Int. J. Rock Mech. Min. Sci. & Geomech. Abstr. Vol. 32, No. 7, pp.

709-724, 1995
Copyright ~5:1995 Elsevier Science Ltd
0148-9062(95)110018-6
Printed in Great Britain. All rights reserved
0148-9062/95 $9.50 + 0.00

Pergamon

Analysis and Prediction of Rockfalls Using a

Mathematical Model
A. AZZONIt
G. LA BARBERAt
A. ZANINETTI +

Th& paper deals with the study of rockfalls us&g a mathematical model,
codified for computer use. Called CADMA, it allows predictions to be made
of fall trajectories and of the relevant parameters (energy, height of bounce,
run out distance of the falling blocks)for the design of remedial works.
Designed with the experience gained from several in situ tests, this model is
based on rigid body mechanics, and statistically analyses a fall in a two-dimensional space. The main features of the program are presented in this paper, as
well as the criteria for choosing the trajectory to be studied, and the techniques
for the assessment of the most relevant parameters required for the execution
of the rockfall analysis (particularly the dynamic parameters: restitution and
rolling friction coefficients). Some practical aspects of the rockfall mathematical analysis are also discussed. These include the effect of topographical detail
on the results and the optimal number of simulations to be carried out. The
characteristics and potentials of the program were evaluated by comparing the
results of in situ tests: in all cases, the program supplied generally accurate
predictions in terms of fall velocity, energy, height of bounce and stopping
distance.

INTRODUCTION
In the context of slope instability phenomena, the
detachment of blocks from steep walls and their subsequent falls along slopes are particularly significant
[1]. This phenomenon involves high risk in densely
populated mountain areas, such as the Alps, where
slopes are usually long and steep, and where housing
estates and most man-made constructions are generally located at the bottom of valleys. It is particularly
important in these areas to have the best possible
knowledge of rockfall trajectories and energies in order
to determine accurate risk zoning and construct
adequate defence systems near the threatened areas.
Until recently, rockfall problems, and specifically,
remedial activities were mostly managed on an empirical basis, since understanding of the subject was somewhat limited. Today, computers represent an invaluable
instrument in dealing with highly variable phenomena
(such as rockfalls). Their development, together with
valuable experience gathered through a more rational
observation of the phenomenon (in particular with
flSMES SpA, Via Pastrengo 9, 24068 Seriate, Bergamo,Italy.
~ENEL CRIS, Via Ornato 90/14, 20121 Milan, Italy.

special/n situ and laboratory tests), has increased rockfall knowledge considerably. Such knowledge now
allows us to perform more rational and repeatable
analyses and gain more accurate predictions and thus
more effective protective structures.
MAIN APPROACHES TO THE PROBLEM

Literature on the subject of rockfall analysis has been

the subject of about 50 papers, written by different
authors from 1963 to date. These papers may be basically divided into two groups according to the approach
taken: utilizing experimental methods or computer
models [2]. Experimental methods include empirical
studies and physical modelling. This mainly consists of
performing tests on scale models [3-10]. Because of their
accurgcy, comprehensiveness and quality of results,
some of these works are correctly considered as milestones in the understanding of rockfall phenomenology,
and define the leading criteria for the design of protective
works (particularly fences, nets and ditches).
This type of methodology is undoubtedly valid, but
unfortunately it is expensive and unsuitable for statistical and parametric analysis. Given the huge development of computer technology in the last 15 yr, and the
709

710

AZZONI et al.: ANALYSISOF ROCKFALLS

availability of powerful computers at moderate costs, the

above-mentioned limitations have been overcome using
mathematical models. Nevertheless, experimental
methods are still very important, both for the study
of the phenomenology and the assessment of the relevant physical parameters, not to mention the correct
calibration of the mathematical models.
Analytical computer models can be roughly divided
into two types: those considering the block either with
no mass or with the mass concentrated in one point
(kinematic and lumped mass methods, respectively)
[11-16], and those that consider the block as a body with
its own shape and volume [8, 17-22]. The latter models
are generally better than the former, as they are more
capable of accurately reproducing the different phases of
the fall phenomena. Most programs analyse the falls in
a two-dimensional space, since three-dimensional analysis [19], even if theoretically more accurate, is more
expensive and in most cases unnecessary.
METHODOLOGY FOR ROCKFALL ANALYSIS
According to the above mentioned considerations, in
1987 ISMES and ENEL CRIS started a joint research
program for the study of rockfalls. They set up a
mathematical model, called CADMA, and at the same
time carried out a considerable number of in situ tests,
for the purpose of investigating the principal modalities of rockfalls and to determine the principal parameters involved in the model. The methodology
adopted for setting up the program is expressed in the
flow chart (Fig. 1). The following paragraphs briefly
describe the main characteristics of the mathematical
model (techniques and assumptions) and the in situ
tests.
Mathematical model
To carry out efficient mathematical modelling of a
phenomenon, it is necessary:
(a) to define the characteristics that the model must

L
I

Real ~
physical
system

have, in order to obtain realistic results that are

comparable to experimental observations,
(b) to make certain assumptions that allow less
important elements to be reasonably disregarded.
This is the crucial part of modelling and it will
determine the quality of the model. Careful observation of the physical phenomenon, which can be
monitored by in situ tests, is very important in this
phase of the work.
The main targets of a rockfall model are:
--the assessment of velocities, heights of bounces and
energies achieved during the fall;
--the assessment of maximum run-out distances, in
order to determine the areas at risk.
The CADMA model was developed in 1987 according
to a method established by Bozzolo and Pamini at
the beginning of the 1980s [17, 18]. The model is based
on rigid body mechanics. Its main characteristics and
principal assumptions are:
--Falls analysis in a two-dimensional space.
--Rockfall trajectories are established a priori and
represented as a sequence of straight segments.
Motion kinematics are studied along a vertical
plane, defined by the rotation on a single plane of
all the different vertical planes, including the previously mentioned segments (Fig. 2).
--The fall is composed of different phases, each with
its own characteristics and assumptions.
--Blocks at the point of impact are modelled as
ellipsoidal bodies rotating in a two-dimensional
space around the shorter axis (rotation around the
other axes is neglected) (Fig. 3).
--Block fracturing is not taken into account. This
approach is reasonable for obtaining conservative
results.
--Each block falls along a trajectory not affected by
those of the other blocks.

