Rock Mech Rock Eng

DOI 10.1007/s00603-012-0250-1

ORIGINAL PAPER

Rockfall Hazard Analysis From Discrete Fracture Network

Modelling with Finite Persistence Discontinuities
Cédric Lambert • Klaus Thoeni • Anna Giacomini •

Davide Casagrande • Scott Sloan

Received: 5 March 2012 / Accepted: 9 April 2012

Ó Springer-Verlag 2012

Abstract Developing an accurate representation of the g(x) Probability density function for joint diameters
rock mass fabric is a key element in rock fall hazard k Shape factor of the block
analysis. The orientation, persistence and density of frac- h Height of highwall
tures control the volume and shape of unstable blocks or l Length of highwall
compartments. In this study, the discrete fracture modelling k Shape parameter for the exponential diameter
technique and digital photogrammetry were used to accu- distribution
rately depict the fabric. A volume distribution of unstable kE Global kinetic energy frequency distribution
blocks was derived combining polyhedral modelling and kE i Kinetic energy frequency distribution for a
kinematic analyses. For each block size, probabilities of given rock mass volume
failure and probabilities of propagation were calculated. A kf Rock mass mean failure frequency
complete energy distribution was obtained by considering, kf i Failure frequency of a given rock mass volume
for each block size, its occurrence in the rock mass, its kfst Spatial-temporal rockfall failure frequency
probability of falling, its probability to reach a given kP ðE; xÞ Frequency of energy occurence at a given
location, and the resulting distribution of energies at each location
location. This distribution was then used with an energy– l Shape parameter for the log-normal diameter
frequency diagram to assess the hazard. distribution
Ps Probability of propagation
Keywords Rockfall hazard  Jointed rock  Pr Probability of reach
Discrete fracture network  Polyhedral modelling  r Shape parameter for the log-normal diameter
3D photogrammetry distribution
Tfi Return period for a rockfall event of a given
List of Symbols rock mass volume
dmax Maximum joint diameter V Volume of block
E Kinetic energy Vmax Maximum volume of block
Vmin Minimum volume of block
w Width of block
C. Lambert (&) x Horizontal position along slope profile
Department of Civil and Natural Resources Engineering,
University of Canterbury, Christchurch, New Zealand
e-mail: cedric.lambert@canterbury.ac.nz

K. Thoeni  A. Giacomini  S. Sloan 1 Introduction

Centre for Geotechnical and Materials Modelling,
The University of Newcastle, Newcastle, Australia
D. Casagrande
University of Milan, Milan, Italy
Rockfall phenomena are a worldwide problem in moun-
tainous environments or quarries and mines. Events range
from small pebbles falling down a cliff to massive boulders

