Bulletin of Engineering Geology and the Environment (2021) 80:5347–5368

https://doi.org/10.1007/s10064-021-02288-1

ORIGINAL PAPER

Impact of rock block characteristics on rockfall hazard and its

implications for rockfall protection strategies along Himalayan
highways: a case study
Ashok K. Singh1,2 · J. Kundu2 · K. Sarkar2   · H. K. Verma1 · P. K. Singh3

Received: 30 July 2020 / Accepted: 10 May 2021 / Published online: 17 May 2021
© Springer-Verlag GmbH Germany, part of Springer Nature 2021

Abstract
Rock block characteristics are the controlling factors that define the potential rockfall volume, associated hazard and design
of preventive practices. The present study defines a methodology to demonstrate the impact of block characteristics on rock-
fall hazard and its implications on the design of mitigative measures by analysing a recurring rockfall site along a critical
highway corridor in NW Himalaya, India. The field data were quantitatively characterised for statistical distributions of size
and volume of in situ as well as rockfall blocks. Possible block failures and rockfall initiation zones were predicted using
modified kinematic analysis and distinct element method. The size and volume distributions as well as shapes were simulated
against these predicted initiation zones to determine the cumulative impact of block characteristics on rockfall hazard by
analysing the block kinetics and trajectories. It is found that the block initiation zones majorly govern the relative bounce
height, kinetic energy, run-out distance and impact down the slope respective of block sizes and associated mass coupled
with slope geometry. However, the effect of block shapes is observed to be minor compared to the blocks greater than a
particular size range. Therefore, the design of rockfall protection such as barrier can be more effective when considering the
kinetic energies of such block size range assisted by initiation zones. This study proposed that the knowledge of block size
frequencies and rockfall initiation zones could provide a rational threshold for which a protection strategy can be designed
and optimised to prevent rockfall hazard along the Himalayan highway corridors.

Keywords  Rockfall · Block size distribution · Kinematic analysis · Rockfall barrier · Himalaya

Introduction parts of the world and accounts for substantial economic

Rockfalls, induced by kinematically detachable blocks from
steep slopes, are rapid to an extremely rapid form of bounc-
ing, sliding, rolling and free fall, always threatening nearby
lives and properties. The associated impact energy of the
rapidly moving rock blocks can be high enough to cause cau-
salities even when the block is very small in size and volume
(Shen et al. 2017). Rockfall is a common occurrence in many
* K. Sarkar
kripamoy@iitism.ac.in
1
Bilaspur Research Center, CSIR-Central Institute of Mining
and Fuel Research, Chhattisgarh 495001, India
2
Department of Applied Geology, IIT(ISM) Dhanbad,
Dhanbad  826004, India
3
CSIR-Central Institute of Mining and Fuel Research,
Dhanbad 826015, India
loss and deaths (Turner and Jayaprakash 2012; Collins and
Stock 2016; Froude and Petley 2018; Wang et al. 2020).
The unfavourable arrangement of discontinuities with the
slope orientation is a common cause of rockfalls, although
irregular fractures may significantly affect. At the same time,
it may get triggered by undercutting of the slope, differential
weathering, intense rainfall, earthquake, dynamic loading,
anthropogenic activities and biological factors (Highland
and Bobrowsky 2008; Wyllie 2014; Ansari et  al. 2014;
Bostjančić and Pollak 2020). The effect of wind also cannot
be discounted (Pei et al. 2019). In a mountainous region,
the highway corridors are highly susceptible to rockfall
and further aggravated by engineering activities (Budetta
2004; Ferlisi et al. 2012; Palma et al. 2012; Ansari et al.
2016; Geniş et al. 2017) especially in the fragile Himala-
yan region (Chakraborty and Anbalagan 2008; Singh et al.
(2015a); Gupta and Tandon 2015; Singh et al. 2016; Vishal
et al. 2017). National Highway (NH) - 05 is such a major

13
Vol.:(0123456789)
5348 A. K. Singh et al.

highway and the only linking route in the tectonically active investigation followed by determination through conven-
and fragile Himalayas between the hilly regions and India’s tional and numerical methods. The workflow of the study is
plain area. The highway corridors in the Himalayan region presented in Fig. 1, and the methods adopted to achieve the
have colossal significance in accelerating and maintaining objective of the study are concisely described in the method-
the socio-economic development and livelihood improve- ology section. The current research signifies the cumulative
ment of the residents (Hearn and Shakya 2017). According effects of rock block characteristics such as size, shape and
to Barnard et al. (2001), two-thirds of the landslide activities initiation zones on rockfall hazard parameters and discusses
along highway cuts in lower Himalaya are contributed by the its influence on the design of rockfall protection strategies
housing- and commercial development-related constructions through constraining rockfall hazard along the highway.
adjacent to highways. These human activities pose a mainte-
nance challenge to the concerned authorities as a majority of
the population settle along the road network or in the vicinity Study area
for better convenience. Singh et al. (2014) also mentioned
the adverse effect of steep excavation of road-cut slopes, Socio‑economic significance
inadequate geotechnical investigation and overblasting dur-
ing road widening as the foremost reasons behind small and Rampur-Jhakri region of Himachal Himalaya is highly vul-
large-scale slope failures. nerable to rockfalls and rock failures around habitats and
The size and volume distributions of blocks in a jointed highway cuts throughout the year (Singh 2018). Being a
rock slope derived by spatial discontinuity arrangements are famous tourist spot (especially for Lavi fare) and a central
the controlling parameters in rockfall and related protec- zone for trade to the neighbouring area, the exposed excavated
tion management to reduce the impact of rockfall hazard slopes along the highway corridor in this region poses a threat
(Ruiz-Carulla et al. 2015; Mavrouli et al. 2015; Ferrero to transportations. Potentially detachable rock blocks from
et al. 2016; Mavrouli and Corominas 2017; Corominas et al. the cut slopes disrupt the traffic and impose a considerable
2018; Luo et al. 2019). Laimer (2020) stated that the block risk to the people. Topographically, the study area is highly
size and volume distribution better assist the engineers in rugged with steep slopes and is drained by River Satluj and
dealing with the uncertainties associated with rockfall haz- its tributaries, the third-largest trans-Himalayan river system.
ard and applying the preventive measures effectively. Impact The area has been experiencing some large-scale hydroelec-
positions and associated energies, relative bounce height tric and urbanisation projects in recent years due to the rich-
and runout path of the failed blocks are crucial parameters est hydropower potentiality of the Satluj River valley. Some
that the block characteristics can efficiently predict. Recog-
nition of block detachment zones from the rock wall face
and determination of block dynamics throughout the rock-
fall path is essential to install protection measures at suit-
able places relative to the slope geometry (Pérez-Rey et al.
2019). The number of joint sets and their mutual geometri-
cal arrangements, individual spacing, persistence and rock
mass strength are the factors that majorly govern the size
and volume distribution of in situ blocks from the rockfall
source area (Palmstrom 2005; Elmouttie and Poropat 2012;
Mavrouli and Corominas 2020). The maximum rockfall size
from a slope is constrained by the inherent fracture and local
structural configurations (Corominas et al. 2018).
The present study’s objective is to investigate the impact
of rock block characteristics and initiation zones on rock-
fall hazard at a recurrent rockfall site along a crucial seg-
ment of NH - 05 near Rampur, Shimla of the state Himachal
Pradesh in the Indian Himalayas. Since the Himalayan
highway corridors are frequently threatened by rockfalls
adversely affecting people and infrastructures, protection
strategies have also been suggested based on the observed
rockfall hazard and rock block characteristics. Kinemati-
cally detachable rock blocks and their trajectories along
the slope profile have been predicted from detailed field Fig. 1  The workflow of the present study

