Rock Mech Rock Eng (2016) 49:2865–2922
DOI 10.1007/s00603-016-0918-z
BOOKREVIEW
Qualitative Rockfall Hazard Assessment: A Comprehensive
Review of Current Practices
F. Ferrari1 • A. Giacomini1 • K. Thoeni1
Received: 12 June 2015 / Accepted: 16 January 2016 / Published online: 22 February 2016
 Springer-Verlag Wien 2016
Abstract Rockfall phenomena represent a major hazard
in mountainous areas because they can cause severe dam-
age to infrastructure and buildings as well as serious
injuries and fatalities. Rockfalls do not pose the same level
of economic risk as large-scale landslides, yet they are
responsible for a similar number of accidents and fatalities.
Therefore, appropriate land-use planning is necessary to
protect people, buildings and facilities from rockfall haz-
ards. Over the last two decades, several methodologies
have been proposed to assess rockfall hazards, identify
potentially dangerous areas (i.e., rock cliffs with failure-
prone blocks) and provide guidelines for choosing and
installing the most appropriate mitigation measures. This
paper provides a comprehensive review of the existing
rockfall hazard assessment methodologies. In particular,
the review focuses on qualitative methods that allow a
rapid evaluation of a rockfall hazard without costly and
time-consuming numerical simulations. The most com-
monly adopted methodologies in Europe and North
America are described and critically analyzed to highlight
their differences and similarities and to identify their pri-
mary advantages, limitations and fields of application.
Keywords Rockfall  Hazard assessment  Qualitative
methods  Zoning
& F. Ferrari
federica.ferrari1984@gmail.com
1
Centre for Geotechnical and Materials Modelling, Newcastle,
Australia
1 Introduction
Rockfalls are classified as a type of landslide that consists
of the detachment of a rock block (or several individual
rocks) from a vertical or sub-vertical cliff followed by
rapid down-slope motion characterized by free-falling,
bouncing, rolling and sliding phases (Varnes 1978).
Rockfalls are extremely rapid processes and can travel long
distances (Cruden and Varnes 1996). Even though rockfalls
have a lower level of economic risk than large-scale
landslides, the high velocities associated with rockfalls
result in a similar number of fatalities (on the same order of
magnitude) as the number of people killed by all other
landslide types (Hoek 2000). When a rockfall event occurs,
a person is usually unable to take evasive action due to the
high velocity. Hence, the risk of injury and loss of life is
extremely high (Lambert and Nicot 2011). Consequently,
rockfall events are a major cause of landslide fatalities,
even when elements with a low degree of exposure are
involved, such as traffic along highways (Bunce et al.
1997). In addition to fatalities, rockfalls can also cause
severe damage to buildings, infrastructure and lifelines.
A simple and efficient way to reduce potential future
damage from natural hazards is to improve land manage-
ment through rigorous land-use planning based on hazard
zoning maps (Cascini 2008). Hazard zoning maps are
important for the prioritization and selection of appropriate
mitigation measures (Raetzo et al. 2002; Fell et al. 2005;
Hungr et al. 2005). The use of hazard mapping and zoning
techniques has become fundamental to land management
planning for two main reasons. First, population growth
leads to urban sprawl and a consequent increase in the
number of at-risk areas. Second, the recent pronounced
climatic changes have drastically increased the frequency
of rockfall events (Ravanel and Deline 2011).
123
2866
Zoning consists of dividing a region into homogeneous
zones that are ranked on the basis of the potential level of
rockfall hazard. These zones, which are represented on
maps by different colors or textures, are directly related to
land-use planning regulations (including restrictions) that
are associated with specific urban developments. Landslide
zoning maps can be classified into susceptibility, hazard
and risk maps.
Although the scientific literature presents several gen-
eral guidelines and recommendations for landslide hazard
assessment and risk zoning (Varnes 1984; Cascini et al.
2005; Corominas et al. 2008, 2014; Fell et al. 2008; Van
Westen et al. 2008), only a few standard methodologies
specifically focus on rockfall hazards. In most cases,
landslide zoning guidelines are also used to address rock-
fall hazards; only Switzerland (OFAT et al. 1997) and
Andorra (Copons et al. 2004) have proposed specific
national guidelines and legislated standards that link
rockfall hazards to local urban development.
Based on the size of the study area, landslide zoning can
be performed at different scales, including national
(\1:250,000), regional (1:25,000–1:250,000), local
(1:5000–1:25,000) and site-specific (1:5000–1:1000)
scales. Each scale requires a different degree of detail and
accuracy in the input data, and the resulting maps are
suitable for different purposes. National and regional
zoning maps refer to areas greater than 1000 km2. They
provide a general indication of the problem in the area of
investigation (Soeters and Van Westen 1996) but do not
distinguish the landslide type. Local and site-specific maps
focus on smaller areas. They provide additional details,
such as the type of landslide (in this case, rockfalls), and
often include stability and runout analyses. Local and site-
specific scales are typically used for land-use planning
regulations. The former have practical applications in the
planning of urban development, warning systems and
emergency plans, whereas the latter are especially useful
for site-specific investigations related to engineering pro-
jects (Corominas et al. 2014).
The scale of zoning and the features of the available data
contribute to the selection of the most appropriate hazard
method. Three main hazard zoning categories have been
proposed in the scientific literature: basic, intermediate and
sophisticated methods. These methods utilize heuristic or
empirical procedures, statistical analyses and deterministic
methods, respectively.
The zoning accuracy varies for each category and
depends on the available resources. Zoning can be con-
ducted at a preliminary, intermediate or advanced level
(Fell et al. 2008). At national and regional scales, only
preliminary zoning can be performed. Preliminary zoning
is generally used to delineate potentially dangerous areas
using rough input data and basic methods. These methods
123
F. Ferrari et al.
do not involve a large amount of resources. Hence, they are
not excessively time-consuming (Lambert and Nicot 2011).
Both basic and statistical methods can be used at local
scales and lead to basic and intermediate levels of zoning,
respectively. Because the site-specific scale is suitable for
every method, all three levels of zoning can be achieved.
Basic and intermediate methods are more widely used in
common practice than the other methods due to cost
restrictions and the small amount of data required (Fell
et al. 2008).
Qualitative or quantitative procedures can be used to
distinguish between hazard classes. The former require less
data but are subjective and use descriptive terms or
numerical rating scales. Quantitative procedures are based
on numerical values or probabilities of the occurrence of
the studied phenomena in the hazard zone (Guzzetti et al.
1999).
Whether a qualitative or quantitative approach is more
suitable depends on the nature of the problem and on the
required accuracy in accordance with the quality and
quantity of the available data (Dai et al. 2002). The choice
between qualitative and quantitative hazard descriptors is
strictly related to the available dataset and does not depend
on the complexity of the methods that are used to define the
hazard (Cascini 2008). When feasible, the quantitative
approach is preferred for both susceptibility and hazard
zoning (Fell et al. 2008). Nonetheless, over large areas
where both the quality and quantity of data are typically
insufficient to perform a reliable quantitative analysis, a
qualitative hazard assessment may be more applicable
(Corominas and Mavrouli 2011).
Although risk analysis, and hence rockfall hazard
assessment, has generally shifted from qualitative to
quantitative in recent years (Fell et al. 2005; Mavrouli
2011), the detailed data and/or economic resources
required for the quantitative procedures are not always
available. Under these conditions, a qualitative hazard
assessment may be more suitable for large areas where the
quality and quantity of data are too scarce for a quantitative
analysis.
A qualitative analysis can be used as a first screening
step to identify critical slopes or zones that require more
detailed site-specific quantitative hazard (or risk) assess-
ment. The choice of the most suitable qualitative method-
ology from those proposed in the scientific literature is
important because the chosen method is responsible for
identifying the most hazardous zones that require a detailed
quantitative analysis.
Over the last four decades, many methodologies that
qualitatively assess rockfall hazards have been proposed in
the scientific literature. However, a comprehensive classi-
fication does not exist. This paper summarizes and
describes the most popular methodologies for qualitative
Qualitative Rockfall Hazard Assessment: A Comprehensive Review of Current Practices
rockfall hazard assessment at the local and site-specific
scales and provides useful guidelines for applying them to
different environments by describing their advantages and
limitations.
2 General Definitions
No broad consensus exists in the scientific literature
regarding the definitions of susceptibility, hazard and risk.
These terms have often been used interchangeably in
landslide zoning maps. The definitions that were proposed
by the Joint Technical Committee on landslides and engi-
neered slope (Fell et al. 2008) will be used in this paper and
are given below.
The probability is a measure of the degree of certainty. It
ranges from zero (for impossible events) to 1 (for certain
events) and provides an estimate of the likelihood of the
magnitude or the occurrence of an uncertain future event.
Two primary interpretations of the probability exist: sta-
tistical frequency, which is objective, and subjective
probability, which depends on the judgement of the prac-
titioner and is, thus, affected by the epistemic uncertainty
(i.e., state of knowledge).
The frequency is the mean number of events that occur
during a given period of time.
The susceptibility is a quantitative or qualitative
assessment of the classification, magnitude (i.e., volume),
and spatial distribution of the potential or observed land-
slides in a defined area. The susceptibility may also include
an estimate of the travel distance and intensity (e.g.,
velocity and/or energy) of the event. Although landslides
are expected to occur more frequently in the most sus-
ceptible areas, susceptibility analyses do not explicitly take
time into account.
The hazard is the probability of the occurrence of a
phenomenon of a given magnitude that has the potential for
generating an undesirable result. The description of a
landslide hazard should include the location of the event
and its classification, an estimate of the observed and/or
potential volume that is involved in the event, its velocity
and runout and the probability of occurrence over a given
period of time. However, Corominas et al. (2014) sug-
gested describing the hazard by taking into consideration
not only the magnitude of the event (in terms of area or
volume) but also its corresponding magnitude of damage.
In other words, a large creeping landslide, even though it
involves a huge volume, would cause less damage than a
rockfall, which, although smaller in size, has the capacity
to cause significant damages and even fatalities due to its
higher motion velocity (Corominas et al. 2014).
The elements at risk are the things that may be affected
or damaged by the occurrence of a potentially hazardous
2867
event, such as the population, buildings, engineering
works, economic activities, public service utilities, infras-
tructure or environmental resources that are located in the
area that is affected by the hazard.
The vulnerability is the degree of loss of the elements at
risk within the area affected by the landslide. Vulnerability
ranges between 0 (no loss) and 1 (total loss).
The risk is a measure of the probability and severity of
an adverse effect to health, property or the environment. It
is defined as the outcome or potential outcome of the
occurrence of a landslide and is expressed qualitatively or
quantitatively in terms of loss, disadvantage or gain,
damage, injury or loss of life. According to Corominas
et al. (2014), the risk (R) for a single landslide scenario is
calculated as:
    