123

of several tonnes rolling down a slope. While the former
may be responsible for personal injuries, to walkers or
climbers for example, the latter may shatter the roof of
residential dwellings causing large-scale damage. The
energy upon impact that constitutes a threat ranges from a
few joules to hundreds of kilojoules depending on the local
topography, size and shape of the blocks, and the presence
of natural or man-made obstacles.
Rockfalls are driven by two successive mechanisms: the
detachment of a block or rock compartment (i.e. failure) and
its propagation down the slope Jaboyedoff (2005). A better
understanding of the hazard entails an improved assessment
of failure and propagation. Various methodologies have been
proposed to help practitioners analyse and assess the sus-
ceptibility to rockfall hazard (e.g. Pierson et al. 1993; Crosta
and Agliardi 2003; Jaboyedoff 2005), sometimes with a
specific application in mining and quarries (Alejano et al.
2008; Peila et al. 2011). These studies have highlighted
the intensity and frequency of events as key parameters.
Quantitative assessments of rockfall hazard have hence
been described (Corominas et al. 2005; Jaboyedoff 2005;
Abbruzzese et al. 2009), but these require a magnitude–
frequency relationship to describe how the volume relates to
the probability of failure (Dussauge-Peisser et al. 2002).
Analysis of historical records provides a valuable tool in this
respect (Hantz et al. 2003) but detailed accounts of failures
are not always available.
A recent study Abbruzzese et al. (2009) emphasized the
importance of both the block size and the shape of unstable
blocks, since they influence the propagation down the
slope. The block size to consider for the analysis should be
defined according to the most likely rockfall event. With
recent advances in geostructural survey (Sturzenegger
et al. 2011), more reliable estimates of block geometry can
be obtained (Kalenchuk et al. 2006; Elmouttie and Poropat
2011) hence offering new perspectives for rockfall hazard
assessment (Ferrero et al. 2011a, b).
This study describes a quantitative rockfall hazard
assessment, based on discrete fracture network (DFN) that
was applied to an open pit mine. This approach accounts for
the block size distribution of the rock mass rather than a
single representative value. This distribution is obtained
from three-dimensional photogrammetry for detailed map-
ping and DFN modelling with nonpersistent joints, and this
gives an accurate representation of the fabric. A magnitude–
frequency relationship can then be deduced without the need
for an extensive historical catalogue of events.
2 Methodology
Assessing the risk associated with rock fall occurrences
requires answers to the following questions: (a) what size
123
C. Lambert et al.
of block or rock compartment is going to fall down? (b)
what is the probability of failure of any particular block?
and (c) how far will any block travel and what is the
energy associated with its path? The latter is often
expressed as a probability of propagation. Outputs from
these questions are then combined to define a hazard
zoning.
A natural starting point is the estimate of block sizes.
At comparable speed, larger blocks will have much more
devastating effects than smaller blocks and, thus, having a
proper estimate of the size distribution is of prime
importance. In a rock mass, blocks are formed by inter-
secting discontinuities such as joints, bedding planes, and
shear planes. Having a good description of the disconti-
nuity attributes is hence essential, including their orien-
tation (dip and dip direction), size, shape, position, and
number (or volumetric density). The major challenge in
this phase arises from extrapolating 1D or 2D observa-
tions on the outcrop to an accurate full 3D picture of the
rock mass.
The first step in the approach presented in this paper
consists of developing a faithful geostructural representa-
tion of the rock mass. This entails a reliable mapping of
existing structures for which a number of well-documented
biases have to be accounted for (Warburton 1980; Mauldon
1998; Zhang and Einstein 1998). 3D digital photogram-
metry was used for this purpose. Detailed mapping of every
structure was performed on various observation windows.
Dip and dip direction were recorded as well as trace length
and end point terminations. Joint sets were then selected on
the basis of their orientation.
For each set, size distribution (persistence) and volu-
metric density were estimated using an algorithm com-
bining Monte Carlo simulations (MC) and maximum
likelihood theory (Lyman 2003a). Once a type of distri-
bution is chosen (e.g. negative exponential), the algorithm
runs a series of MC simulations varying the input param-
eters. For each generation, the trace length distribution and
density were compared to the field measurements from
digital images and the maximum likelihood (ML) theory
was used to define which combination of parameters offers
the best fit.
The shape parameters and the density of the diameter
distribution were then used in the polyhedral modeller
Siromodel (Elmouttie et al. 2010a). This modeller is
capable of handling planar and nonplanar discontinuities
with finite persistence. Complex polyhedra are automat-
ically identified from partial or complete intersections
of large numbers of discontinuities, and the block size
distribution is hence accurately defined. A detailed
description of the algorithm and examples of applications
can be found in Elmouttie et al. (2010a, b); Elmouttie and
Poropat (2011). In addition, each block has its stability
Rockfall Hazard Analysis
assessed from a limit equilibrium analysis and is catego-
rized according to the Goodman and Shi classification
(Goodman 1985): type I representing unstable blocks,
type II stable considering given surface properties (e.g.
friction angle), and type III stable irrespective of surface
properties (i.e. geometrically stable). More detail on this
system is given in Elmouttie et al. (2010b). Two size or
volume distributions are then obtained: a full volume
distribution (considering all the blocks in the rock mass)
and a distribution of unstable blocks.
As presented in the introduction, a rockfall event is the
combination of two distinct mechanisms, failure of a block
or compartment in the source area and propagation along
the topography to a given point. Jaboyedoff (2005) defined
the rockfall hazard H(E, x) at a point, x, for a given kinetic
energy, E, as ‘‘the product of the rock-mass-failure mean
probability or frequency, kf, and the probability of propa-
gation up to x; P00p :
H ðE; xÞ ¼ kf  Pp ðE; xÞ ð1Þ
The probability of failure kf used in Eq. (1) is the
average probability of failure regardless of the volume or
energy of the rock fall event. In this study, a block volume-
dependent probability of failure will be introduced. This
probability density function is derived from the block size
distribution obtained from the DFN analysis. Historical
records of significant rockfall events are then used to
compute a spatial–temporal failure frequency kif for having
a block of a certain size to fail.
H ðE; xÞ ¼ kif  Pp ðE; xÞ ð2Þ
The probability of propagation , Pp, is dependent on the
topography and the lithologies forming the rock outcrop,
and the block properties such as its shape, size (or mass),
and material. Stochastic rockfall simulations are commonly
used to estimate these probabilities. 2D simulations were
performed in this study with Rocscience’s RocFallÒ
software. The inputs for RocFallÒ are the slope
geometry, the profile extracted from 3D images, the
sequence of lithologies along the profile, the coefficients
of restitution, and the slope roughness. A large number of
rock falls were then simulated for varying block sizes from
which the probabilities of propagation were defined.
Attention was focused on both run-out distances and
kinetic energy.
Finally, probabilities of failure and probabilities of
propagation were combined to assess the rockfall hazard at
a given location, x, at the base of the highwall and for a
given energy, E. Following a frequency intensity classifi-
cation, a zoning is proposed from which workable areas
and lengths of portals can be derived.
3 Site Investigation
3.1 Site Description
The open cut considered in this study is located west of
Newcastle, Australia. The highwall is about 1.4 km long
with an average height of 40 m. The rock mass consists
mainly of successive layers of sandstone and siltstone of
various thicknesses. In the area of interest two rock faces
have been exposed, the highwall itself dipping at 70° with a
dip direction of 50°, and a lateral wall dipping at 70° with a
dip direction of 320°. In this study, only 85 m of the
highwall was considered corresponding to the area around
three entries to the underground operation. Concrete portals
and drapery nets provide safe entry, and two berms parallel
to the highwall protect the work area.
3.2 Survey of Rockfall Events
An initial investigation was undertaken at the mine in order
to better understand the geology of the highwall and to
collect data about previous rock fall material. Most of the
rock fall debris found at the base of the high wall was
composed of either sandstone or mudstone. The material
type and dimensions of rock blocks greater than 5 cm were
collected. A significant event was reported during June of
2009. A sandstone boulder of around 2 9 1 9 1 m3 fell
from under a protective mesh, stretching the mesh and
ripping it open, and crushing the culvert underneath. The
failure had occurred near the top of the highwall.
3.3 3D Photogrammetry
Geostructural data and topographical information of the
section of the highwall under consideration were collected
using close range terrestrial digital photogrammetry. The
software package Sirovision (http://www.sirovision.com/)
was used for the data acquisition and analysis as it includes
geological mapping facilities. Close range photogrammetry
has been successfully used in various projects (Haneberg
2008; Sturzenegger and Stead 2009) as it offers an efficient
way to determine the orientations of discontinuities that
would otherwise be impossible, impractical or unsafe to
measure. A geo-referenced 3D model of the highwall was
generated from the digital images and a detailed mapping
of the structures was carried out on several observation
windows. A total of eight windows were analysed: five on
the highwall and three on the lateral wall. Figure 1 shows
the discontinuities identified on one window of the high-
wall where the vectors correspond to the normal of a dis-
continuity plane and the colours indicate the different
discontinuity sets.
123
 C. Lambert et al.