13
Impact of rock block characteristics on rockfall hazard and its implications for rockfall…
of these projects include the largest underground hydroelec-
tric project of Asia known as Jhakri Hydroelectric project
of 1500 MW capacity and Rampur hydroelectric project of
412 MW capacity, functioning and managed by Satluj Jal
Vidyut Nigam (SJVN) Ltd. Another relatively small project
known as the Nogli hydel power project of 2500 kW is also
operating in this area. Therefore, a safe highway access is
essential to keep the current socio-economic improvement
drive in this part of the Himalayas.
Previous slope failure investigations
Heavily jointed rock masses are the characteristics of high-
way slopes in the Himalayan region, so a complex com-
bination of rock failures, including rockfalls, is frequently
reported. Therefore, major highways such as NH-05 require
site-specific investigations with an integrated approach to
quantify and reduce rock failure–induced hazards. Research-
ers have applied different approaches to understand the fail-
ure characteristics and assess slope instabilities along the
highway slopes of these parts of the Himalayas. Methods
like kinematic analysis and rock mass characterisation
approaches have been adopted by Acharya et al. (2020),
Singh (2018), Sarkar et al. (2016), Kundu et al. (2017),
Mahanta et al. (2016), and Singh et al. (2015b) to assess the
rock mass health in this area. Some improved classification
approaches such as rock mass rating (RMR) through con-
tinuous functions and modified slope mass rating (SMR)
method have also been developed and implemented by
Kundu et al. (2020) and Kundu et al. (2019), respectively.
Some researchers have also performed finite element method
(FEM) and discrete element method (DEM) to investigate
the failure mechanism under static as well as dynamic load-
ing condition in this region (Singh 2018; Kundu et al. 2016b;
Mahanta et al. 2016; Sarkar and Singh 2008). Gupta et al.
(1993) and Kumar et al. (2018) have appraised the regional
hazard zonation in Kinnaur and Shimla areas to categorise
the slopes based on prevailing geological field attributes.
Details of the rockfall site and geological setup
The studied slope section is situated along NH-5 (at the left
bank of river Satluj) near Rampur Bushahr city of Shimla,
Himachal Pradesh, India. The site is located at a sharp turn
along NH-5 (N31° 27.935′ and E77° 40.532′), making the
slope curved in profile changing dip direction from N10° to
N265° (Fig. 2a). The investigated highway section comprises
heavily jointed quartzite rock which is slightly weathered in
nature (Fig. 2b).
Based on the curvature and rockfall severity, the high-
way section was divided into two sections, sections A and B
(Fig. 2c, d). The stretch of the slope section A is about 80 m
with a height varying from 25 to 29 m whereas, section B
5349
has a stretch of 30 –38 m with 27–31 m height. Four sets of
joints (J1, J2, J3 and J4) are prominent at the site (Fig. 2e,
f and Table 1), making the slope highly vulnerable to dif-
ferent types of discontinuity-driven rock failures. Based on
the slope angle variation, section A is divided into two seg-
ments, the upper steep scar segment with a mean inclina-
tion of 83° (highly susceptible to kinematic failures) and the
lower segment with a mean inclination of 47° (Fig. 2d). Sec-
tion A itself has an arcuate shape with the highway whose
dip direction varies from N220° ± 5° to N265°. The Bor-
der Road Organization (BRO) took a preventative measure
along the entire exposed slope by constructing gabion walls
to arrest the falling blocks. However, the gabion wall at sec-
tion A has failed and bulged at several locations in a recent
rockfall event (Fig. 2d).
Geologically, the study area belongs to Rampur series
of Paleoproterozoic and forms a part of the Kullu-Rampur
Window Group (KRWG) in the Lesser Himalayas between
two major thrust zones of the Himalayan system: Main
Central Thrust (MCT) and Main Boundary Thrust (MBT)
(Srikantia and Bhargava 1998). Shali Formation underlines
Rampur series and the Wangtu Gneiss Complex thrusts onto
the quartzite of Rampur Formation along an active thrust
named Jakhri Thrust (Fig. 2e) which is younger than MBT
(4.5 Ma) (Jain et al. 2000; Pandey et al. 2004). The Ram-
pur series are composed of quartz-mica schist, quartzite and
volcanic/metavolcanic rocks. Quartzite is highly deformed
and forms the core of Rampur anticline where strata strike
in NNE-SSW direction and dipping towards East and West
directions (Pandey et al. 2004).
Methodologies
Rock block characterisation
Preliminary investigation of a site and joint characterisation
suggests qualitative as well as quantitative description of the
rock masses and associated in situ rock blocks (ISRM 1978).
Block characterisation also offers an idea about the strength
and mechanical behaviour of rock masses that largely
depend upon the joint parameters. The said parameters are
often controlled by the orientation relationship of joints and
blocks relative to the examined rock structures (Smith 2006).
According to Zhang (2016), the joint sets and their intensity,
spacing, persistence and mutual orientation are the govern-
ing parameters to determine the potential in situ blocks along
with their dimensions and volume. Palmstrom (2005) also
urged that joint spacing and joint volumetric count are sig-
nificant empirical indices to predict the quantile statistics
of in-situ block characteristics. Therefore, to quantitatively
characterise the rock blocks, detailed joint characterisation
is essential.
13
5350 A. K. Singh et al.

Fig. 2  a Google Earth imagery

of the highway sections (section
A and section B). b Unfavour-
able orientations of joints
feasible for kinematic blocks
detachment from section A . c
Vulnerable field condition of
section B (notice the location
of gabions with respect to the
slope profile). d Vulnerable
field condition and rockfall
event with fragmented blocks
at section A that damaged the
existing gabion. e Visualisation
of multi-oriented joints. f Lower
hemisphere-equal angle ste-
reographic projection of major
joints. g Geological setting of
the Rampur area (after Pandey
et al. 2004)

13
Impact of rock block characteristics on rockfall hazard and its implications for rockfall… 5351

Table 1  Qualitative descriptions Joint properties Range Description

and statistical distribution of
joints parameters Mean orientation J1 24/14 Variability (°) 4/8
(Dip°/Dip direc- J2 38/227 7/5
tion°)
J3 70/107 12/10
J4 84/311 5/6
Persistence (m) 3–20 Low to high persistence
Spacing (cm) Max 83.5 Varying from close to moderate spacing for major joints
Min 2.6
Mean 25.2
Aperture (mm) Max 16 Varying from close to open aperture with no fill to siliceous/
Min 0 soil filling
Mean 3

Joints characterisation (
JRCn = JRC0 Ln ∕L0
)−0.02JRC0
(4)

The joint parameters were collected as per ISRM (1978) )−0.03JRC0

standards which include the orientation of major joint
planes with their persistence, spacing, aperture, infilling,
weathering, surface roughness (joint roughness coeffi-
cient (JRC)) and compressive wall strength (joint com-
pressive strength (JCS)). Moreover, the included acute
angles between joints and water condition were also care-
fully observed. Joint volumetric count (­ JV) (or volumetric
frequency) was measured using the method proposed by
Palmstrom (1982) (Eq. 1). The Rock Quality Designation
(RQD), a practical tool to quantify the linear frequency of
joint population data, was calculated using the following
correlation proposed by Palmstrom (2005) (Eq. 2).
( )
∑J 1
Jv = (1)
i=1 S
i measures and their implementation are primarily based on
and, RQD = 110 − 2.5Jv
where ­Si is the average joint spacing for an ith joint set in
meters, J is a total number of joints sets excluding random
joints. JRC, which is potentially a very significant param-
eter of joint shear strength, were obtained for each of the
joint sets with the help of a 2D roughness profilometer. The
2D profiles were then visually compared with the stand-
ard profiles proposed by Barton and Choubey (1977) and
assigned a numeric value to get the quantitative roughness.
The Schmidt hammer (N-type) test was carried out on the
joint surfaces (Aydin 2008), and JCS was calculated using
the correlation given by Deere and Miller (1966) as in Eq. 3.
UCS(MPa) = 6.9 × 10[0.0087𝛾N+0.16]
where γ is the unit weight in g/cm3 and N is the rebound
value of the N-type Schmidt hammer. The scale corrected
equations (Barton and Bandis 1982) as given in Eqs. 4 and 5
were applied to quantify the scale effects on JRC and JCS as
(5)
(
JCSn = JCS0 Ln ∕L0
where ­JRC0, ­JCS0 and ­L0 represent the values of 100 mm-
scale samples and J­ RCn, ­JCSn and L
­ n refer to in-situ block
sizes.
Assessment of rock block distributions
The statistical distributions of rock block parameters have a
substantial influence on rockfall hazard assessment. Block
sizes and block volume distributions greatly influence the
mobility behaviour of rock blocks and their associated kinetic
energies during rockfall events. Suggestions for protective
distributions of in-situ rock blocks that are kinematically
feasible for rockfalls (Windsor 1997; Elmouttie and Poropat
(2)
2012; Ruiz-Carulla et al. 2015). Joint spacing and persistence
are the critical parameters to predict the size and volume
of in situ as well as detached rock blocks (Elmouttie and
Poropat 2012). In the present study, two types of rock block
distributions were assessed at the rockfall site, which are:
1. In-situ Rock Block Distribution (IRBD), and
2. Rockfall Block Size Distribution (RBSD)
The volumetric distribution and potential dimensions of
IRBD were statistically quantified through the methods pro-
posed by ISRM (1978). The potential block volume ­(Vb) for
the persistent joints are calculated as
(3)
Vb = S1 × S2 × S3 ∕Sinγ1 × Sinγ2 × Sinγ3 (6)
where ­S1, ­S2 and S
­ 3 are the spacings of three joint sets 1, 2
and 3, respectively. Sin γ1, Sin γ2 and Sin γ3 are the acute
intersection angles between the joint 1 and 2, 2 and 3, 1