R ¼ PðMi Þ  P Xj jMi  P T Xj  Vij  C; ð1Þ
where P(Mi) is the probability of occurrence of a landslide
of magnitude Mi, P(Xj|Mi) is the probability of the landslide
reaching a point located at a distance X from the landslide
source with an intensity j, P(T|Xj) is the probability of the
element being at the point X at the time of occurrence of
the landslide, Vij is the vulnerability of the element to a
landslide of magnitude i and intensity j, and C is the value
of the element at risk.
3 Rockfall Hazard
In rockfall terminology, the rockfall hazard refers to the
probability of occurrence of an event (rockfall) of a given
magnitude (volume) or intensity (energy) over a predefined
period of time and within a given area (Varnes 1984; Fell
1994; Fell and Hartford 1997; Guzzetti et al. 1999; Crosta
et al. 2001). This definition includes the concepts of loca-
tion (where a rockfall event will occur), frequency (i.e., its
temporal recurrence) and magnitude or intensity (i.e.,
amount of energy involved). Thus, the simplest rockfall
hazard map should describe the probability of occurrence
of rockfalls of a predefined magnitude within a given area
(Crosta and Agliardi 2003). Because of the high mobility of
rockfall events, the propagation (or transit) component
must also be taken into account in rockfall hazard assess-
ments (Cancelli and Crosta 1993; Crosta and Locatelli
1999). Hence, rockfall hazards are generally recognized to
depend on three factors (Jaboyedoff et al. 2001; Crosta and
Agliardi 2003; Jaboyedoff et al. 2005; Volkwein et al.
2011):
• Probability of detachment from the rock wall: the
probability that a rockfall of a given magnitude (i.e.,
block size) occurs at a given source location over a
123
2868
given period of time. This parameter involves both the
spatial probability of occurrence (i.e., susceptibility)
and the related temporal probability, which is also
called the probability of failure (i.e., frequency),
• Propagation down the slope: the trajectory and maxi-
mum runout of falling blocks,
• Rockfall intensity (i.e., kinetic energy).
Therefore, any hazard assessment method should con-
sider the susceptibility, frequency, runout and distribution
of the rockfall intensity at each location and along the fall
path. However, only a few rockfall hazard assessment
methodologies satisfy all of these requirements.
3.1 Susceptibility
Susceptibility is the likelihood that an event will occur in a
specific area based on the local terrain conditions (Brabb
1984). The susceptibility describes the predisposition of an
area to be affected by a given future event and results in an
estimate of where rockfalls are likely to occur (Guzzetti
et al. 1999; Guzzetti 2005, 2006a, b; Rossi et al. 2010;
Volkwein et al. 2011). Several methods have been pro-
posed in the literature to identify the locations of probable
rockfall events.
The susceptibility can be assessed by:
• Geomorphological mapping using qualitative and direct
methods (Reichenbach et al. 2005),
• Empirical and semi-empirical rating systems (Pierson
et al. 1990; Cancelli and Crosta 1993; Rouiller and
Marro 1997; Crosta and Locatelli 1999; Mazzoccola
and Sciesa 2000; Budetta 2004; Fernandez-Hernandez
et al. 2012),
• Statistical analyses (Marquinez et al. 2003; Frattini
et al. 2008),
• Deterministic methods (Jaboyedoff et al. 2004; Guen-
ther et al. 2004; Derron et al. 2005).
The resulting susceptibility maps illustrate the predis-
position towards instability of a slope or area (Varnes
1984; Van Westen et al. 1997; Guzzetti 2005).
3.2 Frequency
In addition to the susceptibility, the temporal probability of
failure must be addressed to define the probability of the
occurrence of a rockfall event. It can be expressed in terms
of the frequency of occurrence or the return period (defined
as the inverse of the frequency). The temporal probability
of a rockfall with a given volume should be evaluated
through the statistical analysis of historical events that have
occurred in the study area.
123
F. Ferrari et al.
The most common approach to estimating the rockfall
frequency is the analysis of site-specific rockfall invento-
ries that provide volume and time history information for
each rockfall event. A magnitude-cumulative frequency
relationship can be constructed from these observations to
evaluate the annual frequencies of rockfall events in
specified volume classes (Gardner 1983; Hungr et al. 1999;
Dussauge-Peisser et al. 2002, 2003; Guzzetti et al. 2003;
Malamud et al. 2004). If there are no historical rockfall
events, the frequency or return period cannot be accurately
assessed; hence, only the rockfall susceptibility (and not
the hazard) can be evaluated.
3.3 Propagation
The propagation of a rockfall event is related to the runout
of a falling block and refers to the block’s trajectory during
its movement down the slope. The trajectory generally
depends on the features of both the block and the slope,
including the starting location of the block, its mass and
shape, the topography of the slope, the outcropping mate-
rial, the presence of vegetation and the slope roughness.
Several methods have been proposed in the scientific lit-
erature for evaluating rockfall propagation, and they can be
classified into two main categories:
• Empirical methods: simple methods that allow a
preliminary and rapid estimation of block propagation
without using numerical simulations. These methods
are usually based on empirical relationships between
topographic factors and the length of the runout zone.
The most common methods are the ‘‘Fahrböschung’’,
also known as the travel angle (Heim 1932), and the
shadow cone angle approach (Evans and Hungr 1993).
Both methods allow the maximum expected runout of a
block to be estimated. The latter, which has also been
implemented in the GIS tool Conefall (Jaboyedoff and
Labiouse 2003), can also consider the kinetic energy.
These basic methods are usually used when the hazard
zoning involves a large area (i.e., regional and local
scales).
• Physics-based methods: complex methods that rely on
numerical modeling (i.e., kinematic simulations) to
more accurately describe rockfall motion and propaga-
tion. The several existing numerical models (Crosta and
Agliardi 2004; Castelli and Scavia 2008) consider the
block as either a point (i.e., lumped mass models), an
object with a given shape (rigid body approach), or a
combination of both (hybrid body approach). Numer-
ical simulations are usually used for quantitative
assessments at site-specific scales.
Qualitative Rockfall Hazard Assessment: A Comprehensive Review of Current Practices
3.4 Intensity
Finally, a hazard assessment requires the intensity of a
rockfall event of a given magnitude (i.e., volume) to be
evaluated. In most cases, the rockfall intensity is given by
the kinetic energy of the falling block. This is a complex
function that depends on the mass and velocity and is
defined according to the adopted physical criterion (Crosta
and Agliardi 2003).
4 Rockfall Risk
Several rockfall hazard assessment methods merge hazard
and risk assessment parameters. In this context, we present
several basic concepts that are related to the determination
of the rockfall risk.
According to Corominas et al. (2014), the risk (Eq. 1) is
given by three basic components: the hazard, the exposure
of the elements at risk, and their vulnerability. They are
characterized by both spatial and non-spatial attributes.
The exposure is given by the spatial and temporal
probabilities that the element at risk is actually located in
the area affected by the danger (threat) at the time of its
occurrence. The position of the elements at risk (i.e., spatial
exposure) combined with the propagation of the block
down the slope (i.e., runout) gives the probability of reach.
The probability of reach quantifies the relative frequency of
blocks that are able to reach specific target locations (i.e.,
elements at risk) on the slope.
The vulnerability is the expected degree of loss and
ranges from 0 (no loss) to 1 (total loss). The vulnerability
depends on both the typology of the element at risk (i.e.,
its resistance) and on the intensity of the dangerous event
that interacts with it. Vulnerability includes four main
types: physical vulnerability refers to structures and
infrastructure, social vulnerability refers to the population,
environmental vulnerability refers to the natural environ-
ment and economic vulnerability refers to economic
activities.
The common framework for a rockfall risk analysis
consists of the following steps (Mavrouli 2011):
1. Hazard analysis, including the analysis of the intensity,
probability of failure and runout of the potential
rockfall event,
2. Identification of the elements at risk, including their
number, value and degree of exposure,
3. Vulnerability analysis,
4. Calculation/estimation of the risk.
Once the risk has been defined, it should be mitigated, if
possible. Risk mitigation consists of applying appropriate
techniques and management measures to lessen or limit the
2869
adverse impacts of hazards and related disasters (UNISDR
2009).
5 Qualitative and Quantitative Methods
Rockfall hazard and risk assessments can be either quali-
tative or quantitative. The differences are in terms of the
input data, adopted procedures and final outputs.
Qualitative methods define hazards, elements at risk and
their vulnerabilities using qualitative descriptors, such as
ranked attributes, weighted indices, rating systems, scoring
schemes, ranking matrices and classifications (Cruden and
Fell 1997). Qualitative estimates can be based on either
objective (statistical or mathematical) estimates, subjective
estimates (professional judgments or assumptions), or
combinations of both. The results of qualitative methods
are usually expressed using relative terms, such as high,
moderate and low. Generally, qualitative analyses are more
commonly used because they are easy to use and can be
performed quickly (Pantelidis 2009). For this reason, most
rockfall hazard and risk assessment systems are qualitative
and adopt detailed ratings to numerically differentiate the
hazard or risk at a specific site. The detailed ratings usually
use several factors to provide an evaluation and/or score for
the slope. Qualitative analysis provides useful information
for hazard and risk management, for relative comparisons
of different sites, and for facilitating the prioritization of
mitigation measures (Fell et al. 2005). In other words,
qualitative analysis represents an initial screening step of
the dominant hazards at a given site to evaluate the most
dangerous areas further via quantitative methods.
Quantitative methods use numerical values or ranges of
values instead of qualitative terms. A quantitative hazard
analysis attempts to evaluate the hazard in the form of a
numerical probability, which estimates the frequency of
detachment, including propagation and intensity. A quan-
titative analysis aims to quantify the risk and express the
damage in monetary values. Several recent efforts have
attempted to establish standard procedures for quantifying
risk in terms of official national recommendations or
guidelines (Mavrouli 2011). In particular, quantitative risk
analysis (QRA) has been developed to quantify the prob-
ability of potential losses that are related to the occurrence
of a hazardous event by considering the number of
destroyed buildings, injured people and fatalities. The
acceptable and tolerable risk thresholds differ from country
to country. QRA uses an objective and reproducible
method to quantify risk and leads to absolute results that
can be used to compare different locations, thereby pro-
viding a basis for prioritizing mitigation measures. Nev-
ertheless, the accuracies of the QRA results are variable
because they are closely related to the availability,
123
2870
quantity, quality and reliability of the data. QRA requires
several geomechanical and statistical data that limit its
applicability. As a result, a quantitative evaluation may be
no more accurate than a qualitative evaluation (Gerath
et al. 2006). The accuracy is not related to the use of
numbers; rather, it depends on whether the components of
the hazard and risk have been appropriately considered and
on the availability and quality of the data required for the
rockfall hazard, exposure and vulnerability analyses.
Currently, quantitative rockfall hazard assessments are
only possible when a detailed historical inventory of the
rockfall events that have occurred in the study area is
available (Hantz et al. 2003). However, the documentation
of rockfall activity is commonly poor or absent at most
sites, and complete rockfall inventories are relatively rare
due to the lack of reporting of small and medium events
(Budetta and Nappi 2013). Because of the scarcity of
geomechanical, statistical and historical data that document
rockfall activity, qualitative analyses are currently the most
widely used methods. However, the main differences and
similarities between qualitative methods have not been
investigated in the scientific literature (Budetta and Nappi
2013). Consequently, determining which method best suits
a specific site is difficult. This paper provides a compre-
hensive overview of the most commonly used and widely
accepted qualitative rockfall hazard assessment method-
ologies and highlights their major differences and
limitations.
6 Rockfall Hazard Rating System (RHRS)
6.1 Background
The first rockfall hazard assessment methodology was
proposed for transportation networks by Brawner and
Wyllie (1976). This method used a qualitative technique to
evaluate the hazard and prioritize remediation using
alphabetical ratings that range from ‘‘A’’ to ‘‘F’’. For
example, ‘‘A’’ slopes are the most hazardous and require
immediate remediation or intervention. The method, which
was initially applied along the Canadian Pacific Railroad,
was used as the starting point for the development of the
most popular rockfall hazard method, the rockfall hazard
rating system (RHRS; Pierson et al. 1990; National High-
way Institute 1993). The RHRS was developed in Oregon
(USA), in the late 1980s to provide the Oregon Department
of Transportation with a standard rockfall hazard system to
set rockfall project priorities and allocate limited funds
(Pierson 1992). The RHRS was specifically developed to
assess the rockfall hazards along Oregon’s roads and
highways.
123
F. Ferrari et al.
6.2 Rating System
The RHRS consists of a preliminary rating to identify rock
cuts that require a detailed analysis.
In the preliminary rating, a rock wall is subdivided into
several sections that are defined as ‘‘any uninterrupted
slope along a highway where the level and occurring mode
of rockfalls are the same’’ (Pierson 1992). These sections
are subjectively evaluated by geologists or engineers based
on the primary criterion ‘‘estimated potential for rockfall
on roadway’’ (Pierson et al. 2005) and are then grouped
into three categories: A, B or C (Table 1). The ‘‘historical
rockfall activity’’ criterion is also considered, but an
additional clarification is needed to classify the preliminary
slope hazard.
The ‘‘estimated potential for rockfall on roadway’’
considers the estimated amount of material, the estimated
quantity of material per event, the amount of material that
is available and, most importantly, the ditch effectiveness.
The ‘‘historical rockfall activity’’ takes into account the
frequency of rockfalls onto the roadway, the volume of
material involved, the size of the rockfalls, and the fre-
quency of ditch cleanout.
Road cuts that are categorized as ‘‘A’’ will have to
undergo a detailed analysis. ‘‘B’’ slopes also require a
detailed analysis but only if time and funds are available.
‘‘C’’ slopes do not require a detailed analysis because they
do not pose a threat or represent only a low potential for
hazardous conditions.
The detailed ratings rank the slopes from least to most
hazardous using nine categories (Table 2) that are scored
exponentially from 3 to 81. However, these scores are
intended to represent a continuum from 1 to 100; therefore,
the use of the full range is recommended (Pierson and Van
Vickle 1993). The continuous score y for each category can
be calculated as follows:
y ¼ 3x ; ð2Þ
where the exponent x is calculated differently for each
category (Table 3). The maximum allowable score for all
categories is 100. The use of the full range of scores instead
of classes allows for a wider differentiation between slope
ratings. The sum of the scores that are assigned to each
category represents the overall rockfall hazard score for the
site. Slopes with higher scores exhibit greater hazards. The
considered categories include the following:
1. Slope height: the height of the slope is measured from
the road to the location of the highest failure-prone
block. If a natural slope is located above the cut, the
sum of both heights should be considered. Higher
slopes present greater hazards due to the higher
Qualitative Rockfall Hazard Assessment: A Comprehensive Review of Current Practices 2871

Table 1 Preliminary rating

Criteria Class
criteria of the RHRS (from
Pierson et al. 2005) A B C

Estimated potential for rockfall on roadway High Moderate Low

Historical rockfall activity High Moderate Low

Table 2 Detailed rating categories and scores of the RHRS (from Pierson 1992)
Category Rating criteria and scores
3 points 9 points 27 points 81 points

Slope height (ft) 25 50 75 100

Slope height (m) 7.6 15.2 22.9 30.5
Ditch effectiveness Good catchment Moderate catchment Limited catchment No catchment
Average vehicle risk 25 % of the time 50 % of the time 75 % of the time 100 % of the time
Percent of decision sight Adequate, 100 % of low Moderate, 80 % of low Limited, 60 % of low Very limited, 40 % of low
distance design value design value design value design value
Paved road width (ft) 44 36 28 20
Paved road width (m) 13.4 11 8.5 6.1
Geologic character
(a) Case 1
Structural condition Discontinuous joints, Discontinuous joints, Discontinuous joints, Continuous joints, adverse
favorable orientation random orientation adverse orientation orientation
Rock friction Rough, irregular Undulating Planar Clay infilling or
slickensided
(b) Case 2
Structural condition Few erosion features Occasional erosion features Many erosion features Major erosion features
Difference in Small difference Moderate difference Large difference Extreme difference
erosional rates
Block size (ft) 1 2 3 4
Block size (m) or 0.3 0.6 0.9 1.2
Volume per event (Yd3) 3 6 9 12
Volume per event (m3) 2.3 4.6 6.9 9.2
Climate and presence of Slow to moderate Moderate precipitation or High precipitation or long High precipitation and long
water on slope precipitation or no short freezing periods or freezing periods or freezing periods or
freezing periods or no intermittent water on slope continual water on continual water on slope
water on slope slope and long freezing period
Rockfall history Few falls Occasional falls Many falls Constant falls

potential energy that is involved in the rockfall. The Valuable information about ditch performance can be
slope height score can be determined using either obtained from maintenance personnel. Four classes of
Table 2 or Table 3. ditch effectiveness are suggested in the RHRS:
2. Ditch effectiveness: the effectiveness of a ditch is
• Good catchment: all or nearly all falling rocks are
qualitatively estimated by considering its potential
retained in the catch ditch;
ability to prevent falling rocks from reaching the road.
• Moderate catchment: falling rocks occasionally
The factors that are considered in estimating the ditch
reach the road;
effectiveness are: (1) the slope height and angle; (2)
• Limited catchment: falling rocks frequently reach
the ditch width, depth, and shape; (3) the expected
the roadway;
volume of the rockfall per event; and (4) the presence
• No catchment: no ditch is present, or the ditch is
of slope irregularities that may affect the rockfall path.
completely ineffective.

123
2872 F. Ferrari et al.