Fig. 1 3D image showing the discontinuities (traces and planes)

identified one observation window of the highwall

4 Geostructural Modelling

4.1 Geostructural Survey

Two kinds of mapping were performed on the structures

identified in the 3D images: area sampling, i.e. structures
intersecting an observation window, and line sampling, i.e.
structures intersecting a line. During area sampling, both
planes and traces are accounted for. Orientations of the
structures (i.e. dip and dip direction) are used to identify
the joint sets in the rock mass. Surface sampling infor-
mation was used to define set orientation and line sampling
information was used in the persistence analysis (Sect. 4.2)
to estimate the joint diameter distribution. The corre-
sponding stereonets for the highwall and the lateral wall are
given in Fig. 2 exhibiting a significant difference in the
rock fabric. Of particular interest is the existence of a
strong joint set parallel to the excavated slopes, for both the
lateral wall and the highwall. Similar observations have
been attributed to the occurrence of stress relaxation after
excavation (Sheng et al. 2002; Wu et al. 2009; Chen et al.
2012). In the vicinity of the entry portals through the
highwall, three joint sets and one set of bedding planes
were defined whose attributes are given in Table 1. Infor-
mation from area sampling was also used for the persis- Fig. 2 Stereonets for the highwall (a), the lateral wall (b), and both
tence analysis presented in Sect. 4.2 to estimate the walls combined (c)
volumetric density for each set.
For line sampling, virtual scanlines were defined within considered. Scanlines are defined by the start and end point
each observation window, comprising three vertical lines coordinates and a censoring box above and below the line.
and five horizontal lines where only traces were The censoring height is of significant importance when

123
Rockfall Hazard Analysis
Table 1 Joint sets and bedding plane attributes
Discontinuity Dip (°) Dip direction (°) k (m)
Bedding plane 8.6 281.6 1 4.4e-5
Joint set 1 71.5 48.7 1.046
Joint set 2 68.4 18.1 0.771
Joint set 3 70.7 73.5 0.746
Fig. 3 Trace length distributions measured along horizontal and
vertical scan lines from digital images
assessing size distribution from the trace distributions
(Mauldon 1998). Structures that traverse a scanline can
either terminate within the censoring box, or have one or
both ends that terminate outside the box. Attributes of
structures intersecting each sampling line were exported,
recording the orientation, the position along the line, the
trace length, and the end point termination class. A trace
length distribution was derived for each set (Fig. 3) and
used in Sect. 4.2 to estimate the joint size distribution
(persistence) of each set.
Data from the highwall and the lateral wall were com-
bined to characterize the orientation of the bedding planes.
4.2 Persistence and Volumetric Density
4.2.1 From 2D Measurements to a 3D Representation
Fracture fabric in a rock mass is characterized by the
number of discontinuity sets, the density of fractures, and
the distributions for the location, orientation, size and
spacing of each set (Wu et al. 2011). Various fracture
parameters such as the density, size, and intensity are
introduced to describe the amount of fracturation. The
terminology proposed by Rohrbaugh et al. (2002) is used
in this study for the aforementioned parameters. This ter-
minology introduces a distinction between linear density
Volumetric density P30 (m-3) Fracture intensity P32 (m-1)
0.862
0.561 1.134
0.088 0.177
0.110 0.239
(number of fractures per unit length), areal density (number
of fractures per unit area) and volumetric density (number
of fractures per unit volume). Similar differentiation is
introduced for the intensity: linear intensity (number of
fractures per unit length), areal intensity (fractures length
per unit area), and volumetric intensity (fractures area per
unit volume). Characterization of the 3D geometrical
attributes from measurements on 1D and 2D rock expo-
sures (e.g. cores and the cliff face, respectively) faces some
major challenges, especially in regard to obtaining reliable
(unbiased) 2D measurements and extrapolating to 3D
attributes.
Stereological interpretations are commonly used to
provide a 3D description of the joint fabric (Warburton
1980). A number of assumptions are used regarding the
genesis of a set of fractures. Fractures are assumed to be
planar circular surfaces whose centroids are randomly
distributed in space following a Poisson distribution.
Fracture size hence refers to fracture diameter. Under these
assumptions, various models have been proposed to infer
the distribution of diameters from the distribution of traces
(Warburton 1980; Song and Lee 2001; Tonon and Chen
2007). Other shapes have been considered such as ellipses
(Zhang et al. 2002), rectangular shapes (Zhang and Ein-
stein 2010), and parallelograms (Decker et al. 2006).
Exponential, log-normal and power laws are often used in
practice to describe the fracture diameter distribution.
4.2.2 Parameters’ Fitting Procedure
In this study, persistence (i.e. fracture size distributions)
and volumetric density were obtained following a param-
eter fitting algorithm developed by Lyman (2003a, b ). The
algorithm finds estimates of the persistence of a joint set
providing that the data set has trace length information
from scan line mapping on one or more exposures. A value
of the volumetric density (i.e. number of joints per cubic
meter) is also calculated to ensure the fracture intensity of
the set is in agreement with the logged data. This method
explicitly accounts for all the geometrical biases. A series
of Monte Carlo simulations (MC) was performed varying
the input parameters of the size distribution and the
goodness of fit of possible distributions was compared
using maximum likelihood theory (Lyman 2003a). This
123
 C. Lambert et al.

