Indian Geotech J
https://doi.org/10.1007/s40098-018-0330-6
ORIGINAL PAPER
Rockfall Analysis and Optimized Design of Rockfall Barrier
Along a Strategic Road near Solang Valley, Himachal Pradesh,
India
A. K. Verma1 • Sahil Sardana2 • T. N. Singh3 • Nikhil Kumar2
Received: 6 March 2018 / Accepted: 25 September 2018
Ó Indian Geotechnical Society 2018
Abstract In the Himalayan region, roadways, railways,
power plants, buildings and other houses are prone to rock
falls. Considering the rockfall risk in the Himalaya, this
study focuses on an under construction route for Manali–
Leh highway along Solang–Rohtang tunnel in Himachal
Pradesh. The slopes along this road are unstable and prone
to rockfall. Soon with the completion of Rohtang tunnel,
this road will hit a huge amount of traffic, as it will be the
shortest route to the Lahaul Spiti. So, the detailed assess-
ment of rockfall hazard along this road is necessary. In the
present study, rockfall simulation has been carried out to
determine the parameters such as bounce height, maximum
run-out distance, energy and velocity associated with fall-
ing rock blocks on the basis of field and laboratory anal-
ysis. The bounce height and the kinetic energy were found
to be greater than 5 m and 50 kJ, respectively, in the
analysis. The optimization of the ditch, slope geometry and
the design of rockfall barrier have been performed duly
taking slope parameters into consideration. The result
shows that the optimized ditch is effective to arrest the
larger number of falling rock blocks and also the kinetic
energy of the rock block can be decreased by performing
slope trimming. A standard barrier of 100 kJ capacity and
& Sahil Sardana
sahilsardana.ymca@gmail.com
1
Department of Mining Engineering, Indian Institute of
Technology (Banaras Hindu University), Varanasi,
Uttar Pradesh 221005, India
2 are called rock avalanches or rockslides [11]. Rockfall is
Department of Mining Engineering, Indian Institute of
Technology (Indian School of Mines), Dhanbad, Jharkhand
826004, India
3
Department of Earth Science, Indian Institute of Technology
Bombay, Mumbai, Maharashtra 400076, India
2.5 m height has been found suitable and proposed to make
the roadway along this highway safer for travellers.
Keywords Rockfall  Road cut slopes  Rockfall barrier 
Coefficient of restitution  Rohtang  Himalaya
Introduction
The road which connects Manali to Rohtang Tunnel South
Portal (RTSP), Himachal Pradesh, India, had witnessed
many rockfalls and sliding events [1]. The area falls under
the high Himalayan region, which is tectonically active.
Himalayan rocks are young and dynamic in nature [2]. The
people of this region are at risk of rockfall and different
types of landslides. Freeze–thaw cycle [3, 4] and high-
intensity rainfall [5] are the main causes of instability of
slopes along the road in this region. Earthquake [6, 7],
weathering of rock [8], and root penetration are other
factors for detachment of rock. In a freeze–thaw process,
water develops sufficient pore pressure in the cracks to
dislodge rock blocks. In the case of vegetation, roots
penetrate into the existing cracks that subsequently extend
the cracks. In spite of natural causes, human activities are
another cause which leads to a decrease in the stability of
slope due to unplanned excavation for buildings and
roadways. The rockfall events reported by seismic activity,
rainfall and snowmelt are more than the freeze–thaw cycle
and human activities [9, 10]. Rockfall can also be consid-
ered as a small slide though it can create large slides which
one of the common hazards in the mountainous terrain
which has damaged many infrastructures, vehicles and
killed a number of people [12].
123

