approach
2003); b) hazard
code CONEFALL
map obtained bythe
(Jaboyedoff
applying
and Labiouse,
the RHV methodology hazard
by subjectivity spatial
establishingresolutionclass ofisthegreatly
boundaries adoptedinfluenced
for descrip-
parame-
(Crosta and Agliardi, 2003) to reach probability
2003); (b) hazard map obtained by applying the RHV methodology and kinetic en- by subjectivity in establishing class boundaries for parame-
(Crosta and Agliardi, 2003) to the reach probability and kinetic en- tion
ters of topography,
contributing especially
to the hazard. when These 3-D should models are used,
be constrained
(Crosta and Agliardi, 2003) to the reach probability and kinetic en-by
ergy estimated by CONEFALL; c) rockfall hazard map obtained ters
bycontributing
controls primarily
physically-based to the hazard.
thecriteria These should
lateraldepending
dispersion onofthe beenvisaged
constrained
rockfall trajecto-
use
ergy estimated by CONEFALL; c) rockfall hazard map obtained by
ergy2D numerical
estimated by modelling
CONEFALL; using(c)the RHAPhazard
rockfall methodology (modified
map obtained by by physically-based
of the criteria depending on the envisaged usethe
2Dafter
numerical modelling
Mazzoccola and using
Sciesa,the2000);
RHAPd)methodology
rockfall (modified
hazard map ob- ries andmaps (e.g. landdynamic
the computed planningquantities,
or countermeasure
thus, affecting design;
2-D numerical modelling using 2000);
the RHAP methodology (modified of the reach
maps
after Mazzoccola and Sciesa, d) rockfall
tained by 3D numerical modelling using the code HY-STONE and hazard map ob- Crosta
local and (e.g.
Agliardi,land2003;
probability planning
andJaboyedoff or countermeasure
intensity and design;
et al., 2005b).
(Crosta Agliardi,
after
tained Mazzoccola
by 3Dmethodologyand Sciesa,
numerical modelling2000); (d)the rockfall hazard mapand ob- Crosta and Agliardi, 2003; Jaboyedoff et al., 2005b).
the RHV (modifiedusingafter Crosta codeandHY-STONE
Agliardi, 2003). 2004). The applicability of hazard models on different scales
tained by 3-D numerical modelling using the code
the RHV methodology (modified after Crosta and Agliardi, 2003). HY-STONE and
the RHV methodology (modified after Crosta and Agliardi, 2003).
2.4 with
and From hazard aims
different to quantitative
also depends risk assessment
on model resolution,
2.4 From hazard to quantitative
thus, requiring tools with multi-scale risk assessment
assessment capabili-
evaluation of onset susceptibility by means of multivariate Although
ties. Majorhazard mappinginisrockfall
uncertainties a useful hazard
tool forzoning
land planning,
are also
evaluation
statisticaloftechniques.
onset susceptibility by means of multivariate Although
risk hazard
analysis mapping
should be is a useful
carried out totool for land
support the planning,
design and
related to the uncertainty of rockfall onset frequency when
statistical
large When techniques.
scale susceptibility
drafting hazardmapping,
maps for based practicalonpurposes,
the use ofit muston- risk analysis should
optimization of bothbestructural
carried out and tonon-structural
support the design and
protection
required (e.g., Swiss Code). This is often unknown, thus, re-
set When
be keptdrafting
in mindhazard
susceptibility that themaps
indicators for the
and
reliability practical
shadow
(and purposes, it must
angleapplicabil-
practical method optimization
actionsthat
quiring (Fellof both structural
aetsetal.,of2005; Straub
scenario-based
andand non-structural
Schubert,
hazard maps
protection
2008). Never-
rather than
be ity)
(Fig. kept ofinMazzoccola
3a). mind that
hazard maps the
andreliability
Sciesaon
depends (and
(2000) practical
proposed
a number applicabil-
a method-
of factors. The actions (Fell et al., 2005; Straub and Schubert, 2008). Never-
a single map are produced (Jaboyedoff et al., 2005b). yet
theless, a standard risk analysis approach for rockfall is Fromto
ity)
ology of hazard maps
(RHAP)ofinrockfall
description depends
which dynamics on
2-D numericala number of factors.
simulation
are adopted to model The
is used
rock- theless,
be a standard
proposed becauserisk analysis
of the approach
still difficult forassessment
rockfall is of yethaz-
to
this perspective, the choice of the design block volume sce-
description of probability
fall trajectories rockfall
(e.g.dynamics
2D or 3D,are empirical,
adopted laterto weighted
model rock-
kinematical ac-or beards.
proposedfact, because of the stillisdifficult assessment of haz-
to zone reach along profiles, nario isIncritical when
to avoid a hazard
either risky expressed as susceptibility,
underestimation or cost-
fall trajectories
dynamic). (e.g.
This 2D
way, or 3D,
complex empirical,
phenomena
cording to indicators of cliff activity (Fig. 3c). Crosta kinematical
such or
as block
and ards. In fact,
risk can onlywhen a hazard
be assessed is expressed
through relative as susceptibility,
scales or matrices
ineffective overestimation of a hazard. Finally, the extent
dynamic).
fragmentation This way,
or the complex
effects of phenomena
vegetation
Agliardi (2003) combined reclassified values of reach sus- aresuch as block
accounted for risk can onlyet be
(Guzzetti al.,assessed
2004; Fell through
et al.,relative
2005). scales or matrices
The simplest form
fragmentation or the effects of vegetation are accounted for of mapped
(Guzzetti et hazard
al., zones isetgreatly influenced by subjectivity
(Crosta et al., 2004; Dorren et al.,
ceptibility and intensity values such as kinetic energy or 2004) and greatly influ- of rockfall risk2004;
analysis Fellconsistsal., of 2005).
analysingThe simplest form
the distribution
(Crosta et al., 2004; inrockfall
establishing class boundaries offor parametersdistribution
contributing
jump ence all
height hazardDorren
thederived et al.,related
components
by distributed 2004) androckfall
to
3-D rockfall greatly influ-
propaga-
modelling of of elements riskatanalysis
risk with consists
different analysing
postulatedthe vulnerability in
ence all the hazard components related to rockfall propaga- to the
ofdifferent hazard.
elementshazard These
at riskzones should
with different be constrained
postulated by physically-
tion, and thus the final hazard map.
to obtain a physically-based index (Rockfall Hazard Vector, The spatial resolution (Acosta et al., 2003;vulnerability
Guzzetti et in al.,
tion, based criteria depending on the envisaged use of theet maps
RHV).of and
the
This thus
adopted the description
allows final
for ahazard ofmap.
quantitative The spatial
topography,
ranking resolution
especially
of hazards, when
ac- different
2003, 2004).hazardHowever,
zones (Acosta et al., 2003;
this approach does not Guzzetti
fully account al.,
of the
3D adopted
models aredescription
used, of
controls topography,
primarily theespecially
lateral when
dispersion (e.g.
2003,
for the land
2004). planning
However,
probability orthis
of countermeasure
rockfallapproachimpact, does design;
the not fullyCrosta
vulnerabilityaccount and
and
counting for the effects of 3-D topography (Fig. 3d) while Agliardi, 2003; Jaboyedoff et al., 2005b).
3Dofmodels
keeping rockfall aretrajectories
information used, about
controlstheprimarily
and of the lateral
the computed
contributing dispersion
dynamic
parameters. quan-
This forvalue
the probability
of exposed of rockfall
targets. impact, the
Guidelines forvulnerability
Quantitative and Risk
of rockfall
tities, thustrajectories
affecting and
the of the
local computed
reach
approach was implemented by Frattini et al. (2008) to include dynamic
probability and quan-
inten- value of exposed
Analysis (QRA)targets.
based onGuidelines
Hong Kong for rockfall
Quantitative Risk
inventories
2.4 From hazard to quantitative risk assessment
atities,
sity thus
(Crosta
quantitative affecting the of
and Agliardi,
evaluation local reach
2004).
onset The probability byand
applicability
susceptibility ofinten-
means hazard
of Analysis (QRA) based on Hong Kong rockfall inventories
(Chau et al., 2003) were proposed by GEO (1998), whereas
sity (Crosta
models on and Agliardi,
different
multivariate statistical techniques. 2004).
scales and The
with applicability
different of
aims hazard
also de- (Chau et and
Straub al., Schubert
2003) were proposed
(2008) by GEO
combined (1998),theory
probability whereas
and
models
pendson ondifferent scales andthus
model resolution, withrequiring
differenttools
aimswithalsomulti-
de- Although
Straub hazard
and Schubert
2D numerical zoning iscombined
(2008)in
modelling a useful
order tool forrisk
probability
to improve land planning,
theory and
analysis for
When
pends ondrafting hazard maps
model resolution, forrequiring
thus practical tools
purposes,
with itmulti-
must risknumerical
2D analysis should be carried
modelling in orderout to support
to improve riskthe designfor
analysis and
be kept in mind that the reliability (and practical applicabil- optimization of both structural and non-structural protective

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

2622 A. Volkwein et al.: Review on rockfall characterisation and structural protection
actions (Fell et al., 2005; Straub and Schubert, 2008). Never-
theless, a standard risk analysis approach for rockfall is yet to
be proposed because of the still difficult assessment of haz-
ards. In fact, when a hazard is expressed as susceptibility,
risk can only be assessed through relative scales or matrices
(Guzzetti et al., 2004; Fell et al., 2005). The simplest form
of rockfall risk analysis consists of analysing the distribution
of elements at risk with different postulated vulnerability in
different hazard zones (Acosta et al., 2003; Guzzetti et al.,
2003, 2004). However, this approach does not fully account
for the probability of rockfall impact, the vulnerability and
value of exposed targets. Guidelines for Quantitative Risk
Analysis (QRA) based on Hong Kong rockfall inventories
(Chau et al., 2003) were proposed by GEO (1998), whereas
Straub and Schubert (2008) combined probability theory and
2-D numerical modelling in order to improve risk analysis for
single countermeasure structural design. Bunce et al. (1997)
and Hungr et al. (1999) quantitatively estimated rockfall risk
along highways in British Columbia, based on inventories
of rockfall events. Nevertheless, major efforts are still re-
quired to perform a quantitative evaluation of rockfall risk in
spatially distributed situations (e.g., urban areas; Corominas
et al., 2005), where long runout and complex interactions be-
tween rockfall and single elements at risk occur, requiring a
quantitative assessment of vulnerability.
In this perspective, Agliardi et al. (2009) proposed a quan-
titative risk assessment framework exploiting the advantages
of 3-D numerical modelling to integrate the evaluation of the
temporal probability of rockfall occurrence, the spatial prob-
ability and intensity of impacts on structures, their vulnera-
bility, and the related expected costs for different protection
scenarios. In order to obtain vulnerability curves based on
physical models for reinforced concrete buildings, Mavrouli
and Corominas (2010) proposed the use of Finite Element
(FE)-based progressive collapse modelling.
3 Rockfall source areas
3.1 Influencing factors
As pointed out in Sect. 2, the rockfall hazard H at a given
location and for a given intensity and scenario depends on
two terms, namely: the onset probability (i.e., temporal fre-
quency of rockfall occurrence) of a rockfall instability event
and the probability of propagation to a given location (see
Eq. 1) (Jaboyedoff et al., 2001). The latter, P (T |L)ij k , can
be evaluated by propagation modelling or by observation. In
order to evaluate P (L), it is first necessary to identify poten-
tial rockfall sources, whereas their susceptibility is mainly
based on rock slope stability analysis or estimates and can
be evaluated by field observations or modelling. Anyway,
it must be kept in mind that inventories are the only direct
way to derive the true hazard in small areas. For rockfall
involving limited volumes (i.e., fragmental rockfall, usually
Nat. Hazards Earth Syst. Sci., 11, 2617–2651, 2011
< 100 000 m3 ) methods of rock slope stability analysis are
well established and their application is relatively easy when
the slope and the source area are well characterised (Hoek
and Bray, 1981; Norrish and Wyllie, 1996; Wyllie and Mah,
2004). However, this procedure does not give any informa-
tion about time-dependence and is difficult to apply on a re-
gional scale (Guenther et al., 2004).
Most rockfall source area assessment methods are based
on stability assessment or on rockfall activity quantification.
In order to get an estimate of rockfall activity, either inven-
tories or indirect methods, such as dendrochronology, are
needed (Perret et al., 2006; Corominas et al., 2005). Several
parameters can be used to create a hazard map for rockfall
source areas, which, most of the time, involves susceptibility
mapping (Guzzetti et al., 1999). The parameters used de-
pend mainly on the availability of existing documents or the
budget available to collect field information (Jaboyedoff and
Derron, 2005).
Source area susceptibility analysis has often used multi-
parameter rating systems derived from tunnelling and mining
engineering, such as Rock Mass Rating (Bieniawski, 1973,
1993, RMR;). Its evolution to the Slope Mass Rating SMR
(Romana, 1988, 1993) led to more suitable results by adding
an explicit dependence on the joint-slope orientation rela-
tionship. Recently, Hoek (1994) introduced the Geological
Strength Index (GSI) as a simplified rating of rock quality.
In recent years, it has been applied successfully to slope sta-
bility analysis (Brideau et al., 2007). A similar approach was
proposed by Selby (1980, 1982) for geomorphological appli-
cations. Later, with the increasing availability of digital ele-
vation models (DEM; Wentworth et al., 1987; Wagner et al.,
1988) and of geographic information systems (GIS), several
other techniques (heuristic and probabilistic) have been ex-
plored (Van Westen, 2004). However, this can be refined con-
ceptually because a slope system can be described in terms of
internal parameters (IP) and external factors (EF), which pro-
vide a conceptual framework to describe the instability po-
tential using the available data (Fig. 5). Therefore, instability
detection requires locating (1) the pre-failure processes and
(2) the areas sensitive to rapid strength degradation leading
to slope failure (Jaboyedoff et al., 2005a; Leroueil and Locat,
1998). IP are the intrinsic features of the slopes. Some exam-
ples are summarized below (Jaboyedoff and Derron, 2005):
(a) Morphology: slope types (slope angle, height of slope,
profile, etc.), exposure, type of relief (depends on the
controlling erosive processes), etc.
(b) Geology: rock types and weathering, variability of the
geological structure, bedding, type of deposit, folded
zone, etc.
(c) Fracturing: joint sets, trace lengths, spacing, fracturing
intensity, etc.
(d) Mechanical properties of rocks and soil: cohesion, fric-
tion angle, etc.
www.nat-hazards-earth-syst-sci.net/11/2617/2011/
 A. Volkwein et al.: Review on rockfall characterisation and structural protection 2623
A. Volkwein et al.: Rockfall review
following different methods that have been proposed to as-
. (1997)
sess the value of failure frequency P (L) in general by using
fall risk
susceptibility mapping. GIS and related software allow one
entories
to manage most of these parameters regionally. For example,
still re-
in Switzerland the 1 : 250 000 topographic vectorized maps
l risk in
rominas include the cliff area as polygons (Jaboyedoff and Labiouse,
ions be- 2003; Loye et al., 2009).
uiring a
3.2 Methods of identification and description
ive risk
3D nu- 3.2.1 Methods using regional geomechanical
emporal approaches
ility and
and the Basically, methods such as the Rock Fall Hazard Rating Sys-
rios. In Fig. 5.
5. EF
EF and
and IP
IP for
for rockfall tem (RFHRS, Pierson et al., 1990) or the Missouri Rockfall
Fig. rockfall (modified
(modifiedfrom
from Jaboyedoff
Jaboyedoffand
andLabi-
Labi-
al mod- ouse, 2003; Jaboyedoff and Derron, 2005).
ouse, 2003; Jaboyedoff and Derron, 2005). Hazard Rating System (MRFHRS, Maerz et al., 2005) mix
Coromi- both P (L) and P (T | L) estimates at the same level, as well
E)-based as risk. Both methods are designed for talus slopes close to
budget available
(e) Activity: to collect field
movements information
or rockfall, etc. (Jaboyedoff and roads and have been refined in two ways, i.e., simplifying
Derron, 2005). the number of parameters from 12 (or 18) to 4 for the RHRS
(f)Source area susceptibility
Hydrogeology: permeability,analysisjointhas often used multi-
permeability, etc. (Santi et al., 2008) or by mixing them with the RMS param-
parameter rating systems derived from tunnelling and mining eters (Budetta, 2004). These methods mix IP and EF at the
Note that within
engineering, sucha as given
Rockframework,
Mass Rating the (Bieniawski,
joint sets or discon-
1973, same levels.
tinuities
1993, RMR;).are theItsanisotropies
evolution to that
themainly
Slope control the stability
Mass Rating SMR In addition to the classical rock mass characterisation (Bi-
(Romana,
(Hoek and1988,
Bray,1993)
1981);led points
to moreb suitable
to d areresults by to
related adding
these eniawski, 1973; Romana, 1988), some methods are proposed
a given an explicit The
properties. dependence on therockfall
link between joint-slope orientation
activity rela-
and the inten- to regionalise susceptibility parameters. Using mixed IP and
ends on tionship.
sity Recently, fracturing,
of pre-existing Hoek (1994) as introduced
in fold hingesthe with
Geological
a steep EF Mazzoccola and Hudson (1996) developed a rating sys-
oral fre- Strength Index (GSI) as a simplified
limb, has been demonstrated by Coe and Harp (2007). rating of rock quality.
tem based on the matrix interaction approach of the Rock En-
ty event InThe
recentIP years, it has with
can evolve been timeapplied duesuccessfully
to the effectsto slope
of thesta-
EF, gineering System (RES) methodology (Hudson, 1992). This
ion (see bility analysis (Brideau et al.,
which are (Jaboyedoff and Derron, 2005): 2007). A similar approach was
allows one to create a modular rock mass characterisation
ijk , can proposed by Selby (1980, 1982) for geomorphological appli-
– gravitational
cations. Later, with effects;
the increasing availability of digital ele- method of slope susceptibility ranking. Based on a similar
ation. In
vation models (DEM; Wentworth et al., 1987; Wagner et al., approach, Vangeon et al. (2001) proposed to calibrate a sus-
tify po-
– water
1988) and ofcirculation:
geographichydrology
information or hydrogeology, climate,
systems (GIS) several ceptibility scale using a geotechnical rating with a regional
mainly
precipitation in the form of rainfall or
other techniques (heuristic and probabilistic) have been ex- snow, infiltration inventory, designed for a linear cliff area (Carere et al., 2001).
and can
plored rates,
(Vangroundwater;
Westen, 2004). However, this can be refined con- Rouiller et al. (1998) developed a susceptibility rating system
Anyway,
y direct ceptually because a slope system can be described in terms of based on 7 criteria mixing IP and EF.
– weathering;
internal parameters (IP) and external factors (EF), which pro-
rockfall
usually vide a conceptual framework to describe the instability po- 3.2.2 GIS and DEM analysis-based methods
– erosion;
ysis are tential using the available data (Fig. 5). Therefore, instability
sy when detection requires locating (1) the pre-failure processes and The first studies on rockfall using DEM or GIS were per-
– seismicity;
d (Hoek (2) the areas sensitive to rapid strength degradation leading formed by Toppe (1987a), using simply the slope angle cri-
nd Mah, to –slope failure
active (Jaboyedoff et al., 2005a; Leroueil and Locat,
tectonics; terion, and by Wagner et al. (1988) and Wentworth et al.
nforma- 1998). IP are the intrinsic features of the slopes. Some exam- (1987); Wu et al. (1996); Soeters and Van Westen (1996),
on a re- – are
ples microclimate
summarized including freezing and
below (Jaboyedoff and thawing, sun ex-
Derron, 2005): using structural data for slope modelling. Of course, the
posure, permafrost, which are increasingly invoked to simplest way to detect a source area is to use a slope angle
e based a. explain
Morphology:rockfall slope types (slope
activities angle, height
(Frayssines, of slope,
2005; Matsuoka threshold (Guzzetti et al., 2003), or to add some other crite-
fication. profile,
and etc.),
Sakai, 1999;exposure,
Matsuoka, type2008;
of relief (depends
Gruner, 2008);on the ria such as the presence of cliff areas (Jaboyedoff and Labi-
ther in- controlling erosive processes), etc. ouse, 2003). The slope threshold can be deduced from a de-
logy are – nearby instabilities; tailed slope angle statistical analysis permitting one to iden-
b. Geology: rock types and weathering, variability of the
Several geological structure, bedding, type of deposit, folded tify cliff areas (Strahler, 1954; Baillifard et al., 2003, 2004;
– human activities (anthropogenic factors);
rockfall zone, etc. Loye et al., 2009). In addition, some other approaches can
ptibility – etc. be used for assessing the susceptibility of source areas, such
used de- c. Fracturing: joint sets, trace lengths, spacing, fracturing as using an index obtained by the back-analysis of rockfall
ts or the intensity,
These etc.
lists of internal parameters and external factors are propagation. This index links the source area to the deposit,
not exhaustive, but allow one to introduce key points for the by counting the number of intersections of the trajectories

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

2624 A. Volkwein et al.: Review on rockfall characterisation and structural protection
with the scree slopes. This can be performed either using the
shadow angle method (Baillifard, 2005) or the HY STONE
programme by intersecting the trajectory simulation with the
scree slopes (Frattini et al., 2008).
Along one particular road in Switzerland, five parame-
ters: proximity to faults, nearness of a scree slope, cliff
height, steep slope and proximity to road, were used to obtain
good results using a simple classical GIS approach (Bailli-
fard et al., 2003).
The major improvement related to GIS or/and the use of
DEM is the automatic kinematical analysis (Wagner et al.,
1988; Rouiller et al., 1998; Gokceoglu et al., 2000; Dorren
et al., 2004; Günther, 2003; Guenther et al., 2004), which al-
lows one to determine whether the discontinuity sets are able
to create instabilities. Using the standard stability criterion
(Norrish and Wyllie, 1996) and a statistical analysis of the
kinematical tests, Gokceoglu et al. (2000) were able to pro-
duce maps of probability of sliding, toppling or wedge type
failures. Günther (2003) and Guenther et al. (2004) used a
partial stability analysis using a Mohr-Coulomb criterion and
an estimate of the stress state at a given depth of about 20 m
at each pixel of the DEM, also integrating in the analysis the
regionalisation of discontinuities such as folded bedding and
geology. The number of slope failures linked to joint sets
depends on the apparent discontinuity density at the ground
surface, which can also be used as an input for the rock slope
hazard assessment and to identify the most probable failure
zone (Jaboyedoff et al., 2004b). In addition to structural tests,
it may also be possible to combine several of the EF and IP,
such as water flow, erodible material volume, etc., to obtain
a rating index (Baillifard et al., 2004; Oppikofer et al., 2007).
Rock failure is mainly controlled by discontinuities. The
main joint sets can be extracted from the orientation of the to-
pography (DEM) using different methods and software (Der-
ron et al., 2005; Jaboyedoff et al., 2007; Kemeny et al., 2006;
Voyat et al., 2006). Extracting the discontinuity sets from
DEM allows one to perform a kinematic test on a regional
area (Oppikofer et al., 2007). New techniques such as ground
based LiDAR DEM allow one to extract the full structures,
even in the case of inaccessible rock cliffs (Lato et al., 2009;
Sturzenegger et al., 2007a; Voyat et al., 2006).
In landslide hazard assessment, many statistical or other
modern techniques are now used (Van Westen, 2004);
e.g., Aksoy and Ercanoglu (2006) classified the susceptibility
of source areas using a fuzzy logic-based evaluation.
3.3 Concluding remarks on source detection
Until now, most rock slope systems have been described by
considering the EFs and IPs that control stability. This pro-
cedure only gives approximate results, mainly because field
access is usually limited. Moreover, to assess the hazard
from susceptibility maps remains very difficult. Neverthe-
less, recently developed technologies like photogrammetry
or LiDAR (Kemeny et al., 2006) permit one to extract high
Nat. Hazards Earth Syst. Sci., 11, 2617–2651, 2011
quality data from DEM that – regarding some points – is bet-
ter than that from standard fieldwork, especially for geologi-
cal structures (joint sets, fractures). However, for a local fully
detailed analysis, on-site inspection using Alpine techniques
is unavoidable in order to correctly asses the amount of open-
ings, fillings or roughness of joints or to verify automatically
determined rock face properties.
At the present time, the attempt to extract information such
as GSI from LiDAR DEM is still utopian (Sturzenegger et al.,
2007b), but we can expect future generations of terrestrial Li-
DAR to allow the extraction of such information. The anal-
ysis of geological structures in high resolution DEM and the
simulation of all possible instabilities in a slope have already
been performed at the outcrop level (Grenon and Hadjigeor-
giou, 2008). We can expect that such methods will be ap-
plicable on a regional scale within the next 10 yr by using
remote-sensing techniques associated with limited field ac-
quisition that will provide rock parameters, structures and
include stability simulations. However, the goal of hazard
assessment will not be reached as long as this analysis does
not account for temporal dependencies. That can only be
achieved if we understand the failure mechanisms, i.e., the
degradation of the IP under the action of EF, such as weath-
ering (Jaboyedoff et al., 2007). Expected climate changes
will affect the frequency and magnitude of the EF. There is a
need to understand their impact on rock slope stability, other-
wise we will either miss or overestimate a significant amount
of potential rockfall activity.
4 Trajectory modelling
It is important to describe the movement of a falling rock
along a slope, i.e., its trajectory. This allows the description
of existing hazard susceptibility or hazard assessment for a
certain area. In addition, the information on boulder velocity,
jump heights and spatial distribution is the basis for correct
design and the verification of protective measures.
A description of rockfall trajectories can be roughly ob-
tained by analytical methods (see Sect. 4.4.1). If more de-
tailed analyses are needed and stochastic information has to
be considered, numerical approaches are recommended.
This section, therefore, attempts to summarize the numer-
ous currently available rockfall trajectory simulation mod-
els. To do this, existing models are grouped firstly accord-
ing to their spatial dimensions: (1) two-dimensional (2-D)
trajectory models, (2) 2.5-D or quasi-3-D trajectory models
and (3) 3-D trajectory models, and secondly according to the
underlying calculation principles. Whether a rockfall trajec-
tory model is 2-D or 3-D, irrespective of its underlying cal-
culation procedure, the experience in applying the model and
a knowledge of its sensitivity to parameter settings, as well
as how to determine model parameter values in the field, is a
prerequisite to obtaining acceptable results. Berger and Dor-
ren (2006) defined the latter as results with an error of 20 %.
www.nat-hazards-earth-syst-sci.net/11/2617/2011/
A. Volkwein et al.: Review on rockfall characterisation and structural protection
4.1 Types of rockfall model
4.1.1 2-D rockfall trajectory models
We define a 2-D trajectory model as a model that simulates
the rockfall trajectory in a spatial domain defined by two
axes. This can be a model that calculates along a user-defined
slope profile (Azzoni et al., 1995) that is defined by a dis-
tance axis (x or y) and an altitude axis (z). Such a profile
often follows the line of the steepest descent. Table 1 shows
that the majority of the rockfall trajectory models belongs
to this group. In the second type of 2-D model rockfall tra-
jectories are calculated in a spatial domain defined by two
distance axes x and y, e.g., a raster with elevation values or a
map with contour lines. Such models generally calculate the
rockfall path using topographic-hydrologic approaches and
velocity and runout distance with a sliding block approach
(cf. Van Dijke and van Westen, 1990; Meissl, 1998). As such
these models do not provide information on rebound heights.
4.1.2 2.5-D rockfall trajectory models
The second group of trajectory models defined here are 2.5-
D models, also called quasi-3-D models. These are simply
2-D models assisted by GIS to derive pre-defined fall paths.
The key characteristic of such models is that the direction of
the rockfall trajectory in the x,y domain is independent of the
kinematics of the falling rock and its trajectory in the vertical
plane. In fact, in these models the calculation of the hori-
zontal fall direction (in the x,y domain) could be separated
completely from the calculation of the rockfall kinematics
and the rebound positions and heights. This means that these
models actually carry out two separate 2-D calculations. The
first one determines the position of a slope profile in an x,y
domain and the second one is a 2-D rockfall simulation along
the previously defined slope profile. Examples of such mod-
els are those that calculate rockfall kinematics along a slope
profile that follows the steepest descent as defined using dig-
ital terrain data, as in the model Rocky3 (Dorren and Seij-
monsbergen, 2003).
4.1.3 3-D rockfall trajectory models
These models are defined as trajectory models that calcu-
late the rockfall trajectory in a 3-dimensional plane (x, y,
z) during each calculation step. As such, there is an in-
terdependence between the direction of the rockfall trajec-
tory in the x,y domain, the kinematics of the falling rock,
its rebound positions and heights and if included, impacts
on trees. Examples of such models are EBOUL-LMR (De-
scoeudres and Zimmermann, 1987), STONE (Guzzetti et al.,
2002), Rotomap (Scioldo, 2006), DDA (Yang et al., 2004),
STAR3-D (Dimnet, 2002), HY-STONE (Crosta et al., 2004)
and Rockyfor3-D (Dorren et al., 2004), RAMMS:Rockfall
(Christen et al., 2007); Rockfall-Analyst (Lan et al., 2007),
PICUS-ROCKnROLL (Rammer et al., 2007; Woltjer et al.,
www.nat-hazards-earth-syst-sci.net/11/2617/2011/
2625
2008) or as shown in Masuya et al. (1999). The major advan-
tage of 3-D models is that diverging and converging effects of
the topography, as well as exceptional or surprising trajecto-
ries, i.e., those that are less expected at first sight in the field,
are clearly reflected in the resulting maps. A disadvantage of
3-D models is the need for spatially explicit parameter maps,
which require much more time in the field than parameter
value determination for slope profile-based trajectory simu-
lations.
4.2 Calculation approaches
A second main characteristic that allows one to distinguish
between different rockfall trajectory models, which is closely
related to the calculation of the rebound, is the representation
of the simulated rock in the model. As shown in Table 1, this
can be done firstly by means of a lumped mass, i.e., the rock
is represented by a single, dimensionless point. The second
approach is the rigid body, i.e., the rock is represented by a
real geometrical shape, which is often a sphere, cube, cylin-
der or ellipsoid. In general, this approach is used in the deter-
ministic models mentioned above. The last approach is the
hybrid approach, i.e., a lumped mass approach for simulat-
ing free fall and a rigid body approach for simulating rolling,
impact and rebound (Crosta et al., 2004; Frattini et al., 2008;
Agliardi et al., 2009).
Most of the rockfall trajectory models use a normal and
a tangential coefficient of restitution for calculating the re-
bound of simulated rock on the slope surface and a fric-
tion coefficient for rolling. Details on these coefficients
are, among others, presented in Guzzetti et al. (2002). An
overview of typical values of the coefficients of restitu-
tion can be found in Scioldo (2006). The models that use
these coefficients generally apply a probabilistic approach
for choosing the parameter values used for the actual re-
bound calculation (see Table 1). This is to account for
the large variability in the real values of these parameters,
due to the terrain, the rock shape and the kinematics of
the rock during the rebound. Bourrier et al. (2009b) pre-
sented a new rebound model that linked the impact angle,
the translational and the rotational velocity before and after
the rebound based on multidimensional, stochastic functions,
which gave promising results for rocky slopes. There are
also models that use deterministic approaches for calculat-
ing the rockfall rebound. These models use mostly a discrete
element method (Cundall, 1971), such as the Discontinuous
Deformation Analysis (Yang et al., 2004) or percussion the-
ory (Dimnet, 2002).
The parabolic free falls are calculated with standard algo-
rithms for a uniformly accelerated parabolic movement, ex-
cept for those models that use the sliding block theory for
calculating the rockfall velocity over its complete trajectory.
Nat. Hazards Earth Syst. Sci., 11, 2617–2651, 2011
2626 A. Volkwein et al.: Review on rockfall characterisation and structural protection

Table 1. Main characteristics of a selection of existing rockfall trajectory models (modified from Guzzetti et al., 2002).