Table 3 Exponential functions

Category Abbreviation Unit Exponential formula
x used to calculate the RHRS
scores in Eq. 2 (from Pierson Slope height H ft x ¼ H=25
et al. 2005)
Average vehicle risk AVR % x ¼ AVR=25
Percentage of decision sight distance DSD % x ¼ ð120  DSDÞ=20
Roadway width RW ft x ¼ ð52  RWÞ=8
Block size BS ft x ¼ BS
Volume of rockfall per event V cu yd x ¼ V=3
Annual rainfall AR in x ¼ AR=10

Table 4 Decision sight distances (DSDs) for different avoidance maneuvers based on the type of road (from AASHTO 1994)
Posted speed DSD (m)
limit (km/h)
A B C D E
Stop on Stop on Speed/path/direction change Speed/path/direction change on Speed/path/direction change
rural road urban road on rural road suburban road on urban road

50 75 160 145 160 200

60 95 205 175 205 235
70 125 250 200 240 275
80 155 300 230 275 315
90 185 360 275 320 360
100 225 415 315 365 405
110 265 455 335 390 435
120 305 505 375 415 470

3. Average vehicle risk (AVR): this parameter represents ASD

the probability of occurrence of a vehicle being in the
rockfall hazard zone and is expressed as a percentage
of time:
ADT  SL=24
AVR ¼  100;
PSP
where ADT is the average daily traffic (expressed in
number of cars/day), SL is the slope length (km), 24 is
the number of hours per day (h/day), and PSP is the
posted speed limit (km/h).
The AVR score can be evaluated by classes (Table 2)
or by applying Eq. 2 with the appropriate exponent, as
listed in Table 3.
A rating of 100 % means that, on average, one vehicle
is expected to be within the investigated zone at any
given time. The AVR can be greater than 100 %,
indicating that more than one vehicle is likely to be
present within the analyzed section at any given time
(Pierson et al. 1990).
4. Percent of decision sight distance (PDSD): this
percentage describes the length of road that a driver
requires to make a decision to take evasive actions.
PDSR represents the percentage reduction in the
decision sight distance and can be calculated as
follows:
PDSD ¼  100; ð4Þ
DSD
where ASD is the actual sight distance and DSD is the
decision sight distance (both expressed in km). The
ASD is the length of road that a driver needs to perceive
ð3Þ
the presence of an unexpected object. This distance is
typically estimated from a height of 1070 mm (3.5 ft)
above the ground, i.e., the height of a driver’s eyes, and
considers an object that is 150 mm (6 in) high
(AASHTO 2004). The DSD is ‘‘the distance required
for a driver to detect an unexpected or otherwise diffi-
cult-to-perceive information source or hazard in a
roadway environment that may be visually cluttered,
recognize the hazard or its threat potential, select an
appropriate speed and path, and initiate and complete
the required maneuver, safely and efficiently’’
(AASHTO 2004). Table 4 shows the recommended
DSD values for various maneuvers (AASHTO 1994).
The PDSD score can be given as one of four classes
(Table 2) or calculated according to Eq. 2 and Table 3.
5. Roadway width: this dimension, which is measured
perpendicular to the highway centerline from one edge
of the pavement to the other (including the shoulders),
represents the space that is available to avoid an
obstacle on the road. This measurement should be the

123
Qualitative Rockfall Hazard Assessment: A Comprehensive Review of Current Practices
minimum width of the roadway. The score can be
given as one of four classes (Table 2) or calculated
according to Eq. 2 and Table 3.
6. Geologic characteristics: this factor includes two
mutually exclusive cases: rock masses that are dis-
sected by multiple discontinuity systems and rock
masses that are susceptible to erosion. If both cases
coexist in the same rock wall section and it is unclear
which dominates, both cases should be rated, and the
case with the highest score should be used in the final
hazard score.
• Case 1 considers ‘‘structurally controlled’’ rockfalls
and includes slopes or cuts in which rock mass
discontinuities are the dominant features leading to
rockfalls. The geological characteristics are based
on two main parameters, each of which includes
four sub-classes. The first parameter is controlled
by the continuity of joints (continuous joints are
defined as longer than 3 m) and the orientation of
the joints (‘‘adverse’’ means that the rocks are
prone to block, wedge, planar or toppling failures).
The second parameter is the so-called ‘‘rock
friction’’, which is related to the movement of a
potentially unstable block relative to another block.
The macro- and micro-roughnesses of the surfaces,
as well as the properties of any infilling material,
govern this parameter.
• Case 2 is used for slopes in which the rockfall
activity is controlled by ‘‘differential erosion’’
caused by the loss of support. This condition is
common in interbedded layers of sedimentary
rocks with different durabilities, weak highly
weathered rocks and talus slopes. Two parameters,
each with four qualitatively estimated sub-classes,
are used. The first parameter considers the presence
of erosional features, such as over-steepened slopes
and unsupported rock units. The second parameter
takes into account the ‘‘difference in erosion rates’’,
which is related to the potential for future land-
slides. This parameter relies on the determination
of the block size, the frequency of rockfall events
and the amount of material involved. The ‘‘differ-
ence in erosion rate’’ describes the rates of erosion
and includes four classes: small difference (if the
erosional features take many years to develop),
moderate difference (few years), large difference
(annually) and extreme difference (rapid and
continuous evolution).
7. Block size or rockfall volume per event: the block size
should be evaluated when the expected rockfall event
typically involves one block, whereas the rockfall
volume should be evaluated when many blocks of
2873
different sizes are involved. Both parameters should be
determined based on data collected during mainte-
nance or estimated from observed conditions when
historical data are unavailable. The block size and
rockfall volume scores can be determined using the
classes that are reported in Table 2 or Eq. 2 and
Table 3.
8. Climate and the presence of water on the slope: rainfall
intensity, freeze–thaw cycles and groundwater circu-
lation are considered to be weathering factors, and all
these factors are qualitatively estimated. The score can
either be found using Table 2 or calculated according
to Eq. 2 and Table 3.
9. Rockfall history: information on past activity on the
slope should be acquired from historical databases or
maintenance personnel. Four subclasses are used:
(a) Few falls: rockfalls are not a persistent problem
and occur a few times per year or less or only
during severe rainstorms. This subclass is also
used if no rockfall history data are available,
(b) Occasional falls: rockfalls occur regularly (sev-
eral times per year),
(c) Many falls: rockfalls occur frequently during
certain seasons,
(d) Constant falls: rockfalls occur frequently
throughout the year. This subclass is also used
for sites in which severe rockfall events are
common.
Once a score has been attributed to each category, the
sum is the overall rockfall site score. The final score ranges
from 9 to 900, and the higher the score, the higher the
hazard. Therefore, the final score can be used to determine
the priorities in terms of the installation of mitigation
measures. After the construction of appropriate mitigation
measures, the entire slope should be rerated.
Finally, according to the RHRS methodology, all rated
slopes should be reviewed annually, and any newly con-
structed slopes should be added to the review.
7 Considerations
The RHRS was one of the first methods to address the
rockfall hazard along roadways. It laid the foundations for
modern rockfall hazard assessments and inspired several
successive methods. The RHRS is a qualitative method that
is based on two main steps: an initial screening step is used
to identify the areas with higher hazard levels, which are
then analyzed in greater detail.
Although the RHRS is the most well-known method of
rockfall hazard evaluation, it uses parameters that refer to
definitions of both hazard and risk (Fell et al. 2008). The
123
2874
slope height, geologic characteristics, block size, climate,
presence of water on the slope, and rockfall history are
parameters that are related to the definition of hazard. In
contrast, the pathway and traffic conditions, ditch effec-
tiveness, AVR, PDSD and roadway width are associated
with the definition of risk. The RHRS score assesses the
degree of risk exposure of vehicles along roads (Budetta
2004). The final RHRS score is calculated as the sum of all
of these parameters. Wyllie (2005) suggested dividing the
classical RHRS score into two components, a hazard rating
and a risk rating, which represent the sum of the hazard-
related and risk-related scores, respectively. The total rat-
ing could then be calculated as the hazard rating times the
risk rating. In this way, the concepts of hazard and risk are
treated separately, and the final score provides a better
distinction between low- and high-risk sites.
The RHRS allows different slopes to be compared using
a relative rating that, together with a cost-benefit analysis,
indicates the priorities in terms of rockfall mitigation
measures. If a classification as a low, medium and high
urgency slope is defined, the threshold for the installation
of mitigation measures has to be defined by the land-use
planners. By examining areas where the method had been
applied, Hoek (1999) noted that slopes with ratings below
300 and above 500 are generally classified as low-urgency
and high-urgency (i.e., in need of immediate remediation)
slopes, respectively. Additionally, the method does not
associate different levels of hazard (e.g., low, moderate and
high) with the final score; thus, the method does not pro-
vide useful information for hazard mapping intended for
land-use planning purposes.
The main drawback of the RHRS methodology is its
subjectivity: both the preliminary slope evaluation and the
final score strongly depend on the abilities of the evalua-
tors. The scores may be operator-dependent, the terminol-
ogy can be interpreted differently, and the final RHRS
score is rarely reproducible (Vandewater et al. 2005).
Several other limitations are summarized below:
• The AVR can be greater than 100 % when two or more
vehicles are travelling along the same slope segment at
the same time. However, the maximum score for the
AVR is 100 % (Table 2). In addition, the AVR does not
take into account vehicles that are travelling signifi-
cantly slower than the posted speed limit, which may
happen during adverse weather conditions or times of
intense traffic (Santi et al. 2009). Hence, the AVR
underestimates the actual risk (Pantelidis 2011). In the
case of frequent scenarios, a lower PSP can be selected.
• In the PDSD parameter, both the DSD and ASD can
vary significantly along the same section (Pierson
1992). The presence of curves in the road or obstruc-
tions (such as rocky outcrops and vegetation) can
123
F. Ferrari et al.
severely limit the ability of a driver to notice a block on
the road. The DSD and ASD can also change in
response to adverse meteorological conditions; for
example, low visibility during storms may reduce the
sight distance (Budetta 2004). Additionally, the DSD is
usually greater than the required stopping sight distance
(SSD) and is, thus, a conservative design length. The
SSD should be used for a vehicle that is traveling at the
design speed on a wet surface and when a clearly
discernible block is present on the road. On the other
hand, the DSD should be used when the conditions are
complex, such as situations with reduced visibility
(AASHTO 2004). On a straight road, the DSD/SSD
ratio increases as the vehicle velocity decreases. As a
result, many non-hazardous sites would appear to be
hazardous when the PDSD factor is used (Pantelidis
2011).
• Subjectivity in the ‘‘geological characteristics’’ can
result from the use of ambiguous and subjective terms
instead of well-established geotechnical or geologic
terms (Turner and Schuster 1996; Hadjin 2002; Budetta
2004; Vandewater et al. 2005). The final scores do not
fully incorporate the geologic conditions of a road cut
because only two mutually exclusive geological cases
are considered.
• The block volume can be determined from the main-
tenance history or from in situ observations. However,
the most appropriate block volume estimate, i.e., before
(on the slope) or after (on the road) the rockfall event, is
not clear. This detail is significant because the falling
rock rarely maintains its original volume as it falls due
to fragmentation (Budetta 2004).
• The rockfall history considers the minimum score
whenever the historical database is not available, but
this simplification is not conservative.
• The parameters for climate and the presence of water
can only be evaluated qualitatively. Threshold values,
which would be useful in choosing a class, are not
indicated.
The RHRS relies on non-metric Imperial units of mea-
surement that were used in the past. Currently, the Inter-
national System of Units (SI) is more commonly used
around the world. Hence, the metric values of slope height,
roadway width, block size, volume and annual rainfall
must be converted into imperial units to use the equations
in Table 3. Alternatively, the metric units can be used
directly in Table 8.
Although the RHRS is one of the oldest methods used to
address rockfall hazard assessment, it considers all of the
parameters (with the exception of energy, which is a lim-
itation of the RHRS) that are currently used in the defini-
tion of rockfall hazard:
Qualitative Rockfall Hazard Assessment: A Comprehensive Review of Current Practices
• The susceptibility is described by the geological
conditions, rockfall magnitude and predisposing factors
(the presence of water on the slope and climate);
• The frequency considers the rockfall history;
• The expected runout of the blocks is considered in the
slope height and the evaluation of the ditch effective-
ness parameters.
Even though risk is not the main objective of RHRS, a
vehicle’s spatiotemporal exposure and vulnerability are
partially taken into account. The former considers the road
width and the AVR, and the latter considers the PDSD.
Nevertheless, because it is a qualitative method, RHRS
lacks information on economic value.
8 Modified RHRS Methods
The RHRS system was developed to be simple, repeat-
able and easy to use. The system has formed the basis of
further developments to satisfy the requirements of indi-
vidual transportation departments. Table 5 summarizes the
most common modified-RHRS methods, their features, and
references.
8.1 Rock Slope Rating Procedure (RSRP)
The New York Department of Transportation developed
the rock slope rating procedure (RSRP). This method was
the first attempt to improve the RHRS by separating the
hazard and risk parameters and by computing the risk by
multiplying the factors. The RSRP takes into account three
principal factors (Wyllie 1987; New York State DOT 1996,
2007; Hadjin 2002):
• Geologic factor (GF): calculated as the sum of the
scores that are assigned to each category divided by 10.
The categories include geology, block size, rock fric-
tion, presence of water, rockfall history, and the
conditions of the back-slope (Table 6). As in the RHRS,
the geology category includes two mutually exclusive
cases for crystalline and sedimentary rocks: the former
considers the rock mass structure and fracture orienta-
tions, and the latter considers the features of the bedding
planes. The last category (i.e., back-slope conditions)
differs from the parameters of the RHRS in that it
considers the angle of the slope above the rock cut as
well as the presence of boulders. Each category includes
five sub-classes with associated scores (ranging from 1
to 81), whose evaluation is primarily qualitative.
• Section factor (SF): represents the probability of falling
rocks reaching the road pavement. The SF is obtained
by comparing the actual ditch geometry and the rock
slope offset using Ritchie’s design chart (Ritchie 1963).
2875
The value for SF, which is also called the Ritchie score,
is given by the following equation:
Ritchie depth þ Ritchie width
SF ¼ ; ð5Þ
actual depth þ actual width
where ‘‘Richie depth’’ and ‘‘Ritchie width’’ are the
ditch dimensions that are required by Ritchie’s criteria,
and ‘‘actual depth’’ and ‘‘actual width’’ are the actual
(observed) ditch dimensions. The SF ranges from less
than 1 (in the best circumstances) to approximately 11
(in the worst case).
• Human exposure factor (HEF): represents the chance of
a traffic accident occurring due to a rockfall event. Two
cases are considered: (1) a moving vehicle is hit by a
falling rock or an approaching vehicle crashes into a
block that has just fallen (i.e., active condition), and (2)
a vehicle hits a block that has fallen onto the road (i.e.,
passive condition). The active condition factor (Fa) can
be calculated as follows:
Fa ¼ AADT  ½ðL þ SSDÞ=ðV  24; 000Þ; ð6Þ
where AADT is the average annual daily traffic, L is the
length of the rockfall zone (m), SSD is the stopping
sight distance (m), and V is the travel speed (km/h).
Under passive conditions, an accident can occur only if
the SSD is inadequate. The passive condition factor
(Fp) is given by the following:
Fp ¼ log10 ðAADTÞ  log10 ðLÞ  ½a=ðSSD  aÞ; ð7Þ
where a is either zero or the maximum of the SSD and
the DSD.
The final HEF score is equal to the sum of Fa and Fp
divided by 3.
The scores of these three factors (GF, SF and HEF) are
then multiplied to determine the total relative risk (TRR),
which is the relative risk of the occurrence of rockfall-
related accidents along rock slopes adjacent to highways
(Rose 2005). TRR values can be used to compare different
slopes without establishing the precise level of risk at a
particular site.
The TRR does not indicate the real risk because only the
exposure of the elements at risk (vehicles) and to some
degree the vulnerability (through SSD and PSD) are con-
sidered. In particular, the spatial exposure takes into account
the length of the rockfall zone, whereas the temporal expo-
sure includes both the AADT and V. The potential damage
(in terms of economic value) is not addressed.
The susceptibility (through the geology, block size, rock
friction, and presence of water categories), frequency (i.e.,
rockfall history) and expected runout (back-slope condi-
tions and ditch dimensions) are considered by the GF and
SF factors. Most of the GF parameters are described using
qualitative classes.
123
2876 F. Ferrari et al.