In this present study, Rocfall 5.0 has been used for the
assessment of the rockfall activity. It evaluates the rockfall
trajectory, longest run-out distance, bounce height, trans-
lational velocities and kinetic energies involved in the
falling rock blocks from the cliff. The model works on
lumped mass or rigid body mechanics and assesses the
rockfall activity in two-dimensional space [13]. The motion
of the falling rocks depends on the parameters such as the
shape of the rock blocks, height, geometry of slope, angle
of slope and slope roughness. The various types of motions,
i.e. fall, roll and bounce, occur after the separation of a
rock block from the seeder point (i.e. detachment point).
Rolling motion occurs if the slope angle lies in between 30°
and 55°, above this angle, rolling is transformed to bounce
up to 70°. Falling motion occurs when the cliff is almost
vertical [14]. Falling and bouncing motions develop large
magnitude of kinetic energy as compared to rolling motion.
Thus, fall and bounce motions are much severe [15].
According to the Cruden and Varnes [16], the maximum
run-out distance of the falling rock blocks is quite large in
some cases. The spherically shaped rock blocks are
observed to cover the maximum run-out distance as com-
pared to other shapes [17]. The safe and unsafe region of
the roadway depends on the maximum run-out distance.
Rockfall is a very quick event, which involves high
velocities of falling blocks [18]. The high velocity and
energy associated with rock blocks can damage the prop-
erty and human lives equivalent to damage caused by
landslides though they possess a low level of economic
threat [19]. Thus, the assessment of rockfall and suit-
able design of protective measure is necessary.
The rockfall studies [20–23] and slope stability assess-
ment [24–29] in India have been carried out by many
researchers using different techniques. Parameters such as
maximum run-out distance, location and magnitude of
maximum energies and velocities of rock blocks have been
used to evaluate slope design, barriers, ditches, retaining
walls and rock sheds [30–34] and land-planning assessment
[35]. The simulation of rockfall trajectory has an important
role in the understanding of natural as well as manmade
rockfall hazards. Though the science of free-fall rocks is
understood, there are variability and uncertainty in the
simulation of some parameters such as coefficient of
restitution, friction, shape and size of free-fall rocks. So it
requires a better understanding of statistical analysis
instead of deterministic analysis [36]. In the deterministic
modelling, the parameters which affect the rockfall tra-
jectory are rock properties (i.e. material, shape and size),
slope properties (i.e. topography, material and surface
condition) and the rockfall initiation point [37, 38]. A
number of variables are used to define the dynamics of
rockfall. The minor variation in the parameters and con-
ditions of rockfall event can cause two problems in the
123
Indian Geotech J
deterministic analysis. First, the numerical values of the
parameters developed for real scenario are not reproducible
and second, the modelling is not able to reproduce the
scattering of the rockfall trajectories. Therefore, modelling
of rockfall trajectories is ineffective in the deterministic
analysis [39].
Rockfall event can result in damages to buildings and
vehicles, transport interruption, injuries and loss of life.
Study Area
The studied slope is located on the roadway from Palchan to
RTSP in the Solang Valley region of Himachal Pradesh,
India. After the opening of Rohtang tunnel, Solang Valley
roadway will be the only highway to reach Lahaul Spiti and
Leh during the winter season due to the shutdown of Manali–
Leh highway. The study area comes under the northwest part
of Himalaya, with an elevation of 2666 m. The slope is
3.3 km away from the Solang Valley point towards RTSP.
The coordinates of location are N32°200 2.100 and
E77°80 42.000 , and it falls under toposheet number 143X3 of
the Survey of India. The area shows sharp variation in the
slopes approaching up to 80°. The slope also comes under the
avalanche-prone area from Solang Valley to RTSP [40]. The
map of the study location is shown in Fig. 1.
During the survey of the study area, four types of joint sets
are observed, the dip and dip direction of joints are—joint J1
(51/150), joint J2 (82/92), joint J3 (72/354) and bedding J4
(19/216). The spacing between the joints is 0.13 m, and the
aperture and persistence of the joints are up to 6 mm and
5–10 m, respectively. The upper portion of the rock is
unweathered, whereas weathering in lower portion varies
from the moderate to high. The roughness of the slope is
varying slightly rough to moderate rough. The joint infillings
are observed to be composed of a silty material that varied
from soft filling (greater than 5 mm) to none.
According to Misra and Tiwari [41], four major tectono-
stratigraphic units are well documented around study area
which are Larji–Rampur window Group, Chail Group,
Jutogh Group and Vaikrita Group. The Manali–Solang area
comprises two group of rocks; Vaikrita Group and Jutogh
Group in which Jutogh Group is overthrust by the high-
grade central crystallines of the Vaikrita Group [42] along
the Vaikrita Thrust. The Beas/Vyas River which originates
from a glacier in the higher Himalaya, cut across the
topography and rocks are well exposed along the river
section. The rocks in the study area are highly deformed
and mylonitized. Varied rock types that are exposed around
the study area are foliated micaceous quartzite, quartz-bi-
otite schist, biotite porphyroblast schist, garnetiferous mica
schist, kyanite-sillimanite schist and gneiss and fined
grained banded gneisses. The field photograph (Fig. 2a)
Indian Geotech J

Fig. 1 Map of Study Area

(Google Earth imagery)

shows that the slope comprises of bedrock and weathered

rock with the presence of a bulge portion on the bedrock. A
concrete drainage passage has been also observed along the
toe of the slope. The drainage passage was constructed for
the flow of water using concrete blocks along the road. No
actual ditch was present at the roadside of the slope. Thus,
the drainage system can also serve the purpose of the ditch
along the toe of the studied slope. The height and width of
the slope were approximately 14 m and 35 m, respectively,
during the field survey. The width of the road was mea-
sured to 6 m during the survey. The slope angle is varying
in between 65° and 90°. An approximate trajectory is
drawn in Fig. 2a which shows falling, rolling, again falling
and then bouncing motions of rock block. Figure 2b shows
the failed portion and uprooted trees on the other end of the
road (i.e. valley side).

Analysis of Slope

Kinematic Analysis of slope

The kinematic analysis has been carried out to identify the

Fig. 2 Field photographs show a view of a cliff face, b failed portion
at valley side
type of failure. The dip and dip-direction of the slope
measured in the field were 85°/N30°. The stereographic
projection reveals that wedge failure is prominent in the
study area. In the wedge failure, a rock wedge is formed by
the intersection of two planes and is sliding along the
direction of the line of intersection of these planes. The two
wedge failures (W1 and W2) have been observed on the
stereo-plot as shown in Fig. 3a. The first wedge failure
(W1) occurs due to the wedge formed by the intersection
between joints J2 and J3, which lies in the highly critical
zone (pink region) with a trend and plunge of N22° and

123
 Indian Geotech J

Input Parameters and Slope Geometry for Rockfall

Simulation

The critical parameters for the rockfall simulation are slope

geometry, coefficient of restitution (COR) and slope
roughness. Slope geometry has been modelled to represent
the actual road cut slope in best possible estimation. The
slope materials have an influence on the motion of rock
blocks. The slope area has been categorized into four
section based on the field conditions. The slope was com-
posed of bedrock (intact quartzite), weathered rock (slight
to moderate weathered quartzite), concrete (drainage) and
roadway (Fig. 4). The upper and middle part of the slope
was observed as bedrock and weathered rock, respectively.
Asphalt and concrete have been considered as a material
for roadway and the drainage system. The COR is another
parameter in the rockfall simulation and the selection of its
proper value is important, because of the sensitivity of
outcome towards the used value. The values of coefficients
of normal (Rn) and tangential (Rt) restitution with standard
deviation for the slope material are taken from the litera-
ture of coefficient of restitution table provided by Roc-
science and shown in Fig. 4. The possible trajectory has
shown that the rock block possibly starts with rolling and
following fall and bounce motion; it may hit the vehicle or
fall into the valley.
The lumped mass formulation has been considered in
the analysis of rockfall, which implies that each rock is