Model/programme name Reference/Year Spatial Dimensions Approach Probabilistic Forest*

N.N. (Ritchie, 1963) 2-D (slope profile) Lumped-mass No No
Discrete Element Method (Cundall, 1971) 2-D (slope profile) Rigid body No No
Computer Rockfall Model (Piteau and Clayton, 1976) 2-D (slope profile) Lumped-mass Partly No
N.N. (Azimi et al., 1982) 2-D (slope profile) Lumped-mass Yes No
N.N. (Falcetta, 1985) 2-D (slope profile) Rigid body No No
ROCKSIM (Wu, 1985) 2-D (slope profile) Lumped-mass Yes No
SASS (Bozzolo and Pamini, 1986) 2-D (slope profile) Hybrid Yes No
EBOUL-LMR (Descoeudres and Zimmermann, 1987) 3-D (x,y,z) Rigid body No No
(Labiouse et al., 2001)
PROPAG/CETE Lyon (Rochet, 1987a) 2-D (slope profile) Lumped-mass No No
N.N. (Hungr and Evans, 1988) 2-D (slope profile) Lumped-mass No No
CRSP (4.0) (Pfeiffer and Bowen, 1989) 2-D (slope profile) Hybrid Yes No
(Jones et al., 2000)
N.N. (Van Dijke and van Westen, 1990) 2-D (x,y) Lumped-mass No No
N.N. (Kobayashi et al., 1990) 2-D (slope profile) Rigid body No No
Rotomap (Scioldo, 1991) 3-D (x,y,z) Lumped-mass Yes No
CADMA (Azzoni et al., 1995) 2-D (slope profile) Hybrid Yes No
Rockfall (Dr. Spang) (Spang and Sönser, 1995) 2-D (slope profile) Rigid body Yes Yes
ROFMOD 4.1 (Zinggeler et al., 1990) 2-D (slope profile) Hybrid Yes Yes
(Krummenacher and Keusen, 1996)
3-D-GEOTEST-Zinggeler (Krummenacher et al., 2008) 3-D (x,y,z) Hybrid Yes Yes
RocFall (Stevens, 1998) 2-D (slope profile) Lumped-mass Yes No
Sturzgeschwindigkeit (Meissl, 1998) 2-D (x,y) Lumped-mass No No
STONE (Guzzetti et al., 2002) 3-D (x,y,z) Lumped-mass Yes No
STAR3-D (Dimnet, 2002) 3-D (x,y,z) Rigid body No Yes
(Le Hir et al., 2006)
Rocky3 (Dorren and Seijmonsbergen, 2003) 2.5-D (x.y coupled Hybrid Yes Yes
with slope profile)
HY-STONE (Crosta et al., 2004) 3-D (x,y,z) Hybrid Yes Yes
(Frattini et al., 2008)
(Agliardi et al., 2009)
RockyFor (Dorren et al., 2004) 3-D (x,y,z) Hybrid Yes Yes
(Dorren et al., 2006)
(Bourrier et al., 2009a)
DDA (Yang et al., 2004)
RAMMS::Rockfall (Christen et al., 2007) 3-D (x,y,z) Rigid body Yes Yes
RockFall Analyst (Lan et al., 2007) 3-D (x,y,z) Lumped-mass Partly No
PICUS-ROCKnROLL (Woltjer et al., 2008) 3-D (x,y,z) Lumped-mass Yes Yes
(Rammer et al., 2007)

∗ Forest characteristics such as tree density and corresponding diameters can be taken into account explicitly

4.3 Block-slope interaction
The trajectories of falling rocks can be described as com-
binations of four types of motion: free fall, rolling, sliding
and bouncing of a falling block (Ritchie, 1963; Lied, 1977;
Descoeudres, 1997). The occurrence of each of these types
strongly depends on the slope angle (Ritchie, 1963). For
steep slopes, free fall is most commonly observed, whereas
for intermediate slopes, rockfall propagation is a succession
of free falls and rebounds. For gentle slopes, the prevalent
motion types are rolling or sliding.
A significant number of rockfall simulation programmes
exist to perform trajectory analyses. The challenge is not in
the free flight simulation, but in modelling the interactions
between the falling block and the slope’s surface. Models
are usually classified into two main categories, the rigid-
body and the lumped-mass methods (Giani, 1992; Hungr
and Evans, 1988). Rigid-body methods consider the block
as a body with its own shape and volume, solve the fun-
damental equations of dynamics and account for all types
of block movement, including rotation (Azzoni et al., 1995;
Cundall, 1971; Descoeudres and Zimmermann, 1987; Fal-
cetta, 1985). Lumped-mass methods consider the block to
have either no mass or a mass concentrated into one point
and do not take into account either the shape of the blocks
or rotational movement (Guzzetti et al., 2002; Hoek, 1987;
Hungr and Evans, 1988; Piteau and Clayton, 1977; Ritchie,
1963; Stevens, 1998).

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

A.
A.Volkwein
Volkwein et
et al.:
al.: Review
Rockfallon rockfall characterisation and structural protection
review 2627
11

the the
and slope surface’s
slope (type and irregularity and the rock shape, the rolling
size of debris).
motion is more acondition
The transition successionbetween of smallthe bounces.
bouncing and the
Therefore,
rolling mode ismost discussedrockfall models
in Piteau simulate
(1977), Hungr trajectories
and Evansas
successions
(1988) of free(1992).
and Giani fall and bouncing
The transition phases.from Onlysliding
a few con-
to
sider sliding
rolling is defined andinrolling
Bozzolo motions (e.g., Azzoni et al., 1995;
et al. (1988).
Bozzolo
The whole androckfall
Pamini,trajectory
1986; Statham,is sometimes 1979).modelled
In these as models
the
sliding or rolling
a tangential dampingof a mass on a sloping
coefficient related surface
to thewithrollingan aver-
and/or
age friction
sliding anglebetween
friction assumedblock to beand representative of the mean
slope is introduced. The
energy
slidinglosses
frictionalong is the block’s
defined by path
means (Evansof the andnormal
Hungr, 1993;
compo-
Govi,
nent with1977;respect
Hungrtoand the Evans, 1988;ofJapan
soil surface Road Associa-
the block’s weight ac-
tion,
cording1983; Lied, 1977;law.
to Coulomb’s Rapp, For1960;
rolling Toppe,
motion, 1987b).
accordingThis to
method (called the Fahrböschung, the
Statham (1979), a fairly accurate description is also given shadow angle or theby
cone method) provides a quick and low-cost
using Coulomb’s law with a rolling friction coefficient that preliminary de-
lineation
depends of on areas endangered byofrockfall,
the characteristics the block either
(sizeon and a local
shape)
or a regional scale (Jaboyedoff
and the slope (type and size of debris). and Labiouse, 2003; Meissl,
2001).
The transition condition between the bouncing and the
rolling mode is discussed in Piteau and Clayton (1977),
4.3.2 Rebound models
Hungr and Evans (1988) and Giani (1992). The transition
Fig. 6. Definition of the block velocity before and after rebound.
Fig. 6. Definition of the block velocity before and after rebound. from sliding
Bouncing to rolling
occurs when isthe defined
fallinginblock Bozzolo et al. with
collides (1988).the
slope surface. The height of the bounce and the reboundas
The whole rockfall trajectory is sometimes modelled di-the
sliding or rolling of a mass on a sloping
rection depend on several parameters characterizing the im- surface with an aver-
Vn+ components of the velocity after rebound also allow the
There are age conditions.
pact friction angle Ofassumed
the four to be representative
types of movement of thatthe mean
occur
definition of other
a plane programmes that could
called the reflected be considered
plane. The angle as δ
hybrid, energyrockfall,
during losses along the block’s
the bouncing path (Evansisand
phenomenon theHungr, 1993;
least well
betweentakingthese advantage
two planes of is the
calledfastthe
and easy simulation
deviation angle. The of
free flight
normal, for lumped
tangential masses while
and rotational ω + velocities
considering aftergeometri-
rebound
Govi, 1977;
understood andHungr
the most anddifficult
Evans, to 1988;
predict.Japan Road Associa-
cal
areand mechanical
computed from characteristics
the normal, tangentialof the slope and the block
and rotational ω− tion, 1983; Lied,
A number 1977; models
of rockfall Rapp, 1960; represent Toppe, the 1987b).
rebound This in
to model the
velocities impact
before (Azimiusing
rebound and Desvarreux,
a rebound model, 1977; Bozzolo
and the amethod
simplified (called
way the by Fahrböschung,
one or two overall the coefficients,
shadow anglewhich or the
deviation
and Pamini, angle
1986;δ is Dorren
determined,et al.,leading
2004;toJones
the complete
et al., 2000;def- cone
are method)
called provides
restitution a quick andSome
coefficients. low-cost preliminary
models use onlyde-
inition of the
Kobayashi et rock velocity
al., 1990; after rebound.
Pfeiffer and Bowen, 1989; Rochet, lineation
one of areas
restitution endangered
coefficient, by rockfall,
quantifying the either on a local
dissipation in
1987b; Crosta et al., 2004). or a regional
terms of eitherscalevelocity magnitudeand
(Jaboyedoff lossLabiouse,
(Kamijo 2003; Meissl,
et al., 2000;
4.3.1 2001). 1989; Spang and Rautenstrauch, 1988; Spang and
Paronuzzi,
If 3-DSliding
rockfall andsimulations
rolling models are based on a “pseudo-2-D”
Sönser, 1995) or kinetic
4.3.2 Rebound modelsenergy loss (e.g., Azzoni et al.,
approach (see Sect. 4) the block’s tangential Vt− and nor-
Sliding 1995; Bozzolo and Pamini, 1986; Chau et al., 1999a; Ur-
mal Vn− mainly
velocityoccurs at small (before
components velocities, when awith
rebound) blockrespect
starts Bouncing occurs when
to move or comes to rest. It is not accounted for in many ciuoli, 1988). In this case,theanfalling
assumption blockregarding
collides the withre-the
to the slope surface allow definition of a plane called the inci-
rockfall models because it doesthe nottangential
entail large bound direction is necessary to fully determine the velocitydi-
slope surface. The height of the bounce and the rebound
dent plane (Fig. 6). Similarly, Vt+propagations
and normal rectionafterdepend on (i.e.
several
of+the blocks. Pure rolling is quite a rare motion mode, except vector impact the parameters
α+ angle incharacterising
Figure 6). The theRim-
v
Vn components of the velocity after rebound also allow the pact conditions.
coefficient Of thefor
is considered fourthetypes of movement
formulation in terms that
of occur
ve-
on soft soils when the boulder penetrates
definition of a plane called the reflected plane. The angle δ the soil (Bozzolo
duringloss
locity rockfall,
and the theRbouncing phenomenon is the least under-
E coefficient is used for the formula-
and Pamini,
between these1986; Ritchie,is1963).
two planes called the Thedeviation
distinction between
angle. The stood
tion in and
terms theofmost
kineticdifficult
energyto(neglecting
predict. in general the ro-
the rolling and sliding modes is sometimes
+
normal, tangential and rotational ω velocities after rebound difficult since a
A number
tational part): of rockfall models represent the rebound in
combination of the two movements can occur (Descoeudres,−
are computed from the normal, tangential and rotational ω a simplified way by one or two overall coefficients, which
1997; Giani, 1992). On stiffer outcropping materials, due to V + restitution coefficients. 1/2[I(ω + )2Some + m(V + 2
) ] use only
velocities before rebound using a rebound model, and the Rare called models
the slope surface’s irregularity and the rock shape, the rolling V = −
and RE = −
(3)
deviation angle δ is determined, leading to the complete def- V
one restitution coefficient, 1/2[I(ω
quantifying 2
) + m(V the −dissipation
)2 ] in
motion is more a succession of small bounces.
inition of the rock velocity after rebound. terms of either velocity magnitude
However, the most common definition of block rebound loss (Kamijo et al., 2000;
Therefore, most rockfall models simulate trajectories as
Paronuzzi,
involves 1989; Spanginto
differentiation and tangential
Rautenstrauch, Rt and 1988; SpangRand
normal
successions of free fall and bouncing phases. Only a few con- n
4.3.1 Sliding
sider sliding and and rolling
rolling models
motions (e.g., Azzoni et al., 1995; restitution coefficients (Budetta and Santo, 1994; Evans et
Sönser, 1995) or kinetic energy loss (e.g., Azzoni andal.,
1995; Bozzolo
Hungr, 1993; Fornaro and Pamini,
et al., 1986;
1990; Chau Giani,et1992; al., 1999a;
Guzzetti Ur-
Bozzolo and Pamini, 1986; Statham, 1979). In these models
Sliding mainly
a tangential occurs coefficient
damping at small velocities,
related towhen a blockand/or
the rolling starts et al., 2002; Hoek, 1987; Kobayashi et al., 1990; Pfeifferre-
ciuoli, 1988). In this case, an assumption regarding the
to move or comes to rest. It is not accounted
sliding friction between block and slope is introduced. The for in many bound
and Bowen,direction
1989; is necessary
Piteau to fully1976;
and Clayton, determine
Urciuoli, the1988;
veloc-
ity vector after impact (i.e., the α + angle in Fig. 6). The
rockfall models because
sliding friction is defined it does not entail
by means large
of the propagations
normal compo- Ushiro et al., 2000; Wu, 1985):
of thewith
nent blocks. Puretorolling
respect the soilis surface
quite a rare motion
of the block’s mode,
weight except
ac- Rv coefficient is considered for the formulation in terms of
velocity Vt+loss and the R Vncoefficient +
is used for the formu-
cording
on to Coulomb’s
soft soils when the law. boulderFor penetrates
rolling motion, according
the soil (Bozzolo to Rt = − and Rn = E − (4)
Statham
and Pamini,(1979),
1986; a fairly
Ritchie,accurate
1963). description is also given
The distinction between by lationVin t terms of kinetic Vnenergy (neglecting in general the
using
the Coulomb’s
rolling and sliding law withmodes a rolling friction difficult
is sometimes coefficient thata
since rotational
These part): are used conjointly and characterize the
coefficients
depends on the
combination of thecharacteristics
two movements of thecan block
occur(size and shape)
(Descoeudres, + the tangential and
decreaseV in the(ω
1/2[I + )2 + m(V
normal + )2 ]
components of the
1997; Giani, 1992). On stiffer outcropping materials, due to RV = − and RE = − 2 − 2
(3)
V 1/2[I (ω ) + m(V ) ]

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

2628 A. Volkwein et al.: Review on rockfall characterisation and structural protection
However, the most common definition of block rebound
involves differentiation into tangential Rt and normal Rn
restitution coefficients (Budetta and Santo, 1994; Evans and
Hungr, 1993; Fornaro et al., 1990; Giani, 1992; Guzzetti
et al., 2002; Hoek, 1987; Kobayashi et al., 1990; Pfeiffer
and Bowen, 1989; Piteau and Clayton, 1976; Urciuoli, 1988;
Ushiro et al., 2000; Wu, 1985):
Vt+ Vn+
Rt = and Rn = (4)
Vt− Vn−
These coefficients are used conjointly and characterise the
decrease in the tangential and the normal components of the
block velocity, respectively. This definition fully determines
the rebound direction (α + angle in Fig. 6) and no further as-
sumption is needed to characterise it.
An alternative approach is based on impulse theory
(Frémond, 1995; Goldsmith, 1960; Stronge, 2000) and con-
siders the change in the momentum of the block during the
compression and restitution phases of impact (Bozzolo et al.,
1988; Descoeudres and Zimmermann, 1987; Dimnet, 2002;
Dimnet and Frémond, 2000).
According to Newton’s theory of shocks, the restitution
coefficients should have a constant value irrespective of the
impact energy (“elastic” collision) and of the impact direc-
tion. However, since this assumption does not match obser-
vations, several models have been developed to account for
the dependency of the block velocity after rebound on the
kinematical conditions before impact (Bourrier et al., 2009b;
Chau et al., 2002; Dorren et al., 2004; Heidenreich, 2004;
Pfeiffer and Bowen, 1989). These models can be considered
as extensions to classical models based on constant restitu-
tion coefficients.
In addition, some very detailed models have been elab-
orated for the interaction between the block and the slope
(Azimi et al., 1982; Falcetta, 1985; Ushiro et al., 2000). They
differentiate between impact on hard and soft ground materi-
als, considering for the latter the penetration of the block into
the soil modelled with a perfectly plastic or elasto-plastic be-
haviour. As for the fragmentation of blocks that can occur
with impact on hard ground, it is rarely accounted for (Az-
imi et al., 1982; Chau et al., 1998a; Fornaro et al., 1990) as
modellers generally assume that unbreakable blocks propa-
gate further than breakable ones.
Finally, apart from the rigid-body models which integrate
the fundamental equations of motion, only a few models ac-
count for the rotational velocity along the block path. In this
case, a relationship between translation and rotation is usu-
ally established, assuming that blocks leave the ground after
impact in a rolling mode. Either sticking or slipping condi-
tions are considered at the contact surface (Chau et al., 2002;
Kawahara and Muro, 1999; Ushiro et al., 2000).
Nat. Hazards Earth Syst. Sci., 11, 2617–2651, 2011
4.3.3 Barrier effect of trees
There are only a few spatial rockfall trajectory models that
explicitly (i.e., spatial distribution of different forest stands,
stand densities, distribution of diameters at breast height
DBH and species) take into account the mitigating effect of
existing forest cover (e.g., Dorren et al., 2006; Crosta et al.,
2004; Krummenacher et al., 2008; Woltjer et al., 2008; Ma-
suya et al., 2009). These models would allow determining
optimal combinations and locations of technical and silvi-
cultural measures at a given site. Furthermore, they enable
rockfall hazard zoning with and without the mitigation ef-
fect of forests. Recent data describing the energy dissipa-
tive effect of trees is published in Dorren and Berger (2006)
and Jonsson (2007). Older data seriously underestimated the
energy dissipative capacity of trees, i.e., mature coniferous
trees were thought to dissipate up to 15 kJ instead of 200–
500 kJ (cf. the review on the interaction between trees and
falling rocks by Dorren et al., 2007).
4.3.4 Modelling variability
A deterministic prediction of the interaction between a block
and the slope’s surface is not relevant because our under-
standing of the phenomena is insufficient and many param-
eters are not completely characterised. Uncertainties are re-
lated to the block (shape, dimensions), the topography (in-
clination, roughness) and the outcropping material (strength
and stiffness). As a consequence, even with a thorough field
survey, data collection cannot be exhaustive and the rebound
prediction should take into consideration a certain variability.
Stochastic rebound models have, therefore, been pro-
posed (Agliardi and Crosta, 2003; Azzoni et al., 1995; Bour-
rier et al., 2009b; Dudt and Heidenreich, 2001; Guzzetti
et al., 2002; Paronuzzi, 1989; Pfeiffer and Bowen, 1989;
Wu, 1985). A model correctly assessing rebound variabil-
ity should separate the different sources of uncertainty (due
to randomness of characteristics or lack of data) and quan-
tify the variability associated with each of them separately.
The variability of the bouncing phenomenon is quantified by
several statistical laws that need to be calibrated based on the
statistical analysis of impact results.
Back-analysis of observed events or field experiments is
not feasible for this purpose because either the dataset is in-
complete or reproducible impact conditions are difficult to
achieve. On the other hand, extensive laboratory experi-
ments, or thoroughly calibrated numerical simulations, can
be used. These approaches have already been used for coarse
soils (Bourrier et al., 2009b). The challenge for such an ap-
proach is the generation of appropriate datasets composed of
results for different ground properties and kinematical con-
ditions before rebound.
www.nat-hazards-earth-syst-sci.net/11/2617/2011/
A. Volkwein et al.: Review on rockfall characterisation and structural protection
Table 2. Parameters assumed to influence the bouncing phe-
nomenon (Labiouse and Descoeudres, 1999).
Slope Rock Kinematics
characteristics characteristics
strength strength velocity (translational
stiffness stiffness ... and rotational)
roughness weight incidence angle
inclination size configuration of...
shape ...the rock at impact
4.3.5 Relevance of impact parameters
As emphasized by the number of different definitions of the
restitution coefficients used in computer codes, the rebound
of rock blocks on a slope’s surface is still a poorly understood
phenomenon. In particular, modelling by means of constant
restitution coefficients only as a function of the slope mate-
rial is not very satisfactory, at least from a scientific point-of-
view. Indeed, as mentioned above, the rebound also depends
on several parameters related to the boulder and its kinemat-
ics before impact (Table 2). Experimental investigations of
the influence of these parameters are, therefore, worthwhile
for reaching a deeper understanding of the mechanisms oc-
curring during impact and to put forward mathematical ex-
pressions between the restitution coefficients and those pa-
rameters. These studies also attempt to determine reliable
values for the parameters used in the rebound models.
Experimental investigations were carried out both in the
field (e.g., Azzoni and De Freitas, 1995; Azzoni et al.,
1992; Berger and Dorren, 2006; Bozzolo et al., 1988; Broili,
1977; Evans and Hungr, 1993; Fornaro et al., 1990; Gia-
comini et al., 2009; Giani, 1992; Japanese highway public
corporation, 1973; Kirkby and Statham, 1975; Kobayashi
et al., 1990; Lied, 1977; Pfeiffer and Bowen, 1989; Ritchie,
1963; Statham, 1979; Statham and Francis, 1986; Teraoka
et al., 2000; Urciuoli, 1996; Wu, 1985; Yoshida, 1998)
and in the laboratory (Azimi and Desvarreux, 1977; Az-
imi et al., 1982; Bourrier, 2008; Camponuovo, 1977; Chau
et al., 1998a, 1999a, 2002, 1999b, 1998b; Heidenreich, 2004;
Kamijo et al., 2000; Kawahara and Muro, 1999; Murata and
Shibuya, 1997; Statham, 1979; Ujihira et al., 1993; Ushiro
et al., 2000; Wong et al., 2000, 1999; Masuya et al., 2001).
These experiments contributed to determining the most im-
portant impact parameters and to quantifying their influence
on block rebound.
Experimental investigations have shown the dependence
of block bouncing on geometrical parameters and, in par-
ticular, on the roughness of the slope (usually characterised
by the ratio of block size to average debris particle size).
The influence of slope roughness on rebound is generally re-
ported as an explanation for size sorting along slopes (Kirkby
www.nat-hazards-earth-syst-sci.net/11/2617/2011/
2629
and Statham, 1975; Statham and Francis, 1986). Indeed,
when the falling block size is greater than the average de-
bris particle size, rolling is the prevailing movement and the
block propagates further (Bozzolo and Pamini, 1986; Evans
and Hungr, 1993; Giani, 1992; Kirkby and Statham, 1975;
Ritchie, 1963; Statham and Francis, 1986). However, on
loose soils, increasing block weight induces greater plastic
deformation of the soil (formation of a bigger crater), which
somewhat reduces the previous influence. As for the shape
of blocks, tests carried out with cubic blocks have shown that
the impact configuration (e.g., impact on face, edge or cor-
ner) has a very significant influence on the block’s movement
during and after impact (Giani, 1992; Heidenreich, 2004).
Bouncing is found to depend significantly on the transfer
of energy between the block and the slope. The initial kinetic
energy of the block is converted into kinetic energy after re-
bound, together with diffused and dissipated energies inside
the slope material. Elastic deformation of the slope material
also occurs, but, in general, can be neglected. Energy diffu-
sion is due to wave propagation from the impact point (Bour-
rier et al., 2008; Giani, 1992), while energy dissipation is re-
lated to frictional (plastic) processes inside the slope material
during impact (Bourrier et al., 2008; Bozzolo and Pamini,
1986; Giani, 1992; Heidenreich, 2004) and is also due to
block and/or soil particle fragmentation (Azimi et al., 1982;
Fornaro et al., 1990; Giani, 1992). The magnitude of energy
dissipation is mainly governed by the ratio between the block
and the slope particles (Bourrier et al., 2008; Statham, 1979),
the soil properties (Azzoni et al., 1995, 1992) and the block
shape and incident orientation (Chau et al., 1999a; Falcetta,
1985; Heidenreich, 2004). Energy diffusion and dissipation
processes are also strongly dependent on the kinetic energy
of the block before impact, which is related to its mass m and
its velocity before rebound V − , i.e., Ec = 1/2 × m × (V − )2 .
The effects of variations in block mass (Jones et al., 2000;
Pfeiffer and Bowen, 1989; Ushiro et al., 2000) and in block
velocity before rebound (Urciuoli, 1988; Ushiro et al., 2000)
are different due to the linear and square dependencies.
Another very important feature observed in many exper-
iments is the strong influence of the kinematical conditions
before rebound. In particular, experiments show that small
impact angles result in greater energy conservation by the
block (Bozzolo and Pamini, 1986; Chau et al., 2002; Hei-
denreich, 2004; Ushiro et al., 2000; Wu, 1985). Indeed, only
a small part of the kinetic energy before impact is associ-
ated with normal to soil surface velocity and consequently
less energy is dissipated into the soil. On the other hand, a
significant part of the kinetic energy related to the tangential
component of velocity is retained by the block after impact
and a part of it (up to 30 %) is transformed into rotational en-
ergy (Kawahara and Muro, 1999; Ushiro et al., 2000). The
reflected rotational velocity depends, to a large extent, on the
incidence angle and on the soil type. It is governed by the
interaction conditions at the contact surface, either sticking
or slipping (Chau et al., 2002).
Nat. Hazards Earth Syst. Sci., 11, 2617–2651, 2011
2630 A. Volkwein et al.: Review on rockfall characterisation and structural protection
Given the limited amount of results, most of the above-
mentioned experimental investigations were insufficient for
a thorough understanding of the phenomenon or for statis-
tical and parametric analyses. Therefore, some systematic
experimental investigations were carried out in laboratories
on small- and medium-scale models (Bourrier, 2008; Chau
et al., 2002; Heidenreich, 2004). These experiments were
dedicated to analyse the influence on the rebound of param-
eters related to the ground, the block and the kinematics.
Blocks (mainly spherical) were released on different soil ma-
terials with different degrees of compaction either normally
or with different incidences using specific throwing devices.
All experiments were filmed using high-speed cameras. Con-
trary to field experiments, controlled laboratory experiments
provide precisely measured and reproducible results that are
valid over larger domains. The trends obtained can, there-
fore, be used with confidence to improve rebound models.
The results from laboratory experiments also provide a lot of
information, much of it relevant in the calibration of numer-
ical models of the impact that can, in turn, be used to study
energy transfer during impact (Bourrier et al., 2008). How-
ever, the quantitative interpretation of laboratory experiments
is not straightforward, because matching the similitude re-
quirements for all the parameters involved in the dynamic
process can be difficult (Bourrier, 2008; Camponuovo, 1977;
Heidenreich, 2004).
The main results gathered from these experimental investi-
gations confirm the general trends obtained in previous stud-
ies. Regarding the influence of the slope material charac-
teristics, the motion of the block during and after impact is
found to be significantly influenced by the degree of com-
paction of the soil material and somewhat less by its friction
angle (Bourrier, 2008; Heidenreich, 2004). As for the influ-
ence of the kinematics before impact, experiments confirm a
clear dependency of the restitution coefficients on the block
velocity and the impact angle on the slope surface. The in-
fluence of the latter seems to prevail (Bourrier, 2008; Chau
et al., 2002; Heidenreich, 2004). Additionally, the depen-
dency on block mass and size is more marked for normal
than for smaller impact angles because energy transfer to the
soil is greater for normal impact (Bourrier, 2008; Heiden-
reich, 2004). The shape of the block and its configuration
at impact were also shown to have a clear influence on the
motion of the block after impact and especially on the rota-
tional rate. Finally, the large amount of experimental results
allowed, for coarse soils in particular, quantifying the high
variability of the kinematics of the block after rebound de-
pending on both the surface shape and the geometrical con-
figuration of soil particles near the point of impact (Bourrier
et al., 2009b, 2008).
The results from the above-mentioned laboratory exper-
iments allowed determining the most important geometri-
cal and geotechnical parameters that influence rebound and
proposing mathematical expressions for the restitution coef-
ficients as a function of the impact characteristics (Bourrier,
Nat. Hazards Earth Syst. Sci., 11, 2617–2651, 2011
2008; Chau et al., 2002; Heidenreich, 2004). From a prac-
tical point-of-view, the implementation in computer codes
of the mathematical relationships deduced from the labora-
tory tests should lead to better predictions of rebound. This
can improve the determination of areas at risk, particularly
for sites where no rockfall events have been experienced and
monitored.
However, from a scientific point-of-view, the relevance of
restitution coefficients expressed for the mass centre of the
blocks (Eqs. 3–4) is challenged (Labiouse and Heidenreich,
2009). Indeed, from a thorough analysis of impact films,
the movement of blocks during impact is found to consist
of three main interdependent mechanisms: a normal transla-
tion (penetration), a tangential translation (sliding) and a ro-
tation. It is illusory to model this complexity by means of two
overall restitution coefficients expressed for the mass centre
of the block, as adopted by most existing rockfall trajectory
codes. Only rigid-body methods that take into consideration
the shape of the blocks and fully consider the interaction be-
tween boulder and ground material at the contact surface (in-
cluding the creation of a crater) would be able to model the
impact phenomenon.
4.3.6 Concluding remarks on block-slope interaction
The number of different rebound models used in rockfall
simulations emphasizes that block-slope interaction is still
poorly understood. This complex phenomenon depends not
only on the ground conditions (stiffness, strength, roughness,
inclination), but also on the block’s characteristics (weight,
size, shape, strength) and the kinematics before impact (ve-
locities, collision angle, configuration of the block at impact).
One should, therefore, keep in mind that if common re-
bound models are used, the predictive ability of rockfall sim-
ulation is conditioned by a good calibration of its parameters
on already experienced or monitored rockfall at the site of
interest. In cases where data on natural or artificial events is
lacking for the specific site, one should be aware that calcu-
lations of rock trajectories can be very misleading when per-
formed with the restitution coefficients stated in the literature
or assessed from in situ rockfall events or back-analyses of
events on other slopes.
To achieve better reliability in trajectory simulations, sev-
eral studies have been carried out, or are still in progress,
to develop rebound models that account for the influence of
the most important impact parameters. The parameters can
then be calibrated by a more objective field data collection.
To achieve this goal, many experimental investigations were
conducted, either in the field or in the laboratory, to reach
a deeper understanding of the mechanisms involved during
impact and to quantify the influence of the most important
geometrical and geotechnical parameters. After a thorough
calibration using experimental data, numerical modelling can
contribute to studying energy transfer during impact and to
assess the influence of parameters outside the range of tested
www.nat-hazards-earth-syst-sci.net/11/2617/2011/
A. Volkwein et al.:
A. Volkwein Review
et al.: on rockfall
Rockfall review characterisation and structural protection 2631
15