Table 5 Summary of the most widely used modified RHRS methods

Method State/country Modifications References

Rock Slope Rating New York Multiplicative structure Wyllie (1987), New York State DOT (1996, 2007), Hadjin
Procedure (USA) (2002)
mRHRS Italy More objective classes Budetta (2004)
MORFH RS Missouri More objective classes Maerz et al. (2004, 2005), Youssef and Maerz (2012)
(USA) Weathered rocks and karst
Hazard and consequences are separated
ORHRM Ohio (USA) More objective classes Shakoor and Woodard (2005)
Smaller slopes, differential weathering
TRHRS Tennessee More objective classes Bateman (2003), Rose (2005), Vandewater et al. (2005),
(USA) Several failures modes Mauldon et al. (2007)

CRHRS Colorado More objective classes Stover (1992), Andrew (1994), Santi et al. (2009)
(USA) More parameters about geology and
climate
Hazard and risk scores are separated
RHRON Ontario More objective classes Franklin and Senior (1997), Senior (2003), Franklin et al.
(Canada) More parameters about geology (2013)
Rock cuts less than 30 m in height with
blasting damage

Table 6 Detailed rating categories and scores for the geological Factor of New York State rock slope rating procedure (from New York State
DOT 2007)
Category Rating criteria and scores
1 point 3 points 9 points 27 points 81 points

Geology Massive, no fractures Discontinuous Fractures forming Discontinuous fractures Continuous fractures
(crystalline) dipping out of the fractures, random wedges dipping out of the dipping out of the slope
slope orientations slope
Geology Horizontal to slight Raveling, Small overhangs or Overhangs, some large Bedding or joints
(sedimentary) dipping occasional small columns, numerous unstable blocks, high dipping out of the slope
blocks small blocks columns
Block size (m) B0.15 0.15–0.3 0.3–0.6 0.5–1.5 [1.5
Rock friction Rough, irregular Undulating Planar Smooth, slickensided Clay, gouge filled
Water/climate Dry Some seepage Moderate seepage High seepage, brush High seepage with long
vegetation backslope and high
vegetation
Rockfall No falls (0–4/year) Occasional minor Occasional falls (15–24/ Regular falls (25–34/ Major falls/slides ([35/
history falls (5–14/year) year) year) year)
Backslope Flat/gentle slope Moderate slope Steep slope with angle Very steep slope[35 or Very steep slope [35
conditions with an angle of angle of 15–25 of 25–35 25–35 with boulders with boulders
0–15

The TRR results can be used as a non-decisional tool in
terms of the benefits of installing mitigation measures.
Hence, the concept of risk reduction with respect to
potential protective interventions was introduced in the
New York State rock slope procedure. The difference
between the TRR and the residual risk was calculated for
this purpose. The residual risk was obtained by recalcu-
lating the TRR according to Ritchie’s ditch criteria using a
recut slope. This level of remediation can be assumed as
the ‘‘optimum’’ residual risk (New York State DOT 2007).

123
Qualitative Rockfall Hazard Assessment: A Comprehensive Review of Current Practices
The use of the New York State rock slope procedure has
several advantages. First, the method distinguishes
parameters that are related to the slope, block trajectory
and risk exposure. Second, the procedure considers not
only the risk posed by the existing rock slope but also the
level of risk that remains after remediation (Rose 2005).
One limitation of this method is that the connection
between the rated GF and the more analytical SF and HEF
is ambiguous and may be tenuous (Maerz et al. 2005),
potentially leading to questionable results. Because the
final TRR is a relative value, the main drawbacks of this
method compared to the RHRS are the absence of links to
hazard zonation and land use planning and the subjectivity
of the results (which is strictly related to the experience of
the operators).
8.2 Italian Modification of RHRS (mRHRS)
A simple modification of the RHRS was developed in
southern Italy by Budetta (2004) to reduce the ‘‘subjec-
tivity’’ of the RHRS classes. The basic structure of the
mRHRS remains unchanged and includes scores than can
be developed using classes (Table 7) of exponential for-
mulas (Table 8). The modified RHRS (mRHRS) uses a
more quantitative approach than the RHRS for the fol-
lowing classes:
• Effectiveness of a ditch: this parameter is determined
according to Ritchie’s ditch design chart (Ritchie 1963)
as was proposed by Fookes and Sweeny (1976) and
Whiteside (1986) with references to protection mea-
sures (e.g., barriers, rock catch fences, and wire
meshes).
• PDSD: the PDSD is calculated according to Eq. 4,
where the DSD is computed according to the Italian
National Council standards (Ferrari and Giannini 1975;
CNR 1980), and the ASD is evaluated in both traffic
directions. This definition takes into account that an
object located just beyond the sharpest part of a curve
may be hidden.
• Roadway width: the road width is evaluated according
to the Italian National Council standard classes (CNR
1980).
• Geologic characteristics: the geological predisposition
to rockfall is quantified using the slope mass rating
(SMR) classification system (Romana 1985, 1988,
1991; Romana et al. 2003). The SMR is calculated as
follows:
SMR ¼ RMR þ ðF1  F2  F3 Þ þ F4 ; ð8Þ
where RMR corresponds to the rock mass rating
(Bieniawski 1989), and F1, F2, F3 and F4 are adjust-
ment factors that depend on the degree of parallelism
2877
between the strikes of the joints and the slope (F1), the
dip angle of the joints in the planar mode of failure
(F2), the relationship between the dips of the slope and
the joints (F3) and the excavation method of the cut
(F4).
The SMR ranges from 0 to 100 and is subdivided into
five classes. For example, class I (81–100) represents a
completely stable slope, and class V (0–20) represents a
completely unstable slope associated with the occur-
rence of large planar failures.
• Volume of block (Vb): the volume of a block prone to
failure is computed by considering the spacing data of
the main joint sets (S1 ; S2 ; . . .; Sn ) and the angles
between their orientations (a; b; v; . . .). For example,
the block volume of a rock mass that contains three
primary joint sets (the most common case) is computed
as follows:
S1  S2  S3
Vb ¼ : ð9Þ
sin a  sin b  sin c
• Climate and the presence of water on the slope: the
mean annual rainfall and the freeze–thaw cycle are used
to rate the slopes. Threshold values of precipitation are
reported in Table 7, and the original RHRS rating is
applied for freezing periods. Groundwater circulation is
already considered in the SMR (through the RMR
component) and is therefore included in the geological
category.
• Rockfall history: the frequency of rockfalls is expressed
in terms of the number of expected events over a given
time interval (e.g., 1 or 10 years).
These modifications were designed to overcome the
drawbacks that are related to the use of subjective classes
in the original RHRS (Table 2). However, the modified
method requires a more complex and laborious approach
than the original RHRS (Budetta and Nappi 2013). The
procedure is not designed for large state-wide applications
(Rose 2005) because (1) the method foregoes a preliminary
rating, (2) the detailed evaluation requires an accurate
rockfall frequency database and (3) the method uses the
SMR classification. Historical rockfall databases are rarely
available, and even though the SMR provides a better
description of the geological features of the slope, it must
be calculated by experienced practitioners. Additionally,
because the SMR is not suitable for weathered rock masses,
Romana (1991) suggested applying it twice: once for actual
fresh conditions and once for future weathered conditions.
This solution involves a double score, thereby rendering
the comparison of hazard scores of different slopes
involving both strong and weak rock masses impossible.
In this modified method, no significant modifications of
the hazard-related and risk-related components were made.
123
2878 F. Ferrari et al.

Table 7 Detailed rating categories and scores for the mRHRS (from Budetta 2004)
Category Rating criteria and scores
3 points 9 points 27 points 81 points

Slope height (m) 7.6 15.2 22.9 30.5

Ditch effectiveness Good catchment: properly Moderate catchment: Limited catchment: No catchment
designed ? barriers properly designed wrongly designed
Average vehicle risk 25 % of the time 50 % of the time 75 % of the time 100 % of the time
Percent of decision Adequate, 100 % of low design Moderate, 80 % of low Limited, 60 % of low Very limited, 40 % of low
sight distance value design value design value design value
Roadway width (m) 21.5 15.5 9.5 3.5
Slope mass rating 80 40 27 20
Block size (cm) or 30 60 90 120
Boulder volume (m3) 0.026 0.21 0.73 1.74
Volume of rockfall per 2.3 4.6 6.9 9.2
event (m3)
Annual rainfall and 300 mm or no freezing periods 600 m or short freezing 900 or long freezing 1200 or long freezing
freezing period periods periods period
Rockfall frequency 1 per 10 years 3 per year 6 per year 9 per year

Table 8 Exponential functions

Category Abbreviation Unit Exponent equation
x for calculating the mRHRS
scores (Eq. 2) (from Budetta Slope height H m x ¼ H=7:5
2004)
Average vehicle risk AVR % x ¼ AVR=25
Percentage of decision sight distance DSD % x ¼ ð120  DSDÞ=20
Roadway width RW m x ¼ ð27:5  RWÞ=6
Slope mass rating SMR – x ¼ 80=SMR
Block size BS m x ¼ BS=0:3
Volume of rockfall per event V m3 x ¼ V=2:3
Annual rainfall AR mm x ¼ AR=300
Rockfall frequency f n/year(s) x ¼ 1 þ ð0:334  f Þ

8.3 Missouri Rock Fall Hazard Rating System
(MORFH RS)
Another RHRS modified method that considers the risk and
hazard scores separately was developed for the Missouri
Department of Transportation to account for the specific
geologic conditions in Missouri (USA). The rock masses in
Missouri are intensely weathered and weaker than the
rocks in Oregon; therefore, the rock cuts are smaller than
those in Oregon.
Like the RHRS, the Missouri rock fall hazard rating
system (MORFH RS) is based on two steps: a preliminary
screening and a detailed scoring system. One of the main
innovations relative to the RHRS is the use of mobile
digital video logging in the preliminary phase. This inno-
vation allows for the rapid identification of potentially
problematic rock cuts that require detailed assessments
(Youssef and Maerz 2012). The images that are extracted
from the videos can also be used to measure many of the
factors that are required to rate the rock cuts, saving time
and resources. A detailed assessment is not necessary if the
slope is less than 10 feet (3 m) high or if it is less than the
width of the ditch plus the shoulder.
A detailed rating is made only if at least one of the
following features is observed (Maerz et al. 2005): a high
degree of weathering, evidence of karst, significant dif-
ferential erosion, a highly or moderately irregular face, a
highly or moderately loose face, a significant amount of
loose rock in the ditch, very low ditch effectiveness,
adversely oriented discontinuities, or the presence of a
bench or benches.
The detailed rating procedure is based on the integration
of parameters from video logs, measurements on images,
in situ observations and measurements, and historical data.

123
Qualitative Rockfall Hazard Assessment: A Comprehensive Review of Current Practices
The parameters are grouped into two categories: ‘‘risk of
failure’’ and ‘‘consequence of failure’’ (Table 9). Nine risk
factors are considered: slope height, slope angle, rockfall
instability, weathering factor, intact rock strength, face
irregularity, face looseness, block size (based on the spacing
of discontinuities), and the presence of water on the slope.
The 10 consequence parameters include the ditch width,
ditch volume, expected rockfall quantity, slope angle,
shoulder width, number of lanes, average daily traffic, AVR,
DSD, and block size. Both the risk and consequence values
take into account additional adjustment factors. The former
include adversely oriented discontinuities and karst effects,
and the latter include the ditch capacity exceedance and the
shape of the ditch for non-vertical slopes. The ditch capacity
exceedance is defined as the ratio between the expected
rockfall quantity and the volume of the ditch.
Each parameter is subdivided into classes, and a score is
assigned to each class. The scores generally range from 0
to 12 with the exception of the scores for weathering, ditch
width and ditch capacity exceedance. Weathering is sig-
nificant in Missouri; therefore, this parameter ranges from
0 to 24. The ditch width and ditch capacity exceedance
range between 0 and 15 (Maerz et al. 2005). The slope
angle and the block size are considered in both the risk and
consequence categories with different rating criteria.
Both the ‘‘risk of failure’’ and ‘‘consequence of failure’’
ratings are calculated by adding the scores of the 9 and 10
related parameters, respectively. The final values are then
normalized to obtain a final score between 0 and 100. The
adjustment factors (if non-zero) are simply added to each
final rating (risk or consequence). However, the maximum
allowable value is 100 (Maerz et al. 2005). The results can
then be plotted in a diagram with the ‘‘consequence value’’
on the x axis and the ‘‘risk value’’ on the y axis. The
threshold between the low and high risk and consequence
values was established as 50. This threshold defines four
zones:
– Low consequence and low risk: both the consequence
and risk are less than 50 (LL),
– Low consequence and high risk: the consequence is less
than 50, and the risk is greater than 50 (LH),
– High consequence and low risk: the consequence is
greater than 50, and the risk is less than 50 (HL),
– High consequence and high risk: both parameters are
greater than 50 (HH).
Although the results are useful for comparing different
slopes and prioritizing mitigation measures, the meaning of
these zones is not clear. Moreover, the terminology differs
from the accepted definitions of hazard and risk (Fell et al.
2008). The ‘‘risk of failure’’ mainly considers parameters
that are related to the potential rockfall hazard (in terms of
susceptibility, magnitude and frequency), whereas the
2879
‘‘consequence’’ value includes both the potential of the
falling rocks to reach the highways (i.e., probability of
reach) and the spatiotemporal exposure of vehicles. In
addition, vehicles are the only elements at risk that are
considered, and no attempts to address the potential dam-
age and economic values were included.
The method is more suitable than the RHRS for smaller
and highly weathered slopes that exhibit evidence of karst
or paleo-karst. However, several parameters are primarily
quantitative and are only quantifiable if images and videos
are available.
8.4 Ohio Rockfall Hazard Rating Matrix (ORHRM)
This modification of the RHRS was developed to address
the topographic, geologic and hydrogeologic conditions of
Ohio (USA; Shakoor and Woodard 2005). The geology of
Ohio is mainly characterized by competent siltstone,
sandstone and limestone strata that are interbedded with
claystones, mudstones and shales. Rockfalls are generally
caused by differential weathering, which consists of
undercutting of the competent layers by erosion of
incompetent layers (Shakoor and Woodard 2005). The
frequency and size of the rockfalls primarily depends on
the joint spacing in the stronger units and the extent of the
undercutting (Woodard et al. 2005).
The Ohio rockfall hazard rating matrix (ORHRM)
method is based on four main factors: the geologic con-
ditions, geometric conditions, traffic conditions and rock-
fall history. The first factor is related to the potential for
rockfall occurrence and its expected magnitude (i.e., size).
The slope’s geometric conditions determine whether or not
a falling rock will enter a roadway (i.e., the reach proba-
bility). The traffic conditions consider the hazard for
vehicles, and the rockfall history determines the rockfall
frequency. As in the original RHRS, a score that varies
exponentially from 3 to 81 is assigned to each factor
(Table 10).
1. The geology factor includes the following:
• Geological character: this parameter includes two
mutually exclusive subclasses (only the higher
value is considered in the final score):
– Differential weathering: this parameter is used
for slopes where the rockfalls are mainly
related to interbedded strata with different
competences. Differential weathering can be
described by the slake durability index (ISRM
1979) and the maximum amount of undercut-
ting. The former is determined through labora-
tory tests, whereas the latter can be measured or
visually estimated.
123
2880 F. Ferrari et al.