Fig. 3 a Stereo-plot showing two wedge failures at the studied slope,

b joint mapping and wedge failure below the bulge portion of the
studied slope

69°. The second wedge failure (W2) occurs due to the

wedge formed by the intersection between joints J1 and J3,
which lies in the less critical zone (yellow region) with a
trend and plunge of N77° and 19° (Fig. 3a). The kinematic
analysis verified the wedge failure observed in the field.
Figure 3b shows the joint mapping and the wedge failure
on the below side of the bulge portion of the slope. Hence,
to represent the vulnerability of the portion, a seeder has
been assigned below the bulge portion in the model of
Fig. 4 Slope geometry of the cliff with the motion of rockfall
rockfall simulation.
trajectory and COR of slope material

123
Indian Geotech J

considered as a particle and air friction is neglected. It does

not have any size, only mass has been considered for the
calculation of output parameters such as kinetic energy,
velocity and bounce height of falling rock blocks. The
initial velocity has been set to 0 m/s due to a static con-
dition in the initial state of rockfall. The slope roughness
can affect the angle of impact that can cause a change in
the movement of the rock block. An extensive field-work
has been conducted to prepare the slope geometry and
nature of slope roughness in the study area. Friction angle
can be considered as an important factor for the analysis;
the lower values of friction angle are more conservative,
which results in a movement of rock block towards the
downside and provide the ‘worst-case’ scenario. The val-
ues of input parameters like friction angle, slope roughness,
average weights of rock blocks falling from the cliff,
seeders and gradient of the slope are given in Table 1.
Every rockfall initiation position was identified during
the survey and to minimize the number of simulations; the
most vulnerable positions (i.e. seeder S1 & S2) were sim-
ulated in the analysis. The first rockfall initiation (S1) point
has been considered near the crest of the slope, whereas the
second rockfall initiation (S2) was considered on the bulge
portion of the slope as shown in Fig. 5. The height of both Fig. 5 Simulation of trajectories of falling rock blocks of different
weights
the seeders S1 and S2 have been considered to be 12.5 m
and 9.2 m from the roadway. The volume of the rock
Sensitivity Analysis by Slope Roughness
blocks was measured in the field and based on in situ
measurement, average masses of 50 kg, 100 kg, 300 kg
The slope roughness plays an important role in the rockfall
and 500 kg with different colour coding has been assigned
simulation. It can be defined as the variation of the slope
to both the seeders. Each seeder has been assigned 4000
angle from the mean slope angle of the segment. In the
rock blocks so that all the possible trajectories can be
lumped mass formulation, a mean value of slope roughness
considered. The 8000 trajectories are shown in Fig. 5 for
cannot be changed. It is considered equal to the slope
all the masses of rock blocks (i.e. 1000 trajectories for each
angle, however, the standard deviation can be varied. The
mass of rock block for each seeder).
basis of slope roughness is to account the minimum and
maximum slope waviness. It is characterized by a normal

Table 1 Parameters used in the rockfall analysis

Parameter Value Unit

Friction angle 28 degree

Slope roughness 2 (Standard deviation) –
Density 2700 kg/m3
Average weights of falling rock block 50, 100, 300, 500 kg
No. of falling rock blocks considered 8000 (1000 for each mass) –
Size of falling rock blocks (in situ measuring) 0.31 9 0.62 9 0.93 m3
0.50 9 0.75 9 0.30
0.75 9 0.30 9 0.25
0.25 9 0.24 9 0.26
Height of seeders (S1 and S2) 12.5 and 9.2 (from the roadway) m
Gradient of slope 65–90 degree

123

Fig. 6 Sensitivity analysis of
output parameters by slope
roughness
distribution. The general value used for the standard
deviation is 0, 2, 3 or 5 degrees [43]. For zero standard
deviation, the section acts as straight line slope angle, as
the value increases, the waviness will be formed on that
straight line section. However, the standard deviation value
of ‘2’ has been considered in the analysis to account the
effect of all output parameters. The effect of slope rough-
ness on the output parameters such as bounce height,
translational velocity, kinetic energy and percentage of
falling blocks (PFB) reached on the roadway is shown in
Fig. 6. The sensitivity analysis reveals that all the output
parameters are affected by the slope roughness. With an
increase in the slope roughness, the bounce height of the
falling rock block is also increased. Initially, an increment
has been observed in the translational velocity and kinetic
energy of the rock block but after the second value, both
the values are observed to be decreased. The same result
has been observed by the [44]. In this study, PFB reached
the roadway has also been analysed and found to increase
with an increase in the slope roughness.
Sensitivity Analysis by Scaling the Normal
Coefficient of Restitution by Velocity
In the simulation of rockfall trajectory, COR is the most
significant parameter which defines the reaction of the
falling rock block after impact. As the rock block bounces,
the value of velocity changes based on the COR of mate-
rial. So, COR has been supposed to be an overall value
which includes all the properties of impact, deformation,
and sliding at contact [45]. Rn is a normal component of
123
Indian Geotech J
COR; it can be defined as the ratio of final velocity to the
initial velocity (normal to the surface). Rn is a velocity
dependent component, hence during the simulation of high-
velocity rock blocks, the analysis is carried out by per-
forming ‘scaling of Rn by velocity’ to get realistic rockfall
trajectories. But in the case of low-velocity rock blocks, the
user has to perform with or without ‘scaling of Rn by
velocity’ to find out which option gives suitable realistic
rockfall trajectories [13]. The sensitivity analysis has been
performed by evaluating rockfall output parameters (such
as bounce height, TKE, velocity and run-out distance) with
and without scaling the Rn by velocity. The analysis reveals
that the magnitude of the bounce height, TKE and PFB
reached on the roadway were higher in case of without
scaling the Rn (Fig. 7). Hence, the modelling was carried
out without performing the ‘scaling of Rn by velocity’ to
predict the worst scenario.
Results and Discussion
Run-Out Distance and Bounce Height
The importance of the run-out distance to find out the
maximum reach of the falling rock block. The analysis of
8000 rock blocks shows that 59.21% rock blocks were
arrested by the ditch, 4.67% of the rock blocks fall into the
valley after crossing the roadway and the remaining
36.12% of rock blocks scattered and stopped on the road-
way at a horizontal distance of 9.14–15.14 m (Fig. 8a). It
has been found that the maximum run-out distance was up
Indian Geotech J

