I.

Rockfall Hazard Rating

for Road Cuts between Rolla and Vienna

II. Site Remediation and Mitigation Plan for Site E

Four Miles North of Rolla, MO on Highway 63

► Daniel Stout
► Evan Stevens
► Brian Mullen
 Part 1: Rate all Rock Cuts on Highway 63
between Rolla and Vienna, MO
► How?
 Missouri Rock Fall
Hazard Rating ► Both use similar factors to
rate rock fall hazards
System
► Maerz et. al., 2005
► “Missouri System” ► Oregon system tailored for
mountainous terrain
 Oregon Rock
Hazard Rating ► Missouri system designed
for more moderate terrain;
System
includes karst variables
► Pierson & Van
Vickle, 1993

► “Oregon System”
 In the beginning…

► 36 individual sites
► L & R sides rated
separately
► Digital video analysis
and site visits used to
gather data
 “Missouri System”
► RISK ► CONSEQUENCE
 Slope height  Ditch width
 Slope angle  Ditch volume
 Rock face instability  Rockfall quantity
 Weathering & Erosion
 Slope angle
 Shoulder width
 Rock strength
 Number of lanes
 Face irregularity
 Daily traffic
 Face looseness  Average vehicle risk
 Block size ► (Cars/day * length)/(Speed
limit * cut length)
 Water
 Decision Sight Distance
 Karst  Block size
 “Missouri System”
► Rate factors, then sum risk 1-100
► Rate factors, then sum consequence 1-100

100

50

Risk Value
0
0 25 50 75 100
Consequence Value
 “Oregon System”
► Factors ► Each factor rated
 Slope height  3 (good)
 9 (fair)
 Ditch effectiveness  27 (poor)
 AVR  81 (bad)
 DSD ► Summation of all
 Structural condition values gives score;
& erosion maximum 810
 Block size/quantity ► >500 needs
 Climate/Water “immediate action”
 Rock fall history ► 300-500 “of concern”
“Missouri system” results

Site K Site E

Site D
 “Oregon
System”
results
► Sites E, D, and K elevated
in this model too
► E = 222/810
► Other sites (red arrows)
perhaps “inflated” by AVR
 Part I Results
► SiteE clearly
highest rated site
by both methods
► A few other sites
may need attention
 “Site E”
Earth.google.com www.terraserver.com

► Four miles north of Rolla, fifth

cut on right
► Just past Capital Quarry
 The Paleosinkhole

► Cut is approx. 50 years old ► Matrix like a calcrete or

► Stands at 76 degrees caliche
► Heterogeneous jumbled up ► Dolomite boulders and
mass broken strata
A short slideshow
► Left and right contacts

► Jumbled mass of dolomite in a

calcrete mix

► Overhanging slab at top

► Ravel Pile
► Right contact

► Dry
► Slumping/slumped
► Ditch along top
► Left contact

► Wet
► Highly eroded; water
off top and along
joints
Approx. 2’
Current Mitigation Practice
Possible Remediation or Mitigation
► Excavation
► Berms
► Rocksheds
► Ditches
► Rock traps and fences
► Retaining walls and Gabions
► Mesh draping
► Rock netting
► Shotcrete Spang, 1987
► Rockbolting
► Soil nailing
 Chosen Mesh draping on a similar slope
(Goodman, 1989)

Methods to
Investigate
Gabion wall on I-44

► Gabion Walls
► Mesh Draping (w/ and w/o
rock fencing)
► Excavation
 Gabion Walls
► “Natural looking” stacked ► Assignments
baskets of rock  Wall batter = 6 degrees
► Low maintenance  Porosity of 50 percent
► Restraining mass  2.7 mm PVC coated wire
► Local experience  Top slope of 3 degrees
 3 ft top surface height
(depth of lowest layer of
► Assumptions gabions) aids FOS
 Phi = 35 degrees
 C = 300 psf
 Values consistent with a
strong soil
 Unit weight = 160 pcf
Design 1: Half-slope Gabion Wall
► 24 ft gabion wall
► Benched back 12 ft.
► Bench covered w/
rip-rap