Table 9 Detailed rating categories and scores of the MORFH RS (from Maerz et al. 2005)
(1) Risk of failure
Slope height (m) 3 6 9 12 15 18
Rating 2 4 6 8 10 12
Slope angle () 30 40 50 60 70 80 90
Rating 0 2 4 6 8 10 12
Rockfall instability Completely Stable Partially stable Unstable Completely
stable unstable
Rating 0 3 6 9 12
Weathering factor Fresh Slightly Low Moderate High
Rating 0 6 12 18 24
Intact rock strength Very strong Strong rock Moderately strong Weak rock Very weak rock
rock rock
Rating 0 3 6 9 12
Face irregularity Smooth face Slightly irregular face Moderately Highly irregular Very highly
irregular face face irregular face
Rating 0 3 6 9 12
Face looseness No loose Lowly loose material Moderately loose Highly loose Very highly loose
material material material material
Rating 0 3 6 9 12
Block size Massive Moderately blocky Very blocky Completely crushed
Rating 0 4 8 12
Water on face Dry Dump Wet Dipping Flowing
Rating 0 3 6 9 12
(2) Adjustment factors of risk
Adversely oriented Favorable Fair Unfavorable Very unfavorable
discontinuities
Rating 0 4 8 12
Karst effect Non-carbonate Carbonate rocks Karst features with Karst features with Karst features with
rocks without karst width of 15 m width of 30 m width of 46 m
features
Rating 0 3 6 9 12
(3) Consequences of failure
Ditch width (m) 4.6 3.0 1.5 0
Rating 0 4 8 12
Ditch volume 9.1 7.6 6.1 4.6 3 1.5 0
(m3/linear m)
Rating 0 2 4 6 8 10 12
Expected rockfall \1.5 3 6.1 9.1 [12.2
quantity
(m3/linear m)
Rating 0 3 6 9 12
Slope angle () 20; 90 70 60 80 50 40 30;
85
Rating 0 2 3 4 6 10 12
Shoulder width 3.7 2.7 1.8 0.9 0
(m)

123
Qualitative Rockfall Hazard Assessment: A Comprehensive Review of Current Practices 2881

Table 9 continued
Rating 0 3 6 9 12
No. of lanes 4 3 2 1
Rating 0 3 6 12
Average daily traffic (cars/day) 5000 10,000 15,000 20,000
Rating 3 6 9 12
Average vehicle risk (% of time) 25 50 75 100
Rating 3 6 9 12
Decision sight distance Adequate Moderate Limited Very limited
Rating 0 4 8 12
Block size Completely Very blocky Moderately Massive
crushed blocky
Rating 0 4 8 12
(4) Adjustment factors of consequences
Ditch capacity exceedance 1 2 3 4
Rating 0 5 10 15
Ditch shape Large backslope Moderate Slight backslope Flat
backslope
Rating 0 4 8 12

– Discontinuity role: this parameter refers to the
discontinuity conditions in hard rock masses.
Two parameters are considered: the first
parameter is related to the extent of the
discontinuities and their orientation with
respect to the slope (as in the original RHRS).
The second parameter is related to the shear
strength of the discontinuities, which is evalu-
ated using the Barton criterion (Barton 1973).
• Block size or rockfall volume: this parameter and
its threshold values are the same as in the original
RHRS.
• Hydrologic conditions: the presence of water on the
slope is described using qualitative classes that are
evaluated in terms of number of observed water
springs.
The geological score is calculated by adding the highest
result of the differential erosion and discontinuity role to
the block size and the hydrological score and dividing
the total by 4. The result is between 3 and 81.
2. The geometric factor evaluates the potential of a
falling rock to reach the road and is described using
Ritchie’s score (e.g., section factor of the RSRP). A
value of 1 or less indicates that the catchment area
exceeds the ditch dimensions recommended by Ritchie
(1963). Otherwise (i.e., a score above 1), the catchment
area is inadequate to contain potential rockfalls. This
factor is used instead of the ditch effectiveness
parameter of the RHRS.
3. The traffic factor includes the following:
• The AVR, which is computed as in the original
RHRS and scored with the same thresholds.
• The PDSD, which features threshold values that are
more conservative than those used in the RHRS.
• Roadway width, which features threshold values
that are higher than those used in the original
RHRS.
The traffic score is given by the mean value of the
single scores estimated for the three categories.
4. The rockfall history involves qualitative evaluations
because detailed historical data are rarely available in
Ohio.
The final ORHRM score is then calculated as the sum of
the scores described above (geologic, geometric, traffic and
historic factors). Therefore, the overall score ranges
between 12 and 324.
This method was applied to 108 slopes in Ohio (Woo-
dard 2004) and, based on the overall scores that were
calculated without considering the rockfall history factor
(i.e., with minimum and maximum values of 9 and 243,
respectively), three degrees of potential rockfall hazard
were identified:
• Low hazard: \50,
• Medium hazard: 50–100,

123
2882 F. Ferrari et al.

Table 10 Detailed rating categories and scores of the ORHRM (from Woodard 2004)
Category Rating criteria and scores
3 points 9 points 27 points 81 points

(1) Geologic parameters

Geologic character
(a) Differential weathering
Slake durability index 90–100 75–90 50–75 \50
(%)
Maximum amount of \0.3 0.3–0.6 0.6–1.2 [1.2
undercutting (m)
(b) Discontinuity role
Extension orientation Discontinuous joints, Discontinuous joints, Discontinuous joints, Continuous joints,
favorable orientation random orientation adverse orientation adverse orientation
Surface features Very rough (JRC = 20) Rough (JRC = 15) Undulating (JRC = 10) Smooth (JRC = 5)
Block size (m) or 0.3 0.6 0.9 1.2
Volume per event (m3) 2.3 4.6 6.9 9.2
Hydrologic conditions No water seeps on slope A few water seeps on Many water seeps on slope Numerous water seeps
slope on slope
(2) Geometric parameter
Ritchie score \1 1–1.5 1.5–2.5 [2.5
(3) Traffic parameters
Average vehicle risk 25 % of time (very low) 50 % of time (low) 75 % of time (medium) 100 % of time (high)
Percent of decision sight Adequate (C100) Moderate (75) Limited (60) Very limited (\50)
distance (%)
Pavement width (m) 15.2 12.2 9.1 6.1
(4) History
Rockfall history No falls A few falls Many falls Numerous falls

• High hazard: [100. describing the rockfall runout, because the model focuses
on smaller slopes than those considered in the original
This method provides a hazard zonation even when
RHRS.
there are no guidelines for associating planning, restrictions
The ORHRM uses field observations and measurements,
and/or mitigation measures with each hazard level. Hence,
lab tests, historical records and analyses of traffic condi-
the results are useful for comparing different slopes.
tions. This leads to a very detailed and time-consuming
Similar to the MORFH RS, the contributions related to
rating process, especially because no preliminary screening
hazard and risks are combined, resulting in an overall score
step is implemented. However, the use of quantitative
that indicates neither the hazard nor the risk. The hazard
classes to evaluate the geologic characteristics (through the
considers the susceptibility (through the geologic charac-
slake durability index, the maximum amount of undercut-
teristics), the magnitude (block size), and the frequency
ting and the JRC) and ditch effectiveness (through the
(through the rockfall history), but neither the intensity nor
Ritchie score) makes this methodology less subjective and
the runout distances of the blocks (in terms of the slope-
operator-dependent than the RHRS.
related parameters) are addressed. For the risk analysis, the
probability of reach (using the Ritchie score), the spatial
8.5 Tennessee Rockfall Hazard Rating System
and temporal exposure (i.e., road width and AVR,
(TRHRS)
respectively) and the vulnerability are partially taken into
account, but the expected economic loss is not.
The Tennessee rockfall hazard rating system (TRHRS) is
The ORHRM does not consider the slope height, slope
part of the more complex Rockfall Management System for
angle and launching features, which are useful in
Tennessee (TennRMS; Mauldon et al. 2007), which was

123
Qualitative Rockfall Hazard Assessment: A Comprehensive Review of Current Practices 2883

Table 11 Recommended design catchment width for new slopes assessment, which has been modified in terms of the ditch
(from Mauldon et al. 2007) effectiveness, water flow and geology rating relative to the
Slope Recommended catchment Recommended catchment original RHRS.
height (m) width for vertical slope (m) width for inclined slope The detailed TRHRS considers eight parameters, whose
(m) scores increase exponentially (from 3 to 81) or within a
0–12.2 5.5 5.5 continuous range (from 0 to 100):
12.2–15.2 5.5 7.3 1. Slope height: corresponds to the original RHRS,
15.2–18.3 7.3 9.1 2. Ditch effectiveness: this parameter was modified from
18.3–21.3 8.5 10.4 the original RHRS to avoid the subjectivity in the
21.3–24.4 9.8 11.6 evaluation. The actual catchment width is measured
24.4–30.5 11.0 12.8 and compared to the recommended design catchment
30.5–38.1 11.0 12.8 width (Table 11). The corresponding percentage of the
38.1–53.3 12.2 14.6 current width to the design width is then calculated.
[53.3 15.9 18.3 This percentage is combined with the ratio of the
catchment width to its depth, the slope of the
catchment area, and the presence of launching features
developed to proactively manage rock slopes in Tennessee to obtain the exponential score (Table 12),
(USA), by identifying rock slopes with high rockfall risk 3. AVR: corresponds to the original RHRS,
and prioritizing the installation of the most suitable miti- 4. Roadway width: corresponds to the original RHRS,
gation measures. 5. Percentage of decision sight distance (PDSD): corre-
The TRHRS was developed to address the geologic sponds to the original RHRS,
heterogeneity of Tennessee and to reduce the subjectivity 6. Geologic characteristics: this parameter was signifi-
of the original RHRS. As observed by Vandewater et al. cantly modified from the original RHRS. In particular,
(2005), Tennessee has a large number of potentially the TRHRS characterizes all potential failure modes
unstable rock slopes with a wide variety of lithologies and with different scores and considers the sum of the
structural domains that result in several rockfall modes scores rather than the worst case. Scores are additive
(especially related to weathering and erosion). up to a maximum of 300, which corresponds to the
Like the original RHRS, the TRHRS involves two main upper bound of the sum of the geologic characteristics
steps: preliminary and detailed hazard assessments. The score and the block size score in the original RHRS.
preliminary rating process corresponds to the original Hence, the geology has the same contribution to the
RHRS and categorizes slopes as A, B or C according to the final score in both the TRHRS and the RHRS.
potential for rocks to reach the roadway and/or the his- The TRHRS considers five main failure modes: planar
torical rockfall activity. A, B and C slopes indicate high-to- sliding, wedge sliding, toppling, differential weather-
moderate, moderate-to-low and low-to-negligible poten- ing, and raveling (Table 13). For each failure mode,
tials for rocks to enter the roadway, respectively. There- two characteristics are observed: the relative ‘‘abun-
fore, A, B and C slopes are initially classified as high, dance’’ of the failure zone (expressed as a percentage
moderate and low hazard slopes, respectively. of the total cut surface area) and the ‘‘block size’’ (the
Historical records of rockfall activities in Tennessee are longest dimension of the block). For planar and wedge
often incomplete (Rose 2005). Hence, the potential of a failures, the ‘‘steepness’’ of the failure plane (estimated
falling block to reach a roadway is evaluated by consid- or measured using a clinometer) and the micro- and
ering impact marks on the road, the ditch effectiveness, the macro-‘‘friction’’, which is defined as a function of the
estimated size of events, and the presence of launching roughness profiles of the failure plane (Fig. 1), is also
features on the slope. If the potential for rocks to reach the considered. The ‘‘amount of relief’’ characteristic is
highway is moderate (with limited DSD) or high, the considered for differential weathering only and refers
TRHRS recommends assigning a preliminary A-rating to to the extent that a rock mass overhangs the underlying
that road cut. Only A-type slopes require a detailed

Table 12 Ditch effectiveness

Percent of design catchment width [90 % 70–90 % 50–70 % \50 %
scoring table (from Mauldon
et al. 2007) Score with 6:1 or greater catchment slopes 3 9 27 81
Score with poor catchment or launching features 9 27 81 81
Score with poor catchment and launching features 27 81 81 81

123
2884 F. Ferrari et al.

Table 13 Categories and

Category Rating criteria and scores
scores of geological
characteristics in the TRHRS (1) Planar rockfall mode
(from Vandewater et al. 2005)
Abundance (%) \10 10–20 20–30 [30
Score 3 9 27 81
Block size (m) \0.3 0.3–0.9 0.9–1.8 [1.8
Score 3 9 27 81
Steepness () 0–20 20–40 40–60 [60
Score 2 5 14 41
Friction Rough/undulating Smooth/undulating Rough/planar Smooth/planar
Score 2 5 14 41
(2) Wedge rockfall mode
Abundance (%) \10 10–20 20–30 [30
Score 3 9 27 81
Block size (m) \0.3 0.3–0.9 0.9–1.8 [1.8
Score 3 9 27 81
Steepness () 0–20 20–40 40–60 [60
Score 2 5 14 41
Friction Rough/undulating Smooth/undulating Rough/planar Smooth/planar
Score 2 5 14 41
(3) Topple rockfall mode
Abundance (%) \10 10–20 20–30 [30
Score 5 14 41 122
Block size (m) \0.3 0.3–0.9 0.9–1.8 [1.8
Score 5 14 41 122
(4) Differential weathering rockfall mode
Abundance (%) \10 10–20 20–30 [30
Score 3 9 27 81
Block size (m) \0.3 0.3–0.9 0.9–1.8 [1.8
Score 3 9 27 81
Relief (m) \0.3 0.3–0.9 0.9–1.8 [1.8
Score 3 9 27 81
(5) Raveling rockfall mode
Abundance (%) \10 10–20 20–30 [30
Score 3 9 27 81
Block size (m) \0.3 0.3–0.9 0.9–1.8 [1.8
Score 3 9 27 81
Shape Tabular Blocky Round
Score 3 9 27

123
Qualitative Rockfall Hazard Assessment: A Comprehensive Review of Current Practices
Fig. 1 Visual scoring aid for ~0.5 m
evaluation of friction. The
values indicate micro- and
macro-friction profiles
(modified after Vandewater
~5 m
et al. 2005)
Table 14 Rockfall history scoring criteria (from Mauldon et al. 2007)
Rockfall benchmark Frequency of occurrence (per year)
Few At most 1
Several 2 No impact marks and rocks on the road, many rocks in the ditch
Many 3–4
Constant At least 5
material. The ‘‘block shape’’ is accounted for only in
the raveling failure mode.
7. Presence of water on the slope: this parameter was
modified from the original RHRS. The climate
parameter was removed because it does not vary
significantly in Tennessee. The presence of water is
scored as follows:
• No water on the slope (3 points): water is not
present, and there are no signs of seeping water on
the rock face,
• Seeping water (9 points): presence of areas with
concentrated vegetation and/or wet rock surfaces
although without noticeable percolating water,
• Flowing water (27 points): clear dripping or
trickling water from the rock face,
• Gushing water (81 points): a large amount of water
pouring from the cut.
8. Rockfall history: this parameter was slightly modified
from the original RHRS because of the limited
availability of historical records. The scores are
assigned according to Table 14. Maintenance records
(when available) allow the frequency of occurrence to
be estimated. Alternatively, the rockfall history can be
assessed through field observations based on the
amount of material in the catchment, the number of
impact marks on the road caused by falling rocks, and
the presence of rocks on the road.
The final TRHRS score is defined as the sum of the
scores of each category and has a maximum value of 1000.
Higher scores represent higher rockfall potential.
The TRHRS and RHRS use similar ratings. In addition,
the TRHRS includes hazard-related and risk-related factors
2885
~0.5 m ~0.5 m ~0.5 m
~5 m ~5 m ~5 m
Field judgement Score
No impact marks on the roads, few rocks in the ditch 3
9
Few impact marks or few rocks on the road 27
Many impact marks and/or many rocks on the road 81
that are added together. Hazard factors are related to slope
features, historical rockfalls and geologic characteristics,
whereas risk factors are related to the traffic level, roadway
geometry, and ditch effectiveness. Notably, the TRHRS
considers the susceptibility (through the geological char-
acteristic and the presence of water), the frequency (rock-
fall history), and the magnitude (i.e., block size) but neither
the block runout nor the intensity. The spatiotemporal
exposure, reach probability and vulnerability are only
partially considered. Finally, the potential economic losses
are not accounted for.
The TRHRS addresses several parameters (i.e., ditch
effectiveness, geologic conditions, and rockfall history)
more objectively than the original RHRS, with the inten-
tion of making the system simple to apply, easily repeat-
able and more versatile.
Comparisons between the detailed TRHRS and detailed
RHRS results have shown that the TRHRS yields scores
that are on average approximately 16 % higher than the
scores from the RHRS (Mauldon et al. 2007). This dif-
ference can be attributed to the more detailed ditch effec-
tiveness score in the TRHRS and to the cumulative
geological scoring, which takes into account the potential
co-existence of several failure modes on the same slope.
The TRHRS can be considered a simple and fast method
whose main limitations are related to the high level of
subjectivity in the preliminary screening and in some cat-
egories of the detailed rating (i.e., geologic sub-factors,
water on the slope and rockfall history when a database is
not available). Finally, the lack of distinction between
hazard and risk and the absence of threshold values beyond
which mitigation measures are required represent addi-
tional limitations to the applicability of this method.
123
2886 F. Ferrari et al.