to the valley, which makes the whole width of the roadway

Fig. 7 Effect of with vs. without ‘scaling of Rn by velocity’ on the
rockfall output parameters
is unsafe. It has been also observed that the rock blocks
which were escaped from the ditch, can damage the pass-
ing by vehicles and cause injuries or fatalities. Hence, this
scenario makes this highway section critical.
The factors which affect the bounce height are slope
angle, slope surface, initial velocity, shape and size of the
rock blocks. The analysis shows that rock block starts to
roll from seeder S1, then a short bounces on the bulge
portion for two–three times. The first big impact occurs
either on the weathered surface or in the concrete drainage
after the rock block fell from the bulge portion and second
big impact occur on the roadways. The analysis of seeder
S2 shows that the first impact occurs on the weathered
surface and second on the drainage system and third and
fourth impact occurs on the roadway. The sudden rise in
the bounce height at a horizontal distance of 5.5 m is due to
the falling motion of rock block from the bulge portion
(Fig. 8b). The maximum bounce height was observed on
the roadway at a horizontal distance of 10.7–11.3 m for all
type of rock block masses.

Total Kinetic Energy and Translational Velocity

Fig. 8 Plot of a longest run-out distance, b bounce height of falling
rock blocks
During the fall, the potential energy decreases but the Total
Kinetic energy (TKE) increases due to the gravity effect
acted on the rock block which increases the vertical com-
ponent of velocity. The bounce impact causes compression
on the slope material and frictional losses result in loss of
energy in proportion to the decreased velocity. TKE of
rock block depends on the mass and falling velocity of that
rock block, the greater the mass, the higher will be TKE.
The mass of the falling rock block depends on its dimen-
sions and the discontinuity spacing. Energy can be influ-
enced by rock block strength; weak rock blocks break into
smaller fragments after the impact, while strong rock
blocks hold their mass during the fall from the cliff. The
velocity of the rock block during fall depends on slope
angle, height of fall and friction coefficient of the slope
material. During the falling of rock blocks from the bulge
portion, the velocity increases which causes an increase in
the TKE. As the rock block bounces on the weathered rock
surface, both the velocity and the TKE decrease. The value
of TKE and velocity has again increased after the impact
around the ditch of the slope and the roadway (Fig. 9a, b).
Figure 9a also shows a significant variation in the values of
maximum TKE for different masses of falling rock block
from the bulge portion of the slope. For the lower mass (i.e.
50 kg), it has been found to be 5.83 kJ, whereas for higher
mass (i.e. 500 kg) it has been 58.23 kJ at a horizontal
distance of 8.8 m (Table 2). The slope zone comes under
medium-intensity energies range (i.e. 30–300 kJ) which

123
 Indian Geotech J

rock blocks. Rotation of rock blocks causes two major

effects on the study of rockfall. Firstly, it causes the tra-
jectories to be flatter than the non-rotational rock blocks
and secondly, the rotational energy produced by the
rotating rock blocks contributes to the total energy [47].
TKE is the summation of translational kinetic energy
(KET) and rotational kinetic energy (KER). KER is con-
siderably lower than the KET. The maximum KER of
10.08 kJ has been obtained for 500 kg mass of rock block
at a horizontal distance of 8.2–8.8 m (Fig. 10a). The value
of rotational velocity has been found the maximum of
60.49 rad/s for a mass of 50 kg rock block within the ditch
(Fig. 10b). The details of all the maximum energies and
velocities of rock block of each mass are given in Table 2.
The small impact on the bedrock surface before the fall
from the bulge portion increases the value of both the KER
and rotational velocity. Due to the impact on the weathered
rock, both the KER and rotational velocity rises again and
becomes constant up to the ditch area. After the impact on
a roadway, both the value decreases and remains almost
constant throughout the road surface. The increase and
decrease in the value of KER depend on the impact of the
rock block on the slope surface. No rotational forces acted
on the rock block when it is moving on the trajectory in the
air. Thus, the value of KER remains constant on the road.

Energy Line Angle (ELA)

ELA is an empirical model for the calculation of maximum

Fig. 9 Plot of a total kinetic energy, b translational velocity of falling
rock blocks
can disrupt the transportation for a considerable period of
time [46].
Rotational Kinetic Energy and Rotational Velocity
The rotation of rock blocks occurs due to the moment
produced by the tangential velocity and the frictional
resistance between the surface of the slope and edges of the
run-out distance. It is an angle between the horizontal plane
and Energy line (EL). EL is a straight line which joins the
initial point of rockfall to the longest run-out distance of
the rock block [8]. ELA can be calculated by Eq. (1) as
follows:
H
ELA ¼ tan1 ð1Þ
L
where ‘H’ and ‘L’ are the vertical and horizontal distance
between the initial point of rockfall and the stopping point
of the rock block.
In this study, ELA has been calculated from Eq. (1) to
be 48° and used to draw EL. The intersection point of EL
and road is considered as a longest run-out distance of the