Experimental tests

Mathematicalmodelof ~ _ ~
the real physicalsystem

Mathematical
model
analysis
No I

Stop

]~

Mathematical .~
synthesisof the
phenomenon "

Fig. 1. Flow-chart showing the steps of the study procedure.

Yes

AZZONI et

ANALYSISOF ROCKFALLS

al.:

711

IDEALIZEDTOPOGRAPHIC
PROFILE

A
TRUE TOPOGRAPHIC
PROFILE

1-I' 2

TRUE
TRAJECTORY

~ ~ ~ -

I PROJECTED
TRAJECTORY

," ' . ,

C'
",,.

Fig. 2. The kinematics of the motion is studied in a vertical plane obtained by rotation into a single plane of all different
vertical planes.

Y
J,

X
Z
Fig. 3. Model of the block at the impact.

The natural variability of some important parameters (such as the shape of the block, the mechanical characteristics of the slope, local slope angle
at impact, detachment area and inclination on the
slope of the trajectory after detachment) requires
that both description and analysis of the phenomena be statistical rather than deterministic. For this
purpose, the model takes into consideration a large
number of falls and adopts random values (chosen
within a previously determined range) for each of
the above-mentioned parameters.

The following sections offer a detailed description of the

characteristics and assumptions of the model, and main
phases of the rockfall (free falling, impact and bouncing,
rolling and sliding).

Free falling. The peculiar characteristic of free fall is

that motion occurs in the air, and therefore without any
contact with the slope. Motion takes place after a rolling
or sliding phase, usually due to a sharp variation in the
slope angle [Fig. 4(a)], or after an impact with the slope
[Fig. 4(b)]. As is the case with most computer models,

Rolling

Free fall
Impact
'.Vm
\
\

',, Free fall

",Freefall

\ IVy

"mpact
a)

~llV
b)

Fig. 4. Different initial conditions for a free falling phase.

712

AZZONI

ef al.:

ANALYSIS

OF ROCKFALLS

CADMA analysis of free fall disregards both the effects

of air friction and of aerodynamic uplift.
Motion in the free falling phase is basically composed
of two different movements: translation of the centre of
mass, that can be analytically described by a quadratic
equation; and the rotation of the block around its centre
of mass. Initial conditions are determined at the instant
the block separates from the slope profile. Likewise, the
impact after the free falling phase is the intersection of
the parabola with the polygonal representing the slope
profile. Some details of the mathematical formulation
are reported in Appendix A.
Impact and bouncing. When the aerial trajectory intersects the slope, an impact takes place and the principal
consequence is a loss in energy of variable importance.
To model the impact phase, it is important to consider
the fact that the internal forces of reaction between two
bodies in collision are far greater than the active external
forces (e.g. the weight). Similarly, the impulse due to the
internal reaction forces is much greater than that due
to the active external forces during the same infinitesimal time interval. The concept is clearly explained in
Fig. 5, where:

X
Fig. 6. Assumptions

for the block at the impact.

the characteristics of motion after impact are heavily

conditioned by the blocks shape, the geometry of the
slope and by the energy dissipated. The latter depends on
the geomechanical characteristics of block and slope, the
collision angle and the configuration of the block at
impact. If we consider that the impact is partially
inelastic, it is possible to simplify the model in line with
the following assumptions:

to+ At
F(t) dt

-the block at impact has an ellipsoidal shape,

+ontact
between block and slope occurs at an
infinitesimal area which can be assumed as point P

s fo
represents the impulse of the active forces

(Fig. 6),

-after
impact a rotation
point.

r,,+Ar

s '0

fO>dt

represents the impulse of contact reactive forces.

The exact determination of these internal forces is very
important but quite difficult to achieve. For engineering purposes, the phenomenon can be satisfactorily
analysed by assuming the validity of conservation
principles (linear and angular momentum).
The experimental analysis of the impact shows that

F(t)

f(t)

t,

At

Fig. 5. Relation between impellingf(f)

time interval corresponding

t
and active F(r) forces in the
to the impact.

takes place around

this

Because of the previous assumptions, namely that the

internal forces predominate over the external ones and
since these forces act on the point P, it is possible to take
the momentum of all forces with regards to this point as
equal to zero. Therefore, it is possible to consider that
the angular momentum at P is conserved during impact.
Details of the mathematical formulation can be found in
Appendix B.
Equation (B8) reported in Appendix B allows evaluation of the restitution coefficient of energy t *. The same
equation shows the importance of carefully assessing
angular velocity (before and after impact), for obtaining
the correct determination of the restitution coefficient.
According to the previous equations, the program calculates the value of c* through which the conservation
principle of angular momentum is valid.
As it is possible for the calculated t * to be greater than
the one observed experimentally L;,,, the latter is considered as the upper boundary of the range of the
calculated 6 *; in this case, angular momentum is not
conserved, and thus gives:
K = L;,, . K, * $02(Z + r)

= Gax Ko

AZZONI et al.:

ANALYSIS OF ROCKFALLS

Another important element in the modelling of the

impact phase is the criterion used to establish whether,
after impact, the block bounces or rolls and slides.
The program compares the value of the normal component of velocity (Vy in the adopted X Y reference
frame), with a value of Vy experimentally assessed (Vy).
If Vy < Vy, the block rolls (or slides). On the contrary,
if Vy > Vy, after impact, the block bounces. The same
criterion is used to assess the transition from rolling to
bouncing, thus allowing for sharp variations of slope
angle along the fall trajectory.

Rolling and sliding. Like wheel motion, the rolling

movement of a falling block is connected to the momentum that occurs at the contact point between the rolling
body and the slope (Appendix C). The situation is quite
simple in the case of the wheel, where a momentum is
caused by the deformability of both the wheel and the
ground (Fig. 7). In the case of the block rolling down the
slope, the situation is more complex, mainly because of
the non-linear behaviour of the materials and the morphological irregularities of the block and the slope,
which bring about the formation of more complex
momenta (Fig. 8). Detailed modelling of the phenomenon would require a very elaborate analysis.
According to experimental observation, usually if
the dimensions of the block are smaller than those
of the irregularities of the slope, the block tends to
make small jumps and slips; if these dimensions are
larger, the block rolls with simultaneous slips at the
points of contact [18]. The mathematical model simplifies all situations of varying complexity, by considering sliding motion in equivalent rolling terms.
This is done by assuming that the block has a circular shape (cylinder, sphere, disc), which is basically a
conservative assumption, and that it rolls on a slope
with rolling friction. This simplification is acceptable, particularly if we consider that sliding is a phenomenon basically limited to the initial and final phases
of the fall.

o,F

a)
-

713

a)

d)

Fig. 8. Simplified sketches showing the influence of morphological

irregularities of the block [(a) and (b)], and the slope [(c) and (d)] on
antagonistic momenta.