Table 15 Detailed rating categories and scores of the hazard rating in the CRHRS (from Santi et al. 2009)
Category Rating criteria and scores
3 points 9 points 27 points 81 points

(1) Slope

Slope height (m) 7.5–15 15–23 23–30 [30

Rockfall frequency [2 years 1–2 years Yearly, seasonal Year-round/several events

Average slope angle score 0–2 2–4 4–8 [8

Launching features None (smooth slope) Minor (\0.6 surface Many (0.6–1.8 surface Major ([0.8 surface variation)
variation) variation

Ditch catchment (%) Class 1 (95–100) Class 2 (65–94) Class 3 (30–64) Class 4 (\30)

(2) Climate

Precipitation (mm/year) \250 250–500 500–900 [900

Annual freeze–thaw cycles 1–5 6–10 11–15 [16

Seepage/water Dry Damp/wet Dripping Running water

Slope aspect N E, W, NE, NW SE, SW S

(3) Geology

(a) Sedimentary rocks

Degree of undercutting \0.3 0.3–0.6 0.6–1.2 [1.2
(m)
Jar slake 6 5 3–4 \2

Degree of interbedding 1–2 weak interbeds, 1–2 weak interbeds, [2 interbeds, \15 cm [2 interbeds, \15 cm
\15 cm [15 cm
(b) Crystalline rocks
Rock character Homogenous/massive Small faults/strong veins Schist shear zone \15 cm Weak pegmatite/micas/shear zones
[15 cm
Degree of overhang (m) \0.3 0.3–0.6 0.6–1.2 [1.2

Weathering grade Fresh Surface staining Slightly altered/softened Core stones

(c) Discontinuities

Block size (m) or 0.3 0.3–0.6 0.6–1.5 [1.5

volume (m3) 0.75 0.75–2.3 2.3–7.6 [7.6

Number of sets 1 1 plus random 2 [2

Persistence (m) and \3 and dips into slope [3 and dips to slope \3 and daylights out of [3 and daylights out of slope
orientation slope
Aperture (mm) Closed 0.1–1 1–5 [5

Weathering conditions Fresh Surface staining Granular infilling Clay infilling

Friction Rough Undulating Planar Slickenside

(d) Block in matrix

Block size (93) \0.3 m 0.3–0.6 m 0.6–1.5 m [1.5 m

Block shape (93) Tabular Blocky Blocky to angular Rounded and smooth

Vegetation (93) Fully vegetated Patchy vegetated Isolated plants None

123
Qualitative Rockfall Hazard Assessment: A Comprehensive Review of Current Practices
Table 16 Detailed rating
Category
categories and scores of traffic-
related parameters in the risk
rating of the CRHRS (from
Santi et al. 2009) Percent of decision sight distance (%)
Average vehicle risk (%)
Number of accidents (n)
8.6 Colorado Rockfall Hazard Rating System
(CRHRS)
The Colorado RHRS (CRHRS) is a more sophisticated
method that divides the hazard and the risk components.
Three versions of the CRHRS have been published (Stover
1992; Andrew 1994; Santi et al. 2009) and contain addi-
tional quantitative components (Turner and Jayaprakash
2013). Only the most recent edition (Santi et al. 2009) is
presented in this paper.
The CRHRS considers several geologic and climatic
factors that contribute to rockfalls and incorporates more
objective rating criteria than those that are used in the
original RHRS.
The hazard and the risk are separated into two different
scores, which are calculated as the sums of 18 (Table 15)
and 3 (Table 16) parameters, respectively. A score chosen
from four classes is assigned to each parameter. The
exponential score system of the RHRS is not modified; 3
points are assigned in the more favorable case, and 81 are
assigned in the worst case.
In the CRHRS, the hazard is computed by considering
five parameters that are related to slope features (height,
rockfall frequency, average slope angle, launching features,
and ditch catchment), four parameters that are related to the
climate (annual precipitation, annual freeze–thaw cycles,
seepage/water, and slope aspect), six parameters that are
related to the discontinuity conditions (block size or vol-
ume, number of sets, persistence and orientation, aperture,
weathering conditions, and friction) and three parameters
that are related to the geologic context. The geologic
context is further divided into the following parameters:
• Sedimentary rocks: degree of undercutting, jar slake
and degree of interbedding;
• Crystalline rocks: rock character, degree of overhang
and degree of weathering;
• ‘‘Block-in-matrix’’ (i.e., materials composed of glacial
and debris-flow colluvium): block size, block shape and
vegetation. Because the discontinuity conditions cannot
be determined for a block in a matrix, each score of
these three parameters is multiplied by a factor of three
to equally rate the geologic factors, thereby allowing
slopes within different geologic contexts to be
compared.
2887
Rating criteria and scores
3 points 9 points 27 points 81 points
[80 60–80 40–60 \40
\24 25–59 60–74 [75
0–2 3–5 6–8 [9
Three risk parameters that reflect the traffic conditions
are taken into account: the sight distance, the vehicle risk,
and the number of accidents that occurred between 1976
and 2004. The risk score should quantify the likelihood of
accidents or injuries due to a rockfall event.
The sums of the hazard-related parameters and the risk-
related parameters yield the hazard score and the risk score,
respectively. The former ranges from 54 to 1458, and the
latter ranges from 9 to 243.
Beyond the addition of several parameters, the CRHRS
differs from the original version of the RHRS in the use of
less qualitative classes for the rockfall history, ditch
catchment, climate and geology. The rockfall history is
described using the frequency, the ditch catchment is
determined using the ditch design criteria of Ritchie
(1963), and several thresholds that depend on the annual
precipitation and number of freeze–thaw cycles are used to
determine the climate-related class. The geology is also
described using more objective classes with numerical
thresholds for the degree of undercutting, jar slake, degree
of interbedding, degree of overhang, block size, number of
discontinuity sets, persistence and aperture.
Overall, the CRHRS method appears to characterize the
geology more accurately than the RHRS. However, several
parameters, such as those associated with sedimentary
rocks, are difficult to accurately identify in situ, and
specific tests (e.g., jar slake tests) must be performed to
determine these parameters.
Therefore, the CRHRS method provides less subjective
results than the RHRS, but the assessment is slower,
especially considering that a preliminary screening step is
not performed.
The CRHRS differs from earlier methods primarily in
that it considers the hazard- and risk-related parameters
separately. The final hazard and risk values are useful for
comparing different slopes and prioritizing the locations of
mitigation measures. However, these values do not provide
indicative hazard thresholds or any link with hazard or risk
zonation.
The susceptibility, frequency, magnitude and propaga-
tion of a block down the slope are analyzed to estimate the
hazard. The susceptibility is defined by the geologic con-
ditions. However, the rockfall failure modes are not
explicitly incorporated. The probability of occurrence
considers the rockfall frequency, and the magnitude is
123
2888 F. Ferrari et al.

[110,000
described by the block size. Finally, block propagation
considers not only the ditch catchment but also the

Daily
[100

80
9 launching features and the average slope angle. According
to the third edition of the CRHRS, slope angles near 30

65,000–110,000
and 85 produce rockfalls with the longest runout distances
(Maerz et al. 2005).
The CRHRS method appropriately considers all of the
Weekly

parameters for the hazard definition except for the inten-

60

73
8

sity; however, it does not adequately describe the risk. The

temporal exposure and vulnerability of vehicles are par-
35,000–65,000

tially taken into account by the AVR and the DSD

Biweekly

parameters. The spatial exposure (which is generally

determined by the road width or the length of the rockfall
36

67

zone) and the potential economic losses are not taken into
7

account.
20,000–35,000

8.7 Rockfall Hazard Rating for Ontario (RHRON)

Monthly

The RHRS and the Rockfall Hazard Rating for Ontario

21

60
6

(RHRON) were both designed to assess rockfall hazards

11,000–20,000

along roads and highways to appropriately allocate avail-

able funds to mitigation measures. The former was devel-
oped in Oregon (USA), whereas the latter was developed in
6m

Ontario (Canada).
13

53
5

Ontario is characterized by relatively smooth topogra-

phy with less mountainous terrain and lower rock cuts than
6000–11,000

in Oregon. Additionally, several highways in Ontario were

Annually

constructed before the introduction of controlled blasting

Table 17 Rating categories and scores of the basic RHRON (from Franklin et al. 2013)

methods, so many road cuts are highly fractured and sus-

47
4

ceptible to high degrees of weathering and erosion rates

3000–6000

(Franklin et al. 2013). The RHRON was initially proposed

by Franklin and Senior (1997) to take into account all of
5 years

these features and was further developed by Senior (2003)

40
3

and Franklin et al. (2013). The authors added five new

parameters to the Oregon system and redefined several
1500–3000
10 years

parameters.
33
3
2

27, 9 33, 9
9
Rating criteria and scores

750–1500
50 years

8
27

7 Class A
2 RHRON + 2.25 Cang < 86
2
1

6 8 RHRON + 2.25 Cang > 147

[100 years

RHRON

5
\750

4
Class B
20
1
0

3
80, 2.25
F2 frequency of falls

2
Class C
F3 crest angle ()

1
F1 volume (m3)

0 33, 0.5
20 27 33 40 47 53 60 67 73 80
F4 AADT

Crest Angle (degrees)

Factor

Fig. 2 Hazard class rating chart (modified after Franklin et al. 2013)

123
Qualitative Rockfall Hazard Assessment: A Comprehensive Review of Current Practices 2889

Table 18 Values, ranges and ratings of each parameter in the detailed RHRON (from Franklin et al. 2013)
Parameter Determination of value Truncation range Determination of rating

(1) Rockfall history – – Directly estimated

(2) Maximum rockfall quantity In place volume 1–10 m3 R2 = 9 (log10 T2)
(3) Total rockfall quantity In place volume 1–100 m3 R3 = 4.5 (log10 T3)
(4) Face irregularity Visual estimation 0–2.5 m R4 = 3.6 (T4)
(5) Face looseness – – Estimated from Table 20
(6) Joint orientation/persistence – – Estimated from Table 21
(7) Intact rock strength V7 ¼ UCS 1–200 MPa R7 = 9 - [3.911 log10 (T7)]
(8) Shear strength V8 ¼ up 20–70 R8 = 12.6 - 0.18 (T8)
(9) Block size V9 ¼ D50 2–200 cm R9 = 10.35 - [4.5 log10 (T9)]
(10) Slake durability index V10 ¼ Id2 (Table 22) 0–80 % R10 = 9 - [0.1125 (T10)]
(11) Water table height 100h – R11 = 0.09 (V11)
V11 ¼ face height

(12) Slope height Estimated and check by measurements 0–30 m R12 = 0.3 (T12)
(13) Crest angle Measured or estimated 20–80 R13 = 0.15 (T13) - 3
 Czw 
(14) Clear zone width V14 ¼ 100 Czwd
30–120 % R14 = 12 - 0.1 (V14)
(15) Ditch effectiveness Probability of reaching the pavement – R15 = 0.09 (V15)
(16) Overspill amount % width of pavement – R16 = 0.09 (V16)
P
(17) Average vehicle risk (AVR) AADT Lhaz 0–100 % R17 = 0.09 (T17)
V17 ¼ 240 PSL
(18) Percentage of decision sight distance (PDSD) ASD 40–120 % R18 = 13.5 - 0.1125 (T18)
V18 ¼ 100  DSD
(19) Available paved width Directly estimated 6–16 m R19 = 14.4 - 0.9 (T19)

Table 19 Estimation of the

Score Length of half-barrels/ Average thickness of shotcrete to Maximum depth of overhangs/
rock face irregularity score
(R4) length of blastholes (%) give a locally smooth face (cm) undercuts/launching features (m)
(from Franklin et al. 2013)
0 100 \10 \0.2
1 80 \10 \0.2
2 60 \10 \0.2
3 40 \10 \0.2
4 20 0–10 \0.2
5 \10 10–20 \0.5
6 \10 20–30 \0.5
7 \10 [30 0.5–1
8 \0 [30 1–1.5
9 \10 [30 [2

As a preliminary assessment, the ‘‘basic RHRON’’
addresses the following questions, and a factor, Fn, is
assigned to each answer:
F1. How much rock is unstable?
F2. How often is it likely to fail?
F3. What chance does the rock have of reaching the
highway?
F4. How severe will the consequences of such a rockfall
be?
The first factor (F1) describes the magnitude, the second
(F2) describes the instability, the third (F3) describes the
reach probability, and the last (F4) describes the
consequences. Each factor is rated with a score that ranges
from 0 (good) to 9 (bad) (Table 17).
F1 is estimated for either sliding or raveling. The former
considers the total volume of material that is expected to
fall during a 20 year period, and the latter considers the
total in-place quantity of loose rock.
F2 is based on the site-specific frequency of rockfalls
and accounts for the rock conditions, face looseness,
joint aperture, and any obvious evidence of previous
rockfalls.
F3 considers the reach potential based on the crest angle,
which is the angle between the edge of pavement (EOP)
and the highest potentially unstable block or, more

123
2890 F. Ferrari et al.