Table 2 Bounce height, energies and velocities of rock block obtained from the rockfall analysis
Weight of falling Maximum bounce Maximum total Maximum translational Maximum rotational Maximum rotational
rock block (kg) height (m) kinetic energy (kJ) velocity (m/s) kinetic energy (kJ) velocity (rad/s)

50 4.26 5.83 15.0 0.98 60.49

100 4.26 11.52 14.91 2.16 50.25
300 5.21 34.92 14.97 5.94 33.36
500 5.11 58.23 14.98 10.08 28.39

123
Indian Geotech J
Fig. 10 Plot of a rotational kinetic energy, b rotational velocity of
falling rock blocks
rock block. This intersection point separates the safe and
unsafe zone. In most of the cases, the value of ELA has
been observed in between 22° and 30° [8]. The calculated
ELA was observed to be higher than the previous studies
because of the small horizontal distance between the source
of rockfall and another end of the road. The valley starts
after the road ends and the value of horizontal distance was
constrained to 11.2 m. The full width of the road has been
considered to be unsafe (Fig. 11). The maximum velocity
of the rock block has been calculated at the end of the slope
from Eq. (2) as follows:
pffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffi
Vmax ¼ 2gh ð2Þ
where ‘g’ is gravity and ‘h’ is the height from the slope
surface to the EL. The calculated value of Vmax at the toe of
the slope is 11.67 m/s which was less than 14.85 m/s, the
velocity obtained from the rockfall simulation program. It
has been observed that on further movement of a rock
Fig. 11 Concept of energy line angle (ELA)
block, the maximum velocity reduces to 11.37 m/s as the
rock block hit the road.
Optimization and Preventive Measures
Optimization of Ditch
The drainage system was observed at the field along the
road has been assumed to serve the purpose of a ditch. The
optimization of a ditch is necessary due to its high
importance in the catchment of rock blocks. The in situ
depth and width of the ditch were measured to 0.30 and
0.45 m, respectively. According Ritchie’s design
chart [48], based on slope height and slope gradient, the
width and depth of ditch should be 4.5–6 m and 1.5–1.8 m,
respectively. To attain this size of the ditch, the slope
should be excavated. Another way of ditch optimization is
to increase the depth and/or width of the present size of the
ditch. The ditch width can be increased by excavation of
the slope or by decreasing the road width which is not
suitable. So, the optimization of the ditch was carried out
by increasing the ditch depth. In the optimization process,
the depth of ditch was increased by a regular interval of
0.10 m. Initially, the ditch was able to arrest only 59.21%
of rock blocks in the simulation program. With an increase
in ditch depth, the percentage of rock block arrested by the
ditch also increases. It was found that 91.04% of rock
blocks (i.e. 7283 out of 8000 rock blocks) were arrested by
the ditch at the depth of 0.7 m (Fig. 12). The increase in
the percentage of rock block arrested by ditch was found to
be very less after the increase in ditch depth of 0.7 m.
123
 Indian Geotech J

Fig. 12 Plot of ditch depth versus percentage of rock block arrested

Hence, this value can be taken as the optimum value of

ditch. The enlarged portion in Fig. 13 shows that the rock
block of 50 kg fell from the slope surface and by following
the trajectory, it was arrested by the optimized ditch of
depth and width of 0.7 and 0.45 m, respectively.
Fig. 13 Enlarged view of the optimum ditch
Optimization of Slope Geometry

Slope angle is another important parameter for the rockfall

studies as slope geometry dictates the trajectory path. The
optimization of slope geometry has been done in three
stages by removal of the bulge portion and reducing the
slope angle. All the output parameters have been analysed
at the ditch and at the roadway in all three stages. The
angle of bulge portion was varied from 75° to 90° on
bedrock. Rock block starts rolling from the seeder point
and after crossing the bulge portion; rolling motion will be
transformed into fall. The trajectory shows that rock block
bounces in or across the ditch and finally falls into the
valley (Fig. 14a). The maximum value of TKE (KEm) and
maximum translational velocity (Vm) of rock block were
found 58.23 kJ and 15.0 m/s, respectively, at the ditch (i.e.
at a horizontal distance of 8.85 m). The maximum bounce
height of the rock block at the roadway (hbm) was 5.2 m
and at the ditch (hbd) was 2.4 m.
In the first stage of optimization, the bulge portion of the
slope was trimmed by 0.2 m and slope angle of bedrock
was reduced to 75°–80° (Fig. 14b). It results in the change
of rockfall trajectory, but no changes have been observed
in the motions of falling rock blocks. The values of KEm
and Vm were found to be 47.2 kJ and 13.1 m/s, respec-
tively, which are lesser than the values before optimization.
The percentage of rock blocks arrested in the ditch was
dropped to 10%, and also the values of bounce height hbm
and hbd were reduced to 3.9 and 2.5, respectively. In the Fig. 14 Stages of optimization of slope geometry