Probability analysis. Given the intrinsic variability of

the phenomenon, it is impossible, or at least inaccurate,
to analyse rockfalls using a deterministic model. Therefore, it has been necessary:
(a) to define all the variables within a range centred
on their mean value,
(b) to make a numerical simulation using the Monte
Carlo method, by choosing within the mentioned
range, the values of all the variables at random.

Results and the program graphs. The model analyses

the rockfall trajectories graphs in the considered vertical
section, and at predetermined distances, gives values (in
terms of probability distributions) of the main parameters characterizing the falls (translational and angular velocity, height of the fall trajectory, and energy of
the block). Furthermore, the model allows determination of the block's stopping point along the slope. All
these data are graphically represented by histograms
(Fig. 9).

b)

~03

P3

02

P ~
i

X,

04

Pl = Ps

i X,

C2

o (X)
Fig. 7. Interpretation of the rolling friction coefficient for a wheel.

714

AZZONI et al.: ANALYSIS OF ROCKFALLS

N oo

oo

'

".00

.
e'oo

'.

.
,6oo'

. 2~oo'

3~oo

.4 0 . 0. 0

4. 8 . 0 0

56.00

64.00

72.00

I m)

!
.OO

8.00

16.00

24.00

32.00

VELOCITY

~6.34"

8.63

40.00

48.00

FREQUENCY

10,92 ~ 16.92-" 15.49" 17.78

2~01"

4.42' 2.'83' 3~25' 3166'

V (m/s)
OBSERVATION SECTION X--35.00m

66.00

64 -00

?2.00

Ira)

++
4~07

--.0!

f(Hz)

HEIGHT OF BOUNCE

.67

1.34

2.00

2.66

3.33

H (m)

Fig. 9. Graphic output of the program.

Although it is more directly provided by the program,

the kinetic energy of block during the falls can be easily
calculated with the parameters (velocity, frequency and
mass of the falling blocks) according to equation (B7)
reported in Appendix B.

Experimental method

Experimentation on physical models allows visualization of all the aspects of a phenomenon that, because of
their specific and aleatory character, could be difficult to

AZZONI et al.: ANALYSISOF ROCKFALLS

define and assess with accuracy. Rockfall experimental
models enable us to define the fall modalities, assess the
parameters to be used in the analyses, and to calibrate
the mathematical model. In order to carry out correct
analysis of in situ tests, it is crucial to determine, as
carefully as possible, the following factors:
--topography of the slope, as well as the shape and
dimension of the blocks,
--geological and geomechanical characteristics of the
falling blocks and the slope.
These are the same elements that should be assessed
when carrying out a real case analysis. In this case the
work should be complemented with a geomorphological
study of the slope and a geostructural assessment of the
rock mass, in order to evaluate the most probable falling
paths and physical characteristics of the possible falling
blocks [23,24].
In situ tests are generally carried out using the
following method:
(a) Assessment of the topographical, geomorphological, geological and mechanical characteristics of the
slope and the blocks. The scale of the topographical
survey should be as detailed as possible: usually not
larger than 1:200 for a short slope (tenths of metres
long), where greater accuracy is required, and 1: 1000 for
a long slope (hundreds of metres long). The topographical survey should be able to describe all the relevant
points of the slope with adequate precision (centimetres
in the former case, decimeters in the latter). The topographical survey can be done in various ways. One of
the best is ground photogrammetry, which provides a
remarkable accuracy (on a 50 m high slope, precision to
the order of centimetres is achievable).
(b) Throwing the rocks down the slope. This activity
is usually performed, depending on the size of the blocks,
by hand, by jacks or, more easily when the test is carried
out in a quarry, by an excavator.
(c) Recording the rockfalls. The activity can be performed with video cameras. The experimental tests are
generally carried out using several fixed and moving
video cameras. For short slopes of fewer than 100 m, 3-5
lateral synchronized fixed video cameras are generally
used, together with a lateral moving one. These record
the movement in the vertical plane parallel to the
trajectory. A fixed camera is also set in front of the slope
to record lateral displacement of the rock's trajectory on
the slope.
(d) Elaboration and analysis of the records. These
activities are usually carried out in the following way:
--using specific software, digitizing (both for the
lateral and frontal records) the shape of the falling
block at different instants during the fall and
evaluating the position of the centre of mass of the
block;
--measuring the true distance between points on the
trajectory, in view of the fact that a certain amount

715

of distortion due to non-perpendicularity between

the rockfall plane and the direction of the camera
is practically unavoidable.
---calculating translational and rotational velocities,
and integrating all data gathered in the analysis of
all camera records for best assessment. The time
values used for assessing the velocities are calculated by counting the number of shots taken by the
camera (which works at a velocity of 24 shots/see)
between two relevant positions of the block's centre
of gravity;
----evaluation of the height of bounce along the
whole analysis of in situ tests and assessment of
experimental parameters.

