Indian Geotech J (June 2022) 52(3):742–752
https://doi.org/10.1007/s40098-022-00595-2
TECHNICAL NOTE
Massive Sandstone Falling Analysis and Design Barriers Along
National Highway No. 2013 in Phitsanulok Province, Thailand:
A Case Study
W. Sukplum1 • S. Wannawongsa1
Received: 16 August 2021 / Accepted: 10 January 2022 / Published online: 5 February 2022
Ó Indian Geotechnical Society 2022
Abstract Rockfalls are a natural phenomenon that can
cause damage to infrastructure and endanger lives. They
are commonly found in mountainous areas and those with
steep terrain. Therefore, this research aimed to assess and
analyze the rockfalls along National Highway No. 2013,
located in Nakhon Thai District, Phitsanulok Province. The
study involved slope topography, geological rock struc-
tures, rock block sizes and their weight, kinetic energy,
block falling velocity, and trajectory. The topography and
geometry of the slopes were measured using an unmanned
aerial vehicle (UAV), which were compared to field mea-
surement. Geological structures were also observed in the
field. The essential parameters for serious risk of massive
falling in several sections along the highway were evalu-
ated. The rock falling trajectory was analyzed using Roc-
Fall software. The rock mass bounce height of 150 falling
rock masses on three different slope sections was simu-
lated. Rockfall protection structures were also designed and
proposed based on the simulation results.
Keywords Geohazard  Rockfall  Road cut slope 
Trajectories analysis
Introduction
Landslides can be classified into five types based on their
moving speed: fall, slide, topple, flow, and lateral spread
[1–3]. Falls are the sudden separation of masses of
& W. Sukplum
wimosu@kku.ac.th
1
Department of Geotechnology, Faculty of Technology, Khon
Kaen University, Khon Kaen 40002, Thailand
123
geological materials that occur along discontinuities on
steep slopes. Varnes [2] identified a ‘‘rockfall’’ as one of
the slope mass movement types and processes. Gravity has
a tremendous influence on rockfalls, which then rapidly
face free-falling [3, 4]. Naturally, rockfalls are one of the
most common hazards found in mountainous areas, steep
terrain, or cliffs [3, 5–7]. Consequently, rockfalls are a
natural phenomenon that can cause damage to infrastruc-
ture and most cars, as well as endanger countless lives
[5, 7–12]. Due to the significant mobility of rockfall mas-
ses, they have a tremendous amount of energy and move
exceedingly fast [13, 14]. Many researchers have proposed
methods to assess the rockfall hazard and identify danger
areas. The motion of falling rocks is determined by char-
acteristics such as the form of the rock blocks, the height,
the geometry of the slope, the angle of the slope, and the
roughness of the slope [4]. The morphological and
geotechnical characteristics of the rock slope face as well
as seismic events produced by earthquakes may be the
main causes of rockfalls [7, 15–17]. In addition, the
weathering, fracturing, and opening of the weak plane in a
rock slope under favorable weather conditions might
increase the probability of rockfalls [3, 6]. The shape of the
rock blocks, slope height, slope angle, slope roughness, and
slope face friction all influence how they move [18, 19].
Although the bounce and trajectory of the fall are con-
trolled by the size and shape of the falling boulders, as
discussed above, it is still much less than the slope
geometry and rebound coefficient [20].
National Highway No. 2013 is a connecting route
between the northern and northeastern regions of Thailand.
There are several landslide hazards, especially in the rainy
season, as the route runs through mountainous terrain with
steep and highly weathered steep rock slopes. Some
investigations have been carried out in the area by the
Indian Geotech J (June 2022) 52(3):742–752
Department of Mineral Resources of Thailand about the
landslide susceptibility [21]. The department classified the
susceptibility of landslides into five levels: very low, low,
moderate, high, and very high. The route shown in Fig. 1
indicates that the study area faces moderate to high-level
landslide susceptibility. Thus, the risk of a slide is con-
cerning. However, the study of rockfalls and their mecha-
nisms remains insufficient. However, three types of failures
such as flowing of soil on the low terrain, falling and
sliding in the high region, were commonly found in this