123
Indian Geotech J

second stage of optimization, the slope angle of bedrock equations proposed by Peila and Ronco [49]. According to
was reduced to 74° and the slope geometry has been the energy design equation, the energy that can be absorbed
smoothened. The rock block starts rolling from the seeder by the barrier must be greater than energy computed by
point; then, a short duration falls, and again rolls on the simulation program
slope geometry (Fig. 14c). The rock block bounces from EETA
the ditch and stopped at the road. The ditch was able to Ed  \0 ð3Þ
cE
arrest 50.7% of falling rock blocks, and the values of KEm
and Vm were found to be same as the values of the first where Ed is the value of design energy for a barrier, which
stage. An increase has been observed in the value of hbm to can be computed through simulation, EETA is the energy of
4.1 m, whereas hbd has found to be further decreased by a barrier certified by European Technical Approval (ETA)
metre. In the last stage of optimization, the slope geometry and cE is a safety factor and has following values as per
has been fully smoothened and the slope angle of bedrock Eurocode 7
has been reduced to 71°. Figure 14d shows that rock block (1) 1.3 for maximum energy level (MEL);
rolls on the slope surface by following its trajectory and (2) 1.0 for service energy level (SEL);
then bounces and arrested in the ditch. The ditch was able
to arrest 51.4% of falling rock blocks. The value of KEm To design the capacity of a barrier, Eq. (3) must be
further reduced to 46.1 kJ and Vm increased to 13.3 m/s. satisfied. The design height and location of the barrier can
Both the values of bounce height hbm and hbd have reduced be calculated from Eqs. (4), (5)
to 2.9 and 0.9, respectively. hd [ ðhb95  cTr  cDp þ fb Þ ð4Þ
After considering all the factors such as trajectory,
motion, bounce height, kinetic energies and the number of de  cE \dp ð5Þ
rock block arrested, a reduction of 12.1 kJ in the kinetic where hd is the design height of barrier, hb95 is 95 per-
energy and 1.7 m/s in the velocity of rock block was centile of the height of the trajectories of falling rock block
observed. Thus, the third stage of optimization gave best over the slope, fb is half the average size of the falling rock
suitable results. Though the percentage of rock block block, de is maximum elongation of barrier, dp is the dis-
arrested was less as compared to the first and second stages, tance between the barrier and the protected area, and cTr is
a significant decrease in other parameters was observed. a safety factor for trajectory computation and has the fol-
The change observed in the rockfall trajectory after the first lowing values
stage of optimization remains almost constant in the second
and third stage. Falling motion causes more damages as (1) 1.0 for 2D simulation calibrated by back analysis;
compared to rolling motion. During the optimization pro- (2) 1.1 for 2D simulation on the basis of literature values;
cess, a drop in the impact of falling has been observed at cDp is a safety factor for the slope discretization quality,
each stage and the analysis show only rolling motion in the which considers the uncertainties in the modelling and has
third stage. the following values
(1) 1.05 for laser scanning model;
(2) 1.1 for normal topographic model;
Design of Rockfall Barrier
(3) 1.15 for no model (cross section derived from large-
scale map) [50].
A barrier is one of the suitable preventive measures for
rockfall hazard. The important properties to design a All the input parameters and the calculated output
rockfall barrier are its capacity (energy), height, inclination parameters in the design of a rockfall barrier are given in
and location. The design of the barrier can be achieved by Table 3. The Ed has been observed to be 58.23 from the

Table 3 Values of various parameters used in design of barrier

Capacity design (kJ) Height design (m) Elongation design (m)
Parameter Value Parameter Value Parameter Value

Input parameters Ed 58.23 hb95 1.45 de 0.8

cTr 1.1
cE 1.3 cDp 1.15 cE 1.3
fb 0.3
Output parameters EETA 100 hd 2.13 dp [ 1.04