ASSESSMENT OF DYNAMIC PARAMETERS AND

OTHER ELEMENTS RELEVANT TO COMPUTER
ROCKFALL ANALYSIS

To predict the rockfall characteristics through computer analysis, the mechanical characteristics and
geometry of the blocks and slope (topography) are
needed. The former are usually represented not directly,
but through some coefficients which allow the modelling of the amount of energy dissipated during the
various phases of the fall. In particular, the restitution
coefficient expresses the amount of energy dissipated
during the ground impact. This is generally considered to have an elastoplastic behaviour. The rolling
friction coefficient expresses the frictional effect of the
ground on the rolling block.
The block's geometry is usually expressed by its
volume and the ratio between its main axes, while the
topography, once the section for study has been defined,
is described in a profile which should be as detailed as
possible. Besides these elements, the mathematical model
utilized for this research requires the assessment of other
parameters (namely, the modulus and direction of the
starting velocity, and the velocity at which the block
changes its movement from rolling to bouncing and vice
versa). The following sections describe the more relevant
dynamic parameters used in computer analysis and their
assessment [25, 26].
Restitution and rolling friction coefficients

The dynamic coefficients used for the mathematical

analyses, namely the restitution coefficient and the
rolling friction coefficient, were evaluated both through
back-analysis and through the elaboration of in situ
tests carried out at Strozza, Italy. These two different
approaches basically provided similar results [26].
Assessment through back-analysis. The target of backanalysis calibration is the assessment of values for the
dynamic coefficients, by which the program is able to
find values of the main parameters comparable to the
experimentally observed ones. The parameters used for
calibration are velocity, frequency, height of bounce
and run-out distance. The assessment of the restitution coefficient was obtained by taking into account

716

AZZONI et al.:

ANALYSIS OF ROCKFALLS

Table 1. Values of the restitution and rolling friction coefficients adopted for the calibration of the mathematical model

Maximum
restitution coefficient
Block size
Rock (limestone)
Fine angular debris and earth, compacted
(gravel and cobbles, dia < 20 cm)
Fine angular debris and earth, soft
Medium angular debris
with angular rock fragments
(20-40 cm dia)
Medium angular debris with scattered trees
Coarse angular debris
with angular rock fragments
(40-120 cm dia)
Earth with grass and
some vegetation
Ditch with mud
Yard (fiat surface of
artificially compacted ground)
Road

different falls. The values represented in Table 1 correspond to the maximum values of the restitution
coefficient assessed for different geological materials.
The values of rolling friction coefficients were also
evaluated through back-analysis of two different experimental tests, carried out with blocks of different shape
and volume (a prismatic block, of about 1.2m 3 in
volume, and a spherical one of 0.3 m3).
Since the rolling-friction coefficient in this case
depends on the roughness of the slope in relation to the
size of the falling block, two different values (depending on the volume of the blocks) were determined.
Following some tests, it was noted that values obtained
through back analysis alone, yet unconfirmed by other
methods, do not always provide correct results when
used on other slope types (particularly if topography
is not very detailed). For this reason, another method
for the assessment of the restitution coefficient was
established.
Assessment by elaboration of in situ test. The ground's
restitution coefficient was evaluated according to its
more rigorous definition, namely the ratio between the
total energy of the falling block before and after its
impact on the ground. Energies were assessed by

0.754).90
0.554).60

0.3 m 3
0.40-0.45
0.504).60

1.2 m 3
0.40
0.40

0.35-0.45
0.454).50

0.70-0.80
0.60-0.70

0.60-0.70
0.50-0.60

0.40~.50
0.554).70

0.65-1.20

0.60-0.80

0.504).60

0.554).65

0.454).50

0.70-1.00

<0.20
0.504).65

0.85
0.50-0.65

0.75

0.404).45

measuring both rotational and translational block velocities, slope inclination and sizes of the block at impact.
In this way it has been possible to assess that the
maximum restitution coefficient (Emax)ranges on normal
slopes from 0.35 to 0.95, depending on geological conditions (Fig. 10). In this figure, values larger than 1
should be disregarded, since they indicate an increase
of energy (these values are related to some limitations
in the analysis of video records).
Like the previous parameter, the rolling friction
coefficient was assessed both through back analysis
(Table 1) and the elaboration of in situ tests. This
experimental method was set up partially in line with
the concepts proposed by Statham [7]: coefficient
depends on the ratio between the size of the rolling
block (D) and the debris (d), and basically corresponds to the slope angle at which the block moves
with a steady velocity (neither accelerating nor
decelerating) (Fig. 11).
Careful observation of the blocks' velocities at different positions in the fall trajectories and the measurement of the slope angles corresponding to the different
positions of blocks, enabled us to assess rolling friction
coefficients which provide a good match with those

" Reliable value

DEBRIS

oo:o

0.4

Unreliable value ]

lain

BARE ROCK

0.2

Rolling friction coefficient

0.6

O~

0.8

1.2

.4

1.6

1.8

Restitution coefficient

Fig. 10. Restitution coefficient values assessed for impacts on different types of ground (after [26]).

AZZONI et al.: ANALYSISOF ROCKFALLS

717

50
._. 45

40

. . . . . . . . . .

~v 35
~

...........

. . . . .

',

__

. . . . . . .

O r

o;

i
i

. . . . . . . . . . . .

i . . . . . . . . . . .

=,

'
i

A'--

30

< 25
20

15
0.00

..........,
~3-o . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . ~. . . . . . . . . . . ~. . . . . . . . . . . . ,. . . . . . . . . . . . ~O. 10

0.20

0.30

0.40

0.50

diD

Fig. 11. Assessment of rolling friction coefficientand comparison with Statham's values (after [26]). discoidal block,
accelerating; [] discoidal block, decelerating; spheroidal block, accelerating; 0 spheroidal block, decelerating; tabular
block, accelerating; A tabular block, decelerating; columnar block, accelerating; O columnar block, decelerating;
A' = Statham's upper boundary; A" = Statham's lower boundary; B = rolling friction coefficientby back analysis.

obtained through rockfall back-analysis. They are

comparable to those provided by Bozzolo and Pamini
[17, 18] and also to Statham's empirical coefficients. This
method can be used to confirm the values from backanalysis or to find new values, when it is impossible
(or impractical) to carry out complete in situ tests, or
when the coefficients from calibration provide unreliable
results.
The tests used for this assessment also revealed the
important effect that the shape and dimension of the
blocks have on their velocity. As a general trend, in fact,
it is possible to note the progressive increase in rolling
velocity with the increase both in shape parameters and
dimension of the falling blocks. In a relatively small
number of cases the tests also showed that low-shape
coefficient blocks (specially tabular and discoidal types)
behave like spheroidal ones when their velocities are
large enough for them to roll around their minimum axis
("wheel-like" movement) [23].

Starting velocity
Even if the real starting velocity generally equals
zero or is slightly greater, in computer analysis, so as to
" m o v e " the block, it is sometimes necessary to provide
a certain initial velocity (usually 1-3 m/sec), particularly
on rough or low inclination slopes. This parameter is not
so relevant to the general trajectory when the fall starts
from a steep wall, since here the velocity is much more
influenced by the effect of the force of gravity. In some
real cases, it is useful to use a certain starting velocity,
such as when only the profile of the lower part of the
slope closest to the threatened area is available.