study area. Thus, the main objective of this research was to
investigate and assess the rockfall mechanism. A suit-
able design for protective measures would be proposed. As
a result, the safe transportation, construction, and mainte-
nance of roads in a rockfall risk area could be managed.
The investigation includes the following steps: (i) geology
and geotechnical field investigation for slope geometry and
their discontinuity characteristic of the rock slope, (ii)
laboratory determination of rock properties, (iii) measure-
ments of the shape, size, and weight of boulders from block
falling, (iv) analysis of falling velocity, energy, and
Fig. 1 The susceptibility of landslides in the study area
743
trajectory using RocFall software, and (v) propose slope
mitigation and protection.
Study Area
The field survey covers the highway cut slopes more than
10 km long (Fig. 2). The elevation of the road is approx-
imately 300–320 m, while the mountain region is
360–380 m. The geological setting of the area consists of
sandstone in the Khao YaPuk Formation. The formation
was deposited by an occasional meandering river and by
the wind in semiarid to arid conditions [22] during the
Cretaceous–Tertiary period. This formation can be classi-
fied into two sequences: Upper and lower [23]. The upper
sequence, top or crest of the slope, is massive sandstone
that is approximately 200–300 m in thickness. The rock is
mainly composed of brick-red, coarse to medium-grained,
poor sorted, well rounded to rounded, thick-bedded, large-
scale cross-bedding. The lower sequence consists of fine
sandstone interbedded with siltstone, brown to reddish-
brown with ripple marks, a load-cast and mud-crack
123
744
Fig. 2 The region of the study
structure. The thickness is approximately 5 to 5 m. More-
over, the authors found that the lower part of the slope
contained unconsolidated sedimentary rock, sandstone, and
siltstone. In addition, the slope’s toe has three layers of
Fig. 3 Overall slope and geological setting
123
Indian Geotech J (June 2022) 52(3):742–752
rock gabion that are approximately 3.50 m high and 3 m in
width. The characteristics of the slope are shown in Fig. 3.
Methodology
Field Observation and Geometry of the Slope
Field data, such as geological structure and slope geometry,
were collected using field measurement, and rock samples
were collected for laboratory testing. Moreover, an
unmanned aerial vehicle (UAV) was used to survey the
overall study area. The images data collected using the
UAV were transformed into digital topographic contours.
Thus, the topography and slope geometry could be created
from both the field data and transformed UAV data. Con-
sequently, three sections of the slope were used for simu-
lation, as shown in Fig. 4. As a result, a typical cross
section was generated by the digital elevation model
(DEM), as shown in Fig. 5. The slope comprised three rock
layers that are massive sandstone of the Khao YaPuk
Formation, fine sandstone interbedded with siltstone, and
Indian Geotech J (June 2022) 52(3):742–752
Fig. 4 DEM contour map and
section for modeling simulation
Fig. 5 Typical cross section of slope
unconsolidated sedimentary rock. The height and length of
the slope were approximately 60 m and 80 m, respectively.
The slope angles varied between 70 and 75°. The road
width was 6 m. One hundred and fifteen rockfall blocks
were measured and recorded. The weight of each block was
then calculated. As a result, the blocks could be divided
into seven groups by weight, 150, 300, 500, 1000, 2000,
3000, and 10,000 kg. Sandstone blocks and some uncon-
solidated specimens were also collected for laboratory
testing.
745
Kinematic of Slope
Kinematic refers to the motion of bodies without reference
to the forces that cause the slope to move. Kinematic
analysis can be performed using the stereographic projec-
tion technique, which is a simplified method. Discontinuity
data as dip and dip directions were measured and plotted.
The potential and type of rock slope failure were deter-
mined. Dips 8.0 software was used for the kinematic
analysis. The dip and dip direction of the slope was 75°/
318. The major bedding plane had an average dip/dip
direction of 40°/122°. Two joint sets were found with dip/
dip direction of 90°/126° and 90°/213°. The stereo plot
123
746
indicates potential toppling due to joint set no.1, as shown
in Fig. 6.
Laboratory Test
The rock blocks from the upper part of the road cut slope