Azzoni
values. From andthese
De Freitas,
studies, 1995; Falcetta,expressions
mathematical 1985; Giani, for1992;
the
Hungrmodels’
rebound and Evans, 1988), the
parameters cancharacteristics
be derived asof motion after
a function of
the impact
impactare conditioned by several factors other than the slope
characteristics.
material properties,
Implementation of thesuch as the weight,
rebound models size and shape
in rockfall of the
simula-
blocks, as well as their velocity, collision
tion codes should provide more accurate predictions of rock- angle and config-
fall uration at impact.
trajectories Consequently,
and energies the restitution
and consequently coefficients
improve the
that characterize the rebound of blocks during rockfall are
delineation of areas at risk and the design of protection struc-
not constant parameters but simply a function of the slope
tures.
material.
Owing to our incomplete knowledge both of and in mod-
4.4 Rebound model calibration
elling the bouncing phenomenon and to the rather subjective
description of the slope material, the reliability of the simu-
In general, the rebound parameters used for trajectory calcu-
lation results could be improved. This is evident when com-
lations are estimated on the basis of a rough description of
paring the results provided by different models on a specific
the site,
slopeormaterial (rock, scree deposits, loose soil), some-
even by the same program used by different users
times complemented
(Berger and Dorren, by 2006;
information
Labiouse,regarding its roughness,
2004; Labiouse et al.,
its degree of compaction and the vegetation
2001). The limits of predictions are also clear when cover. Now, as
values
mentioned by several authors who have experienced
of model parameters taken from the literature or obtained by natu-
ral and/or artificial
in situ tests in situ rockfall
or back-analyses (e.g., Azimi
of natural eventsetonal., 1982;
particular
Azzoni
slopesanddo De
not Freitas, 1995; Falcetta,
provide satisfactory results 1985;
whenGiani,
used on1992;
other
Hungr and Evans, 1988), the characteristics of motion after
slopes.
impactToareachieve
conditioned by severalof
good reliability factors otherpredictions,
trajectory than the slope the
material
programproperties,
parameters such as the
must weight, sizecalibrated
be thoroughly and shape of the
at the site
blocks, as wellFor
of interest. as this
theirpurpose,
velocity,during
collision angle
the field andcollection,
data config-
uration at impact.
particular attentionConsequently,
should be paidthe restitution coefficients
to gain information on
thatthecharacterise
rockfall paths the ofrebound
previousofevents,
blockssuch during rockfall
as scars are
on cliffs,
not impacts
only a function
on slopes, of the slopetomaterial.
damage vegetation and accumulation
zones. to
Owing Provided the numerical
our incomplete model is
knowledge wellofcalibrated
both and in mod- with
these field observations, confidence in the
elling the bouncing phenomenon and to the rather subjective trajectory results
will be greatly
description of the enhanced.
slope material, the reliability of the simu-
lation results could be improved. This is evident when com- Fig. 7. Schematic illustration of rockfall traces on the ground and
Fig. 7. Schematic illustration of rockfall traces on the ground and
4.4.1the Field tree branches
paring resultsdata collection
provided and analysis
by different models on a specific tree branches.
site, or even by the same programme used by different users
For a complete back-analysis of the rock’s trajectory the alti-
(Berger and Dorren, 2006; Labiouse, 2004; Labiouse et al., f /s = 1/12 for shallow
tudes of the release and deposition positions must be known.
2001). The limits of predictions are also clear when values sible should be detected withjumps
their (inclined) distance s and
In addition, all traces should be recorded on a map in or- the slope inclination. Additional traces above ground allow-
of model parameters taken from the literature or obtained by
der to obtain the horizontally projected length of the trajec- ingIffor
thea traces on the
derivation ofground
the jump cannot be should
height assigned to the
also single
be logged.
in situ tests or back-analyses of natural events on particular
tory. Along this, as many follow-up impact craters as pos-
slopes do not provide satisfactory results when used on other jumps because
However, theseof several
traces overlapping
usually belongrockfall trajectories
to the centre the
of gravity
sible should be detected with their (inclined) distance s and terrain profile of the potential trajectory should be recorded.
slopes. of the block, whereas the traces on the ground belong to its
the slope inclination. Additional traces above ground allow- This may allow aThislaterhas
modelling of the rock’s movements.
To lower boundary. to be considered dealing with small
ingachieve good reliability
for a derivation of the jumpof height
trajectory
shouldpredictions, the
also be logged.
programme jump heights in combination with large blocks.single
From the field data the ”air parabolas” of the In rarejumps
cases,
However,parameters
these tracesmust be thoroughly
usually belong to the calibrated
centre ofatgrav-
the
can be
siteity
of of
interest. Forwhereas
this purpose, during theground
field data col-to even thederived with the
(vertically corresponding
measured) maximum velocities. The upper
jump height f in
the block the traces on the belong
lection, particular
its lower boundary.attention
This should
has to bebe considered
paid to gain informa-
dealing with
impact
the middle of Otheis jump
crater the starting
(s/2 ifpoint
the of a parabola,
inclination ofthe
theother
slope
end is defined
doesn’t change by the lower crater
significantly) can beE. measured
The start (Fig.
velocity
7). isIn
tionsmall
on the rockfall
jump heightspaths of previous events,
in combination with largesuch as scars
blocks. on
In rare called v and v defines the next impact velocity split into
cliffs, impacts
cases even theon slopes, damage
(vertically to vegetation
measured) maximum and accumu-
jump height most cases, however, the jump height f must be estimated
O E
horizontal and vertical components x and z:
based on the inclined jump length s. Observations show the
f in
lation zones. Provided
the middle of the
the numerical
jump (s/2model if the isinclination
well calibrated
of the
withslope
thesedoesn’t change significantly)
field observations, confidence can be measured
in the (Fig.re-
trajectory 7). following relations to be valid for characteristic jumps:
vOx = lift-off velocity in horizontal direction
sultsInwill
mostbecases,
greatlyhowever,
enhanced.the jump height f must be estimated
based on the inclined jump length s. Observations show the f/s = 1/6 for high jumps
following vOz = lift-off velocity in vertical direction
4.4.1 Field relations to be valid
data collection andfor characteristic jumps:
analysis f/s = 1/8 for normal jumps
f /s = 1/6
For a complete for high jumps
back-analysis of the rock’s trajectory, the alti- vEx = impact velocity in horizontal direction
f/s = 1/12 for shallow jumps
tudes of the release and deposition positions must be known.
f /s =
In addition, all1/8 for normal
traces should jumps
be recorded on a map in or- vEztraces
If the = impact velocity
on the in cannot
ground vertical be
direction
assigned to the sin-
der to obtain the horizontally projected length of the trajec- gle jumps because of several overlapping rockfall trajecto-
tory. Along this, as many follow-up impact craters as pos- ries, the terrain profile of the potential trajectory should be

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

 16 A. Volkwein et al.: Rockfall review
2632
16 A. Volkwein et al.: Review on rockfall characterisation
A. Volkwein and
et structural protection
al.: Rockfall review
Table 3. Start and end velocities of a parabolic trajectory for differ-
ent values
Table of jump
3. Start height
and end velocities of
velocities of aa parabolic
parabolic trajectory
trajectory for
for differ-
differ-
height
ent values of jump height
Jump height f 3.50 m 3.75 m 4.0 m
Jumpheight
Jump
Jump height
length fs 3.50 m
3.50
30.0m m 3.75 m
3.75
30.0m m 4.0 m
4.0
30.0m
◦ ◦ ◦
Inclination
Jumplength
Jump β
length ss 40
30.0 m
30.0m 40
30.0 m
30.0m 40m
30.0
30.0m
Jump length
Inclination βx 22.98m
40 ◦ 22.98m
40 ◦ 22.98m40 ◦◦
Inclination β 40◦ 40◦ 40
Jump length xz
Jump length 19.28m
22.98 m 19.28m
22.98 m 19.28m
22.98 m
Jump length x 22.98m 22.98m 22.98m
Jump length z 19.28 m 19.28 m 19.28 m
Jump length z 19.28m 19.28m 19.28m
Lift-off velocity vOx 13.60m/s 13.14m/s 12.72m/s
Lift-off velocity
Lift-off velocityvvOxOz 13.60 m s−1 13.14
3.13m/s m s−1
2.45m/s 12.72 m s−1
1.82m/s
Lift-off velocity
Lift-off velocity vOx 13.60m/s
3.13 ms −1 13.14m/s
2.45 m s−1 12.72m/s
1.82 m s−1
Lift-off velocityvvOzO 14.0m/s 13.4m/s 12.9m/s
Lift-off velocity vvOOz
Lift-off velocity 3.13m/s
14.0 m s−1 2.45m/s
13.4 m s−1 1.82m/s
12.9 m s−1
Lift-off velocity vO 14.0m/s 13.4m/s 12.9m/s
Impact velocity vEx 13.60m/s 13.14m/s 12.72m/s
Impact velocity v 13.60 m s −1 13.14 m s−1 12.72 m s−1
Impact velocity vEx Ez 19.70m/s −1
19.60m/s 19.54m/s
Impact
Impact velocity
velocity
Impact velocity vE vvEz
Ex 13.60m/s
19.70 m s
23.9m/s 19.60 m s−1
13.14m/s
23.6m/s 19.54 m s−1
12.72m/s
23.3m/s
Impact velocity vvEEz
Impact velocity 19.70m/s
23.9 m s −1 23.6 m s−1
19.60m/s 23.3 m s−1
19.54m/s
Impact velocity vE 23.9m/s 23.6m/s 23.3m/s

Fig. 8. Details of air parabola with velocity vectors

Fig. 8. Details of air parabola with velocity vectors

vectors.
The jump height f is defined in the middle of the jump
length s (Fig.
recorded. 8). Theallow
horizontal and vertical fractions of the
The jumpThis may
height f is defineda later
jump length s with a slope inclination β are :
in modelling
the middleofofthe therock’s
jump
movements.
length s (Fig. 8). The horizontal and vertical fractions of the
jumpFrom the field
length s withdata, the “air
a slope parabolas”
inclination β areof the
: single jumps
can x= besderived
cosβ with and the z= s sinβ
corresponding velocities. The upper (5)
impact
x = s cosβcrater O is the starting point of a parabola,
z = s sinβ of the lift-off velocity v are
and components the other
(5)
end The coordinate
is defined by the lower crater E. The start velocity O is

called O and
The vcoordinate defines the next
r vE components impact rvelocity split into
horizontal and gvertical components of the
x
lift-off
and z: gvelocity vO are
vOx = x and vOz = (z − 4f ) (6)
r 8f r 8f
g g
vOx = vOxx = lift-off andvelocity
vOz in = horizontal
(z − 4f ) direction (6)
resulting in 8fa total lift-off velocity of 8f
vOz = lift-off velocity in vertical direction
resulting in impact
a total lift-off rvelocity
g of
vO = x + (z − 4f ) in horizontal
v velocity direction
p=
Ex 2 2 . (7)
r 8f
p = impact velocity in
vEz g vertical direction Fig. 9.
9. Lift-off
Lift-off and
and impact
impact velocity
vO = x2 + (z − 4f )2 . (7) Fig. velocity for
for an
an assumed
assumed jump
jumpheight
heightofof
g stands 8f 2 f/s ==1/8
1/8asasa atool
toolforforrapid trajectory analyses in in
thethe
field
Herein,
The jump height forftheis gravitational
defined in the middleg of
constant = 9.81m/s
the jump f/s rapid trajectory analyses
Fig. 9. Lift-off and impact velocity for an assumed jump height of
field.
and the
length vertical
s (Fig. direction
8). The is used
horizontal andwith a positive
vertical signofifthe
fractions di-
Herein,
rected gupwards.
stands for the gravitational
Accordingly, the constant
impact g = 9.81m/s
velocity v is
2 f/s = 1/8 as a tool for rapid trajectory analyses in the field
jump length s with a slope inclination β are: E
and the vertical direction is used with a positive sign if di- As an example, the series of measured values (see Fig. 7)
xrected upwards.
= s cosβ andAccordingly,
z =ps sinβ the impact velocity vE is (5)
r
g 5 Structural
would result in thecountermeasures
velocities shown in Table 3. The different
vE = vEx + vEz = x2 + (z + 4f )2 . (8)
The coordinate components of the lift-off 8f velocity v are assumed jump heights of 3.5 − 4.0 m result in similar lift-off
r
g O 5andStructural countermeasures
vE = vEx
p
r + vEz = x2 + (z + 4f )r 2 . (8) impact velocities.
g
As an example, the series of measured g8fvalues (see Fig. 7) InThe
the determination
case of infrastructure or buildings
of the start situated within
and end velocities vO and a
vOx = x
would result
and v Oz = (z − 4f ) (6)
8f in the velocities shown in Table 8f 3. The different vrockfall
E can hazard
be zone
simplified either
and suitable
speeded newly
up by planned/built
making use pro-
of a
As an example,
assumed jump heights of 3.5of−measured
the series 4.0 m result values (see Fig.
in similar 7)
lift-off In the case
tection
diagram thatofdepends
measures infrastructure
are needed
on the or buildings
such
jump as aressituated
length within
necessitated
and slope bya
incli-
resulting
and impact
would in ain
result total
the lift-off
velocities.
velocities velocity
shownofin Table 3. The different changed
rockfall
nation boundaries
βhazard
pairedzone of
anrockfall
witheither suitable
assumed occurrence.
newlyheight
jump This
planned/built section
pro-
relationship
assumed gthe−start
of3.5 4.0 and
m result
q jump heights r of in similar lift-off
The determination
2 (z − 4f )2
end velocities vO and gives
of f/san=
tection overview
measures
1/8. Such of graphics
are modern
neededprotection
or
cansuch assystems
be easily and provides
areprepared
necessitated by
for any
vand
Ov = canx be+velocities. . (7)
Eimpact simplified and 8fspeeded up by making use of a di- a short
changed
other summary
boundaries
relation for dams,
of f/s. embankments
of rockfall occurrence.and ditches in sec-
This section
agram that depends on
The determination the start
of the jumpand lengthendsvelocities
and slope vinclina-
O and tion 5.2.
gives A more comprehensive
an overview state-of-the-art
of modern protection systems and report deals
provides
Herein, stands for the gravitational −2
canβbe
vEtion gpaired with
simplified an
and assumed
speededjump upconstant
byheight
making 9.81ofmasdi-
grelationship
=use of awith
shortfences
summary and galleries
for dams,(sections 5.3 andand
embankments 5.4). For forests,
ditches in sec-
and f the
/s = vertical
1/8. direction
Such is
graphics used
can with
be a
easilypositive
prepared sign if
for di-
any
agram that depends on the jump length s and slope inclina- 5reference
tion 5.2. Ashould
Structural be made to a recent
morecountermeasures
comprehensive review of thereport
state-of-the-art protection
deals
rected
tion β upwards.
other relationwith
paired ofAccordingly,
f /s.
an assumed thejump
impact velocity
height vE is of
relationship of forests in section 5.5.
with fences and galleries (sections 5.3 and 5.4). For forests,
f /s = 1/8. Such graphics can be easily
q r
g prepared for any reference
In the case should be made to a recent
of infrastructure review ofsituated
or buildings the protection
within
vother
E = vrelation
Ex + vEz of=f /s.x 2 + (z + 4f )2 . (8) of forests inhazard
a rockfall sectionzone,
5.5. either suitable newly planned/built
8f

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

A. Volkwein et al.: Review on rockfall characterisation and structural protection
protection measures are needed or are necessitated by
changed boundaries of rockfall occurrence. This section
gives an overview of modern protection systems and pro-
vides a short summary for dams, embankments and ditches in
Sect. 5.2. A more comprehensive state-of-the-art report deals
with fences and galleries (Sects. 5.3 and 5.4). For forests, ref-
erence should be made to a recent review of the protection of
forests in Sect. 5.5.
5.1 Action of rocks on protection structures
For a long time, estimations of the impact load caused by a
rockfall were only drawn from empirical relationships based
on experimental observations. Then several other formu-
lations were developed from theoretical considerations as-
suming the ground behaviour to be elastic, plastic or elasto-
plastic. The first family of relationships, derived from
Hertz’s elastic contact theory, assumes that a rigid ball im-
pacts an elastic medium (Goldsmith, 1960; Japan Road As-
sociation, 1983; Lang, 1974; Tonello, 1988). Other formula-
tions are based on a plastic or elasto-plastic behaviour of the
ground material (Azimi and Desvarreux, 1988; Habib, 1976;
Heierli, 1984; Lang, 1974; Tonello, 1988). Recently, for-
mulas were derived from the penetration of nondeformable
ogive-nose projectiles onto concrete and soil targets (Pichler
et al., 2005). For roughly the last decade, many efforts are
devoted to the numerical modelling of the impact on rock-
fall protection structures, using finite element (FE) and dis-
crete element (DE) methods (Bertrand et al., 2006; Calvetti,
1998; Calvetti et al., 2005; Magnier and Donzé, 1998; Ma-
suya and Kajikawa, 1991; Nakata et al., 1997; Nicot et al.,
2007; Peila et al., 2002, 2007; Plassiard et al., 2004). The
DE method seems quite promising for studying impact prob-
lems, provided that a careful calibration of the parameters is
first achieved.
To gather data on the action of rocks on protection struc-
tures and then to calibrate numerical codes, experimental
campaigns are essential. Several half-scale and full-scale
experimental studies have been conducted to determine the
damping abilities of the cushion covering rockfall protection
galleries (often called rock sheds) for design purposes, by
dropping blocks of different weights and shapes from var-
ious heights on concrete slabs covered with different ab-
sorbing materials (Calvetti et al., 2005; Chikatamarla, 2006;
Labiouse et al., 1996; Montani-Stoffel, 1998; Murata and
Shibuya, 1997; Sato et al., 1996; Schellenberg et al., 2008;
Yoshida et al., 1988). Other testing campaigns were car-
ried out on gravel layers (Pichler et al., 2005), embankments
(Blovsky, 2002; Burroughs et al., 1993; Lepert and Corté,
1988; Peila et al., 2002; Yoshida, 1999) and composite struc-
tures (Lambert et al., 2009; Lorentz et al., 2006). Paramet-
rical analyses performed in the framework of these experi-
mental campaigns allowed for the determining of the most
important factors and quantifying their influence on the im-
pact force. They are related to the block (mass, shape) and
www.nat-hazards-earth-syst-sci.net/11/2617/2011/
2633
its kinematics (velocity and impact angle) and to the layer
of absorbing material (thickness, compaction degree). For
rockfall protection galleries, the action on the structure is also
found to depend on the structure’s stiffness.
Most of the above-mentioned studies provided quantitative
data on the temporal evolution of the impact force induced by
the block (measured accelerations by means of accelerome-
ters on the boulder and/or using image processing of high-
speed camera films to obtain the evolution of velocity over
time), on the penetration of the block into the absorbing ma-
terial and, for some of them, on the earth pressures acting
at the base of the cushion layer (i.e., on the structure). The
data gathered provide information on the transfer of energy
during the impact and on the force exerted on the structure.
Formulas were worked out to assess the magnitude of the
forces, with the aim of improving the design of protection
structures (e.g., SBB, 1998). However, these results and for-
mulas must be interpreted with caution because the thick-
ness of the absorbing cushion and the boundary conditions
strongly influence the dynamics of the interaction (Calvetti,
1998; Montani-Stoffel, 1998).
When carefully calibrated on the experimental data, nu-
merically modelling the impacts can help to better under-
stand and quantify the energy diffusion and dissipation inside
the absorbing cushion. It can also contribute to assessing the
influence of various parameters that could not be studied, or
only in a limited range of values, during the experimental
campaigns, and to improving the design of protection struc-
tures.
5.2 Embankments and ditches
Embankments and ditches belong to the quasi-natural class
of protection measures against rockfall. Their construction
along the side of the infrastructure is efficient and they are
one of the most reliable protection measures. Therefore, they
are more likely to be used to protect permanent buildings.
Embankments are able to withstand high impact energies
of e.g., 20 MJ (personal communication with practitioners).
However, the cross sections of embankments and ditches re-
quire a rather large area in front of the protected object.
For structural measures, like fences or galleries, the perfor-
mance of the protective system is quite well known and the
planning of protection measures does not have to take into
account the deceleration process. However, this has to be
clarified for the structural safety of earth embankments. This
includes the questions: What is the impact load as a func-
tion of the impact energy? What is the effect of changing
mass or impact velocity? What is the limit state of the em-
bankment? What is the influence of soil properties such as
density, strength, angle of internal friction? What is the pene-
tration depth? How does the cross section of an embankment
or ditch affect the interaction with the block?
For example and theoretically, the front face taking the im-
pact could be (at least partially) vertical. This might deviate
Nat. Hazards Earth Syst. Sci., 11, 2617–2651, 2011
2634 A. Volkwein et al.: Review on rockfall characterisation and structural protection
18 A. Volkwein et al.: Rockfall review