Threshold velocity between rolling and bouncing

As already mentioned, the program simulates the fall
as a sequence of different phases, each of which is
separately simulated and analysed. Passage from one
type of motion to another depends mainly on the
topography (e.g. profile irregularities produce bounces).
Simulation of the different phases not only depends on
topography; it also owes much to "threshold of the

normal component of the velocity". Below this

threshold, the program does not allow block bouncing
and therefore analyses the fall as a rolling phase. This
value has been assessed through back-analysis and
usually ranges from between 1 and 1.5 m/sec.

Choice of the trajectory

The choice of the rockfall trajectory to be studied is
crucial when using a two-dimensional program. Choice
is usually decided according to the following criteria:
- - T h e trajectory tends to follow the steeper line of the
slope, and depends heavily on its topographic
characteristics. Experience gathered from observation of experimental falls and case histories is
an important tool for choosing reasonably
representative trajectories.
- - T h e conservative strategy of considering trajectories
that present the greatest risk, though less probably,
should always be adopted.
A considerable aid in deciding which trajectory to study
comes from in situ tests [26]. By defining the "dispersion"
of the trajectories as the ratio between the distances
separating the two extreme fall paths (i.e. the trajectory
furthest to the left and to the right, when looking at
the slope face) and the length of the slope, the in situ
tests showed that this parameter is about 20%, unless
topographical constraints (e.g. valleys) reduce this value.
Furthermore, the same tests also showed that steeper
slopes have smaller dispersions (Fig. 12).

CALIBRATION

AND COMPUTER

MODEL

RESULTS

Effect of topography on the computer based rockfall

evaluation
Topography is a key factor in evaluating the dynamic
parameters, since it affects both falling blocks velocities
and heights of bounce. Unfortunately, high costs and
complex logistics, mean most rockfall computer analyses

718

A Z Z O N I et al.:

ANALYSIS OF ROCKFALLS

Slope top

Slope top

Rock f o i l / / , \ I
oreo / ,
\
/

I
Limits of r o c k / (
,fell/..
/..

"

='k
t

"

t'

I-

,~/

10000
i

"~
V

. . . . . .

1000

,--l - - - - - -

.........

-*-

"1

f7

i
1

'
r

"I

['1

1
I

,- . . . . . . . . .

:::::c::~:::

,-_

i '1"

I
.

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

: : = :'' ~ : : " . . . . . . .

J-J-L~JJ
i

. . . . .

-- T

-- ~

-- ~

-- r

. . . . .

T--i-

' I

r-

7-

d . . . . . .

LLI

I. . . . . .
I

25-30*

~ - - . 0

-F_l_

i i

T~_I_Iq

r - - 7 - - r -i-

- : : 3 : 2 _ - i : : [ -- [ 3 = r
J__II__L_LJ_LL

I '-- -- '-- ~ 7 --III .

i
i

. . . . .

~ - - - i - - ~ - r

i i

'l--

i i i

i i i

i ~

I i /

100

6 0

~ _ ~ r r l

>

10

"t - 1 - 1 - 1 -

50-60*

[E

i
t
i
i i
, - - T - r - i - i - r r
i
i
I
i i

I I

Slone annie

J _ _1_ _1_ ~ J _ l _ l _

T. - - .I - . . 7 .- r . . " I 7 7

--

1l

. . . . . . . . . . . . .

~- :,- ~: czt~' ======================

I--

--=--:-=aZ_---,;;~-_-c~_:ccc

-~ . . . . .
I

[ - [ 7 - - F F

.t

--'1
I

. . . . .

'
I

& .....

:I:=;::"

- - - - ]

I'l
I

" ...................

I. . . . . . . . . . . . .

100

a.....

c~!:::::r::~::c:,:z~-:,

F ...................
. . . . . .

1 7 7 " - -

T777

T--I-q-F~777

r-r

7-rrr

1000

Distance between fall paths (m)

Fig. 12. Sketch of a typical slope used for rockfall tests (front and side view), and relation between the maximum distance
separating the fall paths at the bottom of the slope (D) and the length of the slope (L) (after [26]).

are performed on slope profiles surveyed with low detail.

In view of the fact that low topographical detail corresponds to greater profile smoothness, it is important to
determine the margin of the error involved in this
approximation.
An assessment of the relevancy of topographical detail
for the computer results has been carried out by performing the same analysis on the same slope surveyed
with 152, 79, 43, 25 and 16 points, respectively, and by
comparing the analysis results among themselves and
with those obtained from an experimental test performed with a block of the same characteristics (Fig. 13)
[25]. The test enabled us to make the following main
observations:
- - A progressive increase in smoothness corresponds
both to an increase in calculated fall velocity and
frequency of rotation, and to a decrease in height
of bounce. This result is conservative in respect
of fall energy, but not height of bounce, even
though the experimental value still fell within the
range calculated by the computer analysis. When
analysing rockfalls with low detail topographical
surveys, it is thus advisable to design higher fences
(rather than stronger) than those hypothesized by
the computer.
--Detailed topography is necessary. In particular,
detail is especially important in sections where the

block bounces and rolls; where free fall is the

prevailing motion type, a less accurate survey is
acceptable. The most favourable topography is that
surveyed at intervals similar to block dimensions,
since the smaller asperities can already be satisfactorily taken into consideration by the rolling
friction coefficient. When such detailed topography
is not feasible, there should be at least surveys
made of all the relevant points of the slope (corresponding to significant changes in slope angle) and
some points taken at reasonable intervals (not
greater than 20-50 m).
--When a special topographical survey is not available, the maps used for drawing slope profiles
should not be scaled at lower detail that 1:200
and 1:1000 for short (tenths of metres) and long
(hundreds of metres) slopes, respectively.

Optimal number of simulations

Dimensions of the output files and time required for
the CADMA rockfall computer analysis increase as
detail increases or when, because of uncertainties about
input data, parametric analyses are required. In view of
this, it is important and useful to ascertain the minimum
number of simulations required to provide statistically
valid results [25].
To determine this, the program was run with 20, 50,
100 and 200 falls and the respective results were then

VELOCITY (m/s)
ABCDE

24

ABCDE

ABCDE

ABCDE

ABCDE

I I l l l

~16

.......