13
5352
and 3, respectively. Another approach to quantify ­Vb was
proposed by Palmstrom (2000) as in Eq. 7.
( )−3
(7)
( )
Vb = β × Jv , where, β = 20 + 7 Smax ∕Smin
where β is the “block shape factor” ranging from 27 to 100.
­Smax and ­Smin refer to the longest and shortest dimensions of
the blocks, respectively. Along with ­Vb, block size index (lb)
has also been measured to predict the average dimension of
typical in situ rock blocks.
Fragmentation analysis is a very popular and frequently
used technique in rock blasting to know the distribution
and quality of fragmented rocks due to given explosive
energy. For RBSD, fragmentation analysis was conducted
through WipFrag v2.7.28 to describe the size distribution
of detached blocks/lumps during recent rockfall activity.
WipFrag considers the fragmented rock block as an equiva-
lent sphere. Based on equivalent diameters (ED) of blocks,
a gradation (distribution) curve for fragmented rock block
heap was obtained from the analysis by digitising block
boundaries with an appropriate field scale. The detailed
nature and distribution of IRBD and RBSD at the rockfall
site are discussed in “Assessment of rock block distribution”
and “Characteristics of IRBD and RBSD”.
Rockfall hazard prediction
In the present study, rockfall hazard prediction involved the
appraisal of kinematically removable blocks induced by unfa-
vourable joint orientations against the slope face direction. It pro-
vides an idea about the types of block failure that can be involved
in rockfall hazard. The potential zones along which these block
failures may initiate can be numerically modelled through the
distinct element method. The methods that were applied to pre-
dict the rockfall hazard has been briefly described in this section.
Prediction of kinematically feasible rockfalls and initiation
zones
The kinematic analysis is an effective means to anticipate the
most likely failure modes in the primary phase of rock stability
analysis (Hoek and Bray 1981). According to Priest (1985), the
kinematic analysis is an essential precursor in the analysis of
rigid blocks as it shows the possibility of physical removal of
blocks towards free space without disturbing the mechanical
stability of adjacent blocks or rock mass. This method is based
on the assumption that friction is the only responsible factor
for the shear strength of the slope surface. This method consid-
ers the geometrical relationship among joints, bedding planes
and slope orientations along with friction angle to assess the
types and direction of failures. The Fisher probability density
function of poles (Fisher 1953) was applied to determine the
mean discontinuities orientations of the collected joint data.
13
A. K. Singh et al.
The Fisher distribution function generally applies to describe
the angular probability distribution of 3-dimensional orienta-
tion vectors over a sphere with the equation provided in Eq. 8.
K sin 𝜃eK cos 𝜃
f (𝜃) = (8)
eK − e−K
where θ in degree is the angular deviation from the mean
(pole) vector. “K” is the “Fisher constant” or dispersion
factor that delineates the tightness or dispersion of an ori-
entation cluster (Rocsciences 2016a). A tight cluster of ori-
entated vectors (poles) is represented by a larger K value,
whereas a smaller K value suggests a more dispersed cluster
of vectors. The K value can be assessed through Eq. 9 as
N−1
K= (9)
N−R
where N defines the number of poles and R expresses the
magnitude of the resultant pole (or magnitude of the vec-
tor sum of all pole vectors). However, the exposed slope
profile at the studied rockfall site is curved in nature where
the vulnerable scar portion depicts a continuous change in
slope dip direction. Therefore, a modified stereographic
projection method proposed by Kundu et al. (2016a) was
used to determine the kinematic feasibility over the convex
slope profile. Then, to forecast the potential rockfall initia-
tion zones from the highway slope section, numerical stabil-
ity analysis was performed through a discontinuum method
(distinct element analysis using UDEC). Discontinuum
techniques are more resilient when dealing with the inher-
ent discontinuities in the rock masses and possible rupture
within it. Distinct element method (DEM) is based on divid-
ing rigid or deformable blocks by deformable interfaces.
The DEM is popular for solving discontinuum problems
and is extensively used for practical stability analysis pur-
poses of jointed rock slopes (Kveldsvik et al. 2009; Dotta
et al. 2017). Among the discontinuum methods, DEM has
the advantage of adopting both rigid and deformable blocks
along with deformable contacts (Cundall and Hart 1992).
This method, being explicit, directly solves the equations of
motion by time marching scheme (Itasca 2004). DEM is the
most suitable for discontinuous media as it allows large dis-
placements along the discontinuities and rotation of blocks
(Bobet et al. 2009). For small block sizes, the method allows
translational shear followed by rotation; however, only trans-
lational shear occurs in case of large block sizes (Bhasin and
Kaynia 2004).
Rockfall trajectory simulation with rock block
characteristics
Conventional rockfall trajectory simulation was done
through RocFall v5.0 (Rocsciences 2016b) using the rigid
Impact of rock block characteristics on rockfall hazard and its implications for rockfall… 5353

body mechanism to find out the critical rockfall parameters Table 3  Variation of J­ V and RQD values
with respect to rock block characteristics. These parameters Parameters JV Volumetric frequency RQD
include maximum runout distance, bounce height, transla-
tional velocity and total kinetic energy of the falling block Mean 17.1 High 67.2
relative to slope profile during the block impact. The maxi- Min 7.0 Moderately high 92.6
mum runout distance differentiates between the safe and Max 94.1 Very high -
unsafe areas across the highway. The cumulative effects of
rock block characteristics and predicted initiation zones on
rockfall hazard were studied, and the performance of a suit- between joints (Fig. 3) that qualitatively depicts very small
able preventive measure was also carried out in predicted to medium-sized in situ rock blocks (ISRM 1978).
rockfall scenarios. The bounce height, total kinetic energy
and impact of falling blocks relative to slope geometry were Assessment of rock block distribution
used to select the height and capacity of the proposed bar-
rier to restrict the falling blocks from reaching the highway. In‑situ Rock Block Distribution (IRBD):  IRBD provides a fair
approximation of kinematically detachable rock blocks that
might come down from rockfall initiation zones. Conven-
Results tional methods were used to quantify the IRBD and rock
block characteristics based on a detailed field survey. The
Rock block characteristics weigh-up distribution of IRBD for the studied rock mass are
summarised in Tables 4 and 5. Depending on the range of
Joint characterisation observed ­JV based on joint spacing data, the predicted block
sizes vary from very small to medium-sized blocks (ISRM
The quantitative and qualitative descriptions of major joints 1978). The maximum joint spacing (83.5 cm) from the cho-
with their mean orientations are summarised in Table 1. sen sampling zone shows that the maximum potential block
Joint set J1 was observed to be persistent greater than 20 m, sizes that represent the volumetric expression of joint den-
whereas J2, J3 and J4 have the persistence of 3 to 15 m. sity will be of moderate size and the potential block volume
The joint opening is categorised as open to close with sili- ­(Vb) will be in the range of 0.03 to 1 ­m3 (Fig. 4). The cal-
ceous/soil filling to no fill. The surface staining observed in culated ­Vb (Eq. 6) for mean, minimum and maximum joint
J1 and J2 shows slight surface weathering condition along spacing were found to be 24.7 d­ m3, 0.18 d­ m3 and 335.29
the joint walls. The estimated J­ RCn for investigated joints ­dm3 respectively (Table 4), which shows dominancy of very
shows slickenside stepped to rough planar and undulating small to moderate block sizes at the rockfall site (Fig. 4).
wall roughness, whereas ­JCSn suggested slightly weathered
joint wall conditions (Table 2). The largest detached blocks were considered to determine
The estimated average values of ­JV and RQD (Table 3) the block shape factor (β), which suggest an average value
suggest a high to very high degree of jointing (Palmstrom of 45.28. The block volume estimated from J­ V and β (Eq. 7)
2005) and fair rock quality (Deere and Miller 1966), respec- lies within the range of 0.05 d­ m3 to 133.62 d­ m3. Volume
tively. Higher ­JV represents highly fractured nature of the distribution of IRBD from various conventional approaches
quartzite rock mass. As per ISRM (1981), the frequency (Table 4) shows quite a variation in the estimated mean V ­ b.
distribution of spacing suggested close to wide spacing Vb depicts the maximum value range when intersecting
acute angles between joints are introduced in ­Vb calculation
(Table 4), which signifies the profound influence of included
Table 2  Quantitative estimations of J­RCn and J­CSn for major joint angle between joints. The block size index (lb) indicates the
sets average dimension of typical in situ rock blocks. Three joints
Parameters Joints Mean SD Description whose average spacings are minimum out of four were cho-
sen to represent the Ib as most widely spaced joint and may
JRCn J1 5.9 2.0 Slickenside
not suggest realistic results and have little effect on actual
J2 3.2 1.2 stepped
to rough observed block dimensions (ISRM 1981). The estimated
J3 4.6 2.4
planar lb ranges from 4.37 to 57.33 cm with mean dimension of
J4 2.4 0.9
21 cm (i.e. very small to moderate sizes) which was quite
JCSn (MPa) J1 77.3 26.4 Fresh to
visible at the rockfall site. Additionally, the dimensions of
J2 65.8 25.2 slightly
weathered some medium-sized detached blocks (the majority being
J3 137.5 27.4
cubical) from recent rockfall events were measured during
J4 170.9 33.4
the field survey which suggests lb range from 30 to 36 cm.