123

Fig. 15 a Proposal of barrier installation on the studied slope, b sketch of the rockfall barrier (modified from [51]), c impact height, d total
kinetic energy of the rock block at the barrier
rockfall simulation and the value of cE was taken as 1.3 for
MEL. As per Eq. (3), EETA must be greater than 75.69 kJ.
To design the barrier height, value of hb95 was taken as
1.45 m from the simulation, fb was calculated as 0.3 m, cTr
and cDp are taken as 1.1 and 1.15, respectively. By using
Eq. (4), calculated design height of the barrier must be
greater than 2.13 m. So, a standard rockfall barrier of
2.5 m height with a 100 kJ capacity has found to be suit-
able for this study.
The location of the barrier has been selected on the basis
of design elongation. The maximum elongation of a
123
Indian Geotech J
standard barrier of 100 kJ capacity is 0.8 m. It has been
found that to protect the roadway based on Eq. (5), the
barrier should be located at a distance more than 1.04 m
from the edge of the road. The barrier cannot be installed
on the weathered rock surface, so it has been proposed to
install between the drainage and the roadway with a
reduction in the width of the road by 1.04 m. The location
and other design parameters of the proposed barrier are
shown in Fig. 15a. A standard barrier ‘GBE-100A-R’ has
found to match the required specifications [51]. The stan-
dard barrier has 100 kJ of energy capacity with a tensile
Indian Geotech J
force in upper and lower cables which are 116 kN and
81 kN. The total installation height of the barrier is 2.0 m
long which can be varied up to 2.5 m. The sketch of the
barrier is shown in Fig. 15b.
It has been observed that 40.9% (i.e. 3273 out of 8000)
of falling rock blocks hit the barrier and the remaining rock
blocks have been arrested by the ditch. The impact height
and total kinetic energy of falling rock blocks hitting the
barrier have been determined. The maximum and mini-
mum impact height of the rock blocks was 1.84 and
0.03 m, respectively (Fig. 15b). It has been found that only
27 rock blocks hit the barrier above 1.0 m height of barrier
and 3036 rock blocks hit the barrier below 0.5 m height of
barrier from the ground. The maximum total kinetic energy
of the rock block was 52.7 kJ. It has been observed that 50
rock blocks hit the barrier with a kinetic energy of more
than 30 kJ, whereas 2900 rock blocks hit the barrier with
energy less than 10 kJ (Fig. 15c).
Conclusion
The rockfall analysis reveals that three type of motions
(Roll-Fall-Bounce) were present in the study. The bounce
height and kinetic energy associated with the falling rock
block is enough to damage the passing vehicles. Based on
the energy analysis, the studied slope comes under the
medium rockfall intensity range (\ 300 kJ). It has been
concluded that the total width of the roadway is unsafe
since the maximum run-out distance is up to the valley
computed from the simulation as well as the empirical
model. It has been also observed that the bulge portion of
the slope is acted as a launchpad for the rock blocks, which
converted the rolling into fall and then bounce.
The effect of variation in the slope roughness indicates
that with a zero value of standard deviation of slope
roughness, the segment act like the ideal slope angle but as
the value of standard deviation is increased, it changes the
angle of impact which makes the rock block trajectory
more unpredictable. As the slope roughness increases, the
bounce height increases and velocity decrease for the
studied slope. To account for the effect of both parameters,
an optimum value of surface roughness has taken which is
nearly the same as the field conditions. In the sensitivity
analysis of ‘scaling of Rn by velocity’, modelling of low-
velocity rock blocks without performing scaling of Rn gives
the worst scenario. To get better realistic conditions, a user
must identify whether the modelling has been performed
with or without ‘scaling of Rn by velocity’.
Ditches have been considered as one of the cost-effec-
tive protection measurement. The increase in ditch depth
will arrest a higher number of rock blocks. It has been
observed that in the absence of an actual ditch, the drainage
system can also serve the same purpose. It has been found
that the removal of bulge portion and variation in slope
angle results in a decrease of kinetic energy and bounce
height. Generally, the damages caused by rolling motion
are less than the bounce and fall motions. The same has
been achieved in the third stage of the optimization of
geometry, where the fall and bounce motions were trans-
formed into rolling motion. The rockfall barrier has been
proposed to locate between the drainage and the roadway.
All the rock blocks which were escaped from the ditch hit
the barrier with a maximum energy of 52.7 kJ at the
maximum impact height of 1.84 m. The proposed barrier
has a capacity of 100 kJ with a length of 2.5 m for pre-
vention of rock blocks to reach roadway. This optimization
study of the ditch, slope geometry and the barrier design
can make the slope parameters less vulnerable.
Acknowledgements The author would like to thank the Natural
Resources Data Management System, Department of Science and
Technology, Ministry of Science and Technology, Government of
India, for the grant to carry out this study.
References
1. Sarkar K, Singh TN, Verma AK (2012) A numerical simulation
of landslide-prone slope in Himalayan region—a case study.
Arab J Geosci 5(1):73–81
2. Singh PK, Wasnik AB, Kainthola A, Sazid M, Singh TN (2013)
The stability of road cut cliff face along SH-121: a case study.
Nat Hazards 68(2):497–507
3. Matsuoka N, Sakai H (1999) Rockfall activity from an alpine cliff
during thawing periods. Geomorphology 28(3):309–328
4. Blikra LH, Christiansen HH (2014) A field-based model of per-
mafrost-controlled rockslide deformation in northern Norway.
Geomorphology 208:34–49
5. Wei LW, Chen H, Lee CF, Huang WK, Lin ML, Chi CC, Lin HH
(2014) The mechanism of rockfall disaster: a case study from
Badouzih, Keelung, in northern Taiwan. Eng Geol 183:116–126
6. Kobayashi Y, Harp EL, Kagawa T (1990) Simulation of rockfalls
triggered by earthquakes. Rock Mech Rock Eng 23(1):1–20
7. Valagussa A, Frattini P, Crosta GB (2014) Earthquake-induced
rockfall hazard zoning. Eng Geol 182:213–225
8. Dorren LK (2003) A review of rockfall mechanics and modelling
approaches. Prog Phys Geogr 27(1):69–87
9. Wieczorek GF, Jäger S (1996) Triggering mechanisms and
depositional rates of postglacial slope-movement processes in the
Yosemite Valley, California. Geomorphology 15(1):17–31
10. Ferrari F, Giacomini A, Thoeni K (2016) Qualitative rockfall
hazard assessment: a comprehensive review of current practices.
Rock Mech Rock Eng 49(7):2865–2922
11. Abele G (1994) Large rockslides: their causes and movement on
internal sliding planes. Mt Res Dev 14(4):315–320
12. Badger TC, Lowell SM (1992). Rockfall control in Washington
State. Transportation Research Record 1343, National Academy
of Sciences, Washington, DC pp 14–19
13. RocScience (2003) Advanced tutorial. RocScience Inc., Toronto
14. Ritchie AM (1963) Evaluation of rockfall and its control. In:
Highway research board, Highway research record, vol 17.
National Academy of Sciences-National Research Council,
Washington, DC
123