method returns the set of parameters for persistence and

volumetric density that will best reproduce the observed
trace lengths and linear density. The diameter distribution
is usually described by a the probability density function
(pdf), gð xÞ: Two types of distributions can be used to
describe the persistence of a joint set, exponential and log-
normal distributions.
The pdf of the exponential distribution is defined by a
unique shape parameter, k, and is truncated between a
minimum and a maximum joint diameter, dmin and dmax:
1 x
gð x Þ ¼ ek ð3Þ
kða  bÞ
   
where a ¼ exp  dmin k ; b ¼ exp  dmax k
The pdf of the log-normal distribution has two shape
parameters, r and l. The equation of the truncated distri-
Fig. 4 Influence of the shape of the diameter distribution on
bution between dmin and dmax is given by Eq. 4:
predicted trace lengths for set 1
 lnðxÞl 2 
1
e  2ð r Þ
1
gð xÞ ¼ pffiffiffiffiffiffi ð4Þ
r 2p½UðbÞ  UðaÞx
Ru t2 =2
where a ¼ lnðdmin
r
Þl
; b ¼ lnðdmax Þl
r ; Uð u Þ ¼ p1ffiffiffiffi
2p
e dt and the trace length distribution. Indeed k decreased from
1 1.059 for dmin = 0.3 m to 0.966 for dmin = 1.0 m. Higher
4.2.3 Analysis minimum diameters resulted in a poor fit and a discrepancy
between the mapped trace lengths and predicted trace
Persistence analysis starts by deciding on an appropriate lengths was observed. The value of dmin was hence set to
distribution type, usually negative exponential or log-nor- 1.0 m for the three sets. The maximum diameter of the
mal. Due to a lack of consensus in the literature, both kinds distributions was set to the maximum observed trace
of distributions were considered initially in this study. length, 15 m (Tonon and Chen 2007).
Persistence parameters were obtained for discontinuity set The parameters resulting from the fitting procedure are
1 considering each distribution shape. given in Table 1 and a comparison between measured and
Two sets of 3D discontinuities have then been generated predicted trace lengths is given in Fig. 5. For each set,
for which intersections of generated discontinuities with the solid lines show the trace length distributions from the
observation windows used with digital images were cal- digital geological mapping and the dotted lines show the
culated. The observed trace length distribution for both predicted trace distributions.
diameter distributions was compared with field measure-
ments from digital images. Figure 4 shows no significant 4.3 Bedding Planes
difference between the exponential and log-normal distri-
butions. Both probability density functions exhibit a lower Bedding planes differ in nature from joints and appear as
peak than field measurements and show a very good fully persistent at the scale of a man-made structure. The
agreement for larger traces. However, the exponential geological mapping of the digital images showed that most
distribution was chosen for the three sets as it seems to traces were fully censored, i.e. both termination points
provide slightly better predictions for smaller traces. were outside the observation window. An infinite persis-
The diameter distribution is truncated between a mini- tence was hence assumed for this study. Because of this
mum and a maximum value, dmin and dmax. Tonon and assumption, the volumetric density of the bedding planes is
Chen (2007) suggests the minimum diameter of a distri- directly related to the spacing.
bution should be chosen between the minimum trace length The volumetric density was adjusted by generating a
(0.3 m in this study) and the maximum trace length (15 m), discrete fracture network of bedding planes and comparing
leading to a wide range of possible values. A short sensi- the predicted and measured average spacings along vertical
tivity analysis of the shape parameters to the minimum scanlines. After a small number of iterations, a volumetric
diameter was performed. Various diameter distributions density of 4.4e-5 m-3 was obtained, leading to a predicted
were obtained by varying dmin between 0.3 and 2 m. average spacing of 1.12 m for a measured average spacing
Between 0.3 and 1 m, the fitting process resulted in of 1.11 m. The predicted and measured spacing distribu-
insignificant differences for the diameter shape parameter k tions are compared on Fig. 6 and show good agreement.

123
Rockfall Hazard Analysis

Fig. 5 Comparison between predicted trace length distribution and c

measured trace lengths distribution for joint sets 1 (a), 2 (b), and 3 (c).
Plain lines correspond to digital geological mapping and dotted lines
to predicted trace distributions

5 Analysis of Rock Instabilities

5.1 Polyhedral Modelling and Joint Representation

The size and density estimated for each identified fracture

set (joint and bedding planes) was used to generate 3D
discrete fracture networks (DFN) that are representative of
the rock mass. The polyhedral modeller Siromodel devel-
oped at CSIRO by Elmouttie et al. (2010a) was used for
this purpose. The modeller is capable of handling a very
large number of discontinuities with finite persistence and
to identify complex polyhedra (Elmouttie et al. 2010a, b). (a)
A faithful reproduction of persistence and truncation of
fractures allows the modeller to provide accurate predic-
tions of in situ block sizes (Elmouttie and Poropat 2011).
The DFN generator in Siromodel simulates fractures as
polygons with the orientation, size and density adhering to
a user specified statistical distribution. The statistical esti-
mates presented in Sect. 4.2 were used for this purpose.

5.2 3D Highwall Model

Two sizes of polyhedral models were simulated: a 17-m-

long and 18-m-high section of the highwall (i.e. approxi-
mately 20 % of the total length of area of interest and 50 %
of the total height) and a 8.5-m-long and 18-m-high model
(i.e. 10 % of the length and 50 % of the height). For each
size, a series of 100 Monte Carlo simulations were per-
formed. Ten sets of bedding planes and ten DFN for each
set of bedding planes were stochastically generated. For (b)
each realization, the algorithm detected the intersecting
structures and computed the block size distribution for the
realization. In addition, a kinematic analysis was per-
formed to identify unstable blocks.
The block volume distribution of the highwall (full rock
mass) was computed by combining the results from each
MC simulations. Similar in situ block size distributions
were obtained for both sizes of model (see Fig. 7).