► $70-$80,000
depending upon
options
► Overall FOS 1.91
Design 2: Full-slope Gabion Wall
► 48 ft gabion wall
► Four tiers

► $180-$220,000
► Overall FOS 1.69
Design 3: Staggered half-slope gabion walls
► Two 24’ gabion walls
staggered with a 12’
(9’) bench
► Bench covered w/
rip-rap

► $105-$135,000
► Overall FOS 1.97
Design Cost Comparison
Design Comparison 2
Maintenance/ Recommendation
► Low maintenance ► Design 1
 Clear out vegetation, or ► Why?
allow it cover if wanted  Lowest cost
 Check regularly for wire  Best FOS
breaks  No FOS < 1.50
 Clean benches (if any)  Others are overkill
periodically

► Not Designs 2 & 3

► Why?
 High cost
 Poor overturning FOS
 Mesh Draping - General
► A flexible facing such as
wire rope nets or
conventional wire meshes
are draped over the slope
for passive rock fall
protection.
► The draping does not stop
rock falls, but rather
controls the velocity of
falling rocks by limiting the
horizontal component.
► Anchored from above and
simply hangs over slope (Hoek, 2006)
 Mesh Draping - Procedure
► Clean and scale slope
► Choose net size
► Anchor support cables
 Could be problematic
given the paleosinkhole
material nature
Muhunthan et. al. (2005)
 Need 20 kips support
 Optional Rock Fencing
► Design may or may
not include rock
fencing as a design
element

(Hoek, 2006)

Energy absorbing rock

fence that can be used
alone or in addition to
other methods
Design 1: 40’ drape w/ rock
fence

► 40’ mesh draping over paleosink

► 4” x 4” mesh
► 120’ rock fence across center
Design 2: Full-slope draping

► 55’ draping covers full slope

► 4” x 4” mesh
Draping Comparison
 Draping Comparison 2

► Draping with fence provides perhaps the best

protection of all designs, but:
 Removal of accumulated debris is problematic
 Periodic fence replacement costly (~$21,000)
► Full-slope draping alleviates above concerns
 Draping Recommendation
► Full-slope draping ► Problems
 Keeps all but the very  Paleosink material
smallest and largest problematic for placing
rock falls in the ditch anchors
 Requires little to no  No protection against
maintenance rotational failure
 Relatively cheap
compared to massive
excavation or gabion
walls.
 Excavation
► Removal of two linear ► What does this do?
yards into paleosink  Temporary
along entire face ► Removes weathered
face
► 1080 c.y. @ $28/c.y. ► Decreases looseness
► ~$30,000 ► Decreases face
instability
► Note: the $28/c.y.
 Permanent
price is a high bid;
► Increases ditch width
could be done cheaper and volume
► Slight decrease in
slope angle to 70
degrees
Excavation effect

(58,79)
(49,67)
Comparison of all Designs
 Recommended Design
► Full-slope draping at $53, 414
► Very good results w/ usage so
far, for more info see:
► Muhunthan et. al. (2005)
Analysis and Design of Wire
Mesh / Cable Net Slope
Protection, Washington State
Transportation Center, April
2005.
 Afterthoughts
► As we went through this
exercise—even at the very
end—we continued to
discover alternatives
 There are numerous simple
retaining wall structures that
might work just fine if all we
want to do is control rock,
ravel, and roll.
 Sheet piles, bin walls, etc.
The next road cut down from Site E has a degraded paleosinkhole…
► We’ve noticed numerous
paleosinkholes over Missouri
in the middle of similar rock
cuts that now sit at ~30
degrees and are heavily
vegetated. If excavation
could be done cheap, cut it
back to <30 degrees and
vegetate it
In reality…
► The slope will probably sit
and ravel…
Questions?