the
by ablock
damping into alayer vertical path andenergy
to dissipate its rotation
and reducedoes not cause
bouncing
itheight).
to roll Furthermore,
over the embankment rather low inclined hillside slopes In
or roll out of a ditch. of
practice, several
embankments being covered impacts on rockfall
by a dampingembankmentslayer (being are docu-
built
mented
with its where
frictiontheangle)construction
will prevent fulfilled its task
a rolling for inclined
block to over-
hillslide slopes even with angles
come the construction as the material will react with that represent the friction
ground
angles
failure of as thesoonconstruction
as the blockmaterial.will induce Thesheargeometryforces of to the
the
embankment
slope. Therefore it should be noted, that for the design ofgeo-
should, therefore, reflect more the local the
metrical
geometryboundaries
of the embankmentand can also be strongly
(especially the influenced
inclination by of
the
the existence
hillside slope) and width
shouldof beadone
hillside
withcatchment
respect to the zone (e.g.,
geome-
being
try of covered
the slopeby a damping
where layer to dissipate
the construction will be done. energy and
Ideally
reduce bouncing height). Furthermore,
the slope of the embankment will be rectangular to the hills- rather low inclined
hillside
lope. slopes of embankments covered by a damping layer
(built
Thewith its friction
deceleration angle)into
process willsoilprevent
has been a rolling block on
investigated to Fig. 10. Penetration and deceleration of
of impacting
impacting rocks
rocks onto
onto con-
con-
overcome the construction as the material
different scales, i.e. small (Heidenreich, 2004), large (Labi- reacts with ground solidated soil of thickness
thickness 0.5
0.5 m and 1.3
1.3 m for different
different impact
impact ve-
ve-
failure
ouse etasal., soon
1996; as the block induces1998)
Montani-Stoffel, shear andforces fulltoscale
the slope.
(Ger- locities.
Therefore, it should be noted, that
ber, 2008). The main results are the maximum deceleration for the design of the ge-
ometry of the embankment
and penetration of blocks. Both (especially
results arethe important
inclinationfor ofgal-the
2
hillside slope) should be done with respect
leries (see section 5.3) to design the strength of the underly- to the geometry = 0.8velasto-plastic
afeature /(gt) deformation in the direction of a free (9)
of
ingthe slope where
structures and the
the construction
thickness of will be done.
the soil layer Ideally
(Labiouse the surface (valley-side slope of the embankment). Furthermore,
slope of the embankment will be rectangular
et al., 1996; ASTRA, 2008; Schellenberg et al., 2008). The to the hillslope. p 0.8v 2 /a parameters p and a are difficult to be obtained
the=measured (10)
The deceleration
dynamic decelerating process
forceinto soil usually
is then has beentransformed
investigatedinto on in the field without having appropriate data on the behaviour
different scales, i.e.,
a statically-equivalent force. small (Heidenreich, 2004), large (Labi- of the the
Thus, block at the impact
relationship on thepenetration
between surface of an embankment.
depth and maxi-
ouse et al.,
Most 1996; Montani-Stoffel,
experiments presented in1998) and full scale
Montani-Stoffel (Ger-
(1998); The data
mum from vertical
deceleration falling
can be tests onasdamping
formulated a functionlayers above
of the soil
ber,
Gerber2008).
(2008); The Pichler
main results et al. are
(2005)the maximum deceleration
deal with experimental a stiffthickness
layer layer do not (seenecessarily reflect thethe
Fig. 10). However, load-case
formulasexperi-
result
and
datapenetration
gained in anofeffort blocks. Both results
to quantify forces areacting
important for gal-
on a horizon- encedexperiments
from on rockfall embankments
and the parametersbut might be used
measured as long
after the im-as
leries
tal and(seestiffSect. 5.3) to
concrete design
slab beingthe strength
covered byof the underlying
various damping no better
pacts results
of rigid are available.
bodies on cushion layers after a vertical fall.
structures
layers. The and the thickness
impact of the soil layer
in these experiments is done(Labiouse
by free fallet al.,
in The Tocushion
optimize layerembankment
overlies a stiffdimensions
construction further full-scale
and, therefore,
1996; ASTRA,
a vertical direction. 2008; Schellenberg
Opposed to theseet al., 2008).theThe
experiments impactdy- tests on easily
cannot earth embankment
be transferred structures
to earthare necessary. Inwhich
embankments, Peila
namic
acting decelerating force is then(being
on rockfall embankments usually transformed
usually into a
constructions et al. (2002)
feature and Peila
elasto-plastic et al. (2007)
deformation in thethedirection
performance
of a freeof
statically-equivalent
built with compactedforce. soils and not featuring stiff layers) will reinforced
surface embankments
(valley-side is the
slope of described showingFurthermore,
embankment). penetration
Most
most experiments
probably presented tointhe
react differently Montani-Stoffel
behaviour of the(1998); tested depths
the measured − 1.1 m for
of 0.6 parameters p embankments
and a are difficult withtoaobtain
base width
in the
Gerber
structures.(2008);The Pichler
few projects et al.dealing
(2005) with deal embankments
with experimental built of 5 without
field m and ahaving heightappropriate
of around data 4.5 m on and rockfall impact
the behaviour of the
data
fromgained in an effortdeal
soil exclusively to quantify
with real forces
scaleacting
experimentson a horizon-
(Peila energies
block at between
the impact 2, 400
on the 4, 200 of
andsurface kJ.anAn overview on The
embankment. the
tal and2002,
et al., stiff 2007)
concrete slab covered
or model by various
tests (Blovsky, 2002) damping
made from lay- design
data frommethods
verticalfor embankments
falling is givenlayers
tests on damping by Lambert
above a andstiff
ers. The reinforced
geogrid impact in these experiments is This
soil embankments. done reveals
by free that fall in fur-a Bourrier
layer (submitted)
do not necessarilyandreflect
an example of the design
the load-case of a rock-
experienced on
vertical
ther testsdirection.
to characterizeOpposed the to these experiments,
behaviour of earth embankmentsthe impact fall protection embankment is given in Baumann
rockfall embankments, but might be used as long as no better (2008).
acting
with and on rockfall
without geogridembankments (being usually
reinforcements constructions
are necessary. results are available.
built with compacted
Gerber (2008) measured soils andthe notimpact
featuringon stiff
soil layers)
of varying will 5.3To Rockfall
optimizeprotection
embankment galleries
dimensions, further full-scale
most probably
thickness of free reactfalling
differently
blocks to of
the800behaviour
and 4,of the tested
000kg with tests on earth embankment structures are necessary. In Peila
structures.
falling heights The few projects
varying fromdealing
2 . . . 15with embankments
m resulting in impactbuilt There
et al. are manyand
(2002) different
Peila types
et al. of(2007)
rockfall theprotection
performance galleryof
from soil in
energies exclusively
the range deal 20 towith600real kJ.scaleBased experiments
on these experi- (Peila in regard to structural design (Fig. 11).
reinforced embankments is described showing penetration The most common
et al., 2002,
ments 2007) or formulas
the following model tests for(Blovsky,
the maximum 2002)deceleration
made from type in Switzerland
depths of 0.6 − 1.1isma for monolithic
embankments reinforced
withconcrete
a base struc-
width
geogrid
a and penetration depth p due to an impact velocitythat
reinforced soil embankments. This reveals fur-
v have of 5 m and a height of around 4.5 m and rockfalland
ture covered by a cushion layer (Schellenberg impactVogel,
en-
ther tests
been proposed:to characterise the behaviour of earth embankments 2005).between 2400 and 4200 kJ. An overview on the design
ergies
with and without geogrid reinforcements are necessary. Rockfall
methods forgalleries
embankmentsare appropriate
is given by protective
Lambert measures
and Bourrier for
a= 0.8v 2(2008)
Gerber /(gt) measured the impact on soil of varying (9) small and
(2011) andwell-defined
an example endangered
of the design zones
of a with a high
rockfall rate of
protection
thickness
p = 0.8v 2of /a free falling blocks of 800 and 4000 kg with (10) medium magnitude
embankment is givenevents (Jacquemoud,
in Baumann (2008).1999). While pro-
falling heights varying from 2...15 m resulting in impact en- viding protection against high energy impacts, galleries can
ergies
Thus the in the range 20 to
relationship 600 kJ.penetration
between Based on these depthexperiments
and maxi- provide
5.3 a low maintenance
Rockfall solution for frequent low energy
protection galleries
the following formulas for the maximum
mum deceleration can be formulated as a function of the deceleration a and
soil events, for which the rocks accumulating on the gallery are
penetration depth p due to an impact
layer thickness (see Fig. 10). However, the formulas result velocity v have been removed
There areatmany
given time intervals.
different types of rockfall protection galleries
proposed:
from experiments and the parameters measured after the im- with regard to structural
The working range of galleries design (Fig. 11). estimated
has been The most to com-
be
pacts of rigid bodies on cushion layers after a vertical fall. mon type in Switzerland is a monolithic
for impact energies up to about 3000 kJ (ASTRA, 2003). reinforced concrete
The cushion layer overlies a stiff construction and therefore structure
Based on covered by a cushion
recent research, whichlayer (Schellenberg
focuses and Vo-
on either improv-
cannot easily be transferred to earth embankments, which gel, 2005).
ing the damping properties of the cushion layer, increasing

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

 A.
A.A. Volkwein
Volkwein etetetal.:
Volkwein al.:Rockfall
al.: Review on
Rockfall rockfall characterisation and structural protection
review
review 2635
19 19
A. Volkwein et al.: Rockfall review 19

Fig.11.
Fig. 11. Different
Differenttypes
typesof
ofshed
shedstructures
structures (fltr):
(fltr): reinforced-concrete
reinforced-concrete slab,
slab, shell type, in situ reinforced concrete, and steel-concrete-composite
Fig.Fig.
type
type 11.
11.(from
(fromDifferent
Different ettypes
Vogeltypes
Vogel et al.,of
al., of shedstructures
shed
2009).
2009). structures (fltr):
(fltr): reinforced-concrete
reinforced-concrete slab, shell
slab, type,
shell in situ
type, reinforced
in situ concrete,
reinforced and steel-concrete-composite
concrete, and steel-concrete-composite
type (from Vogel et al.,
type (from Vogel et al., 2009). 2009).

Fig. 13. Steel-concrete composite structure for a rockfall protection

Fig. 13.(Konno
gallery Steel-concrete composite structure for a rockfall protection
et al., 2008)
Fig. 12.
12. Full-scale
Full-scale steel-concrete
steel-concrete composite
composite rockrock shed
shed subjected
subjected Fig. 13. Steel-concrete composite structure for a rockfall protection
Fig. gallery (Konno et al., 2008)
toFig. 12. Full-scale
a falling steel-concrete
weight (left; Maegawa et composite rock
al., 2003), shed with
gallery subjected
PSD gallery (Konno
Fig. 13. et al., 2008) composite structure for a rockfall protection
Steel-concrete
to a falling weight (left; Maegawa et al., 2003), gallery with PSD
to a fallingsystem
dissipation weightin(left;
Val Maegawa
d’Arly, et al.,
France 2003),
(right; gallery
taken fromwith PSD
Masuya,
Fig. 12. Full-scale
dissipation steel-concrete
system in composite
Val d’Arly, France rock from
(right; taken shed Masuya,
subjected gallery (Konno et al., 2008)
dissipation system in Val d’Arly, France (right; taken from Masuya,
2007). 5.3.1 Cushion layer
to 2007))
a2007))
falling weight (left; Maegawa et al., 2003), gallery with PSD material is often
often usedused as as aa cushion
cushionmaterial,
material,whereas whereasininJapan Japan
dissipation
.. system in Val d’Arly, France (right; taken from Masuya, material is
sand
The is generally
main function used of (Ishikawa,
a
sand is generally used (Ishikawa, 1999). cushion 1999).
layer is to act as a shock
2007)) material is often used as a to cushion
Rockfall galleries are appropriate protective measures for absorbers
The
The dynamic (Jacquemoud,
dynamic force
force 1999).
applied
applied to theShock
the topmaterial,
top waves
ofthe
of inwhereas
thecushion reinforced
cushion layer
layer
in Japan
.
small
the and well-defined endangered zones with a high rate of duesand
concrete
to ais generally
structures
falling block used
could is (Ishikawa,
cause the
empirically
due to a falling block is empirically given by equation 11 1999).
separation
given of
by the concrete
equation 11
thestructural
structural capacity
capacity ororadding
adding energy-dissipating
energy-dissipating supports,
supports, coverThe on the soffit,1998).
so called scabbing, even
medium
the magnitude events (Jacquemoud, 1999). While pro- (Montani-Stoffel,
dynamic
(Montani-Stoffel, 1998).
force The
applied
The impact
impact to the force
force topfor ofimpacts
depends
the cushion
depends ononwiththe layer
the
thegalleries
viding galleries can
canprovide
protection provide
against
protection
protection
high energy
for up
up to
to 5000
forimpacts, 5000 kJ
kJ (Vogel
(Vogel
galleries can less intensity
E-Moduli of than
the the
cushion structural
layers capacity
M as (Herrmann,
well as on the 2002).
block
theetprovide
al.,
al.,2009).
structural capacity or adding energy-dissipating due to aoffalling
E-Moduli the cushion blocklayers is empirically
MEE as wellgiven as on the by blockequation 11
et 2009).
a low maintenance solution for frequent lowsupports,
energy The rrcushion
radius
radius and thethelayer
(Montani-Stoffel,
and rock’salso
rock’s dissipates
kinematic
1998).
kinematic someexpressed
energy,
Theenergy,
impact offorce
the impact
expressed ininterms
depends termsen-on the
Steel-concrete-composite
theevents,
galleries galleriesfor (Fig. 12 Maegawa
for can
whichprovide
Steel-concrete-composite protection
the rocks galleries
accumulating up
(Fig.
onto 5000
the kJ (Vogel
12 gallery
Maegawa are ergy,
of mass distributes
of E-Moduli m and
mass m andofimpact the
impact contact
velocity stresses,
velocitylayers
the cushion v.
v. decreases the peak
ME as well as on the block load-
et
et al.,
etal., 2003) or composite
2009).at given time intervals.
al., 2003) or composite sandwich
sandwich structures
structures with
with high-
high-
removed ing on the impacted structure and also increases the duration
tensile
tensile bolt
boltconnections
connections (Fig. 13 13 Konno etet al.,
al.,122008) have radius r and the rock’s kinematic energy, expressed in terms
Steel-concrete-composite
The working range of (Fig.
galleries Konno
galleries (Fig.
has been 2008)
estimated tohave
Maegawa be of impact. For economic reasons, locally available
0.6
22 0.6
granular
been
been evaluated
evaluated ininJapan
Japan and
and could
could provide
provide future
future solutions
solutions of mass m and impact
0.2 velocity
0.4

mmv. ×× vv
et for
al., impact
2003) energies
or compositeup to sandwich
about 3000structures
kJ (ASTRA, with2003).
high- material
P = is often
1.765
max = 1.765 × r
Pmax × used
r0.2 ×
as aM
× MEE ×cushion
0.4 × material, whereas in Japan(11)
(11)
forforspecific
specific applications.
applications. 22
Based
tensile on connections
bolt recent research which
(Fig. 13 focuses
Konno on either
et al., improv-
2008) have sand is generally used (Ishikawa, 1999).
ing
The
The
the
following
following
damping
section
section gives
properties gives
of
aathe
summary
summary
cushion
of
of research
research
layer,
related
related
increasing The dynamic force applied to0.4

the top m of × 2 0.6 layer

thevcushion
been evaluated galleries
in Japanwith and emphasis
could provide future solutions 0.2
to toprotection
protectioncapacity
galleriesorwith emphasis on
on the
the cushion
cushion layer
layer For
P
due max structural
= 1.765 ×
design
design r ×
purposes,
purposes,
to a falling block is empirically M ×
however,
however, the
the
given forces
forces trans-
Eq.trans- (11) (11)
the
forand structural
specific
the applications.
structural evaluation
adding
of
energy-dissipating
the galleries.
supports,
mitted
E
2 bylayer
and the structural evaluation of the galleries.
the galleries can provide protection for up to 5000 kJ (Vogel (Montani-Stoffel, 1998). The impact force depends on and
across the interface
interface between
between the
the cushion
cushion layer andthe
The following section gives a summary of research related structure required. Oflayers
interest are thethe definition
definitionofofload load
et al., 2009). E-Moduliare of required.
the cushion Of interest MareE as well as on the block
to 5.3.1
protection
5.3.1 galleries
Cushion
Cushion layer with emphasis
layer on the cushion layer For structural
magnitude loading design
area.purposes,
Both,energy, however,
of course,
course, varythe with forces
time trans-
Steel-concrete-composite galleries (Fig. 12 Maegawa radius r andand theloading
rock’s area.kinematicBoth, of vary
expressed with time
in terms
and the structural evaluation of the galleries. mitted
during the across
impact the
process
process
of mass m and impact velocity v. interface
and
and between
depend
depend on
on the
the
the cushion
material
material layer and
prop-
prop-
et al., 2003) or composite sandwich structures with high-
The
Themain
tensile boltfunction
main function ofofaa cushion
connections cushion
(Fig. 13 layer
layer
Konno isis et
to act
to al., as
as aa shock
act 2008) shock
have structure
erties are required.
of the cushion layer. Of interest are the definition of load
layer.
!0.6
absorber
5.3.1absorber (Jacquemoud,
Cushion (Jacquemoud,
layer 1999).
1999). Shock
Shock waves
waves
been evaluated in Japan and could provide future solutions in
in reinforced
reinforced magnitude
In experimental and loading
researcharea.
research (KishimBoth,
(Kishi ×et et of1993),
al.,
v 2al., course,the
1993), vary
the with time
trans-
trans-
0.2 0.4
concrete
concrete
for structures
specific structures could
couldcause
applications. causethetheseparation
separationof ofthe
the concrete
concrete Pmax
mitted = 1.765
force ×
was r
during the impact process ×
found
found M E to
to × be
be about
about 1.8
1.8 times
times
and2depend on the material prop- the
the (11)
impact
impact
cover
cover
The main ononthe
the soffit,
soffit,
functionsection
The following so
so called
called
of a cushionscabbing,
scabbing, even
even for
for impacts
impacts
layer is oftoresearch
gives a summary with
with
act as arelated
shock force in the
erties of thecasecushion sand
of a sand cushion layer
cushion
layer. layer or oronly
onlyhalf
halfthe theim- im-
less
less
absorber intensity
intensity than
than
(Jacquemoud,
to protection the
the structural
structural
galleries 1999). capacity
capacity
Shockon
with emphasis (Herrmann,
(Herrmann,
waves 2002).
2002).
in reinforced
the cushion layer pact force for a special
special three
three layer
layer cushion
cushion system
system (Ishikawa,
(Ishikawa,
ForInstructural
experimental designresearch
purposes,(Kishi however, et the
al., forces
1993),trans- the trans-
concrete
and The
The cushion
thecushion
structures
structural layer
layer
couldalso
also dissipates
dissipates
cause
evaluation ofthe some of
some
theseparation
galleries. of the
the impact
impact
of the en-
en-
concrete 1999).
mitted The transmitted
across transmitted
the interface force,
force, which
which
between isis the
the the load
load
cushion acting
acting
layer on
onimpact
and
mitted force was found to be about 1.8 times the
ergy,distributes
ergy, distributesthe thecontact
contactstresses,
stresses,decreases
decreasesthe the peak
peak load-
load- the structures, can also
also be
be determined
determined numerically.
numerically. A A sim-
sim-
cover on the soffit, so called scabbing, even for impacts with structure
force inare therequired.
case of Of interest
a sand cushionare the definitions
layer or onlyofhalf loadthe im-
ingon
ing onthe
theimpacted
impactedstructure
structureandandalso
alsoincreases
increases the the duration
duration plified
magnitude method and using an
loading ordinary
anarea.
ordinary
Both, FE
FE
of code,
code, assuming
course, assuming
vary with one-
one-
time
less intensity than the structural capacity (Herrmann, 2002). pact force for a special three layer cushion system (Ishikawa,
ofofimpact.
impact.For Foreconomic
economicreasons,
reasons, locally
locally available
available granular
granular dimensional stress wave wave propagation
propagation and and elastic-plastic
elastic-plasticsoil soil
The cushion layer also dissipates some of the impact en- 1999). The transmitted force, which is the load acting on
ergy, distributes the contact stresses, decreases the peak load-
www.nat-hazards-earth-syst-sci.net/11/2617/2011/ the structures, can Earth
Nat. Hazards also be determined
Syst. numerically.
Sci., 11, 2617–2651, 2011A sim-
ing on the impacted structure and also increases the duration plified method using an ordinary FE code, assuming one-
of impact. For economic reasons, locally available granular dimensional stress wave propagation and elastic-plastic soil
2636 A. Volkwein et al.: Review on rockfall characterisation and structural protection

during the impact process and depend on the material prop-

erties of the cushion layer.
In experimental research (Kishi et al., 1993), the trans-
mitted force was found to be about 1.8 times the impact
force in the case of a sand cushion layer or only half the im-
pact force for a special three layer cushion system (Ishikawa,
1999). The transmitted force, which is the load acting on
the structures, can also be determined numerically. A sim-
20
plified method using an ordinary FE code, assuming one-
dimensional stress wave propagation and elastic-plastic soil
properties was used to estimate the stress distributions for
relatively small impact loads (Sonoda, 1999).
Today, advanced FE models (e.g., LS-DYNA code) are
used to model entire galleries including the cushion layer
5
and are able to match results from large scale tests (Kishi
et al., 2009). In the latest simulations for the cushion layer,
a cap-hardening model is used, in which parameters are de-
termined by curve fitting using experimental data (Ghadimi-
Fig. 14. Alternative cushion layers:
Khasraghy et al., 2009).
Numerical simulations, by means of the DE method, have
with cellular glass material (SchellenbeT
been applied for rockfall impact on embankments (Plassiard sandwich structure (Lorentz et al., 2008b
and Donzé, 2009) and could potentially lead to future im-
provements in the design of rockfall protection galleries. It J
has also been proposed to simulate the processes taking place
within the cushion layer by a rheological model (Calvetti and
Di Prisco, 2009) or by a simplified nonlinear spring describ-
e
properties was used to estimate tha
ing the overall relationship between force and rock penetra-
tion into the cushion layer (Schellenberg, 2009).
Fig. 14. Alternative cushion layers: (top) Fence box structure with
relatively
cellular glass materialsmall
The selection of the cushion material can significantly im-
prove the capacity of the gallery. The energy dissipation
impact
(Schellenberg, 2008), (bottom)loads
Multi-layer (Sono o
sandwich structure (Lorentz et al., 2008).
for different materials and mixtures has been studied in cen-
Fig. 14. Alternative cushion layers: Today,
trifuge tests, with the result that a mixture of sand-rubber (left)advanced
Fence boxFE models (e.t
structure
galleries inct
5.3.2 Structural evaluation
(70 %–30 %) with clay lumps seems to be an efficient cush-
with cellular glass material (Schellenberg,
ion material (Chikatamarla, 2006). used to model 2008), (right) entireMultilayer
To date guidelines for the design of rockfall galleries have
Full scale tests in Japan showed that the impact forces can
sandwich structure (Lorentz et al., and
been 2008).are
published
also be substantially reduced by the above-mentioned three- able
in to
Switzerland andmatch results
in Japan (ASTRA, 2008; from m
Japan Road Association, 2000). In both cases, a static-
layered absorbing system (TLAS), which is composed of an M
etequivalent
al.,
EPS (expanded polystyrol) layer, a reinforced concrete core 2009).
force is applied, In
whichthe latest
apart from the rock simulatio
mass
and velocity depends mostly on the geotechnical conditions
slab and a sand layer (Nakano et al., 1995). A large-scale c
aofticing
cap-hardening
the cushion layer. This approach
test in Switzerland with foam glass as cushion layer mate- model is
is simple to use byused,
prac-
engineers, but presents difficulties in accounting for
in
properties was used to estimate thedynamic
rial also showed promising results (Schellenberg et al., 2007,
stress distributions for
termined
the complex
Fig. 14top). Lorentz et al. (2008) investigated the perfor- by curve
processes
fitting using
during the impact. A sum-
mary of older formulations for the impact force is given in
exp
relatively small impact loads (Sonoda,
mance of sandwich structures composed of two or three re-
1999).
Montani-Stoffel (1998) and a comparison of the different cal-
Khasraghy
inforced concrete layers separated by tyres (Fig. 14bottom).
culation methods can be etfound
al., 2009).
in Casanovas (2006).
i
Today, advanced FE models (e.g.
A different approach to dissipate energy without a cushion
LS-DYNA code) are
used to model entire galleriesnewincluding
Based on a system of multiple degrees of freedom for
layer is the PSD system (Pare-blocs Structurellement Dissi-
impactNumerical
pantes) proposed in France and shown in Fig. 12 right. The simulations
loads (Comité-Euro-International
the cushion
bya meann
du Béton, 1988),
layer
onr
analytical model has been proposed for the design of
slab is subjected to direct impact and energy absorbing de-
been
vices are placed at the slab supports (Tonello, 2001). Test
and are able to match resultsbending from applied
rockfall galleries,
large for predicting
which allows
scale rockfall
tests impact
both shear
(Kishi and
results on a scale of 1/3 are presented in (Berthet-Rambaud,
2004). and
failure (Schellenberg et al., 2008, Fig. 15).
Donzé,
The time histories of 2009) and
the spring forces could
are derived from poten
b
et al., 2009). In the latest simulations for the cushion
the equations of motion with the given masses and spring layer,
a cap-hardening model is used, provements
properties described above. inThethe design
peak loads
are of
are performance- rockfa
basedin which
results and can beparameters
compared with the resistance de-
in the
termined by curve fitting using has
criticalalso
sections been
experimental of the slab.proposed to simulate t
data (Ghadimi- t
Nat. Khasraghy et11,al.,
Hazards Earth Syst. Sci., 2009).
2617–2651, 2011 withinwww.nat-hazards-earth-syst-sci.net/11/2617/2011/
the cushion layer by a rheolop
Numerical simulations by Di means Prisco, of the 2009) DE or methodby a simplified
have bn
A. Volkwein et al.: Rockfall review 21
A. Volkwein et al.: Rockfall review 21
A. Volkwein et al.: Review on rockfall characterisation and structural protection 2637

a) b) c) d) e)
a) b) c) d) e)

Fig.
Fig.15. System
15.System with
Systemwith multiple
withmultiple degreesof
multipledegrees
degrees offreedom
freedom(SMDF)
(SMDF) a)and and b), from
from the
thesection
section ofa agallery
gallery to the model definition together with the
Fig. 15. of freedom (SMDF)(a) a) and (b),
b), from the section of
of a gallerytotothe
themodel
modeldefinition together
definition with
together thethe
with
force-displacement
force-displacement relationship
relationship of
of the
the springs
springs for
for c)
(c)cushion
cushion layer,
layer, d)
(d)shear
shearbehaviour
behaviourand
and e)(e)global bending
global stiffness
bending stiffness(from
(from Schellenberg
Schellenberg and
force-displacement relationship of the springs for c) cushion layer, d) shear behaviour and e) global bending stiffness (from Schellenberg and
Vogel, 2009).
and Vogel,
Vogel, 2009).2009).