5.3 Kinematic Analyses

In Siromodel, blocks previously identified as geometrically

removable are classified following the Goodman and Shi
procedure (Goodman 1985): type I corresponding to
unstable blocks, type II corresponding to stable blocks with
the presence of friction, and type III corresponding to
geometrically stable blocks. The hazard maps in Fig. 8 (c)

123

Fig. 6 Spacing distribution of bedding planes
Fig. 7 Comparison of the block volume distributions for 20 % 9
50 % model size and 10 % 9 50 % model size
show the positions of the three different types of removable
blocks for all the realizations.
The volume distributions of unstable blocks (type III)
were computed for both model sizes. Both the curves,
shown Fig. 9 display a similar trend with only minor dif-
ferences that can be attributed to the size of the statistical
population (around 100 blocks are present in each case).
For validation purposes, the cumulative size distribu-
tions (for the unstable and full rock mass) were compared
to the in situ size distribution of fallen blocks observed at
the base of the highwall during field investigation (Thoeni
et al. 2011). To compare the predicted volume distribution
with the observed distribution, an assumption on the shape
of the blocks is necessary. Two simplified shapes were
considered, spherical and cubic. All distributions were
expressed in terms of the size, diameter or width, rather
123
C. Lambert et al.
than volume, and were truncated to a minimum size of
5 cm which corresponds to the minimum block size con-
sidered during the field investigation. The comparison
made in Fig. 10 exhibits good agreement, with the field
data falling between the unstable block distribution and the
full rock mass block distribution.
5.4 Probability of Failure
5.4.1 Rock Fall Frequency
Hantz (2011) introduced two rock fall frequencies: the rock
fall frequency, kf, and the spatial–temporal rock fall fre-
quency, kfst. kf is defined as the number of rockfall
occurrences per unit of time (year) with a volume greater
than V while kfst is the number of rock falls per unit of
time and per unit of wall area, with a volume greater than
V. kfst is derived from the observation that the relationship
between the rock fall frequency, kf, and the volume is well
fitted by a power law (Hungr et al. 1999; Guzzetti et al.
2003):
kf ¼ aV b ð5Þ
kfst ¼ aV b ð6Þ
where a is the number of rockfalls per unit of time with a
volume greater than 1 m3, a is the number of rock falls per
unit of time and area, with a volume greater than 1 m3, and
b is another constant characteristic of the local geological
conditions. Factor b is directly computed from the volume
distributions of unstable blocks in Fig. 9 by fitting a power
law regression curve. A value of b = 0.71 was obtained for
the highwall. The coefficient a in Eq. 6 includes spatial
temporal information and is estimated from records of
rockfall events in the area of interest. The surface area of
the highwall around the three entry portals is around 85 m
9 35 m. Over the ten years of underground operations,
only one rockfall event with a volume higher than 1 m3 has
been recorded, in 2009, involving a 2 m3 block. Therefore
coefficient a was calculated as 1 event over 10 years over a
wall surface area of 85 9 35m2, a = 2e-5 s-1m-2. This
coefficient should be continually adjusted as significant
events are recorded.
The width of a rockfall event, w, whether a single block
or a volume of rock mass, can be related to its volume,
V, by introducing a shape factor k (Hantz 2011):
V ¼ kw3 : ð7Þ
During the field investigation, individual blocks
observed behind the protective berm were individually
measured returning three dimensions: the smallest, the
intermediate, and the largest. Assuming the shape of a
Rockfall Hazard Analysis

Fig. 8 Hazard map for 20 % 9

50 % model (a) and 10 % 9
50 % (b). Each dot indicates a
geometrically removable block
and the colour indicates the
type. Red type I, yellow type II,
and green type III (colour figure
online)

volume between Vmin and Vmax. Note that the superscript

i denotes a return period or a frequency calculated for a
specific block volume interval.

5.4.2 Failure Frequency and Return Period

The failure frequency and probability for each block size

was calculated separately as shown in Table 2. A spherical
block shape was assumed to calculate the size (diameter)
corresponding to a given volume. The trajectory analysis
presented in Sect. 6 will indeed consider circular shapes.
The blocks were therefore split into diameter ranges.
Blocks with diameters with less than 5 cm were ignored in
these calculations as their kinetic energy upon impact will
not pose any significant risk. The maximum block size
considered is 90 cm as the return period for an event
Fig. 9 Comparison of unstable block volume distributions for both
model sizes involving a size larger than 90 cm is above the time of
operation of the underground entries (10 years).
rectangular prism, volumes were calculated for each block.
In Eq. 7, the width is defined as the intermediate length. A
shape factor was hence derived for each block leading to an 6 Trajectory Analysis and Hazard Zoning
average value for all the blocks of k = 0.8.
Combining Eqs. 6 and 7, the failure frequency of a block 6.1 Rockfall Simulations
volume between V and (V + dV) affecting a profile of the wall
of width w and height h can be calculated according to: Two-dimensional stochastic analyses of rockfall trajecto-
ries were performed with the commercial software Roc-
dFf ¼ dkfst  h  w ¼ abh1=3 k1=3  V b2=3  dV ð8Þ FallÒ from RocScience. The software combines a lumped
The rockfall frequency, kif,
affecting a length l of the mass approach to model the free-fall and rolling motions of
highwall is obtained by substituting (w + l) for w in Eq. (8) and a block and a rigid body approach to describe the impact on
then integrating between Vmin and Vmax (Hantz 2011) to give: the slope profile. Two coefficients of restitution, normal
   b  and tangential, are used to account for the energy dissi-
ð3abhk1=3 Þ ð1=3bÞ ð1=3bÞ
kif ¼ ð3b1Þ Vmin  Vmax þ ahl Vmin b
 Vmax pated upon impact. Rebound heights, end points, velocities,
and kinetic energies are computed along the defined profile
ð9Þ
for which statistical estimates are provided.
Equation (9) can then be used to determine the return Field rock fall experiments with standard concrete
period, Tif = 1/ kif, for having a rockfall event with a blocks, above and away from the entries, were performed