13
5354 A. K. Singh et al.

Fig. 3  Frequency histogram plot

showing joints spacing distribu-
tion at the rockfall site (ISRM
1981)

Thus, the collective observations from various indices infer
that the majority of small dimensions of in situ rock blocks
and IRBD favours the higher percentage of small-sized
blocks and volume distribution. Considering the relatively
small effect of intersection angle on ­Vb as compared to the
joint spacing (Cai et al. 2004), ­Vb has also been approxi-
mated through ­S1 × ­S2 × ­S3 for practical purpose. Out of four
major joints, three consecutive joint spacings were consid-
ered at a time for ­Vb calculation. Hence, there are four pos-
sible combinations (4C3), which approximate the potential
range of block volume without considering included angles
(Table 5).
Rockfall Block Size Distribution (RBSD):  The frequency dis-
tributions of size, volume and mass percentage of detached
blocks at rockfall site were quantified through fragmenta-
tion analysis. The detached blocks were deposited as a heap
of rock blocks at the base of the slope. The blocks from
the heap were digitised (Fig. 5a, c) to obtain the equivalent
diameter (ED) of each block sizes followed by the deter-
mination of frequency distribution based on the passing
percentage (gradation curve) of the measured rock blocks.
A total of 3456 detached blocks from recent rockfall event
were digitised to obtain the gradation curve (Fig. 5b). The
maximum frequency of ED ranges from 130 to 50 mm, with
a passing percentage range from 65 to 26%. The blocks hav-
ing ED greater than 130 mm also constitute a decent propor-
tion (almost 25%) of the total failed blocks. The minimum,
maximum and mean block sizes as observed from the analy-
sis are 5.1 mm, 625.21 mm and 69.22 mm, respectively, with
a standard deviation of 47.12 mm. The ­D10, ­D25, ­D50, ­D75
and ­D90 are 5.33 mm, 45.42 mm, 93.68 mm, 154.92 mm
and 333.37 mm, respectively. It suggests that 50% of the
fragmented blocks are greater than 93.68  mm, whereas
25% of them are having ED greater than 154.92 mm with
a small proportion (10%) of blocks greater than 333 mm.

Table 4  Estimated IRBD Statistical Vb = ­S1 × ­S2 × ­S3 Vb = β × ­(JV)−3 Vb = ­S1 × ­S2 × ­S3/Sin Mean block

through various indices distribution ­(dm3) ­(dm3) γ1 × Sin γ2 × Sin γ3 ­(dm3) size index (­ lb)
(cm)

Mean 14.70 9.01 24.70 20.95

Min 0.12 0.05 0.18 4.37
Max 235.81 133.62 335.29 57.33

13
Impact of rock block characteristics on rockfall hazard and its implications for rockfall…
Table 5  Distribution of Distributions
potential IRBD considering
spacing of four major joints at
rockfall site
Mean
Min
Max
The gradation curve also signifies the dominancy of small-
sized blocks (Fig. 5d), which could be the result of subse-
quent fragmentation during blocks transportation. Based on
the fragmentation results, the failed blocks were classified
according to their size and percentage distribution. Table 6
shows the calculated rock block masses corresponding to the
volume percentage within each size range. The calculated
size and associated mass distributions (Table 6) were used in
rockfall trajectory simulation to evaluate the rockfall hazard
along the highway.
Characteristics of IRBD and RBSD
The volume-frequency relation of rockfalls satisfies
certain distribution characteristics (Hungr et  al. 1999;
Corominas et al. 2018). Volume-frequency distribution of
rockfalls is generally approximated by the inverse-power
law (Mavrouli and Corominas 2017; Ferrero et al. 2016;
Ruiz-Carulla et  al. 2015; Mavrouli et  al. 2015; Hantz
2011; Santana et al. 2012; Dussauge-Peisser et al. 2002).
Fig. 4  Distribution of block
sizes and block volumes for
observed spacing ranges at the
rockfall site
5355
Vb = ­Si × ­Sj × ­Sk
S1 × ­S2 × ­S3 ­(dm3) S2 × ­S3 × ­S4 ­(dm3) S3 × ­S4 × ­S1 ­(dm3) S1 × ­S2 × ­S4 ­(dm3)
19.23 15.70 14.84 9.04
0.14 0.19 0.071 0.06
260.19 165.00 356.04 162.03
In this section, the obtained volume-frequency distribu-
tions of IRBD and RBSD were analysed and compared.
For IRBD assessment, the volumes (Eq. 6) were obtained
probabilistically for 1000 samples from measured spac-
ing distribution considering major joints. The volumes of
RBSD was estimated by considering ED from fragmenta-
tion analysis that represents a fair approximation of equiva-
lent block volume, which is frequently practised in rock
blasting. It ought to be noticed that the highway section is
typically characterised by very small to small-sized blocks
(high jointing frequency) which is also evident from the
volume-frequency plot (Fig. 6a). The RBSD particularly
shows control of very small block volume (Fig. 6a) mani-
festing the subsequent fragmentation effect. Consideration
of very small blocks can cause underestimation of the pro-
tection designs and barrier capacity. Santana et al. (2012)
also mentioned the censoring of small volumes in fre-
quency-volume distribution due to under-sampling or phys-
iographic limitations. Therefore, to eliminate the rollover
effect of very small block volumes on distribution fitting,
13
5356 A. K. Singh et al.

Fig. 5  (a) Rockfall heap. (b) Gradation curve obtained from the fragmentation analysis. (c) Digitisation of failed rock blocks. (d) Field view size
distribution of fragmented rockfall blocks

13
Impact of rock block characteristics on rockfall hazard and its implications for rockfall… 5357

Table 6  Block size statistics derived from fragmentation analysis Prediction of rockfall hazard
3 3
Block Approxi- Density (kg/m ) Volume ­(m ) Mass (kg)
size mated Prediction of kinematically feasible rockfalls and their
(mm) percentage initiation zones
30 25% 3220 3E-05 0.09
50 15% 3220 1E-04 0.4
For the determination of credible failure modes from the
100 15% 3220 0.001 3.22
slope sections, kinematic analysis has been performed using
150 20% 3220 0.003 10.87
the stereographic projection method (Hoek and Bray 1981).
300 15% 3220 0.027 86.94
The slope has been identified with potential wedges and flex-
500 5% 3220 0.125 402.5
ural toppling failures (Singh 2018). As the slope is curved
625 5% 3220 0.244 786.1
with face direction varying from N265° to N10°, the kin-
ematic technique for curved slope (Kundu et al. 2016a) has
All block sizes below 30 mm are considered as 30 mm as they have been implemented to understand the failure potentiality with
very less impact from the rockfall point of view changing slope direction. It can be interpreted from Fig. 2
that the slope section facing towards 265° is more affected
by the discontinuities induced failures. This can be well cor-
the block volumes < 0.001 m ­ 3 were excluded. The volume- related with the kinematic analysis (Fig. 7) which shows the
frequency distribution of IRBD and RBSD fit well with influence of wedge failures in two directions (one towards
inverse power functions with a high R2 of 0.91 and 0.99, 185° and the other towards 225°) in the westerly oriented
respectively for block volumes > 0.001 ­m3 (Fig. 6a). The slope profile (slope section-A in Fig. 7). A similar reason
volumetric distributions obtained in IRBD and RBSD were is also applicable to the less severely affected slope face
compared relative to the cumulative frequency (Fig. 6b), towards 10° (section B in Fig. 7) which has an influence of
suggesting a value of cumulative frequency of about 40% wedge failures in only one direction (towards 35°).
of IRBD and corresponds to RBSD. This can help in pro- Although the kinematic analysis of the overall slope
viding the minimum block size threshold for designing explains more acute failure towards 265°, the advancement
rockfall preventive practices along the highways in the of failure both towards the east and north direction is struc-
region. The upper limit of the distribution defines the com- turally controlled in the particular section. Figure 8 explains
paratively lower volume distribution for RBSD compared the advancement of failure in the east direction that created
to IRBD, which signifies the effect of fragmentation during an open face towards the southwest direction, resulting in a
block mobilisation along its path (Corominas et al. 2018). concave face.
This volume distribution behaviour is generally observed Kinematic analysis of the concave section suggested a
in rockfall having small to medium block size distribution strong influence of both the wedges towards the south-facing
(Ferrero et al. 2015). The results suggest rational valida- slope. Thus, rock blocks are getting released kinematically
tion of block size distribution condition in the study area. from the south-facing section, hence advancing towards