were collected. Nine cylindrical rock specimens were
prepared for three uniaxial and two sets of triaxial strength
tests following the ASTM D 7012 standard [24]. The
uniaxial compressive strength from three 22.43 MPa and
the elastic modulus was 6.48 9 103 MPa. The rock could
be classified as E class, a very low strength according to
Deere and Miller classification [25]. Thus, the rock easily
breaks and fails when affected by the stresses factor. The
shear strength parameters, cohesion (c), and friction angle
(/) obtained from the triaxial test were 6.79 to 12.95 MPa,
and 33.07 to 48.03°, respectively. The density of rock was
also determined under the ISRM suggestion method [26].
As a result, the bulk density of rock was 2080 kg/m3. The
strength and density parameters were used as initial input
data in the RocFall software.
The unconsolidated sediments were also collected from
the slope toe. Their grain size and plasticity were deter-
mined. The sediments could be classified in the unified soil
classification system as clayey sand (SC) with lower liquid
and plastic limits at 35.96% and 25.16%, respectively.
Rockfall Simulation Using RocFall Software
RocFall is a 2D statistical analysis program for block
falling assessment. The velocity, energy, maximum runout
distance, trajectory, and bounce height of a falling rock
mass at the endpoint can be obtained from the program.
Input data parameters such as friction angle, slope rough-
ness, slope gradient, and average weights of rock blocks
falling from the three different slope geometries are
Slope face Bedding
Joint 2
Joint 1
Fig. 6 Potential of slope failure show toppling on joint set no. 1
123
Indian Geotech J (June 2022) 52(3):742–752
illustrated in Table 1. The coefficient of normal restitution
(COR) is another parameter in the rockfall simulation, and
the selection of its proper value is important as the sensi-
tivity of output depends on the COR selected value.
However, the values for coefficients of normal (Rn) and
tangential (Rt) restitution with standard deviation for the
slope material were selected from the coefficient of resti-
tution table provided by Rocscience in accordance with the
materials from the sloping site. The initial velocity was set
to 0 m/s due to a static condition in the initial state of
rockfall. The slope roughness can affect the angle of
impact, which can cause a change in the movement of the
rock block. The simulation sampling method is Monte
Carlo, pseudo-random.
Results and Discussion
Rock Blocks Fall Simulation Analysis
The analysis of the trajectories of the rock mass falling in
Sect. 1 is depicted in Fig. 7. Four types of falls including
rotational, translational, sliding, and projectile movements
were determined. Two seeders were used corresponding to
the slope face geometry. The results of maximum bounce
height, kinetic energy, and kinetic velocity are tabulated in
Table 2. As a result, the maximum and minimum bounce
heights on a 1000 kg rock block were determined to be
8.91 m and 0.61 m, respectively. Unfortunately, 88 rock
blocks were able to bounce through the barrier and fall onto
the roadway. In addition, the kinetic energy of 7 rock block
groups indicated that a 10,000 kg block had the highest
kinetic energy at 66.21 m at 2,032.52 kJ. The total kinetic
energy was 1879 kJ. Translation and rotational velocities
obtained from the simulations were 19.8 m/s at 52.59 m on
the slope and 52.54 rad/s at 65.32 m on the slope,
respectively. As a result, the translational kinetic velocity
was 18.58 m/s and the rotational kinetic velocity was 43.95
red/s.
The slope face geometry of Sect. 2 and block simulation
are illustrated in Fig. 8. There are three seeders in this
section. The movement of seeder 1 cannot move on either
seeder 2 or seeder 3. Similarly, rocks on seeder 2 cannot
move on to seeder 3. The results of the rockfall simulation
are tabulated in Table 3. The results show that the rock
block group 7, 10,000 kg, bounced 2.37 m high and moved
6.01 m on the slope at seeder 1. This rock block also
bounced 2.45 m high and moved 38.66 m on the slope of
the seeder 2. Moreover, it bounced 7.56 m high and moved
67.87 m on the slope of seeder 3. 83 rock blocks from
seeder 3 could move over the barrier and finally fall onto
the road. Similar to the section, the kinetic energy of rock
block group 7, 10,000 kg, showed the highest kinetic
Indian Geotech J (June 2022) 52(3):742–752 747