5.4 Flexible protection systems

the latter being concatenated like a historical byrnie and orig-
the latter being concatenated like a historical byrnie and orig-
inate from the torpedo protection nets used in front of har-
inate from the torpedo protection nets used in front of har-
Today,
bours one andofshipsthe most in thecommon2nd World protection War.measuresOnly few against
knowl-
bours and ships in the 2nd World War. Only few knowl-
rockfall
edge exists is the on usethe of flexible
use of protection
alternativesystems. net materials Such barri- (Tajima
edge exists on the use of alternative net materials (Tajima
ers
et are
al., usually
2003). The installed
supportlike ropes
fences(ropesectiondiameter12
along the boundary of an −
et al., 2003). The
infrastructure insupport of ropes (ropesectiondiameter12 −
22 mm) are or spanned frontbetween buildingssteel acting
posts with as a passive
typical pro- lengths
22 mm)
tection are
system, spanned between steel posts with typical lengths
between 2 andi.e., 7 m theyand arefield
meant to stop avarying
spacings movingbetween block. 5
between
Much 2 andhas
research 7 malready
and field beenspacings
performed varying
onplates
such between
barri- by 5
and 12
andin12recent m.
m. The The posts
posts are
are fixated
fixated by ground
by ground plates either
either by
ers
clampedsupport years. At
supportororhinged first, the
hingedsupport research
supportwith work
withadditional concentrated
additionalupslope upslope
clamped
on the general ability of flexible systems to reliably retain
Fig. 16. Loading capacity of protection gallery Axen-Süd for dif- ropesatatthe
ropes thepost
post head. Details Detailsregarding
regardingthe thestate-of-the-art
state-of-the-art
Fig. 16. Loading capacity of protection gallery Axen-Süd for dif- falling
of post rocks (Sect.head.
foundations 5.4.1).
including Later,suggestions
the emphasis for was
loadon how
measure-
Fig. 16. impact
ferent Loading capacity
masses (fromofSchellenberg,
protection gallery
2009).Axen-Süd for dif- ofimprove
post foundations including suggestions for load measure-
ferent impact masses (from Schellenberg, 2009). to our knowledge of such barriers, e.g., by means of
ferent impact masses (from Schellenberg, 2009). mentscan
ments canbe be foundininTurner Turner etal. al.(2009).
(2009).Additional
Additionalropes ropes
systematic andfound
extensive testinget(Grassl, 2002), overall eval-
maybe
may beplaced
placeddepending
dependingon onthetheindividual
individualsystems. systems.Connec- Connec-
With this model relative values between the maximum uations (Spang and Bolliger, 2001) or numerical simulations
tions
tionsSect. to
to the the ground
ground are usually achieved by drilled anchors.
forces and theprotection
5.4 Flexible
Flexible load bearing capacities for punching (η2 ) and
systems (see 5.4.5). Theare usually achieved
knowledge gained thereby by drilled formed anchors.
the
5.4 protection systems For higher impact energies most systems have additional en-
bending failure (η3 ) are obtained, leading to an iterative pro- For higher
basis impact energies
for standardization most systems
as described in Sect. have 5.4.2.additional
Becauseen-
cess for theofstructural ergy absorbing elements attached to the ropes. Such elements
Today,
Today, one
one of the mostdesign.
themost commonprotection
common protectionmeasures
measuresagainst against ergy
the absorbing
research elements
is usually rather attached to the ropes. Such
application-oriented elements
and carried
This procedure
rockfallisisthe theuseuseof is particularly
offlexible suitable
flexibleprotection for
protectionsystems. the
systems.Suchevaluation
Suchbarri- of
barri-
deform
out in close
deform plastically
cooperation
plastically with
with withlarge
large displacements
thedisplacements
manufacturers,(up (up toto22m)
typically m)
thein-in-
rockfall creasing the flexibility of the supporting structure. Fig. 18
existing
ersare galleries.
areusually
usuallyinstalled Figure
installedlike 16 shows
likefences
fencesalong the ratio
alongthe values
theboundary
boundaryof reached
ofan an published
creasing the results considerofjust
flexibility theone barrier type.
supporting However,
structure. Fig.it18
ers shows some typical braking elements. The barriers are usu-
for rocks withordifferent
infrastructure in front masses
of fallingacting
buildings from different
as a passiveheights
pro- still
shows would some betypical
possible to compare
braking elements. the different
The barriers systems arere- usu-
infrastructure or in front of buildings acting as a passive pro- ally erected by local mounting teams according to the manu-
for thesystem,
tection gallery Axen-Süd
i.e. they
theyare in Switzerland.
are meanttotostop stopFuture evaluations garding their performance, braking
ally erected by local mounting teams according to the manu- distance, energy balance,
tection
of the
system,
force
i.e.
penetration
meant
relationship of the
aamoving
rock
moving
into
block.
block.
the cush- facturer’s installation manual thatcomes
comes withthe thebarrier.
barrier.
Much research has already been performed on such barri- etc., as done
facturer’s by Gerbermanual
installation and Volkwein
that (2007). with
Much research
ioninlayer would has already
improve thisbeen
model.performed on such barri-
ers recent years. At first, the research work concentrated There
Today,
There after are various
are various advantages
several decades
advantages favouring
of development
favouring flexible flexible
and improve- netsfor
nets for
ers inIn recent
recent years.
years, At first, theadvances
significant researchhave work concentrated
on the
on the general
general ability
ability of flexible
of systems toto been
flexible systems reliably
reliably
made re-
retain
retain
an increasingly
ment,
an increasingly
a typical flexible widerockfall
wide distribution.
distribution. protection They
They are cheaper
system
are cheaper
consistscom- com-
of
garding numerical simulations to aid structural design (Kishi a pared
steel net attached longitudinally to so-called support ropes.
fallingrocks
falling rocks(section
(section5.4.1).
5.4.1).Later,
Later,thetheemphasis
emphasiswas wason onhowhow pared with other protection systems, e.g. about one tenth ofof
with other protection systems, e.g. about one tenth
etimprove
al., 2009;our Masuya and Nakata, 2001). Thee.g. simulations al-of The nets with mesh openings ranging from 5–35 cm are made
to
tolow
improve knowledge
our knowledge of such
of the barriers,
suchstructure
barriers,and e.g.itsbyby means
means of aagallery
gallery structure.
structure. Theyare
They are quickly
quickly installed
installed requiring
requiring little
little
a detailed
systematicand evaluation
andextensive
extensivetestingof
testing(Grassl,
(Grassl,2002),
2002),overallresponse
overalleval- to
eval- from chain-link
equipment. Theirmeshes, wire-ropeisnets
performance or steelefficient
effective, rings, the andlat-reli-
systematic equipment. Their performance is effective, efficient and reli-
rockfall impact (Fig. 17). This approach, however, requires ter being
able. Theconcatenated
impacton onthe likelandscape
the a historical duringbyrnie and originate
construction
uations(Spang
uations (Spangand
experimental data
andBolliger,
Bolliger,2001)
2001)or
for calibration
or numericalsimulations
andnumerical
simulations
significant resources,
able. The impact landscape during construction isislow
low
(see section 5.4.5). The knowledge gained thereby formed from
and the
a torpedo
certain protection
transparency nets used
afterwards in front
is of harbours Due
guaranteed. and to
(see section
limiting its 5.4.5).
application Theinknowledge
practice. Such gained thereby
efforts, though,formedare and aincertain
ships the 2nd
transparency
World
afterwards
War. Only limited
is guaranteed.
knowledge
Due to
exists
the basis for standardization as described in section 5.4.2. theirwide
their wide range
range ofofenergy
energy retention
retention capacity,
capacity, flexible
flexible fence
fence
theuseful
basisforforthestandardization
development ofas described
design in section
guidelines and for5.4.2.
eval- on the usecan of alternative netmost
materials (Tajima And, et al., finally,
2003).
Because the the research
research isis usually
usually rather
rather application-oriented
application-oriented systems
systems can ropesbe
be usedused for
for section applications.
most applications. And, finally, an
an
Because
uating critical sections and parametric influences. The support (rope diameter 12 − 22healthy
mm) are
and carried out in close cooperation with themanufacturers,
manufacturers, increasing
increasing number
number of manufacturers
of manufacturers results
results in
in healthy com-
com-
and carried
Despite out in closeincooperation
advances understanding with thethestructural perfor- spanned between steel posts with typical lengths between 2
typically the published results consider just one barriertype.type. petition,
petition, guaranteeing
guaranteeing continuous
continuous development
development and
and improve-
improve-
typically
mance of therockfall
published results there
galleries, consider are just
still one
largebarrier
uncertain- and 7 m and field spacings varying between 5 and 12 m. The
However, it still would be possible to compare the different mentswith
ments withaaparallel
parallelreduction
reduction inprices. prices.
However, it stillthe
ties regarding would be possible
definition of designto compare
situations.theTherefore,
different posts are fixated by ground platesineither by clamped support
systems
systems regarding
regarding
probabilistic methods theirare
their performance,
performance,
attractive tools braking
braking
because distance,
distance,
the uncer- en-
en- However,
or hinged
However, supportthere
therewith are some
are additional
some limitinglimiting
upslope factors
ropesininatthe
factors the
thecase case
post ofof
ergy
ergy balance
balance
tainties can etc.etc. as done
as done
be better by Gerber
by Gerber
quantified. and Volkwein
and Volkwein
In addition, (2007).
future(2007).
develop- flexible
head.
flexible Detailsbarriers.
regarding
barriers. Long-term protection
the state-of-the-art
Long-term protection post against
against corrosion
foundations
corrosion
Today,
ments in after
the several
design ofdecades
new of development
protection
Today, after several decades of development and improve- galleries and
or improve-
the eval- must
including be guaranteed;
suggestions working
for load
must be guaranteed; working life is defined in EOTA life is
measurements defined can in EOTA
be found (2008)
in
(2008)
ment,
uation a typical
of flexible
existing sheds rockfall
might protection
involve system
evaluating
ment, a typical flexible rockfall protection system consists of consists
the failure of with
Turner 25
et years
al. (or
(2009). even shorter
Additional if
ropes
with 25 years (or even shorter if installed in aggressive en- installed
may be in
placed aggressive
depend- en-
a steel net
probability attached
for longitudinally
different design to so-called
situations
a steel net attached longitudinally to so-called support ropes. and support
select theropes.
de- vironmental conditions). If a barrier has experienced atat
vironmental
ing on the conditions).
individual systems. If a barrier
Connections has to experienced
the ground
The
The nets
signnets with mesh
situations
with mesh openings
basedopenings ranging
on overallranging from 55 -criteria.
risk acceptance
from - 3535 cmcm areare least
are
least onemedium-sized
usually
one medium-sized
achieved by drilled rockfall
rockfall event,ititFor
anchors.
event, isisusually
usually deformed
higher deformed
impact
made from chain-link meshes, wire-rope
made from chain-link meshes, wire-rope nets or steel rings, nets or steel rings, resulting in a reduced barrier
resulting in a reduced barrier height after a successfully height after a successfully
www.nat-hazards-earth-syst-sci.net/11/2617/2011/ Nat. Hazards Earth Syst. Sci., 11, 2617–2651, 2011
22 2638 A. Volkwein et al.: Review on rockfall characterisation
A. and structural
A.Volkwein
Volkwein etetal.: protection
al.:Rockfall
Rockfallreview
review

Fig. 17.
Fig. General view of an FE analysismodel
model ofan
an impacted rock
rock shed and the resulting crack patterns for different loading cases (from
Fig. 17.
17. General
General view
view of
of an
an FE
FE analysis
analysis model of
of an impacted
impacted rock shed
shedand
andthe
theresulting
resultingcrack
crackpatterns
patternsfor
fordifferent
differentloading
loadingcases
cases(from
(from
Kishi
Kishi et et al.,
al., 2009).
2009)
Kishi et al., 2009)

Fig. 18. Different types of energy absorbing barrier components (friction of tensioned rope between friction plates, friction between rope
Fig.clamps,
Fig. 18.
18. Different
Different types
bent steel pipe of
types energy
circle
of absorbing
narrowing
energy underbarrier
absorbing tensioncomponents
barrier (friction
and elongating
components of tensioned
spiral structures)
(friction andrope
of tensioned meshbetween
rope frictionanti-submarine
frictionplates,
types (original
between plates,friction
net,between
friction hexagonrope
between rope
clamps,
mesh bent steel pipe
and spliced ropecircle narrowing
net, ring net, rope under tension,
net with clamps).and elongating spiral structures) and mesh types (originally anti-submarine net,
clamps, bent steel pipe circle narrowing under tension, and elongating spiral structures) and mesh types (originally anti-submarine net,
hexagon mesh and spliced rope net, ring net, rope net with clamps).
hexagon mesh and spliced rope net, ring net, rope net with clamps).
energies most systems have additional energy absorbing el- a gallery structure. They are quickly installed requiring lit-
ements attached to the ropes. Such elements deform plas- tle equipment. Their performance is effective, efficient and
resisted
ticallyrockfall
resisted rockfall event.
with large Further,
Further, after
displacements
event. aftertolarge-sized
(up rockfall
2 m) increasing
large-sized the
rockfall tem
temhashasnot
reliable. notbeen
The capable
impact
been on theof
capable withstanding
oflandscape the
during
withstanding dynamic
dynamicsnow
theconstruction snow
events, the
flexibilityremaining
of the retention
supporting capacity
structure. might
Figure
events, the remaining retention capacity might be reduced 18 be
showsreduced
some load
load (Margreth, 1995; Nicot et al., 2002b,a). Insuch
is low (Margreth,
and a 1995;
certain Nicot
transparencyet al., 2002b,a).
afterwards is In suchaacase,
guaranteed. case,
requiring
typicalimmediate
requiring immediate maintenance.
braking elements.
maintenance. Therefore,
The barriers regular
are usually
Therefore, inspec-
erected
regular by
inspec- the
thealternatives
Due to their wide
alternatives would
rangebe
would ofaaenergy
be partial removal
removaland
partialretention andre-installation
capacity, flexi-
re-installation
tionlocal
is necessary
mountingfor all according
teams installed barriers to prevent reduced
to the manufacturer’s instal- every
ble yearsystems
fence or an alternative
can be usedprotection measure suchAnd,
for most applications. as gal-
tion is necessary for all installed barriers to prevent reduced every year or an alternative protection measure such as gal-
lation manual
performance as athat comes
result with barriers
of, e.g., the barrier.
being partially filled finally,
leries. an increasing number of manufacturers results in
performance as a result of, e.g., barriers being partially filled leries.
There are various advantages favouring
by small rocks, wood etc. Flexible barriers cannot flexible
benets
usedfor
if healthy competition, guaranteeing continuous development
by small rocks, wood etc. Flexible barriers cannot be used if andInimprovements withnew
a parallel reduction in prices.
an increasingly wide distribution. They are cheaper
the expected impact energies are too high or if the calculated com- the recent years rockfall mitigation measures have
thepared
expected In the recent years new rockfall mitigation measures have
block withimpact
trajectories
energies systems,
otherwould
protection are too high
e.g.,or
overtop the barriers
if theone
about
reaching
calculated
tenth of
the ob- gained increasing attention. So-called attenuating systems
block trajectories would overtop the barriers reaching the ob- gained increasing attention. So-called attenuating systems
ject to be protected. If the place of installation is also subject do not try to stop a falling rock but to catch it and to guide it
ject to be protected. If the place of installation is also subject do not try to stop a falling rock but to catch it and to guide it
to avalanches in Earth
Nat. Hazards winter, up till
Syst. now
11, a2617–2651,
rockfall protection sys- downhill www.nat-hazards-earth-syst-sci.net/11/2617/2011/
in a controlled manner (see Fig. 19). Such barriers
to avalanches in winter, up Sci.,
till now 2011
a rockfall protection sys- downhill in a controlled manner (see Fig. 19). Such barriers
are also called Hybrid Barriers or Hanger Nets (Glover et al.,
are also called Hybrid Barriers or Hanger Nets (Glover et al.,
A. Volkwein et al.: Review on rockfall characterisation and structural protection 2639
A. Volkwein et al.: Rockfall review 23
to around 5000 kJ. However, it must be stated that research
The first
related guideline
to flexible world-wide
fence systemswas initiated
generally in Switzerland
involves coopera-
in
tion between a research institute and a particularthe
2000 (Gerber, 2001a). This guideline defines fencetesting
man-
procedures that allow an a posteriori evaluation of the barri-
ufacturer focusing only on its own products (Grassl, 2002;
ers with respect to the maximum energy retention capacity,
Volkwein, 2004; Nicot, 1999; Wienberg et al., 2008; Peila
the actual rope forces, the braking distance, the remaining
et al., 1998). There are only few studies which compare
barrier height, the performance for small and medium-sized
different net systems. For instance, Gerber and Volkwein
rockfall events and the corresponding maintenance work.
(2007) analysed the performance of different systems for ei-
therIn soft
2008orthe European
hard dynamic Guideline ETAGprocesses.
decelerating 027 was published
The grow-
(EOTA, 2008; Peila and Ronco,
ing understanding of fence systems and their 2009.). By letterdynamic
of the Eu- be-
ropean
haviourCommission
also allows tothe theuseMember States,net-type
of various the 1st of Febru-to
systems
Fig.
Fig.19.
19.Principle
Principlemode
modeof
ofoperation
operation for
for rockfall
rockfall attenuating system
ary
resist2008 has been
impact forcesconsidered
caused byasother the date
naturalof its availabil-
hazards such
(left,
(left,Glover
Gloveretetal.,
al.,2010)
2010)and
and system
system sketch
sketch for
for typical hanger net
system ity and applicability. ETAG 027 defines a
as avalanches (Margreth, 1995), falling sliding trees (Volk- testing procedure
system(right).
(right).
similar
wein ettoal., the 2009;
Swiss guideline
Hamberger andand
- after successful
Stelzer, 2007),systemdebris
testing
flows (Wendeler, 2008) or shallow landslides (Bugnion etas
and identification testing of the main components al.,
However, there are2011a).
some limiting factors in the case of well
2008). as after initial factory production inspection by the in-
2010; Dhakal et al.,
flexible barriers. Long-term protection against corrosion volved approval body - allows the producers to attach the
must CE
5.4.2 marking for the barrier on basis of relevant EC certifi-
Standardization
5.4.1be Historical
guaranteed; working life
development andis current in EOTA (2008)
definedresearch
cate of a notified certification body and EC declaration of
with 25 yr (or even shorter if installed in aggressive environ-
conformity
It is important by for
thethe
manufacturer.
planning andThe basis
design of for issuing
effective the
protec-
mental
Mostly,conditions).
the old-typeIffencesa barrierwerehas experienced
able to withstand atjust
leastsmall
one
EC
tioncertificate
systems that is the European
their behaviour technical
is wellapproval
understood as the
andcon-thor-
medium-sized
rockfall events. rockfall
Only event,
in the itearlyis usually
1990s withdeformed result-
research on
cerned
oughlyharmonized
verified. This technical specification,
also ensures issued
an efficient usebyofanpublic
ap-
ing
howin toa reduced
stop fallingbarrierrocksheight after a was
efficiently successfully
the dynamicsresistedof
proval body entitled for these tasks and the
investment. Due to the complex, dynamic and difficult to de- implementation
rockfall event. Further,
the decelerating processafter large-sized
considered and rockfall events,new
used to design the
of a factory
scribe production
decelerating control
process systembarrier
a typical on basis of the
design is con-
based
remaining retention(Hearn
retention systems capacity et might be reduced
al., 1992). requiringalso
This included im-
trol plans, accompanying the European
on prototype testing. This procedure has also been adaptedtechnical approval.
the development
mediate maintenance. of fences
Therefore,with regular
retention capacities
inspection of up
is neces-
It is typical for such a broad guideline that many different
50kJ
sary forbased on dynamic
all installed barriersdesign approaches
to prevent reduced(Duffy, 1992;
performance to produce standardization guidelines defining the minimum
interests have to be combined and formulated. This usually
asDuffy and of,
a result Haller,
e.g., 1993).
barriers Since
beingthen continuous
partially filled byresearch
small performance limits of solid barriers.
becomes a quasi-minimum standard requiring National Ap-
and engineering
rocks, wood, etc. development
Flexible barriers has cannot
increased their if
be used retention
the ex- The first guideline world-wide was initiated in Switzerland
plication Documents for the single member states.
capacities
pected impact around 5000kJ.
to energies are too high However,
or if theitcalculated
must be stated
block in 2000 (Gerber, 2001a). This guideline defines the testing
trajectories would overtop the barriers reaching generally
that research related to flexible fence systems the objectin- to It must also
procedures thatbeallow
borne in mind that
a posteriori there will
evaluation of always
the barriers be
bevolves cooperation
protected. If thebetween
place ofa research
installationinstitute
is alsoandsubject
a partic- to load
with cases
respect outside
to thethe scope ofenergy
maximum the guidelines,
retention such as ec-
capacity, the
ular fence in
avalanches manufacturer
winter, up focusing
till now aonly on itsprotection
rockfall own products sys- centric
actual ropeimpact forces,
forces, thepost or rope
braking strikes,the
distance, high or low speed
remaining barrier
tem has not been capable of withstanding the dynamic et
(Grassl, 2002; Volkwein, 2004; Nicot, 1999; Wienberg al.,
snow rockfall
height, the events with the same
performance impact
for small andenergy, etc (Wienberg
medium-sized rockfall
2008; Peila et al., 1998). There are only
load (Margreth, 1995; Nicot et al., 2002b,a). In such a case, few studies which et al., 2008;
events and theVolkwein et al., 2009).
corresponding maintenance work.
compare
the different
alternatives would netbesystems. For instance,
a partial removal Gerber and
and re-installation In 2008, the European Guideline ETAG 027 was published
every year or an alternative protection measure such as sys-
Volkwein (2007) analysed the performance of different gal- (EOTA,Dimensioning
5.4.3 2008; Peila and Ronco, 2009.). By letter of the Euro-
tems for either soft or hard dynamic decelerating processes.
leries. pean Commission to the Member States, the 1st of February
The growing
In the recentunderstanding
years new rockfall of fence systemsmeasures
mitigation and theirhavedy- 2008 was considered the date of its availability and appli-
namic behaviour also allows the use of
gained increasing attention. So-called attenuating systems various net-type sys- If a flexible
cability. protection
ETAG fence isa suitable
027 defines testing for a specific
procedure site itto
similar
tems to resist impact forces caused by other natural hazards has to be located in the field in such a way
the Swiss guideline and – after successful system testing that it covers mostand
do not try to stop a falling rock, but to catch it and to guide it
such as avalanches (Margreth, 1995), falling sliding trees trajectories
identification andtesting
that theof falling
the main rock does not come
components as wellto rest,
as af-
downhill in a controlled manner (see Fig. 19). Such barriers
(Volkwein et al., 2009; Hamberger and Stelzer, 2007), de- e.g. on the factory
ter initial road to be protected,inspection
production or reachesby thethe
clearance
involved sec-ap-
are also called Hybrid Barriers or Hanger Nets (Glover et al.,
bris flows (Wendeler, 2008) or shallow landslides (Bugnion tion
proval of road
bodyor– railway
allows the during deceleration
producers to attachprocess.
the CE A suit-
mark-
2010; Dhakal et al., 2011a).
et al., 2008). able
ing forfencethesystem
barrierisonselected
the basisaccording to the
of relevant ECexpected
certificate max-of a
5.4.1 Historical development and current research imum
notified impact energy obtained
certification body andwith the aid of geological
EC declaration of conformity ex-
5.4.2 Standardization pertise. The arrangementThe
by the manufacturer. of the barrier
basis in the field
for issuing the has
ECtocertifi-
fol-
Mostly, the old-type fences were able to withstand just small low the installation instructions given in the
cate is the European technical approval as the concerned har- accompanying
It is important for the planning and design of effective pro- manual. A ready-made design load for the anchors according
rockfall events. Only in the early 1990s, with research on monized technical specification, issued by an approval body
tection systems that their behaviour is well understood and to the measured rope forces during prototype tests (see sec-
how to stop falling rocks efficiently, was the dynamics of the entitled for these tasks and the implementation of a factory
thoroughly verified. This also ensures an efficient use of pub- tion 5.4.4) is sometimes available online (BAFU Bundesamt
decelerating process considered and used to design new re- production control system on the basis of the control plans,
lic investment. Due to the complex, dynamic, and difficult to für Umwelt, 2011). In Switzerland, a partial safety factor of
tention systems (Hearn et al., 1992). This also included the accompanying the European technical approval. It is typi-
describe decelerating process a typical barrier design is based 1.3 has to be applied in compliance with (SIA261, 2003) on
development of fences with retention capacities of up 50 kJ cal for such a broad guideline that many different interests
on prototype testing. This procedure has also been adapted the load side. The safety of anchorage (e.g. micro-piles, bolts
based on dynamic design approaches (Duffy, 1992; Duffy have to be combined and formulated. This usually becomes
to produce standardization guidelines defining the minimum and anchors) has to be guaranteed according to CEN (2010).
and Haller, 1993). Since then continuous research and engi- a quasi-minimum standard requiring National Application
performance limits of solid barriers. Shu et al. (2005) describe results from anchorage testing.
neering development has increased their retention capacities Documents for the single member states.

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

 2640
2424 A. Volkwein et al.: Review on rockfall characterisation
A.A.Volkwein
Volkweinand structural
etetal.: protection
al.:Rockfall
Rockfallreview
review

Fig. 20. Different testing methods for rockfall protection systems:

Fig.
Fig.20.
20.Different
Differenttesting
testingmethods
methodsforforrockfall
rockfallprotection
protectionsystems:
systems: Fig.
Fig.21.
21.Standardized
Standardizedtest testblocks
blocksfor
forflexible
flexiblerockfall
rockfallprotection
protection
free trajectory (left) with impact including rotation, but imprecise Fig. 21. Standardized test blocks for flexible rockfall protection
free
freetrajectory
trajectory(left)
(left)with
withimpact
impactincluding
includingrotation
rotationbutbutimprecise
imprecise systems
systemsrelated
relatedtototoaaaregular
regularcube
cubewith
withedge lengthLLLaccording
edgelength accordingto
impact location; cable car guided oblique (middle) and vertical systems related regular cube with edge length according toto
impact
impactlocation;
location;cable
cablecarcarguided
guidedoblique
oblique(middle)
(middle)andandvertical
vertical the
theapproval
approvalguidelines
guidelinesof
(right) impact with precise impact location. the approval guidelines ofofSwitzerland
Switzerland(left,
Switzerland (left,Gerber,
(left, Gerber,2001a,
Gerber, 2001a,until
2001a, until
until
(right)
(right)impact
impactwith
withprecise
preciseimpact
impactlocation.
location. 2008)
2008)andandthetheEuropean
EuropeanUnionUnion(right,
(right,EOTA,
EOTA,2008).2008).
2008) and the European Union (right, EOTA, 2008).

It must
5.4.4
5.4.4 Fieldalso
Field be borne in mind that there will always be load
testing
testing
cases outside the scope of the guidelines, such as eccentric ing For
ing the tests,due
impossible
impossible mainly
due totothe two
the aimaimdifferent
not nottotostop setups
stop the are
thefalling possible
falling block
blockbut de-
but
impact forces, post orvalidate
rope strikes, high orfor
low speed rockfall pending
to todeviate
deviate on how
it itand the falling
andsimply
simply totocontrol rockitsits
control istrajectory.
accelerated: inclined
trajectory.
InInorder
order totoverify
verify and
and the
validate thesetup
setupfor newly-developed
newly-developed guidance of test blocks along a track cable or their vertical
events
rockfall with the
rockfallprotection same
protectionfences impact energy,
fencesfull-scale etc.,
full-scalefield (Wienberg
fieldtests
testsare et al.,
arenecessary.
necessary.
2008; Volkwein et al., 2009). drops
5.4.5 (see
5.4.5 Fig. 20,Modelling
Numerical
Numerical Gerber,
Modelling 2001b). The barrier is then usu-
Field
Fieldtesting
testinghashasbeen
beenperformed
performedfromfromthethebeginning
beginning(Hearn
(Hearn ally installed with an inclination so that an impact angle be-
etetal.,al.,1992;
1992;Duffy,Duffy,1992)1992)and andcontinues
continuestotothe thepresent
presentday day tween
Flexible
Flexible barrier
rockfall
rockfallandprotection
rockfall trajectory
protection barriers
barriershave of
have 60 ◦ (Gerber, 2001a)
reached
reacheda adevelop-
develop-
5.4.3
(Zaitsev
(Zaitsev Dimensioning
etetal.,
al.,2010).
2010).AAsummary summaryofofflexible flexiblebarrier
barriertesting
testing ◦
orment
ment ±20 stage between
stage where
where barrier and reference
considerable
considerable effort slope
effortwouldwould (EOTA,
beberequired 2008)toisto
required
totowithstand
withstandrockfallrockfallupuptoto2008 2008can canbebefound
foundininThommen
Thommen obtained.
extend
extendtheir This
their represents
rockfall
rockfall retention
retentiona typical
capacity. situation
capacity. for free rockfall
AAcorresponding
corresponding nu-
nu-
If(2008).
(2008).a flexible
Since
Sinceprotection
then,
then,the fence
the testing is suitable
testing methods
methods for
havea specific
have not site it
notchanged
changed when impacting a barrier inathe field.
merical
merical simulation
simulation enables
enables amore
more efficient
efficientdevelopment
developmentoror
has to be located
significantly.
significantly. But
Butduein
duethe field
betterin
totobetter such a waymethods
measurement
measurement that
methods it covers
more
more The test results
optimization
optimization ofofnew aretypes
new retrieved
typesdue dueto using different
toa areduced
reducednumber measurement
number ofofex- ex-
most
detailed trajectories
detailed results
resultscan andbebe
can that the falling
obtained,
obtained, rock
asasshown
shown doesfornot
for come in
example
example toin
systems.
pensive
pensiveprototype The geometry
prototype field of
fieldtests. theInbarrier
tests. Inaddition, before
addition, theand
the useuseafter
ofofsoft-the
soft-
rest,
Gottardi e.g.,and
Gottardi onGovoni
and the road
Govoni to be protected, or reaches the clear-
(2010).
(2010). test
ware
ware is surveyed
allows
allows the using
thesimulation
simulation leveling instruments
ofofdesigned
designed barriers orby
barriers tachymeters
byconsider-
consider-
anceFor section
For the
thetests,of mainly
tests,road
mainlyortwo railway
twodifferentduring
different deceleration
setups
setups are
arepossible process.
possible de-
de- with
ing additional
ingspecial
special loadloadmanual
cases
casesthat measurements
that cannot
cannotbebereproduced of brake element
reproduced fieldelon-
ininfield tests
tests
A
pendingsuitable
pendingononhow fence
howthesystem
thefalling is selected
fallingrock according
rockisisaccelerated: to
accelerated:inclinedthe expected
inclinedguid-guid- gations,
(high-speed
(high-speed post inclinations,
rockfall,
rockfall, post/rope
post/ropeetc.strikes
The braking
strikes etc.),
etc.),asasprocess
well for
wellasasspecial the
special
maximum
anceanceofoftesttestimpact
blocks energy
blocksalongalonga obtained
atrack
trackcable with
cable the
orortheir aid
their of geologi-
vertical
vertical drops
drops falling
geometrical
geometrical rockboundary
can
boundarybe obtained
conditions
conditions either
for from
forindividual frame-per-frame
individual topographi-
topographi-
cal
(see(seeexpertise.
Fig.
Fig.20, The
20,Gerber
Gerberarrangement
(2001b)).of
(2001b)). Thethebarrier
The barrier
barrierisin the
thenfield
isthen usuallyhas
usually analysis
calcalsituations of high-speed
situations ororthe video of
theinfluence
influence recordings
ofstructural
structural (min.
changes
changes100on frames
onbar-bar-
toinstalled
followwith
installed the
withinstallation
ananinclination
inclinationinstructions
such
suchthat given
that in the angle
ananimpact
impact accompa-
anglebe- be- per
rier second
rierperformance
performance recommended) (Fornaroetoretal.,
(Fornaro from numerical
al.,1990;
1990; Mustoe
Mustoe integration
andandHuttel- of
Huttel-
nying
tween manual.
tweenbarrier
barrierand Arockfall
and ready-made
rockfalltrajectory design
trajectory load
ofof6060◦ ◦ for the anchors
(Gerber,
(Gerber,2001a) 2001a) the
maier, block’s
maier, 1993;
1993; internal
Akkaraju,
Akkaraju, acceleration
1994;
1994;Nicot measurements
Nicot etetal.,al.,1999,
1999, (sample
2001;
2001;Caz- rate
Caz-
oraccording
or±20
±20 ◦ ◦ to the measured rope forces during prototype tests
between
betweenbarrier barrierand andreference
referenceslope slope(EOTA,
(EOTA,2008) 2008) 1−
>zani
zani etet 2al.,
kHz recommended).
al.,2002;
2002; Anderheggen
Anderheggenetetal., al.,2002;
2002;Volkwein,
Volkwein,2004; 2004;
is(see Sect. 5.4.4)
isobtained.
obtained. This isrepresent
sometimes
Thisrepresent available
a atypical
typical onlinefor
situations
situations (BAFU
forfree Bun-
freerock-
rock- The typical
Sasiharan
Sasiharan etetal., test
2006).
al., boulders
2006). Apart
Apart arefromspecially
from the manufactured
thenumerical
numerical modelling con-
modelling
desamt
fallfallwhen
when für Umwelt,a 2011).
impacting
impacting abarrier
barrierinIninthe
Switzerland,
field. a partial safety
thefield. crete
of offull elements
full protection
protection (seesystems
Fig. 21)also
systems withjust
also different
just singlemasses
single components
componentsaccordingcancan
factor
The oftest
Thetest 1.3 has to
results
results are beretrieved
are applied inusing
retrievedusing compliance
different
different with (SIA261,
measurement
measurement tobeevaluated
be guideline
evaluatedenergy numerically. classesRelated
numerically. with
Related anwork
impact
workhas velocity
has been
beendoneof
donemini-
forfor
2003)
systems. on
systems.The the load
Thegeometryside. The
geometryofofthe safety of
thebarrier anchorage
barrierbefore
beforeand (e.g.,
andafter micro-
afterthe
the −1 . This velocity is considered being in the upper
mum
e.g. 25
e.g.energy
energym sdissipating
dissipatingelements elements(del (delCoz CozDı́az
Dı́azetetal., al.,2010;
2010;
piles,
test bolts
testisissurveyed and
surveyedusinganchors)
usinglevellinghas to be guaranteed
levellinginstruments according
instrumentsorortachymeters
tachymeters to
range
Studer,
Studer, of2001;
rockfall
2001; Dhakal events.
Dhakal etetal.,
al.,2011b)
2011b)orornet netrings
rings(Nicot
(Nicotetetal., al.,
CEN
with (2010).
withadditional Shu
additionalmanual et al. (2005)
manualmeasurements describe
measurementsofofbrake results from
brakeelement anchor-
elementelon-elon- 1999;In Volkwein,
1999; Volkwein,
recent 2004).
2004).the investigations have concen-
years
age
gations, testing.
gations, post
postinclinations
inclinationsetc.. etc..The Thebraking
brakingprocessprocessfor forthe
the trated
Large
Large more
deformations on thecausing
deformations testing
causing of attenuating
geometrical
geometrical non-linearity, systems,
non-linearity, the
the
falling
fallingrockrockcancanbebeobtained
obtainedeither
eitherfrom
fromframe-per-frame
frame-per-frame e.g., Gloversimulation
short-time
short-time et al. (2010).
simulation Here,and
period
period oblique
andnonlinear impact material
nonlinear ismaterial
mandatory be-
be-
5.4.4
analysis
analysis Field testing video
ofofhigh-speed
high-speed videorecordings
recordings(min.(min. 100100frames
frames and vertical testing impossible due to the aim such not
haviour
haviour requires
requires explicit
explicit FE FEanalysis
analysis strategies
strategies suchto
asasstop
the
the
per persecond
secondrecommended)
recommended)ororfrom fromnumerical
numericalintegration
integrationofof the
Centralfalling
Central block, but
Differences
Differences to deviate
Method
Method used
used ite.g.
andbysimply
e.g. byBathe
Bathe to control
(2001);
(2001); An-its
An-
Inthe
the order
block’s to internal
block’s verify and
internal validate themeasurements
acceleration
acceleration setup for newly-developed
measurements (sample
(sampleraterate trajectory.
derheggen
derheggenetetal.al.(1986). (1986).This Thisprovides
providesa adetaileddetailedview viewofofthe the
rockfall
>>1 1−−2 2kHz protection fences,
kHzrecommended).
recommended). full-scale field tests are necessary. system’s
system’sdynamic dynamicresponse. response.It Itcan canalso alsodeliver
deliverinformation
information
Field
TheThetesting
typical was
typical test performed
testboulders
bouldersarefrom the beginning
arespecially
specially (Hearn et
manufactured
manufactured al.,
con-
con- 5.4.5
on onthe Numerical
theloading
loadingand modelling
anddegree
degreeofofutilization
utilizationofofany anymodelled
modelledsys- sys-
1992;
crete Duffy,
creteelements 1992)
elements(see and
(seeFig. continues
Fig.21)
21)with to the
withdifferent present
differentmasses day (Zaitsev
massesaccording
according temtemconfiguration.
configuration.The Thesimulation
simulationofofthe thefalling
fallingrock rockshould
should
toettoguideline
al., 2010).energy
guideline A summary
energy classes
classesof flexible
with
with barriervelocity
ananimpact
impact testing of
velocity toofmin-
with-
min- Flexible
take
takeinto rockfall
intoaccount
accountlarge protection barriers havedisplacements
largethree-dimensional
three-dimensional reached a devel-
displacements andand
stand
imum rockfall
imum2525m/s. up
m/s.This to 2008 can
Thisvelocity be found
velocityisisconsideredin Thommen
consideredofofbeing (2008).
beingininthethe opment
rotations. stage
rotations.When where
Whenimpacting considerable
impactinga asteel effort
steelnet would
netatatany be required
anylocation,
location, spe-
spe-
Since
upper then,
rangeofthe
upperrange testingevents.
ofrockfall
rockfall methods have not changed signifi-
events. tocial
cial extend
contact
contact their
algorithmsrockfallprevent
algorithms retention
prevent thethecapacity.
netnetnodes
nodesfromAfrom correspond-
penetrat-
penetrat-
cantly. But,years
InInrecent
recent due the
years tothe
better measurement
investigations
investigations have methods,
haveconcentrated more
concentrated de-
more
more ing
ing numerical
ingthetherock simulation
rockpermitting
permittingonly enables
onlytangential a more
tangentialmovements. efficient
movements.All develop-
Allslid-
slid-
tailed
ononthe results
thetesting can be obtained,
testingofofattenuating as
attenuatingsystems,shown for
systems,e.g. example
e.g. Glover in Got-
Gloveretetal.al. ment
ing or optimization
ingeffects
effects taking
takingplace place of
ininnew
the types
themodel due
modelusually to occur
usually a occur
reduced overnum-
over long
long
tardi
(2010). and
(2010). Govoni
Here,
Here, (2010).
oblique
oblique impact
impactisismandatory
mandatoryand andvertical
verticaltest-
test- ber of expensive
distances
distances andandalso alsoprototype
cause
causefrictionfieldbetween
friction tests.
between In the
addition,
thevarious
various the use of
compo-
compo-