--:.:

_ _

--i--

~ &

16
24
29
DISTANCE OF OBSERVATION POINT (m)

ABCDE

ABCDE

35

IBOUNCE HEIGHT (m)

ABCDE

ABCDE

ABCDE

I
I

I
I

E'~-6
I"1O

AAAAA

~3

......................

"1-

~i~ .... ii~

i

AAA~A

l #

Ill

il 1

16
24
29
DISTANCE OF OBSERVATION POINT (m)

35

FREQUENCY (Hz)
ABCDE

ABCDE

ABCDE

ABCDE

ABCDE

._.3
i

.
~

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

z
i

IJ.

I I I

tit

#####

iII

-._

_. .................

AAAAA

__llll
II
I[

z~;~Z

tl

....

t*l
II

I I

A AAA~

Ii-0

16
24
29
DISTANCE OF OBSERVATION POINT (m)

- Computer max.
value

- Computer min.
value

35

Computer mean
value

* Computer modal A Exp. value

value
Fig. 13. Effect o f topographical detail on the results o f the mathematical rockfall analysis: A = Slope profile with 152 points;
B = Slope profile with 79 points; C = Slope profile with 43 points; D = Slope profile with 25 points; E = Slope profile with
16 points.

;':::.~......

SLOPE A

SLOPE B

...."

R~ck
40

40

'~':,~
30

' r,ne

'"

,'~,.J Compacted

Fineangular debrisand earth

30

-~,;~%
.~/k

'";~:'~'~'~.~. ":~"

Rock

Medium angular debris,

20

20

; i}k~Fine-medium angular
:-'%'~ debris, loose
'; " i " : ~ / d i t c h
~-i;~ (
yard

10

10

20

30

40

- ";'k~

loose

10

Coarse angular debris,

,'o

2'o

Fig. 14. Topographical profiles of the test slopes (after [26]).

RMMS 32/7--(3

debt, s, c o m p o c , e d

angu,ar

719

go

l'~: ~
;o

5'~

720

AZZONI et al.:

ANALYSIS OF ROCKFALLS

compared amongst themselves and with the experimental data. The tests showed that analyses with 100 and 200
simulations were positive and totally similar, while
analyses with 20 falls were inaccurate. The results of the
tests performed with 50 falls were basically similar to
those with 100 simulations, but 50% faster. Thus, this
number of simulations is considered advisable when
dealing with detailed slope profiles or parametric analyses. In fact, for a slope about 60 m long, described with
approx. 170 points, an analysis carried out with 50
simulations took about 8 min on a 386 PC and produced
an output file of about 1.2 Mbytes. The same analysis,
run with 100 simulations, required about 17min for
calculations with a resulting output file of about 2.3

Mbytes. Using a 486 PC, the same analyses took about

a third to a quarter less time.

CONCLUSION

A mathematical model was used to analyse and

predict rockfall trajectories on two different slopes,
where in situ tests had been performed. The analyses
were carried out using dynamic coefficients values
specifically determined for this program. A list of
suggested values, as evaluated by an elaboration of in
situ tests and through back-analysis of the tests and
real rockfalls, is presented in Table 1. These values,

VELOCITY (m/s)
24.0

E 16.0
0
o
8.0
.._1
m
0.0
7.0

16.0

24.0

29.0

35.0

DISTANCE OF OBSERVATION POINT (m)

BOUNCE HEIGHT (m)

9.0

?
E 6.0
T

(3

~'~ 3.0
"1"
0.0
7.0

16.0

24.0

29.0

35.0

DISTANCE OF OBSERVATION POINT (m)

FREQUENCY (Hz)
9.0
T
v

>" 6.0
O
Z
UJ
O 3.0
UJ
rY
LL
0.0

7.0

16.0

24.0

29.0

35.0

DISTANCE OF OBSERVATION POINT (m)

-- Computer av. max.
& min. value

Computer av.
mean value

4. Computer av.
modal value

O Av. experimental
value

O Max. experimental
value

Computer max.
value

Fig. 15. Comparison between the computer analysis results and the experimental data, for slope A.

AZZONI et al.:

ANALYSIS OF ROCKFALLS

even if correct overall (for a rolling block of up to

1 m3), should be used by taking into account all the
observations and criteria discussed in the previous
paragraphs.
With regard to the computer analysis results, a comparison between experimental and calculated values of
height of bounce, velocity and frequency of rotation for
two different slopes at Strozza quarry (Fig. 14) are
shown in Figs 15 and 16. The diagrams also highlight the
relation between experimental values (maximum and
average values of 15 falls for each slope) and the values
provided by the computer analysis (for each slope,
average value of the maximum, minimum, mean and
modal values; and the overall maximum calculated
value). These values were assessed at specific observation
points placed at critical positions on the slopes.
From these results it is possible to draw the following
conclusions:
Translational and rotational velocity and energy. The
program is generally able to make correct (or at least
acceptable) predictions of these parameters. In particular, the experimental velocity generally falls within

the range of the predicted values and is always

described satisfactorily b y the mean and the modal
values.
Height of bounce. If the topographical input is good,
the program is generally able to find correct results for
this parameter. In the sections beneath the steep rock
slopes, it tends to slightly underestimate the values,
though in this case a possible inaccuracy in the experimental values due to over-estimation should be taken
into account.
Run-out distance. The program provides acceptable
results for this parameter. In particular, the stopping
effect of a ditch full of muddy water was also simulated
correctly in view of the fact that this ditch stopped over
80% of the falling blocks.
The program is simple to run and provides clear and
easily read graphical outputs, such as tables with all the
numbers generated by the calculations, slope profiles
with fall trajectories, as well as histograms of velocities,
frequency of rotation, height of bounce and stopping
distances. Now that calibration has been completed,
the program is currently undergoing slight changes,

V E L O C I T Y (m/s)
20.0

15.0

E
---- 10.0
D

._1
LU
>

....... IIIIIIIIIIZIIIIIIIIIIil ..............