123
 C. Lambert et al.

(a) (b)
Fig. 10 Comparison of block size distributions between field data and numerical simulations assuming a spherical and b cubic block shapes

Table 2 Failure frequencies

Block diameter range (cm) Vmin (m3) Vmax (m3) kf Return period (years)
and return periods of rockfall
events around the underground 5–10 0.0001 0.0005 24.805 0.04
entries
10–20 0.0005 0.0042 6.023 0.17
20–30 0.0042 0.0141 1.088 0.92
30–40 0.0141 0.0335 0.375 2.7
40–50 0.0335 0.0654 0.172 5.8
50–60 0.0654 0.1131 0.093 11
60–70 0.1131 0.1796 0.056 18
70–80 0.1796 0.2681 0.036 28
80–90 0.2681 0.3817 0.024 41
90? 0.3817 ? 0.091 11

by Giacomini et al. (2012). Coefficients of restitution for
various materials of the highwall are provided. Measured
average values and standard deviations were used for the
simulations, as shown in Table 3.
A topographical and simplified geological profile was
extracted from the 3D digital images (see Fig. 11). Roc-
FallÒ offers the possibility to introduce a roughness
parameter to account for the complex effects of asperities
and irregularities of the wall surface. It was found that no
such roughness was necessary to reproduce the experi-
mental trajectories. The discretization of the slope profile
(one point every 10–15 cm) was fine enough with respect
to the concrete block size of 30 cm. This might not be the
case for smaller blocks, but no roughness was introduced in
the analyses presented in this study.
6.2 Probabilities of Reach and Kinetic Energy
The rock source was taken as the underside of the upper
sandstone layer. No initial velocities were introduced for
the blocks. Spherical blocks with a diameter varying from
10 to 90 cm were considered, corresponding to a mass
ranging from 1.4 to 992 kg. Because no roughness was
introduced, the diameter (mass) will affect only the dis-
tribution of kinetic energy along the slope profile. The
stopping distances along the profile, defining the proba-
bility of reach Pr, and the envelopes of the 90th percentile
of the total kinetic energy (10 % of the blocks reaching a
location will have a higher kinetic energy) were also
recorded (Fig. 12).
The work area around the entries is protected by two
protective berms, with the crest of the second berm being
located at a horizontal distance from the top of the highwall
of approximately 27 m. The 2D rockfall simulations sug-
gested that 94 % of the blocks falling from the top of the
highwall would be intercepted by the berms and less than
6 % would potentially represent a threat. However, the
latter would have a wide range of kinetic energy (and hence
of associated risk) that would depend on the size of the
boulder. Figure 12 shows the profile of the 90th percentile

123
Rockfall Hazard Analysis

Table 3 Normal and tangential

Material Normal Tangential
coefficients of restitution for the
rockfall simulations (from Avg. SD Avg. SD
Giacomini et al. 2012)
Debris 0.13 0.05 0.15 0.13
Sandstone 1.00 0.20 0.40 0.15
Mudstone 0.60 0.14 0.70 0.15
Sand./Mud. 0.61 0.29 0.75 0.17
Mud./Silt. 0.93 0.42 0.63 0.10
Coal 0.41 0.0 0.64 0.0
Mud. debris 0.11 0.0 0.80 0.0
Base 0.30 0.03 0.85 0.085

Fig. 11 Topographical and simplified geological profile of the

highwall in the vicinity of the underground entries

of the kinetic energy for three block sizes. A probability of

propagation, Pp (E, x) in Eq. (1), is then obtained for each
block size combining by the two curves. For example, a
90 cm block has a probability to reach 28 m of 0.06 and its
90th percentile of the kinetic energy is 241 kJ. The prob-
ability of propagation for a 90-cm block is hence 0.06 and
is associated with an energy of 241 kJ.
For each block size, a statistical distribution of the
kinetic energies at 28 m (the toe of the second berm) was
recorded. A full kinetic energy distribution (considering all
sizes) could be derived by combining the probability of
reach with the probability of failure and the kinetic energy
distributions at 28 m. Figure 13 show that the 10-year
return period kinetic energy is around 1 kJ.
Fig. 12 Cumulative frequency of block stopping locations and 90th
6.3 Hazard Zoning percentile of total kinetic energy for 30, 60, and 90 cm blocks

6.3.1 Intensity Frequency Method

The Swiss guidelines use the intensity–frequency matrix,
as shown in Fig. 14. This matrix follows the principle that
the risk is a combination of both the occurrence and con-
sequence of a rock fall. Therefore, if the energy or
frequency of the rock fall is high there will be significant
risk and hazard. For this study, an adapted matrix was used
to include events of lower magnitudes (down to 0.3 kJ) and
the transition from high to moderate hazard on the return
period scale was set to 10 years, corresponding to the