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

A. Volkwein et al.: Review on rockfall characterisation and structural protection
software allows the simulation of designed barriers by con-
sidering special load cases that cannot be reproduced in field
tests (high-speed rockfall, post/rope strikes, etc.), as well as
special geometrical boundary conditions for individual topo-
graphical situations or the influence of structural changes on
barrier performance (Fornaro et al., 1990; Mustoe and Hut-
telmaier, 1993; Akkaraju, 1994; Nicot et al., 1999, 2001;
Cazzani et al., 2002; Anderheggen et al., 2002; Volkwein,
2004; Sasiharan et al., 2006). Apart from the numerical mod-
elling of full protection systems, also single components can
be evaluated numerically. Related work has been done, for
example, energy dissipating elements (del Coz Dı́az et al.,
2010; Studer, 2001; Dhakal et al., 2011b) or net rings (Nicot
et al., 1999; Volkwein, 2004).
Large deformations causing geometrical nonlinearity, the
short-time simulation period and nonlinear material be-
haviour requires explicit FE analysis strategies such as the
Central Differences Method used e.g., by Bathe (2001); An-
derheggen et al. (1986). This provides a detailed view of the
system’s dynamic response. It can also deliver information
on the loading and degree of utilisation of any modelled sys-
tem configuration. The simulation of the falling rock should
take into account large three-dimensional displacements and
rotations. When impacting a steel net at any location, spe-
cial contact algorithms prevent the net nodes from penetrat-
ing the rock permitting only tangential movements. All slid-
ing effects taking place in the model usually occur over long
distances and also cause friction between the various compo-
nents.
Up till now, different strategies to model flexible rockfall
fences have been pursued. The design of a special tailor-
made software allows one to focus on the relevant details and
neglect unwanted parts and, therefore, speeds up the compu-
tations (Nicot et al., 1999; Volkwein, 2004). Such an ap-
proach also facilitates the setup of different barrier models,
because all software elements are already optimized for the
simulated components. This method, however, needs a large
amount of time until usable results are available. Therefore,
the use of common multi-purpose FE codes is also recom-
mendable because it saves the time-consuming development
of routine functions (Fornaro et al., 1990). This again is at the
risk of non-ideal element properties or performance. Finally,
more abstract models, e.g., with a numerically much simpli-
fied net performance, allow the simulation with systems that
have not yet been fully explored.
Regardless of the approach adopted to simulate a flexible
barrier, the results of the simulations should be validated by
full-scale rockfall field tests measuring the cable and support
forces as well as accelerations and the trajectory of the falling
rock.
www.nat-hazards-earth-syst-sci.net/11/2617/2011/
2641
5.5 Forests
The most natural type of protection is a forest. Its protective
effect is basically due to the barrier effect (energy dissipa-
tion) of standing and lying trees. Whether this barrier effect
is effective or not is determined by the size and kinetic en-
ergy of the rock, the total basal area that is available to inter-
cept the falling rock, as well as the tree species (Berger and
Dorren, 2007). In rockfall protection forests, the concept of
the basal area is important as it comprises both the density
of the forest (how many tree stems per hectare are present)
and the diameter distribution of the trees. The definition of
total basal area is the total area covered by all trunks in cross
section, usually measured at breast height, per hectare. Basal
area is, therefore, expressed in m2 ha−1 . The lower limit of
an effective protection forest is about 10 m2 ha−1 , whereas a
forest with 25 m2 ha−1 will be able to provide a significant
level of protection against rockfall. This, however, depends
on the previously mentioned factors (rock energy, species,
and length of forested slope, etc.). An assessment of the pro-
tective function of the forest can be carried out using rapid as-
sessment tools and protection forest guidelines (e.g., Frehner
et al., 2005; Berger and Dorren, 2007) or with more complex
rockfall trajectory models that account for the barrier effect
of single trees (e.g., Dorren, 2010; Rammer et al., 2010).
Various research investigations have been carried out to
obtain a detailed knowledge of the capacity of a forest to
stop falling rocks, as shown in the fundamental summary on
the state of the art of rockfall and forest interactions (Dor-
ren et al., 2007). It is generally agreed that not only large
trees are required in a rockfall protection forest, but that
well-structured stands with a wide diameter distribution and
a mosaic of different forest development phases provide the
best rockfall protection. Experiments have shown clearly that
small trees are capable of stopping large rocks, provided that
a large part of the kinetic energy has already been dissipated
during preceding impacts against large trees.
The repartition of large and small trees, which usually also
corresponds to the height of the trees, is referred to as the ver-
tical forest structure. Furthermore, the higher the stand den-
sity, the higher the contact probability, but this also depends
on the rock size since small rocks have a lower encounter
probability than large rocks. A problem in protection forest
management is that dense forest stands cannot be maintained
over a long period of time by having thick trees and a high
stability. Therefore, a compromise has to be found between
an optimal protective function while assuring forest stabil-
ity and renewal (Brang, 2001). The number of tree stems
and their spatial repartition is referred to as the horizontal
forest structure. An important characteristic with respect to
the horizontal structure that determines the protection against
rockfall is the length and number of gaps and couloirs in the
forest.
Nat. Hazards Earth Syst. Sci., 11, 2617–2651, 2011
2642 A. Volkwein et al.: Review on rockfall characterisation and structural protection
Over the last decade, research on the interaction between
rockfall and protection forest has intensified. Examples are
Lundström (2010) and Jonsson (2007), who studied the me-
chanical stability and energy absorption of single trees. A
link between the protective capacity of a single tree and the
efficacy of a forest stand has been made by Kalberer (2007).
Jancke et al. (2009) investigated the protective effect of dif-
ferent coppice stands. Le Hir et al. (2006), Rammer et al.
(2010) and Dorren (2010) have proposed new approaches for
integrating forest in rockfall trajectory models. Monnet et al.
(2010) showed, by way of an example, how laser-scanning
data can be used for the automatic characterisation of rock-
fall protection. Advances in dendro-geomorphology provide
an improved spatiotemporal analysis of the silent witnesses
of rockfall (e.g., Schneuwly and Stoffel, 2008). Important
remaining subjects in this area are the effect of lying stems
on rockfall trajectories, decomposition of lying and standing
dead wood and the optimal protection forest stand character-
istics for different rockfall settings (coppice stands, homoge-
neous beech forest, maximum gap length, etc).
6 Summary and outlook
Todays rockfall hazard issues and estimation of the risk
of rockfall are considered essential. Research on rockfall-
related topics is an important task and advances are clearly
visible. In addition, structural countermeasures also based
on uncertainty models are also of practical interests. This ar-
ticle, therefore, consists of four main chapters, namely rock-
fall hazard, rockfall source areas, trajectory modelling and
structural countermeasures.
Numerical simulation nowadays allows for a calculation
of trajectories at a very high level of precision (see Sect. 4).
For example, the rockfall process can be simulated using the
DE method based on highly detailed laser scans as input, etc.
However, such a detailed level would also require the consid-
eration of the block’s shape, its exact position before the re-
lease, etc. Therefore, an alternative approach also has its va-
lidity: There is no essential need for sophisticated simulation
models to estimate the velocities in rockfall events. A few
clearly visible impact locations and some basic mathematics
are sufficient to calculate the trajectory (see Sect. 4.4.1). The
positions of impact locations on the ground, the inclinations
between them and – if available – above ground traces on
tree branches permit the definition of the block’s lift-off and
impact velocities. This contribution includes the formulas
necessary to calculate the velocities and with the possibility
of graphical presentation.
What are the questions needing attention in the immediate
future? Here are some suggestions:
– Firstly, there is a definite need to improve the prediction
of probabilities in hazard and risk assessment in order to
better quantify the risk of rockfall and to improve haz-
ard and risk maps. In this context, in addition rockfall
Nat. Hazards Earth Syst. Sci., 11, 2617–2651, 2011
susceptibility vs. rockfall hazard should be discussed.
It is also important to have a thorough knowledge of the
extreme variations of trajectories within a certain area.
They define the decisive fractiles relevant for the map-
ping process. However, all this is of no avail, if the
reliability of models with a proper physical basis is not
checked properly.
– Secondly, a specific design level has to be uniformly de-
fined for protection measures. This can be achieved by
quantifying the risk level, the vulnerability of the pro-
tection countermeasures and the involved costs for life-
cycles of the mitigation measure and for overall risk re-
duction. Of course, standardized evaluation and veri-
fication procedures for the countermeasures need to be
defined.
– Further, more discussion on what is the best way to clas-
sify a single rockfall event is needed. It could be satis-
factorily described using either the energy in kJ or the
impulse in Ns. The first is more common and state-
of-the-art, but the latter is sometimes more exact when
considering impact and rebound effects.
– Finally, it is becoming increasingly important for re-
searchers from different disciplines to establish close
collaboration. Today’s demands on applicability and
efficiency rule out isolated studies lacking interaction.
Such collaboration could result in valuable products like
this paper or a book on rockfall (Lambert and Nicot,
2011).
Acknowledgements. Without the work of a lot of researches world
wide this summary article wouldn’t contain so much information.
The authors further thank E. G. Prater for the harmonization and
improvement of this article, Johanna Scheidegger for her work on
the reference list and two reviewers who did an excellent job.
Edited by: T. Glade
Reviewed by: M. Mölk and another anonymous referee.
References
Acosta, E., Agliardi, F., Crosta, G. B., and Rios Aragùes, S.: Re-
gional rockfall hazard assessment in the Benasque Valley (Centra
Pyrenees) using a 3-D numerical approach, in: 4th EGS Plinius
Conference – Mediterranean Storms, 555–563, Universitat des
Illes Balears, Mallorca, Spain, 2003.
Agliardi, F. and Crosta, G.: High resolution three-dimensionnal nu-
merical modelling of rockfalls, Int. J. Rock. Mech. Min., 40,
455–471, 2003.
Agliardi, F., Crosta, G. B., and Frattini, P.: Integrating rock-
fall risk assessment and countermeasure design by 3D mod-
elling techniques, Nat. Hazards Earth Syst. Sci., 9, 1059–1073,
doi:10.5194/nhess-9-1059-2009, 2009.
Akkaraju, L.: Dynamic Analysis of Cable Structures, Master’s the-
sis, University of Colorado, Boulder, masterthesis, University of
Colorado at Boulder, 1994.
www.nat-hazards-earth-syst-sci.net/11/2617/2011/
A. Volkwein et al.: Review on rockfall characterisation and structural protection
Aksoy, H. and Ercanoglu, M.: Determination of the rockfall
source in an urban settlement area by using a rule-based
fuzzy evaluation, Nat. Hazards Earth Syst. Sci., 6, 941–954,
doi:10.5194/nhess-6-941-2006, 2006.
Anderheggen, E., Elmer, H., and Maag, H.: Nichtlineare Finite-
Element-Methoden: Eine Einführung für Ingenieure, Institut für
Informatik, Zürich, 1986.
Anderheggen, E., Volkwein, A., and Grassl, H.: Computational
Simulation of Highly Flexible Rockfall Protection Systems,
in: Proc. Fifth World Congress on Computational Mechanics
(WCCM V), edited by: Mang, H., Rammerstorfer, F., and Eber-
hardsteiner, J., Vienna University of Technology, 2002.
ASTRA: Steinschlag – Naturgefahr für die Nationalstrassen,
Schlussbericht der ASTRA Expertengruppe, Tech. rep., Bunde-
samt für Strassen, 2003.
ASTRA and SBB: Einwirkungen auf Steinschlagschutzgalerien,
Richtlinie, Tech. rep., Bundesamt für Baudirektion SBB, 18
pages, Bern, 1998.
ASTRA: Einwirkungen infolge Steinschlags auf Schutzgalerien,
Tech. rep., Bundesamt für Strassen, Baudirektion SBB, Eid-
genössische Drucksachen- und Materialzentrale, 2008.
Azimi, C. and Desvarreux, P.: Calcul de chutes de blocs
et vérification sur modèle réduit, Association pour le
développement des recherches sur les glissements de terrain,
Grenoble, 1977.
Azimi, C. and Desvarreux, P.: Les chutes de pierres: Exemple No2
(Galerie de protection), Stage paravalanches, E.N.P.C., Paris,
1988.
Azimi, C., Desvarreux, P., Giraud, A., and Martin-Cocher, J.:
Méthode de calcul de la dynamique des chutes de blocs – Appli-
cation à l’étude du versant de la montagne de La Pale (Vercors),
Bulletin de liaison des laboratoires des ponts et chaussées, 122,
93–102, 1982.
Azzoni, A. and De Freitas, M.: Experimentally gained parameters,
decisive for rock fall analysis, Rock Mech. Rock Eng., 28, 111–
124, 1995.
Azzoni, A., La Barbera, G., and Zaninetti, A.: Analysis and predic-
tion of rock falls using a mathematical model, Int. J. Rock Mech.
Min., 32, 709–724, 1995.
Azzoni, A., Rossi, P. P., Drigo, E., Giani, G. P., and Zaninetti, A.:
In situ observation of rockfall analysis parameters, in: Sixth In-
ternational Symposium of Landslides, 307–314, Rotterdam, The
Netherlands, 1992.
BAFU Bundesamt für Umwelt: Zugelassene Steinschlagschutzsys-
teme, Tech. rep., Swiss Federal Office for the Environment,
Berne, http://www.umwelt-schweiz.ch/typenpruefung, 2011.
Baillifard, F.: Detection par SIG des zones rocheuses à fortessus-
ceptibilités d’éboulement, Ph.D. thesis, University of Lausanne,
2005.
Baillifard, F., Jaboyedoff, M., and Sartori, M.: Rockfall hazard
mapping along a mountainous road in Switzerland using a GIS-
based parameter rating approach, Nat. Hazards Earth Syst. Sci.,
3, 435–442, doi:10.5194/nhess-3-435-2003, 2003.
Baillifard, F., Jaboyedoff, M., Rouiller, J. D., Couture, R., Locat,
J., Robichaud, G., and Gamel, G.: Towards a GIS-based hazard
assessment along the Quebec City Promontory, in: Landslides
Evaluation and stabilization, edited by: Lacerda, W., Ehrlich, A.,
Fontoura, M., and Sayao, A., 207–213, Taylor & Francis, Que-
bec, Canada, 2004.
www.nat-hazards-earth-syst-sci.net/11/2617/2011/
2643
Bathe, K.-J.: Finite Element Methoden, Springer-Verlag, Berlin,
2001.
Baumann, P.: Lastfälle und Bemessungsansatz bei Sturzprozessen,
in: FAN – Herstkurs 2008, Fachleute Naturgefahren Schweiz,
Bellinzona, 2008.
Berger, F. and Dorren, L.: Objective comparison of rockfall mod-
els using real size experimental data, in: Disaster mitigation of
debris flows, slope failures and landslides, 245–252, Universal
Academy Press, Inc, Tokyo, Japan, 2006.
Berger, F. and Dorren, L. K. A.: Principles of the tool Rockfor.NET
for quantifying the rockfall hazard below a protection forest,
Schweizerische Zeitschrift für Forstwesen, 158, 157–165, 2007.
Berthet-Rambaud, P.: Structures rigides soumises aux avalanches
et chutes de blocs: modélisation du comportement mécanique et
caractérisation de l’interaction phénomène-ouvrage, Ph.D. the-
sis, Universite Grenoble, 2004.
Bertrand, D., Nicot, F., Gotteland, P., and Lambert, S.: Modelling
a geo-composite cell using discrete analysis, Comput. Geotech.,
32, 564–577, 2006.
Bieniawski, Z. T.: Engineering classification of jointed rock masses,
Trans. S. Afr. Inst. Civ. Engrs, 15, 335–344, 1973.
Bieniawski, Z. T.: Classification of rock masses for engineering:
the RMR system and future trends, Comprehensive Rock Eng.,
3, 553–573, 1993.
Blais-Stevens, A.: Landslide Hazards and their mitigation along the
sea to sky corridor, British Columbia, in: 4th Canadian Con-
ference on Geohazards: from causes to management, edited by
Locat, J., Perret, D., Turmel, D., Demers, D., and Leroueil, S.,
Quebec, Canada, 2008.
Blovsky, S.: Model tests on protective barriers against rockfall, in:
15th EYGEC – European Young Geotechnical Engineers Con-
ference, 2002.
Bourrier, F.: Modélisation de l’impact d’un bloc rocheux sur un
terrain naturel, application à la trajectographie des chutes de
blocs, Ph.D. thesis, Institut Polytechnique de Grenoble, Greno-
ble, 2008.
Bourrier, F., Nicot, F., and Darve, F.: Physical processes within a 2D
granular layer during an impact, Granular Matter, 10, 415–437,
2008.
Bourrier, F., Dorren, L., Nicot, F., Berger, F., and Darve, F.: To-
wards objective rockfall trajectory simulation using a stochastic
impact model, Geomorphology, 110, 68–79, 2009a.
Bourrier, F., Eckert, N., Nicot, F., and Darve, F.: Bayesian stochas-
tic modeling of a spherical rock bouncing on a coarse soil, Nat.
Hazards Earth Syst. Sci., 9, 831–846, doi:10.5194/nhess-9-831-
2009, 2009b.
Bozzolo, D. and Pamini, R.: Simulation of rock falls down a valley
side, Acta Mech., 63, 113–130, 1986.
Bozzolo, D., Pamini, R., and Hutter, K.: Rockfall analysis – A
mathematical model and its test with field data, in: 5th Inter-
national Symposium on Landslides, 555–563, Balkema, Rotter-
damm, Lausanne, Switzerland, 1988.
Brabb, E.: Innovative approaches to landslide hazard and risk map-
ping, 4th International Symposium on Landslides, 1, 307–323,
1984.
Brang, P.: Resistance and elasticity: promising concepts for
the management of protection forests in the European Alps,
Forest Ecol. Manage., 145, 107–119, doi:10.1016/S0378-
1127(00)00578-8, 2001.
Nat. Hazards Earth Syst. Sci., 11, 2617–2651, 2011
2644 A. Volkwein et al.: Review on rockfall characterisation and structural protection
Brideau, M.-A., Stead, D., Roots, C., and Orwin, J.: Geomorphol-
ogy and engineering geology of a landslide in ultramafic rocks,
Dawson City, Yukon, Eng. Geol., 89, 171–194, 2007.
Broili, L.: In situ tests for the study of rockfall, Geologia Applicata
e Idrogeologia, 8, 105–111, 1973.
Broili, L.: Relations between scree slope morphometry and dynam-
ics of accumulation processes, in: Meeting on Rockfall dynamics
and protective works effectiveness, 11–23, Bergamo, Italy, 1977.
Budetta, P.: Assessment of rockfall risk along roads, Nat. Hazards
Earth Syst. Sci., 4, 71–81, doi:10.5194/nhess-4-71-2004, 2004.
Budetta, P. and Santo, A.: Morphostructural evolution and related
kinematics of rockfalls in Campania (southern Italy): A case
study, Eng. Geol., 36, 197–210, 1994.
Bugnion, L., Denk, M., Shimojo, K., Roth, A., and Volkwein,
A.: Full-scale experiments on shallow landslides in combina-
tion with flexible protection barriers, in: First World Landslide
Forum, 99–102, United Nations University, Tokyo, 2008.
Bunce, C. M., Cruden, D., and Morgenstern, N.: Assessment of the
hazard from rock fall on a highway, Can. Geotech. J., 34, 344–
356, 1997.
Burroughs, D., Henson, H. H., and Jiang, S.: Full scale geotextile
rock barrier wall testing, analysis and prediction, Geosynthetics’
93, 1993.
Calvetti, F.: Distinct Element evaluation of the rock-fall design load
for shelters, Rivista Italiana di Geotecnica, 3, 63–83, 1998.
Calvetti, F. and Di Prisco, C.: An uncoupled approach for the de-
sign of rockfall protection tunnels, Struct. Eng. Int., 19, 342–347,
2009.
Calvetti, F., Di Prisco, C., and Vecchiotti, M.: Experimental and
numerical study of rock-fall impacts on granular soils, Rivista
Italiana di Geotecnica, 4, 95–109, 2005.
Camponuovo, G.: ISMES experience on the model of St. Martino,
in: Meeting on Rockfall dynamics and protective works effec-
tiveness, 25–38, Bergamo, Italy, 1977.
Cancelli, A. and Crosta, G.: Hazard and risk assessment in rock-
fall prone areas, Risk Reliability in Ground Engineering, Thomas
Telford, 1993.
Carere, K., Ratto, S., and Zanolini, F., eds.: Prévention des mouve-
ments de versants et des instabilités de falaises, Programme In-
terreg IIC – Falaises, Méditerranée occidentale et Alpes latines,
confrontation des méthodes d’étude des éboulements dans l’arc
alpin, 2001.
Casanovas, M.: Dimensionamiento de galerias de proteccion
frente a desprendimientos de rocas, Master’s thesis, Universitat
Politècnica de Catalunya, 2006.
Cazzani, A., Mongiovi, L., and Frenez, T.: Dynamic Finite Element
Analysis of Interceptive Devices for Falling Rocks, Int. J. Rock
Mech., 39, 303–321, 2002.
CEN: EN 1997-1 – Eurocode 7 – Geotechnical Design, Tech. rep.,
European Committee for Standardization, Brussels, 2010.
Chau, K. T., Chan, L. C. P., Wu, J. J., Liu, J., Wong, R. H. C., and
Lee, C. F.: Experimental studies on rockfall and debris flow, in:
One Day Seminar on Planning, Design and Implementation of
Debris Flow and Rockfall Hazards Mitigation Measures, 115–
128, Hongkong, China, 1998a.
Chau, K. T, Wong, R., Liu, J., Wu, J. J., and Lee, C. F.: Shape ef-
fects on the coefficient of restitution during rockfall impacts, in:
9th International Congress on Rock Mechanics, 541–544, Paris,
France, 1999a.
Nat. Hazards Earth Syst. Sci., 11, 2617–2651, 2011
Chau, K. T., Wu, J., Wong, R., and Lee, C.: The coefficient of resti-
tution for boulders falling onto soil slopes with various values of
dry density and water content, in: International Symposium on
Slope Stability Engineering: Geotechnical and Geoenvironmen-
tal Aspects, 1355–1360, Matsuyama, Japan, 1999b.
Chau, K. T., Wong, R., and Wu, J.: Coefficient of restitution and
rotational motions of rockfall impacts, Int. J. Rock Mech. Min.,
39, 69–77, 2002.
Chau, K. T., Wong, R., Liu, J., and Lee, C.: Rockfall hazard analysis
for Hong Kong based on rockfall inventory, Rock Mech. Rock
Eng., 36, 383–408, 2003.
Chau, K. T., Wong, R., and Lee, C. F.: Rockfall Problems in Hong
Kong and some new Experimental Results for Coefficients of
Restitution, Int. J. Rock Mech. Min., 35, 662–663, 1998b.
Chikatamarla, R.: Optimisation of cushion materials for rockfall
protection galleries, Ph.D. thesis, Swiss Federal Institute of Tech-
nology ETHZ, Zurich, 2006.
Christen, M., Bartelt, P., and Gruber, U.: RAMMS – a modelling
system for snow avalanches, debris flows and rockfalls based
on IDL., PFG Photogrammetrie – Fernerkundung – Geoinfor-
mation, 4, 289–292, 2007.
Coe, J. A. and Harp, E. L.: Influence of tectonic folding on rockfall
susceptibility, American Fork Canyon, Utah, USA, Nat. Hazards
Earth Syst. Sci., 7, 1–14, doi:10.5194/nhess-7-1-2007, 2007.
Comité-Euro-International du Béton, C.: Concrete Structures under
Impact and Impulsive Load, Lausanne, 1988.
Copons, R. and Vilaplana, J.: Rockfall susceptibility zoning at a
large scale: From geomorphological inventory to preliminary
land use planning, Eng. Geol., 102, 142–151, 2008.
Corominas, J., Copons, R. J. M., Vilaplana, J., Altimir, J., and
Amigo, J.: Quantitative assessment of the residual risk in a rock-