Fig. 6  a Volume-frequency distribution of IRBD and RBSD. In both cases, it fits well with the inverse power functions for block vol-
umes > 0.001 ­m3. b Comparison of cumulative frequencies relative to volume distributions for IRBD and RBSD

13
5358
Fig. 7  Kinematic analysis of
slope section A and section B
considering the curved face
the north direction. The kinematic feasibility analysis sug-
gests a high possibility of frequent joint-driven block failures
that eventually turn into rockfalls and may disrupt the traffic
services along the highway. Thus, the assessment of probable
zones of block initiation becomes essential, which was car-
ried out employing discontinuum slope stability modelling.
The discontinuum approach is very effective in deter-
mining the block detachment from a jointed rock slope. The
kinematic analysis signifies that the highway segment is
vulnerable to block detachments due to unfavourable joint-
slope orientation. The 2D Distinct Element (DE) analysis
of the exposed highway slope identifies block detach-
ment locations, which help to detect the probable rock-
fall initiation zones. For the stability analysis through 2D
13
A. K. Singh et al.
DEM, cross-sectional outlines were selected from the most
vulnerable slope profile based on kinematic results and
field conditions. 2D plain strain distinct element rock slope
models were simulated with Mohr-Coulomb (MC) mate-
rial properties and MC slip criterion for the rock matrix
and interfaces, respectively (Singh 2018). The properties
incorporated into the model are given in Table 7.
The slope mass contains four joint sets, out of which the
three most vulnerable joint sets were considered (based on
kinematic analysis) in the model geometry (Fig. 9a). The
reduced joint set helps to avoid complexity and save com-
putation time. The model slope geometry has a height of
40 m with an overall slope angle of 83° except at the base,
where the slope is relatively gentle (47˚). The 2D profile of
Impact of rock block characteristics on rockfall hazard and its implications for rockfall… 5359

Fig. 8  Illustration of kinemati-
cally induced wedges in the
main scar portion (towards the
south-facing slope section A)

the slope and relative joint orientations with locations for contour forms. Results of the stability analysis were repre-
monitoring points (1–5) are shown in Fig. 9a. sented in terms of displacement, shear strain and records of
To simulate static loading, rollers are applied at the lateral block detachment. Five monitoring points (1–5), as indicated
boundary restricting its motion along the x-axis and pins at in Fig. 9a, were set from top to bottom along the slope profile
the bottom to fix its base. The model was brought to an equi- to record the displacement history along the most probable
librium state under its own weight. Once the model reached block detachment zone based on observed field conditions.
equilibrium, results were obtained in graphical, pictorial and Results show a maximum displacement of 1.225  m after
100,000 cycles (6.28 s) observed towards the base of the
slope (Fig. 9b) where the hillslope changes its gradient from
Table 7  Input parameters used in numerical stability simulation steep to gentle. The deformation mechanism of the rock mass
Parameters Intact rock Joints involves joint opening, block deformation and block detach-
3
ment (Fig. 9b). According to Jaeger (1971), this type of slope
Density (kN/m ) 31.5 -
mass arrangement signifies the build-up of localised stresses.
Cohesion (MPa) 14.9 -
Slight dislodgement may change the relative position of rock
Friction angle (0) 32 -
block arrangement that may result in high localised stress and
Intact rock elastic modulus (­ Ei) (GPa) 18.06 -
can cause indirect tensile stress-induced individual block fail-
Poisson’s ratio 0.28 -
ures. This type of rock block behaviour was observed during
Residual friction angle for joints (ϕr) J2 - 27
the field survey. There was an increase in x displacement from
J3 - 26
the top to the bottom of the slope face (Fig. 9c). Shear strain
J4 - 26
contours in fig. 9d represent the amount of shear strain induced
Normal stiffness (MPa/m) J2 - 10,908
due to the self-weight of the slope mass. High concentrations
J3 - 10,434
of the shear strain (zoomed portions in Fig. 9d) correspond
J4 - 6315
with the high displacement zones. Thus, the numerical stabil-
Shear stiffness (MPa/m) J2 - 1095
ity assessment provided sufficient shreds of evidence of block
J3 - 1007
failures induced by adverse ordination of joints relative to
J4 - 625
highway slope profile, ultimately generating rockfall.

13
5360
Fig. 9  (a) A schematic representation of the slope profile along with
monitoring points to record displacements along the x-direction. (b)
Displacement along the slope in the x-direction (joint opening, block
deformation and block detachment are observed). (c) Horizontal dis-
Rockfall trajectory simulation with rock block
characteristics
Based on the field data and conventional and numerical
stability analysis, rockfall trajectory simulation was done
for the most susceptible highway profile (section A) con-
sidering the predicted block detachment zones. The poten-
tial slope section is characterised by a high gradient (mean
slope dip of 83°) of the scar with a relatively gentler ramp
and a mean gradient of 47°. So, as per the observations of
Ritchie (1963), the upper portion is likely to be more vul-
nerable for free fall after block detachment. Subsequently,
rock blocks would undergo bouncing, rolling and sliding
13
A. K. Singh et al.
placement of the detached rock blocks at monitoring points. (d) Shear
strain contours representing the amount of shear strain induced due to
self-weight of the slope mass (readjustment of the joints)
and finally colliding to the slope surface at gentler portion.
At the study site, bouncing is prominent rather than roll-
ing along the ramp portion, probably due to the high slope
gradient (more than 45°) with an almost barren quartzite
surface. Vishal et al. (2017) have also pointed out the impor-
tance of slope geometry on rockfall trajectories in lesser
Himalayan terrains. As discussed in previous sections, the
highway slope is highly jointed and facilitates detachment
of rock blocks of varying sizes, therefore being extremely
prone to rockfall hazard. The observed characteristics of
IRBD and RBSD represent the potential blocks exposed in
the vulnerable slope section that has great significance for
accurate prediction of the falling block dynamics such as
Impact of rock block characteristics on rockfall hazard and its implications for rockfall… 5361

bounce height, runout path and kinetic energies. Therefore, Table 9  Seeder properties used Type Line seeder
the block distribution was rationally used in rockfall simu- in rockfall simulation
lation to analyse the rockfall hazard and design a barrier of Shape Table 10
adequate energy at a suitable place along the rockfall runout Mass Depending upon
block size
path. The input parameters to define the slope surface and (Table 6)
seeder properties in rockfall analysis are given in Table 8 Density 3220 kg/m3
and Table 9, respectively.
Block shape is an important parameter that ultimately
affects the kinetic energy and bounce height depending
upon the nature of point of contact along the slope profile. just after the detachment of the blocks from the uppermost
So, four-block shapes (Table 10) were considered for the seeder (scar portion). However, the bounce height subse-
analysis based on field observations. The gabion wall, which quently got reduced along its path to an average value of
already exists at the site, has been taken into consideration 4 m as the blocks encountered the gentler slope profile. The
to analyse the effect of rock block characteristics (Fig. 10a). total kinetic energy graph of the detached blocks along the
The slope profile used for rockfall simulation was slope profile suggests a maximum value of 132 kJ which
obtained from the field using a laser distance meter and is successively reduced up to 60 kJ near the existing gabion
shown in Fig. 10a. The positions of 3 line seeders, which (Fig. 11b). The total kinetic energy is observed to be sig-
represent the rockfall initiation zones, were selected based nificantly associated with the bounce height of the detached
on the positions of considerable rock block detachment rock blocks from seeder 1 and 2 (Fig. 11a, b).
zones observed in the DEM stability analysis. The rockfall
trajectory simulation results are presented in Fig. 10b, c
which show varying trajectory paths created by blocks of dif- Discussion
ferent shape and sizes from selected seeders along the slope
profile. The analysis suggests that the block shape hardly Impact of rock block characteristics on rockfall
influences the rockfall hazard parameters such as bounce hazard
height, runout and kinetic energy relative to size and detach-
ment positions (Fig. 10b, c). A relative proportion of block The rockfall hazard parameters such as bounce height, block
sizes was considered from the entire range to normalise each movement and related kinetic energy are observed to be
seeder’s corresponding mass distribution based on observed highly governed by the size, associated mass distribution and
size and volume distribution (Table 11). The results of rock- release position of the detached blocks (Figs. 10b, c and 11).
fall analysis show that the runout of all the simulated block However, the impact of block shape is found to be incon-
sizes (greater than 300 mm too) from lowermost seeder 3 sequential on rockfall hazard parameters as compared to
are effectively captured by the existing gabion (Fig. 10c). the size and detachment positions (Fig. 10b, c). To observe
Unlike blocks from seeder 3, detached blocks from seeder the impact of the size distribution of detached blocks on
1 and 2 produce an average bounce height of 3 to 4 m with rockfall hazard, a particular size range of overtopped blocks
a mean kinetic energy of around 40 kJ. The runout result from existing gabion were analysed with respect to the total
of block sizes having ED greater than 300 mm proposes number of overtopped blocks (Table 11) since these blocks
that the maximum overtopped blocks ended in the valley are can be fatal to highway traffic. Overall, 16.5% of the blocks
from seeders 1 and 2 (Fig. 11a). The results presented in ranging from 30 to 625 mm are detected that overtopped the
Fig.  11a indicate a maximum bounce height of 8–9  m gabion with a large proportion of small-sized (30–150 mm)
blocks. However, the mass percentage of medium-sized
Table 8  Input parameters for slope surface materials in rockfall simula-
(> 300 m) overtopped blocks is very high as compared to
tion the total overtopped blocks (Fig. 12). The observed weight
Material types Normal Tangential Dynamic Rolling
restitu- restitution friction resistance Table 10  Block shapes Shape Illustration
tion considered in rockfall
simulation Super ellipse^1:1
Quartzite slope mass 0.3 0.8 0.57 0.55
Talus cover 0.32 0.8 0.42 0.75 Super ellipse^2:3
Road 0.4 0.82 0.58 0.4
Soil 0.39 0.56 0.58 0.65 Super ellipse^5:6
Concrete 0.48 0.53 0.58 0.5
Super ellipse^1:2
Gabion wall 0.35 0.72 0.58 0.4

13
5362 A. K. Singh et al.