Table 20 Estimation of the face looseness score (from Franklin et al. Each class A site needs to be divided into hazard seg-
2013) ments. A hazard segment is defined as a rock face with a
Score (R5) Abundance of joints Typical Face nearly constant type of instability and degree of hazard.
at maximum aperture apertures condition Alternatively, the rock cuts can be subdivided into 25-m-
in area 10 9 10 m (mm) long segments. The worst hazard segment is determined by
0–2 1–10 \1 Tight considering the largest and most hazardous expected single
3–5 10–30 1–5 Moderately loose rockfall (Qmax), the slope height, the crest angle, the width
6–7 30–50 2–15 Very loose of the clear zone (i.e., horizontal distance from the EOP to
8–9 [50 [15 Precarious stability the rock face), the degree of instability and the likelihood
of impact on the highway.
Once the most hazardous segment has been identified,
conservatively, the crest of the cut slope. F3 reflects the the ‘‘Detailed RHRON’’ assessment can be conducted by
adequacy of the ditch for any rock face height. considering the following 19 parameters (Table 18). Each
F4 takes into account the probability that a rock that parameter is assigned a rating (R) between 0 (good) and 9
reaches the highway will cause an accident. It is deter- (bad) according to its numerical value (V), which in some
mined using AADT values. cases is truncated (T) at a specified upper or lower limit.
The average of the four scores gives the ‘‘basic 1. Rockfall history (activity): this rating (R1) is directly
RHRON’’ value that, together with the crest angle, allows estimated from in situ observations as well as
three different rockfall hazard classes of slopes to be maintenance and accident reports.
identified: classes A, B and C (Fig. 2). 2. Maximum expected rockfall quantity (Qmax): a
Class C sites are classified as low rockfall hazard slopes. value between 1 and 10 m3 is estimated from in situ
They usually have crest angles of less than 33. Potential observations, and the corresponding score (R2) is
instabilities do not have a significant likelihood of reaching then calculated using the equation reported in
the highway. Therefore, they do not require a detailed Table 18.
assessment. 3. Total expected rockfall quantity (RQtot): the sum of
Class B sites, which have crest angles between 33 and the total quantity of potential rockfalls for all
60, are classified as moderate rockfall hazard sites and do segments. A value between 1 and 100 m3 is
not require a detailed hazard assessment. estimated from in situ observations, and the score
Class A sites, which have crest angles greater than 60, are (R3) is then calculated according to Table 18.
classified as high rockfall hazard slopes. These sites require a 4. Face irregularity: this rating (R4) can either be
‘‘Detailed RHRON’’ analysis, which involves a more com- directly estimated from Table 19 or calculated using
prehensive analysis of the factors described above. Table 18.
The ‘‘Detailed RHRON’’ methodology includes the 5. Face looseness: this score (R5) is estimated based on
identification of potential instability mechanisms, ratings, the number of visible open joints on the face, their
and suggestions of remedial measures and associated costs.

Table 21 Estimation of the

Score (R6) Trace length (m) Dip towards face () Strike relative to crest ()
joint orientation/persistence
score (from Franklin et al. 2013) 0–2 1–3 \20 [20
3–5 3–5 20–40 10–20
6–7 5–10 40–60 5–10
8–9 [10 [60 0–5

Table 22 Estimation of slake

durability index score for the
detailed RHRON (from
Franklin et al. 2013)
Score (R10) T10 (%)
0 80
1 71
3 53
5 36
7 18
9 0
Description
Silty mudstone or similar, moderately durable
Some bed separation during 1–2 months of exposure
Disintegrates during 1–2 months exposure
Disintegrates during 1–2 weeks exposure
Disintegrates during 1–2 days exposure
Smectite clay-shale, disintegrates during 1–2 h of exposure

123
Qualitative Rockfall Hazard Assessment: A Comprehensive Review of Current Practices 2891

typical apertures and an assessment of how easily the Table 23 Estimation of the clear zone width score for the detailed
rock can be scaled by machine or by hand (Table 20). RHRON (from Franklin et al. 2013)
6. Joint orientation/persistence: this score (R6) is Score (R14) V14 (%) Description
estimated by considering the trace length and
orientation of the worst joint or joint set (Table 21). 0 120 Oversize clear zone
7. Intact rock strength: a representative value of the 2 100 Full clear zone
uniaxial compressive strength (UCS), truncated at 4 80 Moderate clear zone
200 MPa, can be estimated based on the geologic 6 60 Limited clear zone
material, its joint compressive wall strength (JCS), 7 40 Very limited clear zone
the base friction angle (/b), or following the field 9 30 Extremely limited clear zone
methods suggested by ISRM (1978). The score (R7)
is then calculated as specified in Table 18.
8. Shear strength: the peak friction angle (/p) can be Table 24 Estimation of the clear zone width design value according
to the annual average daily traffic (AADT) and the posted speed limit
estimated based on the geologic material, mineral (PSL) (from Franklin et al. 2013)
infilling, joint roughness coefficient (JRC) and JCS
AADT (no. cars) PSL (km/h)
(in the case of planar sliding). The maximum
allowable value of /p is 70. The score (R8) is 70 80 90 100 110 120
calculated as specified in Table 18.
C6000 4 5 6 7 9 10
9. Block size: the median size of blocks (D50) is defined
C1500 3 4 5 6 7 8
as the average linear dimension of a typical block in
\1500 3 4 4 5 6 7
the rock face. Its score (R9) is determined using a
logarithmic scale that ranges from a minimum of
2 cm to a maximum of 2 m according to Table 18. designed worst hazard segment’’ (Franklin et al.
Large blocks correspond to low ratings (i.e., a 2013). It can be measured with a tape measure. Its
stable rock mass with few joints). The block size value (V14) is computed as the ratio between the
controls the stability of the face and should not be measured clear zone width and the clear zone width
confused with Qmax, which measures the largest design value (Czwd). The latter is defined as the
potentially unstable block. The value of Qmax distance from the edge of the travelled portion of the
increases for larger blocks, which reflects an increase roadway to the face of an unprotected hazard and can
of the hazard. be estimated based on the AADT and PSL
10. Slake durability index (Id2): this parameter measures (Table 23). The score (R14), which is calculated
the resistance of soft rocks to weathering, erosion according to Table 18, describes the probability of
and wetting–drying cycles (Brown 1981). Its value traffic colliding with the rock face while attempting
can be qualitatively estimated for medium–high to avoid a fallen block.
durability rocks (Table 22), whereas it must be 15. Ditch effectiveness: this parameter represents the
measured by laboratory tests for less durable rocks. probability of any rockfall event with a magnitude of
The score (R10) can then be calculated according to Qmax reaching the pavement of the highway and is
Table 18. expressed as a percentage (0–100). It should be
11. Water table: this parameter reflects the groundwater estimated by considering the slope height, angle, and
pressure in the joints. Its value is expressed as the irregularities, as well as the features of the ditch. The
ratio of the maximum height of water emergence and score (R15) can be calculated according to Table 18.
the total slope height. The score is calculated 16. Overspill amount: this parameter is a visual assessment
according to Table 18. of the percentage of the travelled portion of highway
12. Slope height: this parameter can be measured by a that would be blocked by a Qmax rockfall event. It
clinometer or photos and is truncated at a maximum ranges from 0 for a fall that only fills the ditch and
value of 30 m. The score can then be calculated shoulder to 100 % for an overspill that extends over the
according to Table 18. full width of the pavement. The corresponding score
13. Crest angle: this value ranges from 20 to 80, and (R16) can be calculated as shown in Table 18.
the score is calculated as shown in Table 18. 17. AVR: this parameter represents the number of
14. Clear zone width (Czw): this parameter is defined as vehicles in the hazard zone at any given time or
‘‘the horizontal distance, measured from the edge of the percentage of time that a vehicle is in the rockfall
the travelled pavement to the rock face, for the hazard zone. Its value is calculated from the traffic
narrowest combination of ditch plus shoulder for the density and is expressed in terms of the AADT, the

123
2892
sum of the hazard lengths (RLhaz) and the PSL
(Table 24). Although the resulting value can be
greater than 100 %, it must be truncated at 100 %
(T17). The score (R17) can then be calculated
according to Table 18.
18. PDSD: as in the original RHRS, the PDSD is defined
as the ratio between the ASD and the DSD, which
depends on the speed of the vehicle. In the RHRON,
the PSL is considered rather than the actual speed.
The ASD can be obtained by measuring the distance
from the hazard to oncoming vehicles in the near
lane if the predicted overspill potential (V16) is less
than 50 % or by taking the lowest value of traffic
moving in both directions if the predicted overspill
potential is greater than 50 %. The resulting value is
truncated between 40 and 120 %, and the corre-
sponding score (R18) is calculated according to
Table 18.
19. Available paved width: this is the width of pavement
that is available to avoid a rockfall event. This width
represents the full width of the pavement for an
undivided highway or the nearest paved width for a
divided highway with a central barrier or ditch. A
value between 6 and 16 m is used to calculate the
corresponding score (Table 18).
Once the scores, each of which ranges between 0 and 9,
have been assigned to each parameter, the following factors
can be calculated:
• The magnitude of the event, i.e., the average of the
maximum and total expected rockfall quantities and the
slope height (Eq. 10)
ðR2 þ R3 þ R12Þ
F1 ¼ : ð10Þ
3
• The instability, based on the most critical (i.e., with the
maximum score) detachment mode (Eqs. 11–13)
ðR1 þ R9 þ R11 þ R4 þ R5 þ R6Þ
F2ravelling ¼ ;
6 the method does not consider any parameter related to the
ð11Þ
ðR1 þ R9 þ R11 þ R5 þ R6 þ R8Þ
F2sliding ¼ ; ð12Þ
6
ðR1 þ R9 þ R11 þ R4 þ R7 þ R10Þ
F2erosion ¼ :
6 hazard and a preliminary assessment of possible remedia-
ð13Þ
• The probability of reach (Eq. 14)
½R13 þ R14 þ ðR15 þ R16Þ=2
F3 ¼ : ð14Þ
3 because the final RHRON score is computed by averaging
• The expected consequences (Eq. 15):
123
F. Ferrari et al.
ðR17 þ R18 þ R19Þ
F4 ¼ : ð15Þ
3
The final score of the RHRON can be calculated by
averaging these four factors. The highest RHRON value
corresponds to the highest hazard (i.e., a slope with
RHRON = 0 is very safe, whereas a slope that is rated 9 is
very unsafe). The RHRON value, together with a cost-
benefit analysis for remedial measures, is useful in identi-
fying sites and prioritizing protective measures.
The RHORN is more rigorous and objective than the
original RHRS, especially in the preliminary screening, but
is more complex. Moreover, the criteria that are used to
assign the scores in the detailed rating phase are not
qualitative; therefore, the RHRON results are less subjec-
tive than the original RHRS results.
The RHRON considers the magnitude, susceptibility,
frequency of failure and rockfall runout in the definition
of hazard. The magnitude is considered in F1 through
the potential rockfall volume. The susceptibility and the
frequency of failure are considered together in a single
factor (instability factor; F2) that is calculated by dif-
ferent parameters based on the potential detachment
mode of a block. This instability factor depends on
historical observations, block size, rock mass properties
and the presence of water on the slope and does not take
into account triggering events. Several rock mass
parameters require laboratory analyses, which require
additional time and expense. Finally, the probability of
reach (F3) is based on the crest angle, the clear zone
width, the ditch effectiveness and the potential overspill
and does not consider the slope height or face
irregularities.
The consequences (F4) are estimated by taking into
account the spatial and temporal exposure (via the clear
zone width, traffic density and speed), the space for
avoidance maneuvers and the visibility (DSD), which
partially describes the vulnerability of vehicles. However,
potential economic loss.
The RHRON is relatively time-consuming because it
involves the measurement of a large number of factors.
Nevertheless, Franklin et al. (2013) showed that a two-
person team can perform a detailed evaluation of the
tion measures and costs in 30 min.
Similar to several of the previously described rockfall
hazard assessment methods, the RHRON does not clearly
distinguish between hazard factors and consequence factors
the hazard-related factors with the risk-related factors.
Finally, the method does not establish associated hazard
Qualitative Rockfall Hazard Assessment: A Comprehensive Review of Current Practices 2893

Table 25 Detailed rating categories and scores of the risk rating in the R3S2 (from Mölk et al. 2008)
Category Rating criteria and scores
3 points 9 points 27 points 81 points

Source area
Loosening of Joint closed Joint width in mm Joint width in cm Joint width in dm
rock
Joint strength Rough joints Undulated joint-planes Planar joints Slickensides, joint gauges
Joint continuity Discontinuous joints, Discontinuous joints, random Discontinuous joints, Continuous joints, adverse
and favorable orientation orientation adverse orientation orientation
orientations
Pathway
Vertical slope \100 100–300 300–500 [500
height (m)
Climate and Aspect of slope: north, no Slope tends to be dry Water present on slope Aspect of slope: south,
water water present on slope permanent water leakage
Block size d90 \1 1–5 5–10 [10
(m3)
Pathway: High roughness, good Rough, forested slope, good to Smooth, little vegetation, No vegetation, poor
roughness ? damping mean damping (i.e., scree slope) mean to poor damping damping (rocky surface)
damping
Proof of No events reported, no Silent witnesses, no reported 1 event/10 years [1 event/10 years
historical silent witnesses events
events
Quality of land- Agriculture Periodically used buildings Periodically inhabited Permanently inhabited
use buildings buildings

mapping threshold values, which are necessary to identify
hazard levels and/or whether and what type of mitigation
measures should be installed.
8.8 Rockfall Risk Rating for Settlements (R3S2)
Whereas most existing rockfall rating systems focus on
evaluating the rockfall hazard and risk along linear struc-
tures (such as railways, roads or pipelines), the R3S2 was
developed for rockfall hazard zoning in populated areas in
Austria (Mölk et al. 2008). The method is based on a
preliminary stage, which aims to identify locations where
conflicts could arise between the potential rockfall runout
zones and urban areas, followed by a detailed rating stage.
The preliminary assessment is based on the following
factors:
1. The identification of scree slopes and detachment areas
using remote sensing techniques (such as aerial
photographs and digital terrain models);
2. The identification of rockfall events that have occurred
at the site (historical records and interviews);
3. A field investigation to delineate the potential rockfall-
prone areas (from which the energy line must be traced
based on the shadow angle method) to define the
rockfall runout zone for a shadow angle of 26 (as
proposed by Wyllie 2005).
A detailed rockfall rating system must then be applied to
areas where runout zones and areas overlap with present or
future urban settlements. The rating system relies on three
parameters related to the characterization of the source area
and six parameters that describe the rockfall runout
(Table 25):
1. Loosening of rock: this parameter is described by the
apertures of the joints in the rock mass.
2. Joint strength: this is described by the roughness of the
joints and infillings.
3. Joint continuity and orientation: this is the same
parameter that describes the structural conditions of
case 1 (geologic characteristics) in the original RHRS.
It qualitatively describes the persistence of joints and
the joint orientation relative to the slope and to each
other. A favorable rating means that the joint orien-
tation does not favor detachments.
4. Vertical slope height: this height is measured (or
estimated) from the highest point of each particular
rockfall source to the foot of the slope. The threshold
values are significantly greater than those considered in

123
2894 F. Ferrari et al.