fall protected area, Landslides, 2, 343–357, 2005.
Crosta, G. B. and Agliardi, F.: A methodology for physically based
rockfall hazard assessment, Nat. Hazards Earth Syst. Sci., 3,
407–422, doi:10.5194/nhess-3-407-2003, 2003.
Crosta, G. B. and Agliardi, F.: Parametric evaluation of 3D dis-
persion of rockfall trajectories, Nat. Hazards Earth Syst. Sci., 4,
583–598, doi:10.5194/nhess-4-583-2004, 2004.
Crosta, G., Agliardi, F., Frattini, P., and Imposato, S.: A three-
dimensional hybrid numerical model for rockfall simulation,
Geophys. Res. Abstr., 6, 2004.
Cundall, P.: A computer model for simulating progressive, large-
scale movements in blocky rock systems, in: Symp. Int. Soc.
Rock Mech., 1, Paper No. II–8, Nancy, France, 1971.
del Coz Dı́az, J., Nieto, P. G., Castro-Fresno, D., and Rodrı́guez-
Hernández, J.: Nonlinear explicit analysis and study of the be-
haviour of a new ring-type brake energy dissipator by FEM
and experimental comparison, Appl. Math. Comput., 216, 1571–
1582, 2010.
Derron, M.-H., Jaboyedoff, M., and Blikra, L. H.: Preliminary as-
sessment of rockslide and rockfall hazards using a DEM (Opp-
stadhornet, Norway), Nat. Hazards Earth Syst. Sci., 5, 285–292,
doi:10.5194/nhess-5-285-2005, 2005.
Descoeudres, F.: Aspects géomécaniques des instabilités de falaises
rocheuses et des chutes de blocs, Publications de la société suisse
de mécanique des sols et des roches, 135, 3–11, 1997.
Descoeudres, F. and Zimmermann, T.: Three-dimensional dynamic
calculation of rockfalls, in: Sixth International Congress on Rock
Mechanics, pp. 337–342, International Society for Rock Me-
www.nat-hazards-earth-syst-sci.net/11/2617/2011/
A. Volkwein et al.: Review on rockfall characterisation and structural protection
chanics, Montreal, Canada, 1987.
Dhakal, S., Bhandary, N. P., Yatabe, R., and Kinoshita, N.: Numer-
ical investigation of the effects of idealized rock-block shapes
and impact points on the performance of Long-span Pocket-type
Rock-net, in: 46th National Conference on Geotechnical En-
gineering, pp. 1185–1186, Japanese Geotechnical Society JGS,
Kobe, Japan, 2011a.
Dhakal, S., Bhandary, N. P., Yatabe, R., and Kinoshita, N.: Con-
stitutive modeling of friction damper for numerical simulation
of Long-span Pocket-type Rock-net, in: Annual Conference of
Japan Society of Civil Engineers JSCE, pp. 1185–1186, Shikoku
Branch, Kagawa, Japan, 2011b.
Dimnet, E.: Mouvement et collisions de solides rigides ou
déformables, Ph.D. thesis, Ecole Nationale des Ponts et
Chaussées, Paris, 2002.
Dimnet, E. and Frémond, M.: Instantaneous collisions of solids,
in: European Congress on Computational Methods in Applied
Sciences and Engineering, 11–17, Barcelona, Spain, 2000.
Dorren, L. and Berger, F.: Stem breakage of trees and energy dissi-
pation at rockfall impacts, Tree Physiol., 26, 63–71, 2006.
Dorren, L. and Seijmonsbergen, A.: Comparison of three GIS-
based models for predicting rockfall runout zones at a regional
scale, Geomorphology, 56, 49–64, 2003.
Dorren, L. K. A., Berger, F., and Putters, U. S.: Real-size ex-
periments and 3-D simulation of rockfall on forested and non-
forested slopes, Nat. Hazards Earth Syst. Sci., 6, 145–153,
doi:10.5194/nhess-6-145-2006, 2006.
Dorren, L., Berger, F., Jonnson, M., Krautblatter, M., Moelk, M.,
Stoffel, M., and Wehrli, A.: State of the art in rockfall - for-
est interactions, Schweizerische Zeitschrift für Forstwesen, 158,
128–141, 2007.
Dorren, L. K. A.: Rockyfor3D revealed – description of the com-
plete 3D rockfall model, Tech. rep., EcorisQ, http://www.ecorisq.
org, 2010.
Dorren, L. K. A., Maier, B., Putters, U. S., and Seijmonsbergen,
A.C.: Combining field and modelling techniques to assess rock-
fall dynamics on a protection forest hillslope in the European
Alps, Geomorphology, 57, 151–167, 2004.
Dudt, J. and Heidenreich, B.: Treatment of the uncertainty in a
three-dimensional numerical simulation model for rock falls, in:
International Conference on Landslides – Causes, Impacts and
Countermeasures, 507–514, Davos, Switzerland, 2001.
Duffy, J. D.: Flexible Wire Rope Rockfall Nets, in: Soils, Geology,
and Foundations – Rockfall prediction and Control and landslide
case histories (Transportation Research Record No. 1343), 30–
35, Trans. Res. B., 1992.
Duffy, J. D. and Haller, B.: Field Tests of Flexible Rockfall Barri-
ers, in: Proc. Transportation Facilities through Difficult Terrain,
edited by: Wu, J. T. and Barrett, R. K., 465–473, Balkema, 1993.
Dussauge-Peisser, C., Helmstetter, A., Grasso, J.-R., Hantz, D.,
Desvarreux, P., Jeannin, M., and Giraud, A.: Probabilistic
approach to rock fall hazard assessment: potential of histor-
ical data analysis, Nat. Hazards Earth Syst. Sci., 2, 15–26,
doi:10.5194/nhess-2-15-2002, 2002.
Dussauge-Peisser, C., Grasso, J.-R., and Helmstetter, A.: Statistical
analysis of rockfall volume distributions: Implications for rock-
fall dynamics, J. Geophys. Res. Sol. Ea., 108, 1–11, 2003.
Einstein, H. H.: Landslide risk assessment procedure, in: 5th In-
ternational Symposium on Landslides, 2, 1075–1090, Balkema,
www.nat-hazards-earth-syst-sci.net/11/2617/2011/
2645
Rotterdamm, Lausanne, Switzerland, 1988.
EOTA: ETAG 027 – guideline for the European technical approval
of falling rock protection kits, Tech. rep., European Organization
for Technical Approvals, Brussels, 2008.
Evans, S. and Hungr, O.: The assessment of rockfall hazard at the
base of talus slopes, Can. Geotech. J., 30, 620–636, 1993.
Falcetta, J.: Un nouveau modèle de calcul de trajectoires de blocs
rocheux, Revue Française de Géotechnique, 30, 11–17, 1985.
Fell, R., Ho, K., Lacasse, S., and Leroi, E.: A framework for land-
slide risk assessment and management, in: Landslide Risk Man-
agement, edited by: Hungr, O. and E., F. R. C. R. E., 3–26, Taylor
and Francis, London, 2005.
Fell, R., Corominas, J., Bonnard, C., Cascini, L., Leroi, E., and
Savage, W.: Guidelines for landslide susceptibility, hazard and
risk zoning for land use planning, Eng. Geol., 102, 85–98, 2008.
Fornaro, M., Peila, D., and Nebbia, M.: Block falls on rock slopes
– application of a numerical simulation program to some real
cases, in: 6th International Congress IAEG, Rotterdam, The
Netherlands, 1990.
Frattini, P., Crosta, G., Carrara, A., and Agliardi, F.: Assessment of
rockfall susceptibility by integrating statistical and physically-
based approaches, Geomorphology, 94, 419–437, 2008.
Frayssines, M.: Contribution à l’évaluation de l’aléa éboulement
rocheux (rupture), Ph.D. thesis, Université Josef Fourier, 2005.
Frehner, M., Wasser, B., and Schwitter, R.: Nachhaltigkeit und Er-
folgskontrolle im Schutzwald – Wegleitung für Pflegemassnah-
men in Wäldern mit Schutzfunktion, Tech. rep., Swiss Federal
Office for the Environment FOEN, Bern, 2005.
Frémond, M.: Rigid bodies collisions, Phys. Lett. A., 204, 33–41,
1995.
GEO: Landslides and boulder falls from natural terrains: interim
risk guidelines, GEO Report 75, Geotechnical Engineering Of-
fice, Civiel Engineering Department, Hong Kong, 1998.
Gerber, W.: Richtlinie über die Typenprüfung von Schutznetzen
gegen Steinschlag, Tech. rep., Bundesamt für Umwelt, Wald und
Landschaft (BUWAL), Eidgenössische Forschungsanstalt WSL,
Bern, 2001a.
Gerber, W.: Vergleich zwischen Vertikal- und Schrägwurfanlagen
zur Typenprüfung von flexiblen Steinschlschutzverbauungen,
Tech. rep., Eidg. Forschungsanstalt für Wald, Schnee und Land-
schaft WSL, Birmensdorf, 2001b.
Gerber, W.: Einwirkungen bei Steinschlag, in: FAN – Herstkurs
2008, Fachleute Naturgefahren Schweiz, Bellinzona, 2008.
Gerber, W. and Volkwein, A.: Different flexible Rockfall Barriers –
comparative Results from Type Testing, Geophys. Res. Abstr., 9,
2007.
Ghadimi-Khasraghy, S., Kishi, N., and Vogel, T.: Numerical sim-
ulation of consecutive rockfall impacts on reinforced concrete
slabs, Tech. rep., 33rd IABSE Symposium, Sustainable Infras-
tructure, Environment Friendly, Safe and Resource Efficient,
Bangkok, Thailand, 2009.
Giacomini, A., Buzzi, O., Renard, B., and Giani, G.: Experimen-
tal studies on fragmentation of rock falls on impact with rock
surfaces, Int. J. Rock Mech. Min., 46, 708–715, 2009.
Giani, G. P.: Rock Slope Stability Analysis, Taylor & Francis,
Balkema, 1992.
Glover, J., Volkwein, A., Dufour, F., Denk, M., and Roth, A.: Rock-
fall attenuator and hybrid drape systems – design and testing con-
siderations, in: Third Euro-Mediterranean Symposium on Ad-
Nat. Hazards Earth Syst. Sci., 11, 2617–2651, 2011
2646 A. Volkwein et al.: Review on rockfall characterisation and structural protection
vances in Geomaterials and Structures, edited by: Darve, F.,
Doghri, I., El Fatmi, R., Hassis, H., and Zenzri, H., 379–384,
Djerba, 2010.
Gokceoglu, C., Sonmez, H., and Ercanoglu, M.: Discontinuity con-
trolled probabilistic slope failure risk maps of the Altindag (set-
tlement) region in Turkey, Eng. Geol., 55, 277–296, 2000.
Goldsmith, W.: Impact, The theory and physical behaviour of col-
liding solids, Edward Arnold Publishers, Dover, 1960.
Gottardi, G. and Govoni, L.: Full-scale Modelling of Falling
Rock Protection Barriers, Rock Mech. Rock Eng., 43, 261–274,
doi:10.1007/s00603-009-0046-0, 2010.
Govi, M.: Photo-interpretation and mapping of the landslides trig-
gered by the Friuli earthquake (1976), Bulletin of the Interna-
tional Association of Eng. Geol., 15, 67–72, 1977.
Grassl, H. G.: Experimentelle und numerische Modellierung des
dynamischen Trag- und Verformungsverhaltens von hochflex-
iblen Schutzsystemen gegen Steinschlag, Ph.D. thesis, Eid-
genössische Technische Hochschule Zürich, 2002.
Grenon, M. and Hadjigeorgiou, J.: A design methodology for rock
slopes susceptible to wedge failure using fracture system mod-
elling, Eng. Geol., 96, 78–93, 2008.
Gruner, U.: Climatic and meteorological influences on rockfall and
rockslides (“Bergsturz”), in: Protection of populated territories
from floods, debris flow, mass movements and avalanches, 26–
30 May, 2008, 147–158, 2008.
Guenther, A., Carstensen, A., and Pohl, W.: Automated sliding sus-
ceptibility mapping of rock slopes, Nat. Hazards Earth Syst. Sci.,
4, 95–102, doi:10.5194/nhess-4-95-2004, 2004.
Günther, A.: SLOPEMAP: programs for automated mapping of
geometrical and kinematical properties of hard rock hill slopes,
Comput. Geosci., 29, 865–875, 2003.
Guzzetti, F., Carrara, A., Cardinali, M., and Reichenbach, P.: Land-
slide hazard evaluation: a review of current techniques and their
application in a multi-scale study, Central Italy, Geomorphology,
31, 181–216, 1999.
Guzzetti, F., Crosta, G., Detti, R., and Agliardi, F.: STONE: a com-
puter program for the three dimensional simulation of rock-falls,
Comput. Geosci., 28, 1079–1093, 2002.
Guzzetti, F., Reichenbach, P., and Wieczorek, G. F.: Rockfall haz-
ard and risk assessment in the Yosemite Valley, California, USA,
Nat. Hazards Earth Syst. Sci., 3, 491–503, doi:10.5194/nhess-3-
491-2003, 2003.
Guzzetti, F., Reichenbach, P., and Ghigi, S.: Rockfall hazard and
risk assessment along a transportation corridor in the Nera Val-
ley, central Italy, Environ. Manage., 34, 191–208, 2004.
Habib, P.: Note sur le rebondissement des blocs rocheux, in: Rock-
fall dynamics and protective works effectiveness, ISMES publi-
cation no. 90, 123–125, Bergamo, Italy, 1976.
Hamberger, M. and Stelzer, G.: Neue Erkenntnisse aus Tests von
dynamischen Seilsperren – Auswirkungen auf die Baupraxis,
Tech. rep., Trumer Schutzbauten, Kuchl, 2007.
Hearn, G., Barrett, R. K., and McMullen, M. L.: CDOT Flex-
post Rockfall Fence Development, Testing and Analysis, in:
Soils, Geology, and Foundations – Rockfall prediction and Con-
trol and landslide case histories (Transportation Research Record
No. 1343), pp. 23–29, Transportation Research Board, National
Academy Press, Washington, D.C., 1992.
Heidenreich, B.: Small and half scale experimental studies of rock-
fall impacts on sandy slopes, Ph.D. thesis, Ecole Polytechnique
Nat. Hazards Earth Syst. Sci., 11, 2617–2651, 2011
Fédérale de Lausanne, Lausanne, 2004.
Heierli, W.: Viadotto Bosco di Bedrina No2 – Steinschlagschutz:
Verhalten von Kies – Sand – Dämpfungsschichten, Tech. rep.,
Dipartimento Pubbliche Costruzioni, Ufficio Strade Nazionali,
Bellinzona, 1984.
Herrmann, N.: Experimentelle Erfassung des Betonverhaltens unter
Schockwellen, Ph.D. thesis, TH Karlsruhe, 2002.
Hoek, E.: Rockfall: a computer program for prediction rockfall tra-
jectories, ISRM News J, 2, 4–16, 1987.
Hoek, E.: Strength of rock and rock masses, ISRM News, 2, 4–16,
1994.
Hoek, E. and Bray, J.: Rock Slope Engineering, E & FN Spon,
London, 3rd edn., 1981.
Hopkins, M.: Eiger loses face in massive rockfall, http://www.
nature.com/news/2006/060717/full/news060717-3.html, 2006.
Hudson, J. A.: Rock Engineering systems: Theory and Practice,
Ellis Horwood, Chichester, 1992.
Hungr, O. and Evans, S.: Engineering evaluation of fragmental
rockfall hazards, in: 5th International Symposium on Land-
slides, 1, 685–690, Balkema, Rotterdamm, Lausanne, Switzer-
land, 1988.
Hungr, O., Evans, S., and Hazzard, J.: Magnitude and frequency of
rockfalls and rock slides along the main transportation corridors
of south-western British Columbia, Can. Geotech. J., 36, 224–
238, 1999.
Hungr, O., Fell, R., Couture, R., and Eberhardt, E.: Landslide Risk
Management, Taylor and Francis, 2005.
Ishikawa, N.: Recent progress on rock-shed studies in Japan, in:
Joint Japan-Swiss Scientific Seminar on Impact Load by Rock
Falls and Design of Protection Structures, 1–6, Kanazawa, Japan,
1999.
Jaboyedoff, M. and Derron, M.-H.: Integrated risk assessment pro-
cess for landslides, in: Landslide risk management, edited by
Hungr, O., Fell, R., Couture, R. R., and Eberhardt, E., 776, Tay-
lor and Francis, 2005.
Jaboyedoff, M. and Labiouse, V.: Preliminary assessment of rock-
fall hazard based on GIS data, in: 10th International Congress
on Rock Mechanics ISRM 2003 – Technology roadmap for rock
mechanics, 575–578, Johannesburgh, South Africa, 2003.
Jaboyedoff, M., Baillifard, F., Hantz, D., Heidenreich, B., and
Mazzoccola, D.: Terminologie, in: Prévention des mouvements
de versants et des instabilités de falaises, edited by Carere, K.,
Ratto, S., and Zanolini, F. E., 48–57, 2001.
Jaboyedoff, M., Baillifard, F., Philippossian, F., and Rouiller, J.-D.:
Assessing fracture occurrence using ”weighted fracturing den-
sity”: a step towards estimating rock instability hazard, Nat. Haz-
ards Earth Syst. Sci., 4, 83–93, doi:10.5194/nhess-4-83-2004,
2004.
Jaboyedoff, M., Baillifard, F., Couture, R., Locat, J., and Locat, P.:
New insight of geomorphology and landslide prone area detec-
tion using DEM, in: Landslides: Evaluation and Stabilization,
edited by Lacerda, W. A., Ehrlich, M., Fontoura, S. A. B., and
Sayo, A., 191–198, Taylor & Francis, London, 2004b.
Jaboyedoff, M., Baillifard, F., Derron, M.-H., Couture, R., Locat,
J., and Locat, P.: Switzerland modular and evolving rock slope
hazard assessment methods, in: Landslide and avalanches, edited
by: Senneset, K., Flaate, K. A., and Larsen, J., ICFL, 2005a.
Jaboyedoff, M., Dudt, J. P., and Labiouse, V.: An attempt to refine
rockfall hazard zoning based on the kinetic energy, frequency and
www.nat-hazards-earth-syst-sci.net/11/2617/2011/
A. Volkwein et al.: Review on rockfall characterisation and structural protection
fragmentation degree, Nat. Hazards Earth Syst. Sci., 5, 621–632,
doi:10.5194/nhess-5-621-2005, 2005b.
Jaboyedoff, M., Metzger, R., Oppikofer, T., Couture, R., Derron,
M.-H., Locat, J., and Turmel, D.: New insight techniques to an-
alyze rock-slope relief using Dem and 3D-imaging cloud points:
COLTOP-3D, in: Rock mechanics: Meeting Society’s Chal-
lenges and demands. 1st Canada-US Rock Mechanics Sympo-
sium, edited by: Eberhardt, E., Stead, D., and Morrison, T., 1,
Taylor and Francis, Vancouver, Canada, 2007.
Jacquemoud, J.: Swiss guideline for the design of protection gal-
leries: background, safety concept and case histories, in: Joint
Japan-Swiss Scientific Seminar on Impact Load by Rock Falls
and Design of Protection Structures, 95–102, Kanazawa, Japan,
1999.
Jancke, O., Dorren, L., Berger, F., Fuhr, M., and Köhl, M.: Impli-
cations of coppice stand characteristics on the rockfall protection
function, Forest Ecol. Manag., 259, 124–131, 2009.
Japan Road Association: Rockfall Handbook, Tokyo, Japan, 1983.
Japan Road Association: Manual for anti-impact structures against
falling rocks, Tokyo, Japan, 2000.
Japanese highway public corporation: Research report on rock
falling tests, 1973.
Jones, C. L., Higgins, J., and Andrew, R.: Colorado Rockfall
Simulation Program Version 4.0, Tech. rep., Colorado Depart-
ment of Transportation, Denver, http://dnr.state.co.us/geostore/
ProductInfo.aspx?productid=MI-66, 2000.
Jonsson, M.: Energy absorption of trees in a rockfall protection
forest, Ph.D. thesis, ETH Zürich, Zürich, 2007.
Kalberer, M.: Quantifizierung und Optimierung der
Schutzwaldleistung gegenüber Steinschlag, Ph.D. thesis,
Albert-Ludwigs-Universität, Freiburg im Breisgau, 2007.
Kamijo, A., Onda, S., Masuya, H., and Tanaka, Y.: Fundamen-
tal test on restitution coefficient and frictional coefficient of rock
fall, in: 5th Symposium on Impact Problems in Civil Engineer-
ing, 83–86, 2000.
Kawahara, S. and Muro, T.: Effect of soil slope gradient on mo-
tion of rockfall, in: International Symposium on Slope Stability
Engineering, 2, 1343–1348, Matsuyama, Japan, 1999.
Kemeny, J., Turner, K., and Norton, B.: LIDAR for Rock Mass
Characterization: Hardware, Software, Accuracy and Best-
Practices, in: Workshop on Laser and Photogrammetric Methods
for Rock Mass Characterization: Exploring New Opportunities,
Golden, Colorado, USA, 2006.
Kirkby, M. and Statham, I.: Surface stone movement and scree for-
mation, J. Geol., 83, 349–362, 1975.
Kishi, N., Nakano, O., Matsuoka, K., and Nishi, H.: Field test on
absorbing capacity of a sand cushion , J. Struct. Eng., 39A, 1587–
1597, 1993 (in Japanese).
Kishi, N., Okada, S., and Konno, N.: Numerical Impact Response
Analysis of Rockfall Protection Galleries, Struct. Eng. Int., 19,
313–320, 2009.
Kobayashi, Y., Harp, E., and Kagawa, T.: Simulation of Rock-
falls triggered by earthquakes, Rock Mech. Rock Eng., 23, 1–20,
1990.
Konno, H., Ishikawa, H., Okada, S., and Kishi, N.: Prototype im-
pact test of steel-concrete composite type rock-sheds, in: In-
terdisciplinary workshop on rockfall protection, edited by Volk-
wein, A., Labiouse, V., and Schellenberg, K., 46–48, Swiss Fed.
Research Inst. WSL, Morschach, Switzerland, 2008.
www.nat-hazards-earth-syst-sci.net/11/2617/2011/
2647
Krummenacher, B. and Keusen, H.: Rockfall simulation and haz-
ard mapping based on Digital Terrain Modell (DTM), European
Geologist, 12, 33–35, 1996.
Krummenacher, B., Schwab, S., and Dolf, F.: Assessment of natural
hazards by three calculations of rockfall behaviour, in: Interdisci-
plinary Workshop on Rockfall Protection, edited by: Volkwein,
A., Labiouse, V., and Schellenberg, K., 49–51, Swiss Fed. Re-
search Inst. WSL, Morschach, Switzerland, 2008.
Labiouse, V.: Fragmental rockfall paths: comparison of simulations
on Alpine sites and experimental investigation of boulder im-
pacts, in: 9th International Symposium on Landslides, 1, 457–
466, Balkema, 2004.
Labiouse, V., Descoeudres, F., and Montani, S.: Experimental study
of rock sheds impacted by rock blocks, Struct. Eng. Int., 6, 171–
176, 1996.
Labiouse, V. and Heidenreich, B.: Half-scale experimental study of
rockfall impacts on sandy slopes, Nat. Hazards Earth Syst. Sci.,
9, 1981–1993, doi:10.5194/nhess-9-1981-2009, 2009.
Labiouse, V., Heidenreich, B., Desvarreux, P., Viktorovitch, M.,
and Guillemin, P.: Études trajectographiques, in: Prévention des
mouvements de versants et des instabilités de falaises, edited by:
Carere, K., Ratto, S., and Zanolini, F., 155–211, Aosta, Italy,
2001.
Lambert, S. and Bourrier, F.: Design of rockfall protection embank-
ments: a critical review, Earth Surf. Proc. Land ., in press, 2011.
Lambert, S. and Nicot, F., eds.: Rockfall engineering, ISBN 978-
1-84821-26-5, 464 pages, John Wiley & Sons, ISTE Ltd., New
York, London, 2011.
Lambert, S., Gotteland, P., and Nicot, F.: Experimental study of
the impact response of geocells as components of rockfall pro-
tection embankments, Nat. Hazards Earth Syst. Sci., 9, 459–467,
doi:10.5194/nhess-9-459-2009, 2009.
Lan, H., Martin, D., and Lim, C.: RockFall analyst: A GIS ex-
tension for three-dimensional and spatially distributed rockfall
hazard modeling, Comput. Geosci., 33, 262–279, 2007.
Lang, H.-J.: Erdgasleitungen in der Gemeinde Innertkirchen, Tran-
sitgas AG, Zurich, 1974.
Lato, M., Diederichs, M. S., Hutchinson, D. J., and Harrap, R.:
Optimization of LIDAR scanning and processing for automated
structural evaluation of discontinuities in rockmasses, Int. J.
Rock Mech. Min., 46, 194–199, 2009.
Le Hir, C., Dimnet, E., and Berger, F.: Étude de la trajectogra-
phie des chutes de blocs en forêts de montagne, Bull. Lab. Ponts
Chaussées, 263/264, 85–101, 2006.
Lepert, P. and Corté, J.: Etude en centrifugeuse de lı́mpact de gros
blocs rocheux sur un remblai de protection, in: Centrifuge ’88,
1988.
Leroueil, S. and Locat, J.: Slope Movements – Geotechnical Char-
acterization, Risk Assessment and Mitigation, in: XI Danube-
European Conf. on Soil Mechanics and Geotechnical Engineer-
ing, edited by: Lisac and Szavits-Nossan, Balkema, Porec, Croa-
tia, 1998.
Lied, K.: Rockfall problems in Norway, ISMES Publication, 90,
51–53, 1977.
Liniger, M. and Bieri, D.: A2, Gotthardautobahn, Felssturz Gurt-
nellen vom 31 Mai 2006, Beurteilung und Massnahmen, in: Pub.
Soc. Suisse Mécanique Soles Roches, 153, 81–86, 2006.
Lorentz, J., Donzé, F., Perrotin, P., and Plotto, P.: Experimen-
tal study of the dissipative efficiency of multylayered protec-
Nat. Hazards Earth Syst. Sci., 11, 2617–2651, 2011
2648 A. Volkwein et al.: Review on rockfall characterisation and structural protection
tive structure against rockfall impact, Revue européenne de génie
civil, 10, 295–308, 2006.
Lorentz, J., Perrotin, P., and Donzé, F.: A new sandwich design
structure for protection against rockfalls, in: Interdisciplinary
workshop on rockfall protection, edited by Volkwein, A., Labi-
ouse, V., and Schellenberg, K., Swiss Fed. Research Inst. WSL,
Morschach, Switzerland, 2008.
Loye, A., Jaboyedoff, M., and Pedrazzini, A.: Identification of po-
tential rockfall source areas at a regional scale using a DEM-
based geomorphometric analysis, Nat. Hazards Earth Syst. Sci.,
9, 1643–1653, doi:10.5194/nhess-9-1643-2009, 2009.
Luckman, B. H.: Rockfalls and Rockfall inventory data: some
obervations from Surprise Valley, Jasper National Park, Canada,
Earth Surf. Proc., 1, 287–298, 1976.
Lundström, T.: Mechanical stability and growth performance of
trees, Ph.D. thesis, University of Bern, Bern, 2010.
Maegawa, K., Yoshida, H., Fujii, T., Shiomi, M., and Ohmori,
K.: Weight falling tests on the rock-shed composed of CFT-
members, in: Tubular Structures X, edited by: Jaurrieta, A. C.,
Alonso, A., and Alonso, A., 533–540, Swets & Zeitlinger, Lisse,
2003.
Maerz, N., Youssef, A., and Fennessey, T. W.: New Risk-
Consequence Rockfall Hazard Rating System for Missouri High-
ways using Digital Image Analysis, Environ. Eng. Geosci., 11,
229–249, 2005.
Magnier, S.-A. and Donzé, F.: Numerical simulations of impacts
using a discrete element method, Mech. Cohes.-Frict. Mat., 3,
257–276, 1998.
Malamud, B., Turcotte, D., Guzzetti, F., and P., R.: Landslide in-
ventories and their statistical properties, Earth Surf. Proc. Land.,
29, 687–711, 2004.
Margreth, S.: Snow Pressure Measurements on Snow Net Systems,
in: Acte de colloque, 241–248, Chamonix, 1995.