123

Fig. 13 Annual occurence and return period for rock events with
kinetic energy at 28 m higher than a given value
Fig. 14 Intensity–frequency diagram used in the Swiss Guidelines
for rock fall hazard assessment (adapted from Abbruzzese et al.
2009)
operational lifetime of the mine entries. If the energy of a
block is above 300 kJ the risk of injury and/ or damage to
property is too great and irrespective of the return period
the area has to be zoned as being of a high hazard. For
energies lower than 0.3 kJ, the rockfall hazard is charac-
terized as low irrespective of the return period. The Swiss
guidelines recommend using the 90th percentile of the total
kinetic energy at any point.
Both the energy and return period are required for this
hazard zoning. They were first calculated independently for
each block size. The return period and the 90th percentile
of the kinetic energy were computed for every meter along
the slope profile, and then plotted on an intensity–fre-
quency diagram as shown in Fig. 15. The points corre-
sponding to beginning of the work area after the second
123
C. Lambert et al.
Fig. 15 Intensity–frequency diagram. Solid lines represent the enve-
lopes of the energy–return period for each block size along the slope
profile. Diamonds indicate for each block size values at a horizontal
location of 28 m. Triangles represent the full energy–return period
relationship for all block sizes
berm, 28 m from the top of the slope, are highlighted on the
diagram. The bigger blocks generate a lower hazard in
comparison to smaller blocks due to their low return per-
iod. Blocks of 60 cm diameter or above are classified as
low hazard, whereas blocks 30 cm and below represent a
moderate hazard.
For comparison purposes, the hazard was assessed using
the mean block size. The latter is around 5 cm according to
the DFN modelling (Fig. 9) and 10 cm according to field
data (Fig. 10). Such sizes resulted in kinetic energies at 28
m of 0.04 and 0.3 kJ, respectively. The work area would
thus be categorized as a low hazard area.
6.3.2 Quantitative Assessment
A more comprehensive approach considers a global energy
frequency distribution kE ðE; xÞ rather than a block-size
related distribution. Indeed a 30 kJ block for example can
be observed for different block sizes. The global energy
frequency distribution kE ðE; xÞ at a given location x is
hence obtained by combining the energy frequency for
each block size, kiE ðE; xÞ and the failure frequency for each
size kif according to the following equation:
P i
kE ðE; xÞ  kif
kE ðE; xÞ ¼ P i : ð10Þ
kf
Note that kE ðE; xÞ represents the statistical distribution
of kinetic energies should a block of any size reach the
location of interest. To determine the energy occurrences at
this location, the probability of reach Pr needs to be
introduced (11) according to:
Rockfall Hazard Analysis
kp ðE; xÞ ¼ Pr ð xÞ  kE ðE; xÞ ð11Þ
Should the probability of reach be dependent on the
block size, equations (10) and (11) should be replaced by
the following:
P i
Pr ð xÞ  kiE ðE; xÞ  kif
kP ðE; xÞ ¼ P i : ð12Þ
kf
The energy frequency relationship at 28 m is drawn on
Fig. 15, superimposed to a schematic representation of the
modified Swiss matrix diagram. Small energies pose a
hazard that can be classified as low to moderate whereas
larger energies, above 100 kJ represent a low hazard.
Again, reducing the hazard would require the mitigation of
low magnitude events.
7 Conclusion
In this study, a methodology of a rock fall hazard assess-
ment was presented which accounts for the complexity of
the structural fabric of the rock mass. The discrete fracture
network modelling technique was combined with 3D dig-
ital photogrammetry for geological mapping to develop an
accurate fracture fabric representation with non-persistent
discontinuities. A polyhedral modeller was used to estab-
lish the block size distribution of the rock mass from which
size related failure frequencies were obtained. 2D rockfall
simulations were used to derive probabilities of propaga-
tion. The probability of reach and the energy frequencies
for each block size were combined for this purpose. A
rockfall hazard zoning was then performed by adapting the
Swiss guidelines and considering failure frequencies and
block-related probabilities of propagation. It was observed
that large blocks or large energies do not represent the
highest hazard at the toe of the highwall. Mitigation mea-
sures could be adapted to specifically target the most crit-
ical range of energies.
Acknowledgments The financial support of the Australian Coal
Association Research Program (ACARP) is greatly acknowledged.
The technical support from mine personnel and Marc Elmouttie
(CSIRO) were greatly appreciated. The financial support of the
Australian Research Council provided to the Newcastle authors is also
acknowledged.
References
Abbruzzese JM, Sauthier C, Labiouse V (2009) Considerations on swiss
methodologies for rock fall hazard mapping based on trajectory
modelling. Nat Hazards Earth Syst Sci 9(4):1095–1109
Alejano L, Stockhausen H, Alonso E, Bastante F, Ramı́rez Oyanguren
P (2008) Rofraq: a statistics-based empirical method for
assessing accident risk from rockfalls in quarries. Int J Rock
Mech Min Sci 45(8):1252–1272
Chen SH, Wang GJ, Zhou H, Wang WM, Zou LC (2012) Evaluation
of excavation-induced relaxation and its application to an arch
dam foundation. Int J Numer Anal Methods Geomech
36:166–182
Corominas J, Copons R, Moya J, Vilaplana J, Altimir J, Amigo J
(2005) Quantitative assessment of the residual risk in a rockfall
protected area. Landslides 2:343–357
Crosta GB, Agliardi F (2003) A methodology for physically based
rockfall hazard assessment. Nat Hazards Earth Syst Sci
3(5):407–422
Decker J, Mauldon M, Dunner W, Heiny C (2006) Determining size
and shape of fractures from trace data using a differential
evolution algorithm. In: Yale D, Holtz S, Breeds C, Ozbay U
(eds) Proceedings of the 41st US Rock Mechanics Symposium,
ARMA
Dussauge-Peisser C, Helmstetter A, Grasso JR, Hantz D, Desvarreux
P, Jeannin M, Giraud A (2002) Probabilistic approach to rock
fall hazard assessment: potential of historical data analysis. Nat
Hazards Earth Syst Sci 2(1/2):15–26
Elmouttie M, Poropat G (2011) A method to estimate in situ block
size distribution. Rock Mech Rock Eng 37:529–535
Elmouttie M, Poropat G, Krähenbühl G (2010a) Polyhedral modeling
of rock mass structure. Int J Rock Mech Min Sci 47:544–552
Elmouttie M, Poropat G, Krähenbühl G (2010b) Polyhedral modeling
of underground excavations. Comput Geotech 37:529–535
Ferrero A, Migliazza M, Roncella R, Rabbi E (2011a) Rock slopes
risk assessment based on advanced geostructural survey tech-
niques. Landslides 8:221–231
Ferrero A, Migliazza M, Roncella R, Segalini A (2011b) Rock cliffs
hazard analysis based on remote geostructural surveys: the
Campione del Garda case study (Lake Garda, northern Italy).
Geomorphology 125(4):457–471
Giacomini A, Thoeni K, Lambert C (2012) Experimental study on
rockfall drapery systems for open pit highwalls. Int J Rock Mech
Min Sci (in preparation)
Goodman R (1985) Block theory and its application to rock
engineering. Prentice-Hall, Englewood Cliffs, NJ
Guzzetti F, Reichenbach P, Wieczorek GF (2003) Rockfall hazard
and risk assessment in the yosemite valley, California, USA. Nat
Hazards Earth Syst Sci 3(6):491–503
Haneberg W (2008) Using close range terrestrial digital photogram-
metry for 3-d rock slope modeling and discontinuity mapping in
the united states. Bull Eng Geol Environ 67(4):457–469
Hantz D (2011) Quantitative assessment of diffuse rock fall hazard
along a cliff foot. Nat Hazards Earth Syst Sci 11(5):1303–1309
Hantz D, Vengeon JM, Dussauge-Peisser C (2003) An historical,
geomechanical and probabilistic approach to rock-fall hazard
assessment. Nat Hazards Earth Syst Sci 3(6):693–701
Hungr O, Evans SG, Hazzard J (1999) Magnitude and frequency of
rock falls and rock slides along the main transportation corridors
of southwestern British Columbia. Can Geotech J 36(2):224–238
Jaboyedoff M (2005) An attempt to refine rockfall hazard zoning
based on the kinetic energy, frequency and fragmentation
degree. Nat Hazards Earth Syst Sci 5:621–632
Kalenchuk KS, Diederichs MS, McKinnon S (2006) Characterizing
block geometry in jointed rock masses. Int J Rock Mech Min Sci
43(8):1212–1225
Lyman G (2003a) Rock fracture mean trace length estimation and
confidence interval calculation using maximum likelihood
methods. Int J Rock Mech Min Sci 40(6):825–832
Lyman G (2003b) Stereological and other methods applied to rock
joint size estimation—does Crofton’s theorem apply. Math Geol
35(1):9–23
Mauldon M (1998) Estimating mean fracture trace length and density
from observations in convex windows. Rock Mech Rock Eng
31:201–216
123