Table 1 Parameters used in RocFall software

Parameter Value Unit

Friction angle 33.07 degrees

Density 2,080 kg/m3
Average weights of falling rock block 351.60 kg
Number of rock blocks considered
Size of falling rock blocks (in situ measuring) 150 –
Rock mass 150 kg 0.28 9 0.99 9 0.26 m3
Rock mass 300 kg 0.38 9 1.00 9 0.38 m3
Rock mass 500 kg 0.55 9 0.61 9 0 70 m3
Rock mass 1000 kg 0.80 9 0.86 9 0.67 m3
Rock mass 2000 kg 0.50 9 1.80 9 0.80 m3
Rock mass 3000 kg 1.00 9 1.80 9 0.80 m3
Rock mass 10,000 kg 1.80 9 1.91 9 1.30 m3
Slope angle 70–75 Degrees

Fig. 7 Simulation of
trajectories for falling rock
blocks in Sect. 1

energy at 71.00 m at 1,600 kJ. The total kinetic energy was
1,279 kJ. Translation and rotational velocities were
22.86 m/s at 57.56 m on the slope and 41.70 rad/s at
72.17 m on the slope face, respectively. As a result, the
translational kinetic velocity was 16.90 m/s and the rota-
tional kinetic velocity was 35.81 red/s.
The slope face geometry and bouncing trajectories of the
falling rock masses for Sect. 3 are shown in Fig. 9. The
rockfall simulation results are tabulated in Table 4. The
results indicated that the group 6 rock block, 3,000 kg,
bounced 17.56 m high and moved 21.39 m on the slope,
but the average bounce was 9.25 m high. 55 rock blocks
could bounce over the barrier and finally fall onto the
roadway. In addition, the kinetic energy of the 7 rock
groups determined that the rock group 7, 10,000 kg, had
the highest kinetic energy at 60.00 m as 3,613.78 kJ. The
total kinetic energy was also determined to be 2,651 kJ.
Translation and rotational velocities were calculated to be
27.67 m/s at 74.04 m on the slope and 57.93 rad/s at
69.93 m on the slope, respectively. As a result, the

123
748 Indian Geotech J (June 2022) 52(3):742–752

Table 2 The results of rockfall analysis in Sect. 1

Initial conditions (rigid body) Horizontal velocity (m/s) Vertical velocity (m/s) Rotational velocity (deg/s) Initial rotation (deg/s)

Seeder 1 0 0 0 0
Seeder 2 0 0 0 0
Normal restitution (Rn) 0.45 Dynamic friction 0.55
Tangential restitution (Rt) 0.82 Rolling friction 0.10
Sampling method: Monte Carlo Random: Pseudo-random
Results Max Mean 95%
Simulation times (s) 99.03 – –
Bounce height (m) 9.26 4.10 6.31
Total kinetic energy (kJ) 1,879 352.9 1,879
Translation kinetic energy (kJ) 1,546 286.3 1,546
Rotational kinetic energy (kJ) 353.6 67.67 353.6
Translational kinetic velocity (m/s) 18.58 13.02 18.58
Rotational kinetic velocity (rad/s) 43.95 30.51 43.95

Fig. 8 Simulation of
trajectories for falling rock
blocks in Sect. 2

translational kinetic velocity was 24.75 m/s and the rota-
tional kinetic velocity was 41.69 red/s.
Rockfall Mitigation Measures and Rockfall
Protection Structure Design
An efficient approach to reduce the impact of falling rocks
is to allow rockfall to occur while controlling the block
falling distance and direction with protective structures. A
common feature of such a structure is not intended to
prevent rockfall from occurring, but rather to mitigate its
effects [27]. Rockfall protection structures are used to
prevent the danger caused by falling rock impact energy.
The adequacy of protection measures and design is directly
influenced by the study site assessment and data collecting
field/lab test of the falling rock mass [28]. The size of the
falling rock mass, velocity, bouncing height, and trajectory
of the falling rock mass affecting the barrier all influence

123
Indian Geotech J (June 2022) 52(3):742–752 749

Table 3 The results of rockfall analysis in Sect. 2

Initial conditions (rigid body) Horizontal velocity (m/s) Vertical velocity (m/s) Rotational velocity (deg/s) Initial rotation (deg/s)

Seeder 1 0 0 0 0
Seeder 2 0 0 0 0
Seeder 3 0 0 0 0
Normal restitution (Rn) 0.45 Dynamic friction 0.55
Tangential restitution (Rt) 0.82 Rolling friction 0.10
Sampling method: Monte Carlo Random: Pseudo-random
Result Max Mean 95%
Simulation times (s) 67.35 – –
Bounce height (m) 7.64 3.94 6.67
Total kinetic energy (kJ) 1279 264.90 1257
Translation kinetic energy (kJ) 1257 260.30 1546
Rotational kinetic energy (kJ) 172 26.21 172
Translational kinetic velocity (m/s) 16.90 14.67 16.90
Rotational kinetic velocity (rad/s) 35.81 18.33 35.81