Masuya, H.: Design Method of Structures under Impact Action by
Concept of Performance Based Design, Japan Society of Civil
Engineers, Committee of Structural Engineering, Subcommittee
concerning Performance Based Design of Structures against Im-
pact Action, 2007.
Masuya, H. and Kajikawa, Y.: Numerical analysis of the collision
between a falling rock and a cushion by distinct element method,
Computer Methods and Advances in Geomechanics, 493–498,
1991.
Masuya, H. and Nakata, Y.: Development of numerical model com-
bining distinct element and finite element methods and applica-
tion to rock shed analysis, in: Proc. Japan Soc. Civil Eng., 710-I,
113–128, Japan, 2001.
Masuya, H., Tanaka, Y., Onda, S., and Ihara, T.: Evaluation of
Rock falls on slopes and Simulation of the Motion of Rock Falls
in Japan, in: Joint Japan-Swiss Scientific Seminar on Impact
Load by Rock Falls and Design of Protection Structures, 21–28,
Kanazawa, Japan, 1999.
Masuya, H., Ihara, T., Onda, S., and Kamijo, A.: Experimental
Study on Some Parameters for Simulation of Rock Fall on Slope,
in: Fourth Asia-Pacific Conf. on Shock and Impact Loads on
Structures, 63–69, Japan, 2001.
Masuya, H., Amanuma, K., Nishikawa, Y., and Tsuji, T.: Basic
rockfall simulation with consideration of vegetation and appli-
cation to protection measure, Nat. Hazards Earth Syst. Sci., 9,
1835–1843, doi:10.5194/nhess-9-1835-2009, 2009.
Nat. Hazards Earth Syst. Sci., 11, 2617–2651, 2011
Matsuoka, N.: Frost weathering and rockwall erosion in the south-
eastern Swiss Alps: Long-term (1994-2006) observations, Geo-
morphology, 99, 353–368, 2008.
Matsuoka, N. and Sakai, H.: Rockfall activity from an alpine cliff
during thawing periods, Geomorphology, 28, 309–328, 1999.
Mavrouli, O. and Corominas, J.: Vulnerability of simple rein-
forced concrete buildings to damage by rockfalls, Landslides,
7, 169–180, http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s10346-010-0200-5,
10.1007/s10346-010-0200-5, 2010.
Mazzoccola, D. and Sciesa, E.: Implementation and comparison of
different methods for rockfall hazard assessment in the Italian
Alps, in: 8th International Symposium on Landslides, 2, 1035–
1040, Balkema, Rotterdam, Cardiff, UK, 2000.
Mazzoccola, D. F. and Hudson, J. A.: A comprehensive method of
rock mass characterisation for indicating natural slope instability,
Q. J. Eng. Geol. Hydroge., 29, 37–56, 1996.
Meissl, G.: Modellierung der Reichweite von Felsstürzen: Fall-
beispiele zur GIS-gestützten Gefahrenbeurteilung, Ph.D. thesis,
Institut für Geographie. Univ. Innsbruck, 1998.
Meissl, G.: Modelling the runout distances of rockfall using a ge-
ographic information system, Z. Geomorphol., 125, 129–137,
2001.
Monnet, J., Mermin, E., Chanussotz, J., and Berger, F.: Tree top
detection using local maxima filte-ring: a parameter sensitiv-
ity analysis, in: Silvila-ser 2010, 10th International Conference
on LiDAR Applications for Assessing Forest Ecosystems, 1–9,
Freiburg, Germany, 2010.
Montani-Stoffel, S.: Sollicitation dynamique de la couverture des
galeries de protection lors de chutes de blocs, Ph.D. thesis, École
Polytechnique Fédérale de Lausanne, Lausanne, 1998.
Murata, S. and Shibuya, H.: Measurement of impact loads on the
rockfall prevention walls and speed of falling rocks using a mid-
dle size slope model, in: 2nd Asia-Pacific Conference on Shock
& Impact Loads on Structures, 383–393, Melbourne, Australia,
1997.
Mustoe, G. G. W. and Huttelmaier, H.: Dynamic Simulation of a
Rockfall Fence by the Discrete Element Method, Microcomputer
in Civil Engineering, 8, 423–437, 1993.
Nakano, O., Sato, M., Kishi, N., Matsuoka, K., and Nomachi, S.:
Full scale impact tests of PC multi-girder with three-layered ab-
sorbing system, in: 13th International Conference on SMiRT, IV,
201–206, 1995.
Nakata, Y., Masuya, H., Kajikawa, Y., and Okada, T.: The Analy-
sis of Impact Behaviour of Rock-Shed by Combination of Dis-
tinct Element Method and Finite Element Method, in: 2nd Asia-
Pacific Conference on Shock & Impact Loads on Structures,
403–410, Melbourne, Australia, 1997.
Nicot, F.: Etude du comportement méchanique des ouvrages sou-
ples de protection contre les éboulements rocheux, Ph.D. thesis,
Ecole Centrale de Lyon, 1999.
Nicot, F., Nouvel, P., Cambou, B., Rochet, L., and Mazzoléni, G.:
Etude du comportement mecanique des ouvrages souples de pro-
tection contre les eboulements rocheux, Revue française de génie
civil, 3, 295–319, 1999.
Nicot, F., Cambou, B., and Mazzoléni, G.: Design of Rockfall Re-
straining Nets from a Discrete Element Modelling, Rock Mech.
Rock Eng., 34, 99–118, 2001.
Nicot, F., Gay, M., Boutillier, B., and Darve, F.: Modelling of In-
teraction between a Snow Mantel and a Flexible Structure using
www.nat-hazards-earth-syst-sci.net/11/2617/2011/
A. Volkwein et al.: Review on rockfall characterisation and structural protection
a Discrete Element Method, in: Proc. Num. Models in Geome-
chanics NUMOG VIII, edited by: Pande, G. N. and Pietruszcak,
S., 699–703, Swets & Zeitlinger, 2002a.
Nicot, F., Gay, M., and Tacnet, J.: Interaction between a Snow Man-
tel and a Flexible Structure: A new Method to Design Avalanche
Nets, Cold Reg. Sci. Technol., 34, 67–84, 2002b.
Nicot, F., Gotteland, P., Bertrand, D., and Lambert, S.: Multi-scale
approach to geo-composite cellular structures subjected to im-
pact, International Journal for Numerical and Analytical Meth-
ods in Geomechanics, 31, 1477–1515, 2007.
Norrish, N. and Wyllie, D.: Landslides – Investigation and mitiga-
tion, in: Rock slope stability analysis, edited by: Turner, A. and
Schuster, R. L., Transportation Research Board, special report
247, 673, National Academy Press, Washington, DC, 1996.
Oppikofer, T., Jaboyedoff, M., and Coe, J. A.: Rockfall hazard at
Little Mill Campground, Uinta National 150 Forest: Part 2. DEM
analysis, in: 1st North American Landslide Conference, edited
by: Schaefer, V. R., Schuster, R. L., and Turner, A. K., AEG
Special Publication no. 23, 1351–1361, Vail, Colorado, USA,
2007.
Oppikofer, T., Jaboyedoff, M., and Keusen, H.-R.: Collapse at the
eastern Eiger flank in the Swiss Alps, Nat. Geosci., 1, 531–535,
2008.
Paronuzzi, P.: Probabilistic approach for design optimization of
rockfall protective barriers, Q. J. Eng. Geol., 22, 175–183, 1989.
Peila, D. and Ronco, C.: Technical Note: Design of rockfall net
fences and the new ETAG 027 European guideline, Nat. Hazards
Earth Syst. Sci., 9, 1291–1298, doi:10.5194/nhess-9-1291-2009,
2009.
Peila, D., Pelizza, S., and Sassudelli, F.: Evaluation of Behaviour of
Rockfall Restraining Nets by Full Scale Tests, Rock Mech. Rock
Eng., 31, 1–24, 1998.
Peila, D., Castiglia, C., Oggeri, C., Guasti, G., Recalcati, P., and
Rimoldi, P.: Testing and modelling geogrid reinforced soil em-
bankments subject to high energy rock impacts, in: 7th Interna-
tional conference on geosynthetics, 2002.
Peila, D., Oggeri, C., and Castiglia, C.: Ground reinforced embank-
ments for rockfall protection, design and evaluation of full scale
tests, Landslides, 4, 255–265, 2007.
Perret, S., Stoffel, M., and Kienholz, H.: Spatial and temporal rock
fall activity in a forest stand in the Swiss Prealps – a dendrogeo-
morphological case study, Geomorphology, 74, 219–231, 2006.
Pfeiffer, T. and Bowen, T.: Computer Simulation of Rockfalls, Bul-
letin of the Association of Engineering Geologists, 26, 135–146,
1989.
Pichler, B., Hellmich, C., and Mang, H.: Impact of rocks onto
gravel – Design and evaluation experiments, Int. J. Impact Eng.,
31, 559–578, 2005.
Pierson, L. A., Davis, S. A., and Van Vickle, R.: Rockfall Hazard
Rating System Implementation Manual, Oregon, 1990.
Piteau, D. and Clayton, R.: Computer Rockfall Model, in: Meet-
ing on Rockfall Dynamics and Protective Works Effectiveness,
no. 90 in ISMES Publication, 123–125, Bergamo, Italy, 1976.
Piteau, D. and Clayton, R.: Discussion of paper C̈omputerized de-
sign of rock slopes using interactive graphics for the input and
output of geometrical datab̈y Cundall, P., in: Proceedings of the
16th Symposium on Rock Mechanics, Minneapolis, USA, 62–
63, 1977
Plassiard, J., Donzé, F., and Plotto, P.: High energy impact on
www.nat-hazards-earth-syst-sci.net/11/2617/2011/
2649
enbamkments – a numerical discrete approach, in: 9th Inter-
national Congress on Numerical Models in Geomechanics NU-
MOG, 609–614, Ottawa, Canada, 2004.
Plassiard, J.-P. and Donzé, F.-V.: Rockfall Impact Parameters on
Embankments: A Discrete Element Method Analysis, Struct.
Eng. Int., 19, 333–341, 2009.
Raetzo, H., Lateltin, O., Bollinger, D., and Tripet, J.: Hazard as-
sessment in Switzerland – Code of practice for mass movements,
B. Eng. Geol. Environ., 61, 263–268, 2002.
Rammer, W., Brauner, M., Dorren, L., Berger, F., and Lexer, M.:
Validation of an integrated 3D forest – rockfall model, Geophys.
Res. Abstr., Vol. 9, 04634, Vienna, 2007.
Rammer, W., Brauner, M., Dorren, L. K. A., Berger, F., and
Lexer, M. J.: Evaluation of a 3-D rockfall module within a for-
est patch model, Nat. Hazards Earth Syst. Sci., 10, 699–711,
doi:10.5194/nhess-10-699-2010, 2010.
Rapp, A.: Recent development of mountain slopes in Karkevagge
and surroundings, northern Scandinavia, Geogr. Ann., 42, 65–
200, 1960.
Ritchie, A.: Evaluation of rockfall and its control, Highway re-
search record, 17, 13–28, 1963.
Rochet, L.: Development of numerical models for the analysis of
propagation of rock-falls, 6th Int. Congress on Rock Mech, 1,
479–484, 1987a.
Rochet, L.: Application des modèles numériques de propagation à
l’étude des éboulements rocheux, Bulletin de liaison des labora-
toires des ponts et chaussées, 150–151, 84–95, 1987b.
Romana, M.: Practice of SMR classification for slope appraisal, in:
5th International Symposium on Landslides, Balkema, Rotter-
damm, Lausanne, Switzerland, 1988.
Romana, M.: A geomechanical classification for slopes: slope mass
rating, Comprehensive Rock Engineering, Pergamon, Oxford,
1993.
Rouiller, J.-D. and Marro, C.: Application de la méthodologie
MATTEROCK à lévaluation du danger lié aux falaises, Eclogae
Geologicae Helvatiae, 90, 393–399, 1997.
Rouiller, J. D., Jaboyedoff, M., Marro, C., Phlippossian, F., and
Mamin, M.: Pentes instables dans le Pennique valaisan. Matte-
rock: une méthodologie dáuscultation des falaises et de détection
des éboulements majeurs potentiels, Rapport final du PNR31,
vdf Hochschulverlag AG an der ETH Zürich, Zürich, Switzer-
land, 1998.
Santi, M. P., Russel, C. P., Higgins, J. D., and Spriet, J. I.: Modi-
fication and statistical analysis of the Colorado Rockfall Hazard
Rating System, Eng. Geol., 104, 55–65, 2008.
Sasiharan, N., Muhunthan, B., Badger, T., Shu, S., and Car-
radine, D.: Numerical analysis of the performance of
wire mesh and cable net rockfall protection systems, Eng.
Geol., 88, 121–132, doi:10.1016/j.enggeo.2006.09.005, http:
//www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/B6V63-4M69JSG-1/2/
74d8147926832f9eb71fccc4859396f4, 2006.
Sato, M., Kishi, N., Iwabuchi, T., Tanimoto, T., and Shimada, T.:
Shock Absorbing Performance of Sand Cushion, in: 1st Asia-
Pacific Conference on Shock and Impact Loads on Structures,
393–400, Singapore, 1996.
Schellenberg, K.: On the design of rockfall protection galleries,
No. 17924, ETHZ, Institute of Structural Engineering, Zurich,
2008.
Schellenberg, K.: On the design of rockfall protection galleries –
Nat. Hazards Earth Syst. Sci., 11, 2617–2651, 2011
2650 A. Volkwein et al.: Review on rockfall characterisation and structural protection
An analytical approach for a performance based design, SVH
Verlag, 2009.
Schellenberg, K. and Vogel, T.: Swiss Rockfall Galleries – Impact
Load, in: Structures and Extreme Events, 302–303 and CD–
ROM file LIS099.PDF, 1–8, IABSE Symposium Lisbon 2005,
IABSE, Zurich, 2005.
Schellenberg, K. and Vogel, T.: A Dynamic Design Method for
Rockfall Protection Galleries, Struct. Eng. Int., 19(3), 321–326,
2009.
Schellenberg, K., Volkwein, A., Roth, A., and Vogel, T.: Large-
scale impact tests on rockfall galleries, in: 7th Int. Conference
on Shock & Impact Loads on Structures, 17–19 October 2007,
497–504, Bejing, 2007.
Schellenberg, K., Volkwein, A., Denk, M., and Vogel, T.: Falling
weight tests on rock fall protection galleries with cushion layers,
in: Interdisciplinary Workshop on Rockfall Protection, edited by:
Volkwein, A., Labiouse, V., and Schellenberg, K., Swiss Fed.
Research Inst. WSL, Morschach, Switzerland, 2008.
Schneuwly, D. M. and Stoffel, M.: Changes in spatio-temporal pat-
terns of rockfall activity on a forested slope – a case study using
dendrogeomorphology, Geomorphology, 102, 522–531, 2008.
Scioldo, G.: Slope instability recognition, analysis, and zonation,
in: Rotomap: analisi statistica del rotolamento dei massi, 81–84,
Milano, 1991.
Scioldo, G.: User guide ISOMAP & ROTOMAP – 3D surface
modelling and rockfall analysis, http://www.geoandsoft.com/
manuali/english/rotomap.pdf, 2006.
Selby, M. J.: A rock mass strength classification for geomorphic
purposes: with tests from Antartica and New Zealand, Z. Geo-
morphologie, 24, 31–51, 1980.
Selby, M. J.: Controls on the stability and inclinations of hillslopes
formed on hard rock, Earth Surf. Proc. Land., 7, 449–467, 1982.
Shu, S., Muhunthan, B., Badger, T. C., and Grandorff,
R.: Load testing of anchors for wire mesh and cable
net rockfall slope protection systems, Eng. Geol., 79,
162–176, doi:10.1016/j.enggeo.2005.01.008, http://www.
sciencedirect.com/science/article/B6V63-4FWKDWV-1/2/
24d31d12a77ea868edf8184abb781f6d, 2005.
SIA261: Einwirkungen auf Tragwerke, Tech. rep., Schweizerische
Ingenieure und Architekten, Bern, 2003.
Soeters, R. and Van Westen, C.: Slope instability recognition, anal-
ysis, and zonation, in: Landslides – Investigation and Mitiga-
tion – Special Report 247, edited by Turner, A. and Schuster, R.,
129–177, Trans. Res. B., National Research Council, National
Academy Press, Washington, D.C., USA, 1996.
Sonoda, Y.: A study on the simple estimation method of impact
load by the one dimensional stress wave analysis, in: Joint Japan-
Swiss Scientific Seminar on Impact Load by Rock Falls and De-
sign of Protection Structures, 43–50, Kanazawa, Japan, 1999.
Spang, R. and Bolliger, R.: Vom Holzzaun zum Hochenergienetz –
die Entwicklung des Steinschlagschutzes von den Anfängen bis
zur Gegenwart, Geobrugg Schutzsysteme, Romanshorn, 2001.
Spang, R. and Rautenstrauch, R.: Empirical and mathematical ap-
proaches to rockfall protection and their practical applications,
in: 5th International Symposium on Landslides, 1237–1243,
Balkema, Rotterdamm, Lausanne, Switzerland, 1988.
Spang, R. and Sönser, T.: Optimized rockfall protection by “Rock-
fall”, in: 8th Int. Congr. Rock Mech., 3, 1233–1242, Tokyo,
1995.
Nat. Hazards Earth Syst. Sci., 11, 2617–2651, 2011
Statham, I.: A simple dynamic model of rockfall: some theoreti-
cal principles and model and field experiments, in: ISMES: In-
ternational Colloquium on Physical and Geomechanical Models,
237–258, Bergamo, Italy, 1979.
Statham, I. and Francis, S.: Hillslope processes, in: Influence of
scree accumulation and weathering on the development of steep
mountain slopes, edited by: Abrahams, A., Allen and Unwin,
Winchester, 1986.
Stevens, W. D.: Rocfall: A tool for probablistic analysis, design
of remedial measures and prediction of rockfalls, Master’s the-
sis, University of Toronto, http://www.rocscience.com/library/
pdf/rf 3.pdf, 1998.
Strahler, A. N.: Quantitative geomorphology of erosional land-
scapes, in: Compt. Rend. 19th Intern. Geol. Cong., 13, 341–354,
1954.
Straub, D. and Schubert, M.: Modelling and managing uncertainties
in rock-fall hazards, Georisk, 2, 1–15, 2008.
Stronge, W. J.: Impacts mechanics, Cambridge University Press,
Cambridge, 2000.
Studer, C.: Simulation eines Bremsrings im Steinschlagschutzsys-
tem, Master’s thesis, Eidgenössische Technische Hochschule
Zürich, diplomarbeit am Institut für Baustatik und Konstruktion,
ETH Zürich, 2001.
Sturzenegger, M., Stead, D., Froese, C., Moreno, F., and Jaboyed-
off, M.: Mapping the geological structure of Turtle Mountain,
Alberta: A critical interpretation of field, Dem and LIDAR
based techniques, in: Rock mechanics: Meeting Society’s Chal-
lenges and demand. 1st Canada-US Rock Mechanics Sympo-
sium, edited by: Eberhardt, E., Stead, D., and Morrison, T., 2,
Taylor & Francis Ltd, Vancouver, Canada, 2007a.
Sturzenegger, M., Yan, M., Stead, D., and Elmo, D.: Applica-
tion and limitations of ground-based laser scanning in rock slope
characterisation, in: Rock mechanics: Meeting Society’s chal-
lenges and demands. 1st Canada-US Rock Mechanics Sympo-
sium, edited by: Eberhardt, E., Stead, D., and Morrison, T., 1,
29–36, Taylor & Francis, London, Vancouver, Canada, 2007b.
Tajima, T., Maegawa, K., Iwasaki, M., Shinohara, K., and
Kawakami, K.: Evaluation of Pocket-type Rock Net by Full
Scale Tests, in: IABSE Symposium Bangkok 2009: Sustain-
able Infrastructure. Environment Friendly Safe and Resource Ef-
ficient, 96, IABSE reports, International Association for Bridge
and Structural Engineering, 2003.
Teraoka, M., Iguchi, H., Ichikawa, T., Nishigaki, Y., and Sakurai, S.:
Analysis of motion for rock falling on a natural slope by using
digital video image, in: 5th Symposium on Impact Problems in
Civil Engineering, 87–90, Japan, 2000.
Thommen, R. A.: Testing of various types of rockfall flexible wire
rope mitigation barrier: an overview of testing to date, in: 59th
Highway Geology Symposium, Santa Fe, 2008.
Tonello, J.: Généralités et approche de modèles simples, in: Stage
paravalanches, E.N.P.C., Paris, 1988.
Tonello, J.: Couverture pare-blocs structurellement dissipante,
Tech. rep., METL/DRAST, Label IVOR 01.1. Mission
Génie Civil, http://www.equipement.gouv.fr/recherche/incitatif/
ivor, 2001.
Toppe, R.: Terrain models – A tool for natural hazard mapping,
IAHS, Publication, 162, 1987a.
Toppe, R.: Avalanche formation, movement and effects, chapitre
Terrain models – a tool for natural hazard mapping, IAHS Publi-
www.nat-hazards-earth-syst-sci.net/11/2617/2011/
A. Volkwein et al.: Review on rockfall characterisation and structural protection
cation, 162, 629–638, 1987b.
Turner, R., Duffy, J. D., and Turner, J. P.: Post Foundations for
Flexible Rockfall Fences, in: Proc. 60th Highway Geology Sym-
posion, 2009.
Ujihira, M., Takagai, N., and Iwasa, T.: An experimental study on
the characteristics of the impact load of falling rock, International
Journal of Surface Mining and Reclamation, 7, 81–89, 1993.
Urciuoli, G.: Sperimentazione sulla caduta di blocchi lungo un
pendio nella formazione calcareo-dolomitica della Penisola Sor-
rentina: Convengo sul tema, in: Convengo sul tema: Cartografia
e monitoraggio dei movimenti franosi, 35–54, Bologna, Italy,
1988.
Urciuoli, G.: Giornata di Studio su La protezione contro la caduta
massi dai versanti rocciosi, 29–36, Torino, Italy, 1996.
Ushiro, T., Shinohara, S., Tanida, K., and Yagi, N.: A study on
the motion of rockfalls on Slopes, in: 5th Symposium on Impact
Problems in Civil Engineering, 91–96, Japan, 2000.
Van Dijke, J. and van Westen, C.: Rockfall hazard: a geomorpho-
logical application of neighbourhood analysis with ILWIS, ITC
Journal, 1, 40–44, 1990.
Van Westen, C.: Geo-information tools for landslide risk assess-
ment: an overview of recent developments, in: 9th International
Symposium on Landslides, Balkema, 2004.
Vangeon, J.-M., Hantz, D., and Dussauge, C.: Rockfall predictibil-
ity: a probabilistic approach combining historical and geome-
chanical studies, Revue Française de Géotechnique, 95/96, 143–
154, 2001.
Varnes, D. J.: IAEG Commission on Landslides & other Mass
Movements, in: Landslide hazard zonation: a review of prin-
ciples and practice, 63, UNESCO Press, Paris, 1984.
Vogel, T., Labiouse, V., and Masuya, H.: Rockfall Protection as an
Integral Task, Struct. Eng. Int., 19(3), 321–326, 2009.
Volkwein, A.: Numerische Simulation von flexiblen Stein-
schlagschutzsystemen, Ph.D. thesis, Eidgenössische Technische
Hochschule Zürich, 2004.
Volkwein, A., Roth, A., Gerber, W., and Vogel, A.: Flexible rockfall
barriers subjected to extreme loads, Struct. Eng. Int., 19, 327–
331, 2009.
Voyat, I., Roncella, R., Forlani, G., and Ferrero, A. M.: Advanced
techniques for geo structural surveys in modelling fractured rock
masses: application to two Alpine sites, in: Symposium on Rock
Mechanics (USRMS), American Rock Mechanics Association
ARMA, 2006.
Wagner, A., Leite, E., and Olivier, R.: Rock and debris-slides risk
mapping in Nepal – A user-friendly PC system for risk mapping,
in: 5th International Symposium on Landslides, edited by Bon-
nard, C., 2, 1251–1258, A. A. Balkema, Rotterdam, Lausanne,
Switzerland, 1988.
Wendeler, C.: Murgangrückhalt in Wildbächen. Grundlagen zu Pla-
nung und Berechnung von flexiblen Barrieren, Ph.D. thesis, In-
stitute of Structural Engineering, ETH Zurich, diss ETH No.
17916, 2008.
www.nat-hazards-earth-syst-sci.net/11/2617/2011/
2651
Wentworth, C. M., Ellen, S. D., and Mark, S. D.: Improved analy-
sis of regional engineering geology using GIS, in: GIS’87, San
Francisco, California, 1987.
Wieczorek, G. F., Morrissey, M. M., Iovine, G., and Godt, J.: Rock-
fall potential in the Yosemite Valley, California, Tech. rep., U.S.
Geological Survey, 1999.
Wienberg, N., Weber, H., and Toniolo, M.: Testing of flexible
barriers – behind the guideline, in: Interdisciplinary workshop
on rockfall protection, edited by Volkwein, A., Labiouse, V.,
and Schellenberg, K., 114–116, Swiss Fed. Research Inst. WSL,
Morschach, Switzerland, 2008.
Woltjer, M., Rammer, W., Brauner, M., Seidl, R., Mohren, G.,
and Lexer, M.: Coupling a 3D patch model and a rockfall mod-
ule to assess rockfall protection in mountain forests, J. Environ.
Manag., 87, 373–388, 2008.
Wong, R., Ho, K., and Chau, K. T.: Shape and mechanical proper-
ties of slope material effects on the coefficient of restitution on
rockfall study, in: 4th North American Rock Mechanics Sympo-
sium, 507–514, Seattle, Washington, USA, 2000.
Wong, R. H., Ho, K., and Chau, K. T.: Experimental study for rock-
fall simulation, in: Construction challenges into the next century,
92–97, Hong-Kong, China, 1999.
Wu, S.: Rockfall evaluation by computer simulation, Transportation
Research Record, 1031, 1–5, 1985.
Wu, T. H., Wilson, H. T., and Einstein, H. H.: Landslides – Investi-
gation and mitigation, 1996.
Wyllie, D. C. and Mah, C. W.: Rock slope engineering: Civil and
Mining, Spon Press, 4 edn., 2004.
Yang, M., Fukawa, T., Ohnishi, Y., Nishiyama, S., Miki, S., Hi-
rakawa, Y., and Mori, S.: The application of 3-dimensional DDA
with a spherical rigid block for rockfall simulation, Int. J. Rock
Mech. Min., 41, 1–6, 2004.
Yoshida, H.: Movement of boulders on slope and its simulation,
Recent studies on rockfall control in Japan, Tech. rep., 1998.
Yoshida, H.: Recent experimental studies on rockfall control in
Japan, in: Joint Japan-Swiss Scientific Seminar on Impact Load
by Rock Falls and Design of Protection Structures, Kanazawa,
Japan, 1999.
Yoshida, H., Masuya, H., and Ihara, T.: Experimental Study of Im-
pulsive Design Load for Rock Sheds, Struct. Eng. Int., P-127/88,
61–74, 1988.
Zaitsev, A., Sokovikh, M., and Gugushvily, T.: Field testing of net
structures for railway track protection in rocky regions, in: 7th
International Conference on Physical Modelling in Geotechnics
(ICPMG 2010), Zurich, 2010.
Zinggeler, A., Krummenacher, B., and Kienholz, H.: Stein-
schlagsimulation in Gebirgswäldern, Berichte und Forschungen
der Geographisches Institut der Universität Freiburg, 3, 61–70,
1990.
Nat. Hazards Earth Syst. Sci., 11, 2617–2651, 2011