Fig. 10  a 2D profile with probable rockfall initiation zones (seeders) for rockfall simulation. b Rockfall trajectories from all the three seeders. c
Rock blocks trajectories from seeder 3

proportions of overtopped blocks of 625-mm, 500-mm and
300-mm sizes are 64.98%, 22.18% and 14.37%, respectively
(Fig. 12). Comparing the mass percentage of overtopped
blocks to total simulated blocks also signifies an increas-
ing percentage of mass with increasing block sizes. Hence,
the chance of impact of medium-sized blocks on the high-
way traffic is much higher than small-sized blocks and can
turn into a fatal hazard. The results also suggested that the
release positions (initiation zones) highly govern the relative
bounce height, block mobilisation (run out) and impact of

13
Impact of rock block characteristics on rockfall hazard and its implications for rockfall… 5363

Table 11  Size and mass distribution of simulated blocks that overtop the gabion wall
Sl. no. Size (mm) Mass per Number of Total weight of each Number Weight of blocks Weight % w.r.t Weight % w.r.t
block rocks used for block size (kg) of blocks crossing gabion total no. of total mass of
(kg) simulation crossed (kg) blocks crossing simulated blocks
gabion gabion

1 30 0.09 100 8.69 15 1.30 0.02 0.004335

2 50 0.40 60 24.15 7 2.82 0.04 0.009365
3 100 3.22 60 193.20 11 35.42 0.49 0.117735
4 150 10.87 80 869.40 11 119.54 1.65 0.397356
5 300 86.94 60 5216.40 12 1043.28 14.37 3.467832
6 500 402.50 20 8050.00 4 1610.00 22.18 5.351593
7 625 786.13 20 15,722.66 6 4716.80 64.98 15.6785
Total = 400 Total Total no. of Total
weight = 30,084.50 blocks = 66 weight = 7529.16

the blocks down the slope respective of block sizes, shapes lowermost detachment zone (seeder 3) due to the relativity
and associated mass coupled with a slope profile (Figs. 10 short released height of blocks with a gentler slope profile,
and 11). It is shown in Fig. 10c that the existing gabion which results in block movements with low bounce height
fully captures the blocks of all sizes generated from the and kinematic energy. However, the detached blocks from

Fig. 11  (a) Variation in bounce

height (maximum) along with
the slope profile for the blocks
crossing gabion (sizes greater
than 300 m) and distribution
of rockfall blocks path end
locations. (b) Variation in total
kinetic energy (maximum)
along with slope profile for the
blocks crossing gabion (sizes
greater than 300 m)