15. Petje U, Mikoš M, Majes B (2006) Motion of rock masses on
slope. Geologija 49(2):393–408
16. Cruden DM, Varnes DJ (1996) Landslide types and processes. In:
Turner KA, Schuster RL (eds) Landslides: investigation and
mitigation, Transportation research board special report,
pp 36–75
17. Basson FRP (2012) Rigid body dynamics for rock fall trajectory
simulation. In: 46th US rock mechanics/geomechanics sympo-
sium. American Rock Mechanics Association, pp 12–267
18. Giacomini A, Buzzi O, Renard B, Giani GP (2009) Experimental
studies on fragmentation of rock falls on impact with rock sur-
faces. Int J Rock Mech Min Sci 46(4):708–715
19. Hoek E (2000) Analysis of rockfall hazards. In: Hoek E (ed)
Practical rock engineering. Wiley, New York, pp 117–136
20. Ansari MK, Ahmad M, Singh R, Singh TN (2014) Rockfall
hazard assessment at Ajanta Cave, Aurangabad, Maharashtra,
India. Arab J Geosci 7(5):1773–1780
21. Ahmad M, Umrao RK, Ansari MK, Singh R, Singh TN (2013)
Assessment of rockfall hazard along the road cut slopes of state
highway-72, Maharashtra, India. Geomaterials 3(1):15–23
22. Ansari MK, Ahmad M, Singh R, Singh TN (2012) Rockfall
assessment near Saptashrungi Gad temple, Nashik, Maharashtra,
India. Int J Disaster Risk Reduct 2:77–83
23. Ansari MK, Ahmad M, Singh R, Singh TN (2016) Rockfall
hazard rating system along SH-72: a case study of Poladpur–
Mahabaleshwar road (Western India), Maharashtra, India. Geo-
mat Nat Hazards Risk 7(2):649–666
24. Singh TN, Verma AK (2007) Evaluating the slope instability of
the Amiya Slide. In: 1st Canada-US rock mechanics symposium.
American Rock Mechanics Association, Vancouver BC, vol 2,
pp 993–998
25. Verma AK, Singh TN (2010) Assessment of tunnel instability—a
numerical approach. Arab J Geosci 3(2):181–192
26. 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 Geol Soc India 88(3):387–393
27. Behera PK, Sarkar K, Singh AK, Verma AK, Singh TN (2016)
Dump slope stability analysis—a case study. J Geol Soc India
88(6):725–735
28. Verma AK, Singh TN, Chauhan NK, Sarkar K (2016) A hybrid
FEM–ANN approach for slope instability prediction. J Inst Eng
(India) Ser A 97(3):171–180
29. Kumar N, Verma AK, Sardana S, Sarkar K, Singh TN (2017)
Comparative analysis of limit equilibrium and numerical methods
for prediction of a landslide. Bull Eng Geol Environ
77(2):595–608
30. Richards LR (1988) Rockfall protection: a review of current
analytical and design methods. In: Meeting on rockfall dynamics
and protective works effectiveness, Bergamo, vol 11, pp 1–13
31. Spang RM (1987) Protection against rockfall-stepchild in the
design of rock slopes. In: 6th ISRM Congress, international
society for rock mechanics, Montreal, Canada, pp 551–557
32. Topal T, Akin M, Ozden UA (2007) Assessment of rockfall
hazard around Afyon Castle, Turkey. Environ Geol
53(1):191–200
33. Pantelidis L (2010) Rock catchment area design charts. In Geo-
Florida 2010: Advances in analysis, modeling & design,
123
Indian Geotech J
department of civil infrastructure engineering, Technological
Educational Institute of Thessaloniki, Greece, pp 224–233
34. Wang X, Zhang L, Wang S, Agliardi F, Frattini P, Crosta GB,
Yang Z (2012) Field investigation and rockfall hazard zonation at
the Shijing Mountains Sutra caves cultural heritage (China).
Environ Earth Sci 66(7):1897–1908
35. Cancelli A, Crosta G (1994) Hazard and risk assessment in
rockfall prone areas. In: Skipp BO (ed) Risk reliability in ground
engineering. Thomas Telford, Institute of Civil Engineers, Lon-
don, pp 177–190
36. Vijayakumar S, Yacoub T, Curran JH (2011) On the effect of
rock size and shape in rockfall analyses. In: Proceedings of the
US rock mechanics symposium (ARMA) San Francisco CA,
USA
37. Agliardi F, Crosta GB (2003) High resolution three-dimensional
numerical modelling of rockfalls. Int J Rock Mech Min Sci
40(4):455–471
38. Li L, Lan H (2015) Probabilistic modeling of rockfall trajectories:
a review. Bull Eng Geol Env 74(4):1163–1176
39. Lan H, Li L, Wu Y (2015) Stochasticity of rockfall trajectory
revealed by a field experiment repeated on a single sample. In:
Engineering geology for society and territory, vol 2,
pp 1713–1721
40. Gupta RD, Singh MK, Snehmani S, Ganju A (2014) Validation of
SRTM X band DEM over Himalayan Mountain. Int Arch Pho-
togramm Remote Sens Spat Inf Sci 40(4):71
41. Misra DK, Tewari VC (1988) Tectonics and sedimentation of the
rocks between Mandi and Rohtang, Beas valley, Himachal Pra-
desh, India. Geosci J 9(2):153–172
42. Valdiya KS (1979) An outline of the structural set-up of the
Kumaun Himalaya. Geol Soc India 20:145–151
43. RocScience (2016) Statistical analysis of rockfalls: collision
analysis verification manual. RocScience Inc., Toronto
44. Marchetty S (2015) Analysis of rockfall trajectories and evalua-
tion of concrete barrier efficiency. Dissertation, University of
Akron
45. Giani GP (1992) Rock slope stability analysis. CRC Press, Boca
Raton
46. Perret S, Dolf F, Kienholz H (2004) Rockfalls into forests:
analysis and simulation of rockfall trajectories—considerations
with respect to mountainous forests in Switzerland. Landslides
1(2):123–130
47. Wyllie DC (2014) Rock fall engineering. CRC Press, Boca Raton
48. Pierson LA, Gullixson CF, Chassie RG, Engineer PG (2001)
Rockfall catchment area design guide (No. FHWA-OR-RD-02-
04). Oregon Department of Transportation, Research Group
49. Peila D, Ronco C (2009) Technical note: design of rockfall net
fences and the new ETAG 027 European guideline. Nat Hazards
Earth Syst Sci 9(4):1291–1298
50. Ansari MK, Ahmad M, Singh TN (2014) Rockfall hazard anal-
ysis of Ellora Cave, Aurangabad, Maharashtra, India. Int J Sci
Res 3(5):427–431
51. Geobrugg AG (2016) Product manual GBE-100A-R rockfall
barrier. European Technical Assessment ETA 15/304. Edition
250-N-FO/07