Peila D, Patrucco M, Falanesca M (2011) Quantification and
management of rockfall risk in opencast quarrying activities.
Environ Eng Geosci 17(1):39–51
Pierson L, Davis S, van Vickle R (1993) The rockfall hazard rating
system implementation manual. Technical report, Oregon State
Highway Division
Rohrbaugh MB, Dunne WM, Mauldon M (2002) Estimating fracture
trace intensity, density, and mean length using circular scan lines
and windows. AAPG Bulletin 86(12):2089–2104
Sheng Q, Yue Z, Lee C, Tham L, Zhou H (2002) Estimating the
excavation disturbed zone in the permanent shiplock slopes of
the Three Gorges Project, China. Int J Rock Mech Min Sci
39(2):165–184
Song JJ, Lee CI (2001) Estimation of joint length distribution using
window sampling. Int J Rock Mech Min Sci 38(4):519–528
Sturzenegger M, Stead D (2009) Close-range terrestrial digital
photogrammetry and terrestrial laser scanning for discontinuity
characterization on rock cuts. Eng Geol 106(3–4):163–182
Sturzenegger M, Stead D, Elmo D (2011) Terrestrial remote sensing-
based estimation of mean trace length, trace intensity and block
size/shape. Eng Geol 119(3-4):96–111
Thoeni K, Giacomini A, Sloan S, Lambert C, Casagrande D (2011)
Numerical analysis of rockfall hazard in open pit coal mines. In:
Khalili N, Oeser M (eds) Computer methods for geomechanics:
123
C. Lambert et al.
frontiers and new application, Centre for Infrastructure Engi-
neering and Safety, 13th international conference of the IAC-
MAG 2011, vol 2, pp 1151–1156
Tonon F, Chen S (2007) Closed-form and numerical solutions for the
probability distribution function of fracture diameters. Int J Rock
Mech Min Sci 44:332–350
Warburton P (1980) Stereological interpretation of joint trace data. Int
J Rock Mech Min Sci 17(4):181–190
Wu F, Liu J, Liu T, Zhuang H, Yan C (2009) A method for
assessment of excavation damaged zone (EDZ) of a rock mass
and its application to a dam foundation case. Eng Geol
104:254–262
Wu Q, Kulatilake P, Tang Hm (2011) Comparison of rock discon-
tinuity mean trace length and density estimation methods using
discontinuity data from an outcrop in Wenchuan area, China.
Comput Geotech 38(2):258–268
Zhang L, Einstein H (1998) Estimating the mean trace length of rock
discontinuities. Rock Mech Rock Eng 31:217–235
Zhang L, Einstein H (2010) The planar shape of rock joints. Rock
Mech Rock Eng 43:55–68
Zhang L, Einstein H, Dershowitz W (2002) Stereological relationship
between trace length and size distribution of elliptical fractures.
Geotechnique 52:419–433