13
5364
Fig. 12  Graphical representa-
tion of mass percentage distri-
bution of block sizes crossing
gabion to the total mass of
simulated blocks
seeders 1 and 2 show fairly high bounce heights with high
kinetic energy (Figs. 10b and 11), hence needing extra pre-
vention measures along with the existing gabion. The jagged
profile of the slope near its middle portion gives rise to the
extra bounce and long offset distance of impacted blocks
along its runout paths (Fig. 10b). So, it is ascertained that the
block trajectories of varying sizes are related to its released
position from the slope. Therefore, to encounter the imposed
threat due to rockfall on the highway traffic, medium-sized
blocks detached from the upper and middle parts of the slope
should be considered in designing the appropriate protective
measure.
Implications for rockfall protection strategies
To check and optimise the appropriate protection strate-
gies for the highway section, a rockfall barrier coupled with
the existing gabion wall would be a feasible option at the
study site. The trajectories of blocks, with size greater than
300 mm have a high potential to reach the highway and were
analysed to suggest a protection barrier of appropriate capac-
ity. To achieve that, a parametric analysis was done to evalu-
ate the performance of the proposed protection barrier with
existing gabion, considering the bounce heights and associ-
ated kinetic energies of the simulated blocks. Various com-
binations of barrier characteristics such as capacity, length,
height, elongation and inclination were simulated for vary-
ing rock block sizes in the expected rockfall scenario. The
13
A. K. Singh et al.
goal of the simulation was to arrest the maximum number of
blocks from the upper scar (uppermost seeder) and middle
portion of the slope in the future rockfall scenario. Other-
wise, the detachable small to moderate-sized blocks may
result in shooting stones which can be very hazardous to the
traffic. Based on the analysed results, a vertical barrier of
150-kJ capacity with 2.5 m height was suggested to mount
over the existing gabion (Fig. 13), which would be sufficient
to capture the future rockfall events.
Singh (2018) has studied the joint and rock block charac-
teristics of highway slopes around the Rampur-Jhakri geo-
structural region and suggested the dominance of high to
moderate joint frequency in the area. He has also signified
the persistence of small to moderate-sized in situ blocks in
the exposed highway slopes which are kinematically sus-
ceptible to rockfall hazards. The comparative study of
cumulative frequency of in-situ and detached rock blocks
also suggests that the prevailing in situ blocks correspond
to the detachable blocks irrespective of the fragmentation
effect. So the knowledge of in situ block frequencies gener-
ated from high to moderate joint frequency can provide a
rational threshold range for which a protection strategy can
be established and optimised for vulnerable rockfall sections
along the highways. Therefore, the methodology signifying
the determination and analysis of rock block characteristics
on rockfall hazard in the present study would help to design
preventive practices along the highway sections, particularly
along NH-5 in the higher Himalayan terrain.
Impact of rock block characteristics on rockfall hazard and its implications for rockfall…
Fig. 13  Simulated rockfall bar-
rier with properties
Conclusions
The present study delineates a comprehensive methodology
to investigate the rock block characteristics effect on rock-
fall hazard and associated protection strategies for highway
slopes. The influence of block characteristics such as size,
shape, mass and release position from the slope on rockfall
hazard and design of protection barrier has been demon-
strated through a case study in the Himalayan highway slope.
The rock block characterisation is performed by proper inves-
tigation and statistical analysis of rock joints’ parameters.
The joint characteristics confirm the dominance of close to
wide joint spacing with low to high persistence and signify a
high volumetric frequency that yields small to medium-sized
in situ blocks. The estimated RQD and ­JV have also validated
the result caused by a high to a very high degree of jointing.
The probabilistically estimated IRBD by empirical indices
signifies the occurrence of small to medium-sized in situ
rock blocks with V ­ 3. However, the
­ b ranging from 0.03 to 1 m
gradation curve obtained from fragmentation analysis speci-
fies a gap-graded size distribution of RBSD with significant
small-sized blocks, manifested the effect of subsequent frag-
mentation. The volume-frequency distributions of IRBD and
RBSD also validate typical characteristics of very small to
medium-sized blocks that well fitted with inverse power func-
tions for block volumes greater than 0.001 m ­ 3. A compari-
son suggests a value of cumulative frequency of about 40%
of IRBD follow and corresponds to RBSD that will assist
5365
the designer to set an appropriate block size threshold for
designing rockfall protection measures.
Wedge detachments are found  to be kinematically
feasible and prominent at the site which advanced along
slope strike posing a high threat to running traffic in the
form of rockfalls. These block failures are caused by the
localised stress build-up zones along the slope profile,
which induce shear strain in the rock face that will initi-
ate future rockfalls. The block displacement mechanism
suggests that joint opening is prominent near the crest
region while block deformation and detachment occur in
the middle and scar portions of the slope. The predicted
rockfall hazard parameters such as bounce height, block
movement and related kinetic energy are observed to be
highly governed by the size, associated mass distribution
and release position of the rockfall blocks. However, the
impact of block shape is found inconsequential. Though
a large proportion of small-sized (30–150 mm) blocks
can hit the highway, the mass percentage of medium-
sized (> 300 mm) blocks is observed to be high which
can be fatal to the highway traffic signifying the block
size control on rockfall hazard. The study suggests that
the release positions (initiation zones) of detachable rock
blocks highly control the relative bounce height, run-out
distance and impact of the blocks down the slope respec-
tive of block sizes and associated mass coupled with the
slope geometry. To provide an effective design for rock-
fall protection at the study site considering block sizes
13
5366
greater than 300 mm, a vertical barrier of 150 kJ capacity
with 2.5 m high was suggested to mount over the existing
gabion which would be sufficient to capture the future
rockfall events. Based on the rock block characteristics in
the study area, the adopted methodology can be useful to
define a rational threshold range of block size distribution
to efficiently design and optimise the protection strategies
for vulnerable rockfall sections along highway corridors
in Himalayan terrains.
Acknowledgements  The authors are highly thankful to the editor and
anonymous reviewers for the constructive remarks that significantly
improved the quality and clarity of the paper.
Author contribution  Conceptualisation, methodology, writing—original
draft preparation, formal analysis, visualisation: A K Singh. Formal analy-
sis, validation, writing—reviewing, editing, visualisation: JKundu. Valida-
tion, writing—reviewing: K Sarkar. Validation and reviewing: H. K. Verma
and P. K. Singh
Funding  Grant and support were provided by the Indian Institute of
Technology (Indian School of Mines) Dhanbad to the first author dur-
ing his doctoral work.
Declarations  Concordia Cruise Ship Rock Mech Rock Eng 50 9 2397 2412
Conflict of interest  The authors declare no competing interests.
References
Acharya B, Sarkar K, Singh AK, Chawla S (2020) Preliminary slope
stability analysis and discontinuities driven susceptibility zonation
along a crucial highway corridor in higher Himalaya. J Mt Sci
India. https://​doi.​org/​10.​1007/​s11629-​019-​5524-6
Adnan Aydin (2008) ISRM Suggested method for determination of the
Schmidt hammer rebound hardness: Revised Version. R. Ulusay
(ed.), The ISRM Suggested Methods for Rock Characterization,
Testing and Monitoring: 2007–2014
Ansari MK, Ahmad M, Singh R, Singh TN (2016) Rockfall hazard rat-
ing system along SH-72: a case study of Poladpur-Mahabaleshwar
road (Western India), Mahabaleshwar. India Geomat Nat Hazards
Risk 7(2):649–666
Ansari MK, Ahmad M, Singh TN (2014) Rockfall risk assessment
for pilgrims along the circumambulatory pathway, Saptashrungi
Gad Temple, Vani, Nashik Maharashtra. India Geomat Nat Hazard
Risk 5(1):81–92
Barnard PL, Owen LA, Sharma MC, Finkel RC (2001) Natural and
human-induced landsliding in the Garhwal Himalaya of northern
India. Geomorphology. https://​doi.​org/​10.​1016/​S0169-​555X(01)​
00035-6
Barton N, Choubey V (1977) The shear strength of rock joints in theory
and practice. Rock Mech 10(1):1–54
Barton NR, Bandis SC (1982) Effects of block size on the shear behav-
iour of jointed rock. 23rd U.S. Symp on rock mechanics, Berkeley,
pp. 739–760
Bhasin R, Kaynia AM (2004) Static and dynamic simulation of a
700-m high rock slope in western Norway. Eng Geol 71:213–226
Bobet A, Fakhimi A, Johnson S, Morris J, Tonon F, Yeung MR
(2009) Numerical models in discontinuous media: review of
13
A. K. Singh et al.
advances for rock mechanics applications. J Geotech Geoenvi-
ron Eng 135(11):1547–1561
Bostjančić I, Pollak D (2020) Rockfall threat assessment along rail-
ways in carbonate rocks in Croatia. Bull Eng Geol Environ.
https://​doi.​org/​10.​1007/​s10064-​020-​01822-x
Budetta P (2004) Assessment of rockfall risk along roads. Nat Haz-
ards Earth Syst Sci 4:71–81
Cai M, Kaiser PK, Uno H, Tasaka Y, Minami M (2004) Estimation
of rock mass strength and deformation modulus of jointed hard
rock masses using the GSI system. Int J Rock Mech Min Sci
41(1):3–19
Chakraborty D, Anbalagan R (2008) Landslide hazard evaluation
of road cut slopes along Uttarkashi-Bhatwari road, Uttaranchal
Himalaya. J Geol Soc India 71:115–124
Collins B, Stock G (2016) Rockfall triggering by cyclic thermal
stressing of exfoliation fractures. Nat Geosci. https://​doi.​org/​
10.​1038/​ngeo2​686
Corominas J, Mavrouli O, Ruiz-Carulla R (2018) Magnitude and fre-
quency relations: are there geological constraints to the rockfall
size? Landslides. https://​doi.​org/​10.​1007/​s10346-​017-​0910-z
Cundall PA, Hart RD (1992) Numerical Modelling of Discontinua
