Quantitative analysis of risk from fragmental rockfalls
- 417 Downloads
Rockfalls are ubiquitous diffuse hazard in mountain regions, cliffs, and cutslopes, with the potential of causing victims and severely damaging buildings and infrastructures. A vast majority of detached rock masses break up when impacting the ground, generating multiple trajectories of rock fragments. In this paper, we present the quantitative risk analysis (QRA) of fragmental rockfalls. Fragmentation in rockfalls requires the redefinition of the probability of reach and the evaluation of the effect of multiple rock blocks trajectories on the exposure. An example of QRA was carried out at the Monasterio de Piedra, Spain, using RockGIS, a rockfall propagation model that takes fragmentation into account (Matas et al. Landslides 14:1565–1578, 2017). The results show that fragmentation has a significant but contrasting effect in the calculation of risk. The risk is reduced if the slope where blocks propagate is sufficiently long and gentle. The reason for this is that, compared to the unfragmented rock masses, the new fragments generated travel shorter distances with lesser kinetic energy. The effect disappears in case of large rockfalls. Conversely, the risk increases if the rock fragments propagate over steep slopes. The reason is that few blocks stop along the way while the generation of a cone of fragments increases the exposure. Our simulations also show that assuming a continuous flow of visitors or segregating the flow in groups of different number of people has only a minor influence on the results. Finally, we observed that the capability of the protection barriers to stop rockfalls of up to a few tens of cubic meters increases with fragmentation.
KeywordsRockfall Fragmentation Quantitative risk analysis Rockfall modeling Case study
We appreciate all the facilities provided by Monasterio de Piedra S.A. to carry out this work. We would like to thank the helpful comments of the anonymous reviewers.
This work has been carried out with the support of the fellowship to the last two authors and within the framework of the research project Rockmodels financed by the Spanish Ministry of Economy and Competitiveness and the European Regional Development’s funds (FEDER), (BIA2016- 75668-P, AEI/FEDER, UE) and by the grants to the second and third authors (BES-2014-069795 and FPU13/04252, respectively).
- Bourrier F, Hungr O (2011) Rockfall dynamics: a critical review of collision and rebound models. In: Lambert S, Nicot F (eds) Rockfall engineering. Wiley, Hoboken, pp 175–209Google Scholar
- Corominas J, van Westen C, Frattini P, Cascini L, Malet JP, Fotopoulou S, Catani F, Van Den Eeckhaut M, Mavrouli O, Agliardi F, Pitilakis K, Winter MG, Pastor M, Ferlisi S, Tofani V, Hervás J, Smith JT (2014) Recommendations for the quantitative analysis of landslide risk. Bull Eng Geol Environ 73:209–263Google Scholar
- Corona C, Lopez-Saez J, Favillier A, Mainieri R, Eckert N, Trappmann D, Stoffel M, Bourrier F, Berger F (2017) Modeling rockfall frequency and bounce height from three-dimensional simulation process models and growth disturbances in submontane broadleaved trees. Geomorphology 281:66–77CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- Dorren LKA (2012) Rockyfor3D (v5.1) revealed—transparent description of the complete 3D rockfall model. http://www.ecorisq.org/
- Dorren L, Domaas U, Kronholm K, Labiouse V (2011) Methods for predicting rockfall trajectories and run-out zones. In: Lambert S, Nicot F (eds) Rockfall Engineering. Wiley, Hoboken, pp 143–173Google Scholar
- Duffy JD, Badger TC (2012) Flexible rockfall fences. In: Turner, Schuster (eds) Rockfall characterization and control. Transportation Research Board, Washington D.C., pp 526–563Google Scholar
- Hoek E, Bray JW (1988) Rock slope Engineering. (3rd edition) Institution of Mining and Metallurgy, London, 357 pp.Google Scholar
- Macciotta R, Martin CD, Morgenstern NR, Cruden DM (2016) Quantitative risk assessment of slope hazards along a section of railway in the Canadian cordillera – a methodology considering the uncertainty in the results. Landslides 13:15–117Google Scholar
- Roberds W (2005) Estimating temporal and spatial variability and vulnerability. In: Hungr O, Fell R, Couture R, Eberhardt E (eds) Landslide Risk Management. Taylor and Francis, London, pp 129–158Google Scholar
- Sancho C, Gutiérrez M, Peña JL, Burillo F (1988) A quantitative approach to scarp retreat starting from triangular slope facets, central Ebro Basin, Spain. Catena Suppl 13:139–146Google Scholar
- Straub D, Schubert M (2008) Modeling and managing uncertainties in rock-fall hazards. Georisk 2:1–15Google Scholar
- Turner AK, Jayaprakash GP (2012) Introduction. In: Turner AK, Schuster RL (eds) Rockfall characterization and control. Transportation Research Board, National Academy of Sciences, Washington D.C, pp 3–20Google Scholar