Fig. 9 Simulation of
trajectories for falling rock
blocks in Sect. 3

the design of the protection structure [29]. The important
factors for the rockfall barrier design include the energy it
can support, the height, and the elongation along the road
that can block falling rock masses.
The Energy of the Barrier Calculation
One of the key concepts of the RPS design is the kinetic
energy of falling rock blocks as they fall. This energy
changes with the trajectory, which increases in free fall and
decreases after impact with the ground or other objects

123
750 Indian Geotech J (June 2022) 52(3):742–752

Table 4 The results of rockfall analysis in Sect. 3

Initial conditions (Rigid Body) Horizontal velocity (m/s) Vertical velocity (m/s) Rotational velocity (deg/s) Initial rotation (deg/s)

Seeder 1 0 0 0 0
Seeder 2 0 0 0 0
Normal restitution (Rn) 0.45 Dynamic friction 0.55
Tangential restitution (Rt) 0.82 Rolling friction 0.10
Friction angle (degrees) 33.07 Slope roughness: normal distribution Standard deviation: 2
Sampling method: Monte Carlo Random: Pseudo-random
Result Max Mean 95%
Simulation times (s) 104.37 – –
Bounce height (m) 17.56 9.25 14.72
Total kinetic energy (kj) 2651 431 2651
Translation kinetic energy (kj) 2610 390.20 2610
Rotational kinetic energy (kj) 347.20 57.42 347.20
Translational kinetic velocity (m/s) 24.75 15.56 24.75
Rotational kinetic velocity (rad/s) 41.69 35.05 41.69

[30]. The kinetic energy of rockfall can be calculated as
follows in Eq. (1):
E ¼ m  V2
where E is the kinetic energy of rockfalls, m is falling rock
block mass, and V is the maximum velocity of rockfall
from Eq. (2). The kinetic energy derived from this equation
plays an important role in the further evaluation of rockfall
barrier structures.
pffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffi
V max ¼ 2  g  h ð2Þ
where g is gravity acceleration (9.81 ms-1).
The maximum velocity of the falling rock mass is an
important parameter in the next step of the energy
calculation.
A barrier is one of the suitable preventive measures for
rockfall hazards. The barrier design can be calculated by
the Peila and Ronco [31] equation. The main concept of the
energy design equation is that the barrier must be able to
absorb energy greater than the energy computed from the
calculation or the simulation program, as in Eq. (3):
EETA
Edesign  0
cE
where Edesign is the energy value of barrier design calcu-
lation/simulation or the kinetic energy (E) from Eq. (1),
EETA is the barrier energy level certified by European
Technical Approval (ETA), and cE is the factor of safety
coefficient values following Eurocode 7 (1.3 for maximum
energy level; MEL (100%) and 1.0 for service energy
level; SEL (1/3 of the MEL). In addition to the energy that
the barrier can tolerate, other important factors for the
barrier design are height and elongation. It is a simple
calculation of general properties that do not specify the
type of structure.
ð1Þ
Height of the Barrier Calculation
In terms of the barrier height design, Peila and Ronco [31]
suggested that the structure height should be greater than
the modeled prevention height plus the spacing, meaning
not less than half of the falling rock block design average
size (f b ). The height of the barrier can be calculated by
Eq. (4) as follows:
 
hd ¼ hb95  cTr  cDp þ f b ð4Þ
where hd is the design barrier height, hb95 is 95 percentile
of the falling rock trajectories height, cTr is the safety
coefficient related to rockfall simulation reliability (1.0 for
2D simulation calibrated by back analysis and 1.1 for 2D
simulation based on literature values), cDp is the safety
coefficient related to the slope survey quality (following
values of 1.05 for the laser scanning model, 1.1 for the
normal topographic model, and 1.15 for cross section
derived from a large-scale map or no model).
ð3Þ
Elongation of the Barrier Calculation
Barrier elongation along the road using the Peila and
Ronco [31] equation can be calculated by Eq. (5):
d e  cE  d p ð5Þ
where de is the maximum elongation of the barrier, and d p
is the distance between the barrier and protected area.
The proposed barrier design was determined from the
block simulation output. The barrier energy or capacity