5.0

0.0
40.0

54.0

DISTANCE OF OBSERVATION POINTS (m)

BOUNCE HEIGHT (m)

2.0
1.6

" " 1.2

I"1-

-~
0.8
I.U
"I"

0.4

c
i

0.0

40.0

L
54.0

DISTANCE OF OBSERVATION POINTS (m)

= Computer av. max. &
min. value

O Av. experimental
value

Computer max.
value

721

Computer av. modal

value

Computer av. mean

value
O Max. experimental
value

Fig. 16. Comparison between the computer analysis results and the experimental data, for slope B.

722

AZZONI et al.: ANALYSIS OF ROCKFALLS

B O U N C E H E I G H T (m)

V E L O C I T Y (m/s)

25

20
v

15

o,

lo

>

16

24

29

35

DISTANCE OF
OBSERVATION POINT (m)
- Computer
max & min.

Computer
mean value

16

24

29

35

DISTANCE OF
OBSERVATION POINT (m)
Computer
modal value

o Experimental
value

value
Fig. 17. Comparison between the results of the computer back-analysis and the experimental data for roekfall No. 26.
to further improve output data and render
u s e r - f r i e n d l y f o r all r o c k fall s p e c i a l i s t s .

it m o r e

Accepted for publication 15 January 1995.

REFERENCES
1. Spang R. M. Protection against rockfalls---stepchild in the
design of rock slopes. Proceedings of 6th Int. Congress on Rock
Mechanics, Montreal, Canada, pp. 551-557 (1987).
2. Richards L. R. Rockfall protection: a review of current analytical
and design methods. Secondo Ciclo di Conferenze di Meccanica e
Ingegneria delle Rocce, MIR, Politecnico di Torino, pp. 11.1-11.13
(1986).
3. Ritchie R. M. Evaluation of rockfalls and its control. Highways
Res. Record. 17, 14-28 (1963).
4. Camponuovo G. F. ISMES experience on the model of St.
Martino. Proc. Meet. Rockfall Dynamics Protective Works
Effectiveness 90, 25-39 (1977).
5. Broili L. Relations between scree slope morphometry and dynamics of accumulation processes. Proc. Meet. Roekfall Dynamics
Protective Works Effectiveness 90, 11-24 (1977).
6. Habib P. Notes sur le robondissement des blocs rocheux. Proc.
Meet. Rockfall Dynamics Protective Works Effectiveness 90,
123-125 (1977).
7. Statham I. A simple dynamic model of rockfall: some theoretical
principles and field experiments. International Colloquium on
Physical and Geomechanical Models, pp. 237-258 (1979).
8. Falcetta J. L. Etude cynematique et dynamique de chute de blocs
rocheux. Th~se, INSA, Lyon (1985).
9. Chan Y. C., Chan C. F. and Au W. C. Design of a boulder fence
in Hong Kong. Conference on Rock Engineering in an Ubran
Environment, Inst. Min. Metall., Hong Kong, pp. 87-96 (1986).
10. Mak N. and Blomfield D. Rock trap design for pre-splitting slopes.
Conference on Rock Engineering in an Urban Evironment, Inst.
Min. Metall., Hong Kong, pp. 263-270 (1986).
11. Piteau D. R. Computer rockfall model. Commun. Proc. Meet.
Rockfall Dynamics Protective Works Effectiveness 90, 123-125
(1977).
12. Hacar B., Bollo F. and Hacar R. Bodies falling down on different
slopes. Dynamic studies. Proc. 9th Int. Conf. Soil Mech. Found
Engng 2, 91-95 (1977).
13. Azimi C., Desvarreux P., Giraud A. and Martin Cocher J.
Methode de calcul de la dynamique des chutes de blocks.
Application ~ l'Otude du versant de la montagne de la Pale
(Vercors), Bull. liaison Labo P. et Ch. 122, 93-102 (1982).
14. Hock E. A program in Basic for the analysis of rockfalls from
slopes. Unpublished notes (1987).
15. Hungr O. and Evans S. G. Engineering evaluation of fragmental
rockfall hazard. Proceedings of the 5th International Symposium on
Landslides, Lausanne, pp. 685~590 (1988).

16. Paronuzzi P. Probabilistic approach for design optimisation of

rockfall protective barriers. Quarterly J. Engng Geol. 22, 135-146
(1989).
17. Bozzolo D. and Pamini R. Modello matematico per lo studio
della caduta dei massi. Laboratorio di Fisica Terrestre-ICTS,
Lugano-Trevano (1982).
18. Bozzolo D. and Pamini R. Simulation of Rock Falls down a valley
side. Acta Mech. 63, 113-130 (1986).
19. Descoeudres F. and Zimmermann T. Three-dimensional dynamic
calculation of rockfalls. Proceedings o f the 6th International
Congress on Rock Mechanics, Montreal, pp. 337-342 (1987).
20. Rochet L. Application des modeles numeriques de propagation a
l'etude des eboulements rocheux. Bull liaison Labo P. et Ch.
1501151, 84-95 (1987).
21. Spang R. M. and Rautenstrauch R. W. Empirical and mathematical approaches to rockfall protection and their practical
application. Proceedings of the 5tb International Symposium on
Landslides, Lausanne, pp. 1237-1243 (1988).
22. Pfeiffer T. J. and Bowen T. D. Computer simulation of rockfalls.
Bull. Ass. Engng Geol. XXVl, 135-146 (1989).
23. Azzoni A., Drigo E., Giani G. P., Rossi P. P. and Zaninetti A.
In situ observation of rockfall analysis. Proceedings of the 6th
International Symposium on Landslides, Christchurch, pp. 307-314
(1992).
24. Giani G. P. Rock Slope Stability Analysis, p. 361. Balkema,
Rotterdam (1992).
25. Azzoni A. Methods for predicting rockfalls. M.Sc. dissertation, Imperial College of Science, Technology and Medicine,
Department of Engineering Geology, London (1993).
26. Azzoni A. and de Freitas M. H. Prediction of rockfall trajectories with the aid of in situ tests. Rock Mech. Rock Engng.
Submitted.
APPENDIX A
In the assumed OXY reference frame (Fig. AI), the components of the
acceleration are:
a.,.(t) = 0
ax(t) = - g .

(A1)

The initial conditions are as follows, denoting the components of the

initial velocity V(to) at time to as:
VAt0) = V0x
V,,(to) = Vow.