Engcomput 9:101–113
Deere D, Miller R (1966) Engineering classification and index prop-
erties for intact rock. Tech. Report No AFWL - TR-65-116, Air
Force Weapons Lab., Kirtland Air Base, New Mexico
Dotta G, Gigli1 G, Ferrigno F et al (2017) Geomechanical characteri-
zation and stability analysis of the bedrock underlying the Costa
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
Hazard Earth Syst 2:1–13
Elmouttie MK, Poropat GV (2012) A method to estimate in situ
block size distribution. Rock Mech Rock Eng 45:401–407
Ferlisi S, Cascini L, Corominas J, Matano F (2012) Rockfall risk
assessment to persons travelling in vehicles along a road: the
case study of the Amalfi coastal road (southern Italy). Nat Haz-
ards 62:691–721
Ferrero AM, Umili G, Migliazza MR (2015) Some open issues on
the design of protection barriers against rockfall. In 49th US
Rock mechanics/geomechanics symposium. American Rock
Mechanics Association
Ferrero AM, Migliazza MR, Pirulli M et al (2016) Some open issues
on rockfall hazard analysis in fractured rock mass: problems and
prospects. Rock Mech Rock Eng 49:3615–3629
Fisher R (1953) Dispersion on a sphere. Proc Royal Society London
A217:295–305
Froude MJ, Petley DN (2018) Global fatal landslide occurrence from
2004 to 2016. Nat. Hazards Earth Syst Sci. https://​doi.​org/​10.​
5194/​nhess-​18-​2161-​2018
Geniş M, Sakız U, ÇolakAydıner B (2017) A stability assessment
of the rockfall problem around the Gökgöl Tunnel (Zonguldak,
Turkey). Bull Eng Geol Environ 76:1237–1248. https://​doi.​org/​
10.​1007/​s10064-​016-​0907-1
Gupta V, Tandon RS (2015) Kinematic rockfall hazard assessment
along a transportation corridor in the Upper Alaknanda valley,
Garhwal Himalaya, India. Bull Eng Geol Environ 74:315–326.
https://​doi.​org/​10.​1007/​s10064-​014-​0623-7
Gupta V, Sah MP, Virdi NS, Bartarya SK (1993) Landslide hazard
zonation in the upper Satluj valley, district Kinnaur. Himachal
Pradesh Journal Himalayan Geology 4(1):81–93
Hantz D (2011) Quantitative assessment of diffuse rock fall hazard
along a cliff foot. Nat Hazard Earth Syst 11(5):1303–1309
Hearn GJ, Shakya NM (2017) Engineering challenges for sustainable
road access in the Himalayas. Q J Eng Geol Hydrogeol. https://​
doi.​org/​10.​1144/​qjegh​2016-​109
Impact of rock block characteristics on rockfall hazard and its implications for rockfall…
Highland LM, Bobrowsky P (2008) The landslide handbook-a guide to
understanding landslide. Reston, Virginia, U.S. Geological Survey
Circular 1325
Hoek E, Bray JW (1981) Rock slope engineering, 3rd edn. Inst Min
Metall London
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 36:224–238
ISRM (1978) Suggested methods for the quantitative description of
discontinuities in rock masses. International Society for Rock
Mechanics, Commission on Standardization of Laboratory and
Field Tests. Int j Rock Mech Min Sci Geomech Abstr 15:319–368
ISRM (1981) Suggested methods for the rock characterization. ISRM
Commission on Testing Methods, Pergamon Press, Oxford, Test-
ing and Monitoring
Itasca (2004) UDEC Version 4.0: Universal Distinct Element Code.
Itasca Consulting Group Inc.
Jaeger JC (1971) Friction of rocks and stability of rock slope. ­11th
Rankine Lecture. Geotechnique 21(2): 97–134
Jain AK, Kumar D, Singh SK, Kumar A, Lal N (2000) Timing, quan-
tification and tectonic modelling of Pliocene Quaternary move-
ments in the NW Himalaya: evidence from fission track dating.
Earth Planet Sci Lett 179:437–451
Kumar V, Gupta V, Sundriyal YP (2018) Spatial interrelationship of land-
slides, litho ‐ tectonics, and climate regime, Satluj valley, Northwest
Himalaya. Geol J. https://​doi.​org/​10.​1002/​gj.​3204
Kundu J, Mahanta B, Tripathy A, Sarkar K, Singh TN (2016a) Stabil-
ity evaluation of jointed rock slope with curved face. In: Proc of
Indorock-2016, IIT Bombay, Mumbai, pp. 971–978.
Kundu J, Sarkar K, Singh AK (2016b) Integrating structural and
numerical solutions for road cut slope stability analysis—a case
study, India. Rock dynamics: from research to engineering: pro-
ceedings of the 2nd international conference on rock dynamics
and applications. CRC Press, Boca Raton, pp 457–462.
Kundu J, Sarkar K, Singh AK (2019) EasySMR: a computer program
to check kinematic feasibility and calculate Slope Mass Rating.
Geophys Res Abstr Vol. 21, EGU2019–1540.
Kundu J, Sarkar K, Singh AK, Singh TN (2020) Continuous functions
and a computer application for Rock Mass Rating. Int J Rock
Mech Min Sci. https://​doi.​org/​10.​1016/j.​ijrmms.​2020.​104280
Kundu J, Sarkar K, Tripathy A, Singh TN (2017) Qualitative stability
assessment of cut slopes along the National Highway-05 around
Jhakri area, Himachal Pradesh, India. J Earth Sys Sci. https://​doi.​
org/​10.​1007/​s12040-​017-​0893-0
Kveldsvik V, Kaynia AM, Nadim F, Bhasin R, Nilsen B, Einstein
HH (2009) Dynamic distinct-element analysis of the 800 m high
Aknes rock slope. Int J Rock Mech Min Sci 46:686–698
Laimer HJ (2020) Determination of rockfall design blocks in Upper
Triassic limestones and dolomites (Dachstein Formation, North-
ern Calcareous Alps). Bull Eng Geol Environ. https://​doi.​org/​10.​
1007/​s10064-​019-​01640-w
Luo G, Xiewen H, Yingjin D et al (2019) A collision fragmentation
model for predicting the distal reach of brittle fragmentable rock
initiated from a cliff. Bull Eng Geol Environ 78:579–592. https://​
doi.​org/​10.​1007/​s10064-​018-​1286-6
Mahanta B, Singh HO, Singh PK, Kainthola A, Singh TN (2016) Sta-
bility analysis of potential failure zones along NH-305. Natural
Hazards, India. https://​doi.​org/​10.​1007/​s11069-​016-​2396-8
Mavrouli O, Corominas J (2017) Comparing rockfall scar volumes
and kinematically detachable rock masses. Eng Geol 219:64–73
Mavrouli O, Corominas J (2020) Evaluation of maximum rockfall
dimensions based on probabilistic assessment of the penetra-
tion of the sliding planes into the slope. Rock Mech Rock Eng.
https://​doi.​org/​10.​1007/​s00603-​020-​02060-z
Mavrouli O, Corominas J, Jaboyedoff M (2015) Size distribution for
potentially unstable rock masses and in situ rock blocks using
5367
LIDAR-generated digital elevation models. Rock Mech Rock
Eng 48(4):1589–1604
Palma B, Parise M, Reichenbach P, Guzzetti F (2012) Rockfall haz-
ard assessment along a road in the Sorrento Peninsula, Campa-
nia, southern Italy. Nat Hazards 61:187–201
Palmstrom A (1982) The volumetric joint count—a useful and simple
measure of the degree of rock jointing. In: Proc. 41st Int. Con-
gress Int. Ass. Eng. Geol., Delhi, vol. 5. pp. 221–228
Palmstrom A (2005) Measurements of and correlations between
block size and rock quality designation (RQD). Tunn Undergr
Space Technol 20(4):362–377
Palmstrom A (2000) Recent developments in rock support estimates
by the RMi. J Rock Mech Tunn Tech 6(1):1–19
Pandey AK, Sachan HK, VirdI NS (2004) Exhumation history of a
shear zone constrained by microstructural and fluid inclusion
techniques: an example from the Satluj valley, NW Himalaya.
India Journal of Asian Earth Sciences 23(3):391–406
Pei X, Luo J, Huang R (2019) Failure mechanisms of wind-induced
post-seismic rockfall hazard. Bull EngGeol Environ 78:5707–
5725. https://​doi.​org/​10.​1007/​s10064-​019-​01509-y
Pérez-Rey I, Riquelme A, González-deSantos LM, Estévez-Ventosa
X, Tomás R, Alejano LR (2019) A multi-approach rockfall
hazard assessment on a weathered granite natural rock slope.
Landslides. https://​doi.​org/​10.​1007/​s10346-​019-​01208-5
Priest SD (1985) Hemispherical projection methods in rock mechan-
ics. Allen and Unwin, London
Ritchie AM (1963) Evaluation of rockfall and its control. Highway
Research Record 17, Washington, DC
Rocsciences (2016a) Dips v7.0, Graphical and statistical analysis of
orientation data. Rocscience Inc., Toronto
Rocsciences (2016b) RocFall v5.0, Computer program for risk analy-
sis of falling rocks on steep slopes. Rocscience Inc., Toronto
Ruiz-Carulla R, Corominas J, Mavrouli O (2015) A methodology to
obtain the block size distribution of fragmental rockfall depos-
its. Landslides 12(4):815–825
Santana D, Corominas J, Mavrouli O, Garcia-Sellés D (2012) Magnitude-
frequency relation for rockfall scars using a Terrestrial Laser Scan-
ner. Eng Geol 145:50–64
Sarkar K, Singh TN (2008) Slope failure analysis in road cut slope by
numerical method. ISRM Int. Symp, Tehran; pp. 635–642.
Sarkar K, Singh AK, Niyogi A, Behera PK, Verma AK, Singh TN
(2016) The assessment of slope stability along NH-22 in Rampur-
Jhakri Area. Himachal Pradesh J GeolSoc India 88(3):387–393
Shen WG, Zhao T, Crosta GB, Dai F (2017) Analysis of impact-
induced rock fragmentation using a discrete element approach.
Int j Rock Mech Min Sci 98:33–38
Singh AK (2018) Landslide vulnerability analysis around Rampur
area, Himachal Pradesh, India. PhD thesis, unpublished, IIT(ISM)
Dhanbad, Jharkhand, India.
Singh PK, Kainthola A, Panthee S, Singh TN (2016) Rockfall analy-
sis along transportation corridors in high hill slopes. Env Earth
Sci. https://​doi.​org/​10.​1007/​s12665-​016-​5489-5
Singh PK, Kainthola A, Singh TN (2015a) Earthquake-induced rockfall
along cut slopes - a case study. In EUROCK 64th Geomech Col-
loquium, Schubert Kluckner, pp. 1127–1132.
Singh PK, Kainthola A, Singh TN (2015b) Rock mass assessment
along the right bank of river Sutlej, Luhri, Himachal Pradesh.
India Geomat Nat Hazards Risk 6(3):212–223
Singh R, Kumar R, Singh TN (2014) Stability evaluation of road-cut
slopes in the Lesser Himalaya of Uttarakhand, India: conventional
and numerical approaches. Bull Eng Geol Environ 73:845–857
Smith JV (2006) Geological contributions to engineering investigation
of rock mass. ASEG Extended Abstracts 2006:1–4. https://d​ oi.o​ rg/​
10.​1071/​ASEG2​006ab​164
Srikantia SV, Bhargava ON (1998) Geology of himachal pradesh. Geo-
logical Society of India, Bangalore
13
5368 A. K. Singh et al.

Turner AK, Jayaprakash GP (2012) Introduction. In: Turner AK,
Schuster RL (eds) Rockfall characterisation and control. Transpor-
tation Research Board, Nat Aca of Sci, Washington DC, pp. 3–20
Vishal V, Siddique T, Purohit R, Phophliya MK, Pradhan SP (2017)
Hazard assessment in rockfall-prone Himalayan slopes along
National Highway-58, India: rating and simulation. Nat Hazards
85(1):487–503
Wang X, Frattini P, Stead D, Sun J, Liu H, Valagussa A, Li L (2020)
Dynamic rockfall risk analysis. Eng Geol. https://​doi.​org/​10.​
1016/j.​enggeo.​2020.​105622
Windsor CR (1997) Rock reinforcement systems. Int J Rock Mech Min
Sci 34:919–951
Wyllie DC (2014) Rock fall engineering. CRC Press, Taylor & Francis
Grp, Boca Raton, FL
Zhang L (2016) Engineering properties of rocks, 2nd edn. Elsevier,
London

13