123
Indian Geotech J (June 2022) 52(3):742–752 751

Table 5 The parameters used in the design of the barrier

Parameters Capacity design Height design Elongation design

Input Parameter (kj) Parameter (m) Parameter (m)

Ed1 1,879 (hb95)1 6.31 de 200
Ed2 1,279 (hb95)2 6.66
Ed3 2,651 (hb95)3 6.37
ctr 1.10
cE 1.3 cdp 1.15 cE 1.30
fb 0.084
Output E(ETA)1 2,442.7 hd1 8.07 dp 260
E(ETA)2 1,662.7 hd2 8.51
E(ETA)3 3,446.3 hd3 8.14

design, such as the barrier height, and the position or Declarations

elongation of the protection structure are illustrated in
Table 5. These proposed barrier results could be used as a
basic barrier for rockfall mitigation and protection in this
study area. A results stat indicates that trajectories of
falling rock blocks, bounce height, the distance of trans-
lation, and kinetic energy of Sect. 3 are higher than others.
However, the bounce height for all slopes is quite similar.
Thus, the slope geometry of Sect. 3 was for decision
capacity of the barrier because it has the highest kinetic
energy level, 3,446.3 kJ, as certified by European Techni-
cal Approval (ETA). Therefore, the slope barrier should
absorb higher kinetic energy than that. Consequently,
Sect. 2 of the slope indicates that the height and elongation
of the slope should be more than 8.51 m and 260 m,
respectively. The proposed optimization barrier is intended
to protect the roadway from rock blocks.
Conclusion
The rock discontinuities as bedding and joint sets of
sandstone on the top of the slope along National Highway
No. 2013, located in Nakhon Thai District, Phitsanulok
Province, could cause block falling hazard. The block
could be simulated by the pseudo-random method in
RocFall software. The bounce height, distance of transla-
tion, and kinetic energy of the block fall could lead to the
design of a barrier for fall protection. As a minimum, the
barrier should have a height not less than 8.51 m and
elongation of approximately 260 m.
Acknowledgements The authors would like to offer their gratitude
for the funding provided by the Young Researcher Development
Project of Khon Kaen University.
Funding This study was funded by the Young Researcher Devel-
opment Project of Khon Kaen University.
Conflict of interest The authors declare that they have no conflict of
interest.
References
1. Hunt RE (2004) Geotechnical engineering investigation hand-
book, 2nd edn. CRC Press, Boca Raton
2. Varnes DJ (1978) Chapter 2: Slope movement types and pro-
cesses. In: Schuster RL, Krizek RJ (eds) Landslides, analysis and
control. Transportation Research Board, Washington, DC,
pp 11–33
3. Cruden DM, Varnes DJ (1996) Chapter 3: landslide types and
processes. In: Turner KA, Schuster RL (eds) Landslides, inves-
tigation and mitigation. Transportation Research Board, Wash-
ington, pp 36–75
4. Verma AK, Sardana S, Singh TN, Kumar N (2018) Rockfall
analysis and optimized design of rockfall barrier along a strategic
road near Solang Valley, Himachal Pradesh, India. Indian Geo-
tech J 48(4):686–699. https://doi.org/10.1007/s40098-018-0330-6
5. Badger TC, Lowell SM (1992) Rockfall control in Washington
State. Transp Res Rec 1343:14–19
6. Crosta GB, Agliardi F (2003) A methodology for physically
based rockfall hazard assessment. Nat Hazard 3:407–422.
https://doi.org/10.5194/nhess-3-407-2003
7. Dorren LKA (2003) A review of rockfall mechanics and mod-
elling approaches. Prog Phys Geogr 27(1):69–87.
https://doi.org/10.1191/0309133303pp359ra
8. Porter SC, Orombelli G (1980) Catastrophic rockfall of
September 12, 1717 on the Italian flank of the Mont Blanc
Massif. Zeitschriftfür Geomorphologie 24:200–218
9. Cancelli A, Crosta GB (1993) Hazard and risk assessment in
rockfall prone areas. In: Skipp BO (ed) Risk Reliability in
Ground Engineering. Thomas Telford Institute of Civil Engi-
neers, London, pp 177–190
10. Bunce CM, Cruden D, Morgenstern N (1997) Assessment of the
hazard from rock fall on a highway. Can Geotech J 34:344–356
11. Arbanas Z, Grošić M, Udovič D, Mihalić S (2012) Rockfall
hazard analyses and rockfall protection along the Adriatic Coast
of Croatia. J Civ Eng Archit 6(3):344–355.
https://doi.org/10.17265/1934-7359/2012.03.008
12. Ferrari F, Giacomini A, Thoeni K (2016) Qualitative rockfall
hazard assessment: a comprehensive review of current practices.