(A2)

and the co-ordinates of the initial position of the center of mass at time
to by:
X(to) = XA
Y(to) = YA + ho"

(A3)

After integrating equations (A1) over time:

x ( t ) = vo,." (t - to) + XA
Y(t)= - ~ ' g '(t -- to)2 + Voy"(t - - t o ) + ( Y A + h o )

(A4)

AZZONI et al.: ANALYSIS OF ROCKFALLS

723

X
Fig. AI. Definition of the free falling problem in an assumed O X Y reference frame.

obtaining (t - to) from the first equation of (A4) and substituting it

into the second one, the following equation is obtained:

Then:
V x ~ (d)z d r

V0,

Y(t) = - - 2 " V ~ ' [ X ( t ) -- XA]2 + I:~x'[X(t) -- XA] + (YA + h0)

(AS)

V,, = -

Applying the principle of the conservation of the angular momentum over the infinitesimal time interval, before and after the impact
(Fig. B1), the following relation can be written:

1.~oo+Vo~'d,-Vo~..d~=l.co+V~.d,.-L.d~

(al)

where: dy = }Io- Yp and dx = X o - Xp

I = moment of inertia of the block about the centre of mass
co0, co = angular velocities before and after the impact
V0x, Iz~ = x components of velocity before and after the impact
Voy; V,, = y componcnts of velocity before and after the impact.
Assuming that a rotational motion about the contact point P takes
place after the impact (Fig. 6), the velocity of the center of mass can
be obtained as follows:
V = to x r = to x PG.

(B4)

V = c o " d y . i - c o 'd~'j = V,'i+ V,.'j.

which corresponds to the equation of a parabola.

APPENDIX

coz . de

assuming co = coz:
(B5)

Since Yo > YP is always thc casc, then V~ is always > 0.

As for dx, it could be less, equal or greater than 0, depending on the
position of the center of mass G with respect to the contact point P
(Fig. B2). Three different possibilities can occur:
(a) XG > Xp ~ d, > 0 ~ V y < 0 [Fig. B2(a)]
(b) XG = Xp = d, = 0 ~ Vx = 0 [Fig. B2(b)]
(c) X o < Xp ~ d~ < 0 ~ V,.> 0 [Fig. B2(c)].
Obviously if Vv<~0 bounces can not occur. In this case, the
possibilityof a second impact has been introduced. In this way the
block assumes a symmetric position with rcspcct to the previous onc,
and thus Vy bccomcs positive.
Substitutingequations (84) into the right hand side of the cquation
(Bl), the following equation can be obtained:
~o =

1 coo+Vo~'dy-Vo,.'d~
"
"
I + d2~+ d~

(86)

(B2)

and P G = ( X G - X p ) . i + ( Y o - Y p ) .

Since t o = O - i + O . j - o ~ . k
j+O.k

~
V = to

x PG =

0/"

(xo - xp)

f0
( r o - Y~)

-co~

CASEa):Xa'>X"

= n ~ ' ( Y o - Y v ) ' i - c o z . ( X o - - X v ) " j.

(83)

~',~o

( ~ ) ~

(~)~

7,

CASEb):x,~:x~

CASE ): X~ < X e

~0 ( ~

x
Fig. BI. Configuration of the block before and after the impact.

e_

II I

Fig. 82. Different possibilities for the block at the impact.

724

A Z Z O N I et al.:

ANALYSIS OF ROCKFALLS

The components of the velocity after the impact can be determined by

substituting the value of co, calculated with the previous equation, into
the equation (B4). The total kinetic energy for the unit mass after the
impact can be calculated by the following equation:
K = ~. (I" co2 + V~. + V,2,) = ~" co2. (I + d~ + d~) = " co2. (I + r2).

(B7)
Therefore, it is possible to evaluate a coefficient of restitution of energy
with the following relation:
K
Q~
co2
co "Q0
E*
( / + r 2) =
(B8)
K o 2 ' K o - ( l + r 2) 2 . K o
2-K o
within (0~<E* < l) where:
Qo = I " coo + Vo.,=" ~, - Voy " d,.

K0 = total kinetic energy before impact.

APPENDIX

The dynamic equilibrium equations of the rigid body, in the assumed

reference frame (Fig. CI), are as follows:
f

0=N-m'g'cos~t
m XG = m - g . sina - T

d28
I.~-~=

(C1)

X~

Fig. C1. Definition of the rolling problem in the assumed O X ' Y '
reference frame.

T. R-N.a.
1

X o ( t ) = ~" A "g 'cos ~ ' (tan ct - tan eke)" t 2 + Yr,(to)" t + XG(tO).

The 3rcl equation can be rewritten as:

(C2c)

I.-~=T.R-N.~

Equation (C2a) shows that three different situations can be possible:

-~.i'~+N.~.

T _I

X~ = 0 when tan ~d = tan ~ ~ uniform rolling motion with constant

velocity
.~.~ < 0 when tan 4~d> tan a ~ uniformly decelerated rolling motion
X~ > 0 when tan 4~d < tan ~ = uniformly accelerated rolling motion.

From the first equation N = m . g .cos ~t then:

I
T = - ~ " ~G + m " g " cs ~ R

Obtaining t from equation (C2b):

Substituting this equation into the second one of (C1):

~G=

m I ' g " ( sin a - cos e R ) .

m+~
m
-

m+~

(C3)

Substituting equation (C3) in to (C2c), the velocity of the block during

the rolling or sliding motion can be determined with the following
equation:

Defining
A = -

XG(t) -- ,~'o(t0)
t = A ' g ' cos at' (tan ~t -- tan ~bd)'

(C2)

I
)~o(t) = x / 2 ' A ' g 'cos =- (tan ~ - tan ~bd). [XG(t) -- X~(t0)] + ~ ( t 0 ) .

and #r = ~ / R = tan So is defined as the Rolling Friction coefficient.

Equation (C2) can be rewritten as follows:
-~o = A g . cos ~t (tan ~t - tan 4~a)-

(C2a)

(C4)
From equation (C4), the rolling friction coefficient can be determined
as:

The integration of differential equation (C2a) gives:

)/'~ (t) = A .g .cos a - ( t a n ct - tan Sd)" t + gG (t0)

(C2b)

#, = tan q~a = tan ~

[?(~ (t) -- )f~ (t o)]

2. A .g .cos ~ "[Xo(t)-- X~(t0)]"

(C5)