123
752 Indian Geotech J (June 2022) 52(3):742–752

Rock Mech Rock Eng 49(7):2865–2922. 23. Kosuwan S (1990) Geology of Amphor Nakron Thai and Ban
https://doi.org/10.1007/s00603-016-0918-z Nam Kum: map sheet 5143 II & 5143 I. Department of Mineral
13. Guzzetti F (2000) Landslide fatalities and the evaluation of Resources, Bangkok
landslide risk in Italy. Eng Geol 58(2):89–107. 24. ASTM D7012 Standard test methods for compressive strength
https://doi.org/10.1016/S0013-7952(00)00047-8 and elastic moduli of intact rock core specimens under varying
14. Lambert S, Nicot F (2011) Rockfall engineering. Wiley, Hoboken states of stress and temperatures. ASTM International. West
15. Douglas GR (1980) Magnitude frequency study of rockfall in Co. Conshohocken. www.astm.org
Antrim, N. Ireland. Earth Surface Processes and Landforms 25. Deere D, Miller R (1966) Engineering classification and index
5(2):123–129 properties for intact rock: Tech. Report No AFWL - TR-65-116,
16. Kobayashi Y, Harp E, Kagawa T (1990) Simulation of Rockfalls Air Force Weapons Lab., Kirtland Air Base, New Mexico
triggered by earthquakes. Rock Mech Rock Eng 23(1):1–20 26. ISRM (1978) Suggestion method for determining water content,
17. Valagussa A, Frattini P, Crosta GB (2014) Earthquake-induced porosity, density, absorption and related properties and swelling
rockfall hazard zoning. Eng Geol 182:213–225. and slake-durability index properties
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.enggeo.2014.07.009 27. Wyllie DC, Mah CW (2004) Rock slope engineering civil and
18. Ritchie AM (1963) Evaluation of rockfall and its control. Transp mining, 4th edn. Spon Press Taylor & Francis Group, Madison
Res Rec 17:13–28 Avenue, New York
19. Wang R, Wang X, Liu H, Wang Y, Peng Y, Sun W, Liu J (2018) 28. Turner AK, Schuster RL (2013) Rockfall characterization and
Rockfall hazard identification and assessment of the Langxian- control. Transportation Research Board, Washington, D.C.
Milin section of the transmission line passage of Central Tibet 29. Marchelli M, Biagi VD, Peila D (2020) Reliability-based design
Grid Interconnection Project. In: international conference on civil of protection net fences: influence of rockfall uncertainties
and hydraulic engineering, conference series: earth and environ- through a statistical analysis. Geosciences 10(8):280–304.
mental Science 189(5), pp 1–8 https://doi.org/10.3390/geosciences10080280
20. Hoek E (1986) Mechanical of rockfall. Practical Rock Engi- 30. Whakatutuki H (2016) ROCKFALL: design considerations for
neering. Edgemont Boulevard, Wellington passive protection structures. Ministry of Business, Innovation &
21. Landslide susceptibility Map of Phitsanulok province, Thailand Employment (MBIE), Wellington, New Zealand
(2020) Department of Mineral Resources of Thailand. Bangkok 31. Peila D, Ronco C (2009) Technical note: design of rockfall net
22. Meesook A, Suteethorn V, Chaodumrong P, Teerarungsigul N, fences and the new ETAG 027 European guideline. Nat Hazard
Sardsud A, Wongprayoon T (2004) Mesozoic rock of Thailand: A 9(4):1291–1298. https://doi.org/10.5194/nhess-9-1291-2009
summary. In N. Mantajit (Ed in chief.), The symposium on
geology of Thailand (pp. 82–100). Bangkok: Department of Publisher’s Note Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to
Mineral Resources jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

123