Fig. 3 Frequency-consequence Frequency/Probability

diagram used to determine
different risk categories
486

?
(modified after Mölk et al.
2008)
Frequent Unacceptable risk
Acon:
Acon:
200 Most probably
further
migaon measures
invesgaon.
Reasonable or building ban
Favourable
probable
results unlikely

90
Rock fall indicaon zone
Remote
Acon:
further
40
invesgaon
Favourable

?
Very Tolerable risk result probable
Remote Acon: none

18 Consequences
Minimal Low High damage High damage
12 damage 30 damage 70 no fatalies 150 fatalies 324

other hazard rating systems because this method is potential damage (i.e., consequences). The pathway
adapted to the Alpine region. parameter (given by the roughness and damping) influences
5. Climate and water: these parameters are described both the frequency and consequences. The scores of the
qualitatively and consider the slope aspect and the frequency-related parameters are summed, as are those
presence of water on the slope, which defines the related to the consequences. These two scores are plotted in
probability of freeze–thaw cycles that contribute to the a frequency-consequence diagram (Fig. 3), which allows
occurrence of rockfalls. the following categories to be distinguished:
6. Block size: the parameter d90, i.e., the diameter at
• Tolerable risk zone: because of the low frequency and/
which 90 % of a sample’s mass is composed of smaller
or low levels of damage, the resulting risk in these areas
blocks, can be derived from observations of the rock
is rated as acceptable, and no further actions need to be
mass and/or the scree slope.
taken.
7. Roughness and damping characteristics of the path-
• Rockfall indication zone: further investigation is nec-
way: these parameters consider the slope roughness,
essary. Areas within this class have a significant risk of
the presence and type of vegetation, and the damping
being affected by rockfalls with moderate frequency
features, which influence the runout distance.
and potential damage.
8. Evidence of historical events: because historical data
• Unacceptable risk: these areas feature a high rockfall
are rarely available for land-use planning and young
risk, and mitigation measures are necessary to protect
settlements, the rockfall frequency can be estimated
existing buildings. Additional restrictions should be
from an assessment of the rock mass and/or the blocks
imposed to avoid further development.
that have accumulated along the slope.
9. Land-use qualities: different land uses are considered A final score, which indicates the potential risk to the
because they influence the potential for damage and study area, can be calculated by multiplying the total fre-
fatalities. quency and consequence scores.
The so-called ‘‘frequency’’ score roughly describes the
An exponential score that ranges from 3 to 81 is
hazard. This score is calculated by adding the parameters
assigned to each parameter. In particular, the loosening of
that are related to the susceptibility (rock mass properties,
the rock, joint strength, joint continuity and orientation,
presence of water and freeze–thaw cycles), frequency
climate and water, and evidence of historical events are
(historical data), and expected runout (slope features).
assumed to influence the probability of rockfall occurrence
The magnitude is considered in the consequences, which
(i.e., frequency), whereas the vertical slope height, block
also take into account the spatial exposure of buildings and
size and land-use qualities are assumed to influence the

123
Qualitative Rockfall Hazard Assessment: A Comprehensive Review of Current Practices 2895

Table 26 Detailed rating categories and scores of the FRHI (from Koleini and Van Rooy 2011)
Parameters Rating criteria and scores

Face height (m) \1.5 1.5–4.5 4.5–7.5 [7.5

Score 1 2–6 7–9 10–12
Face inclination () \30 or 90 75–90 or 30–35 35–65 60–75
Score 1 2–4 5–7 8–10
Face irregularity Clear cut Occasional irregularities Many irregularities Major launching features
Score -1 3 8 11
Rock conditions Hard and intact Massive, moderately jointed and Very blocky, many Highly fractured completely
(equivalent RQD) (90–100) blocky (50–90) fractures (25–50) crushed (\25)
Score -1 3 7 10
Spacing of Very wide ([0.9) Wide (0.2–0.9) Close (0.05–0.2) Very close (\0.05)
discontinuities (m)
Score 0–1 2–4 6–8 9
Block size of falling \0.05 0.05–0.1 0.1–0.2 0.2–0.3
rocks (m)
Score 0–1 2–3 4–7 8–12
Volume of rockfall (kg) \4.54 4.54–13.6 13.6–22.7 [22.7
Score 1 3–7 9–11 12
Excavation method Control blasting Mechanical excavation Regular blasting Poor blasting
Score 1 1–4 5 8
Time factor without \1 day 1 day–1 month 1–4 months or [4 years [4 months
remedy
Score 1 2–4 5–6 7–8
Rockfall frequency No rockfall Rare rockfall Occasional rockfall Frequent rockfall
Score 0 3 6 8

partially consider the temporal exposure of the inhabitants
(through the land-use parameter), the probability of reach
(based on the slope features and the shadow angle method)
and the vulnerability of settlements (through the land-use
parameter) but not the potential economic losses. For at-
risk buildings and stationary elements, both the temporal
and spatial exposures are constant.
The risk is calculated by multiplying the hazard by the
consequences. The final value is not site-specific, which
allows different sites to be compared. Because of the fre-
quency-consequence diagram, the R3S2 is a useful tool for
land-use planning, hazard zoning and planning of mitiga-
tion measures. This method allows risk zoning of populated
areas with minimal time and effort.
The main drawback of the method is that it uses specific
qualitative categories, which often contain ambiguous
terms that make the evaluation subjective and operator-
dependent. Nevertheless, the R3S2 is useful for identifying
zones with unacceptable risk that require more detailed
quantitative analyses.
8.9 Falling Rock Hazard Index (FRHI)
The falling rock hazard index (FRHI) was developed to
determine the potential rockfall hazard near excavated rock
slopes (Koleini and Van Rooy 2011). It is based on work
conducted by the Oregon and Washington Departments of
Transportation (Singh 2004).
The FRHI considers the following ten parameters with
associated scores (Table 26):
1. Face height: the higher the slope, the higher the
potential energy of falling rocks and the associated
risk for workers or personnel in the immediate
vicinity. The considered slope height classes are
smaller than those of other methods.
2. Face inclination (i.e., slope angle): according to
Ritchie (1963), a block falling from a vertical slope
will be characterized by free-fall motion, whereas
rocks falling from shallower slopes will bounce and
roll, which increases the level of hazard. Vertical
slopes and slopes less than 30 are the safest, and

123
2896 F. Ferrari et al.

slope angles between 60 and 75 are the most will have a more significant rockfall hazard than a
dangerous. lower frequency.
3. Face irregularities: the presence of launching fea-
The maximum score for the slope height, block size and
tures, which are defined by qualitative classes, will
volume parameters is 12, whereas the maximum score for
determine the rockfall trajectory.
the face irregularity is 11. The maximum allowable score
4. Rock mass conditions: this parameter considers the
for the parameters slope angle and rock conditions is 10,
rock mass structure and degree of fracturing using
and that of discontinuity spacing is 9. Finally, the exca-
the rock quality designation (RQD) index (Deere and
vation method, duration without remedy and rockfall fre-
Deere 1988). Highly fractured rock masses exhibit
quency parameters have maximum scores of 8. The final
more potential for rockfall hazard than hard, intact
FRHI ranges from 0 to 100 and is obtained by summing the
rock faces.
scores attributed to each parameter. Based on the final
5. Discontinuity spacing: this parameter estimates how
score, four improperly labeled ‘‘risk’’ classes can be
planes of weakness affect the mechanical properties
determined:
of the rock mass. Small spacings have greater effects
than large spacings because the former lead to I. Minimal ‘‘risk’’: scores below 20;
smaller blocks that are more easily detached. II. Low ‘‘risk’’: scores between 20 and 40;
6. Block size: larger block sizes result in greater III. Moderate ‘‘risk’’: scores between 40 and 60;
expected consequences. IV. High ‘‘risk’’: scores above 71.
7. Volume of rockfall: this parameter is expressed in
The FRHI classes also determine if and what type of
term of mass. More serious consequences are
protective mitigation measures should be installed. No
expected for greater masses.
netting is required for class I, and different netting types
8. Excavation method: the method of excavation
are used with the other classes. Low, moderate and high
affects the rock mass properties because different
‘‘risk’’ classes require low (type I netting), moderate (II)
methods cause different degrees of damage to the
and high (III) impact nets, respectively.
rock surface, such as the opening of existing
These classes only consider the hazard and not the risk.
discontinuities or the breaking of joint asperities.
The hazard includes the qualitative rockfall frequency, the
Less invasive excavation methods are preferred.
runout of the blocks (considered via the slope angle and
9. Duration without remedy: this factor describes the
irregularities), the magnitude (block size and mass), and
exposure time of excavated rock slopes. Generally,
the susceptibility. The risk considers the rock mass struc-
longer exposure times of a rock face to natural
ture (in terms of equivalent RQD) and the spacing of the
elements result in greater weathering of the rock
discontinuities, which require in situ measurements.
mass, which weakens the exposed face and may lead
The vulnerability of the at-risk elements, their spatial
to block detachment.
and temporal exposure, the probability of reach, and the
10. Rockfall frequency: the temporal occurrence of
potential economic losses are not taken into account.
rockfalls under natural conditions is considered
The main advantages of this method are that it requires
using qualitative classes. A higher rockfall frequency
minimal equipment and is easy and fast to perform; a

Table 27 Detailed rating parameters and scores for ‘‘category A’’ in the RRRS (from Saroglou et al. 2012)
Parameter Rating criteria and scores Weight
(%)
10 points 30 points 60 points 100 points

Slope angle () 25–40 Medium 40–50 High 50–60 Very high [60 7
overhanging
Slope height (m) \15 15–30 30–60 [60 4
Release area height (H is Rockfalls from low Rockfalls from middle Rockfalls from middle to Rockfalls from whole 7
total slope height) slope areas (H/4) slope areas (H/2) upper slope areas (3H/2) slope (H)
Slope roughness Rough, planar Planar smooth Rough, presence of narrow Very rough, presence 3
benches of narrow benches
Vegetation of slope Dense vegetation, Low raised vegetation, Sparse vegetation No vegetation 4
presence of high bushes
trees

123
Qualitative Rockfall Hazard Assessment: A Comprehensive Review of Current Practices 2897

Table 28 Detailed rating parameters and scores for ‘‘category B’’ in the RRRS (from Saroglou et al. 2012)
Parameter Rating criteria and scores Weight
(%)

Joint roughness, Rough, Smooth, Undulating or filling material Slightly rough or filling with Smooth planar or filling
filling material, stepped stepped with angular fragments stiff clay ([5 mm) soft clay ([5 mm)
joint opening independent of roughness independent of roughness independent of
or moderate opening of or very wide opening of roughness or extremely
joints (2.5–10 mm) joints (10–100 mm) wide opening
([100 mm)
Rating 10 15 30 60 100 6
Joint orientation Favorable Moderate Adverse Very adverse
(or for
combination of stability
joints)
Rating 10 30 60 100 5
Joint persistence Very low Low Moderate (2–5 m) High (2–5 m) Very high
(\1 m) (1–2 m)
Rating 10 15 30 60 100 4
Joint [30 20–30 5–20 \5, weathered
compressive
strength (MPa)
Rating 10 30 60 100 1
Strength of intact \10 10–30 30–60 [60
rock (MPa)
Rating 10 30 60 100 1
Block volume \1 1–2.5 2.5–4.0 4.0–8.0 [8.0
(m3)
Rating 10 15 30 60 100 4
Estimated 0 1–5 5–10 [10
number of
blocks (for the
width of the
slope under
assessment)
Rating 10 30 60 100 2
Karst features No karst Sparse Moderate undermined Frequent undermined
conditions conditions
Rating 10 30 60 100 2

Table 29 Detailed rating parameters and scores for ‘‘category C’’ in the RRRS (from Saroglou et al. 2012)
Parameter Rating criteria and scores Weight
(%)

Rainfall conditions and intensity Seldom Sparsely Seasonal Often Very often, during whole
year
Rating 10 15 30 60 100 3
Permeability, condition of slope drainage Very High Moderate Low Very low
high
Rating 10 15 30 60 100 3
Seismic hazard (a is the acceleration a \ 0.16 0.16 \ a \ 0.24 0.24 \ a \ 0.36 a [ 0.36
coefficient)
Rating 10 30 60 100 4

123
2898 F. Ferrari et al.

Table 30 Detailed rating parameters and scores for ‘‘category D’’ in the RRRS (from Saroglou et al. 2012)
Parameter Rating criteria and scores Weight
(%)

Width of catchment [20 10–20 5–10 2–5 No

zone (m)
Rating 10 15 30 60 100 10
Rockfall history Null to few Occasional Numerous Often Continuous
Rating 10 15 30 60 100 5
Slope accessibility All types of Most types of A number of types Few types of Access very difficult
stabilization stabilization of stabilization stabilization
possible possible possible possible
Rating 10 15 30 60 100 5
Potential result of Negligible, no Low, areas of Moderate human High, frequent Very high, constant
impact and value of human structure little human presence, low human presence, human presence,
structures and permanent activity frequency of numerous densely inhabited
activities houses houses areas
Rating 10 15 30 60 100 20

competent person can conduct a survey in the field in or strong active and passive protective measures.
20–30 min. In addition, the final index is global and not Residual risk must be accepted.
site specific, which allows different sites to be compared.
The method is based on 20 rating parameters, which are
The primary drawback is related to the use of subjective
grouped into four major categories. Three categories (A, B
terms for scoring the face irregularity, excavation method
and C) involve parameters that are related to the hazard,
and rockfall frequency parameters. The evaluation of the
and the last (category D) is related to the potential conse-
block mass instead of the volume for the magnitude is not
quences. The slope features (in terms of the slope angle,
immediate and incorporates significant uncertainty.
height, roughness and density of vegetation) and the
location of the source area of rockfalls are described in
8.10 Rockfall Risk Rating System (RRRS)
category A (Table 27). Category B (Table 28) includes the
geomechanical properties of the joints, intact rock, the
The rockfall risk rating system was developed to address
block size and number, and the karst density. Category C
rockfall hazards along natural slopes (Saroglou et al. 2012).
(Table 29) describes the drainage conditions of the slope
The system considers five classes of hazard. The latter
and potential triggering factors that are related to rainfall
are defined using the term ‘‘risk’’; however, no risk analysis
intensity and seismicity. Category D (Table 30) includes
is conducted based on the definition given in Sect. 2. By
parameters that are linked to the rockfall history, potential
assigning RRRS values between 10 and 100, the system
impact on structures, land-use planning, frequency of
uses five classes that indicate the protective measures that
should be installed:
• Very low ‘‘risk’’ (RRRS \20): protective measures are Subject A Influence
not required, but sparse spot interventions may be of A on B
necessary.
Box ii Box ij
• Low ‘‘risk’’ (21 \ RRRS \ 40): limited protective
measures are required.
• Medium ‘‘risk’’ (41 \ RRRS \ 60): light protective
measures (e.g., bolts, nets, removal of unstable blocks,
simple light fences) are required.
Influence Subject B
• High ‘‘risk’’ (61 \ RRRS \ 80): both active (e.g.,
of B on A
bolts, anchors) and passive (e.g., nets, wire rope cables,
buttress walls, fences removal of unstable blocks) Box ji Box jj
protective measures are required.
• Very high ‘‘risk’’ (81 \ RRRS \ 100): this critical Fig. 4 The principle of the interaction matrix (modified after Hudson
state of stability requires a combination of general and/ 1992)

123
Qualitative Rockfall Hazard Assessment: A Comprehensive Review of Current Practices 2899

human activity, and presence or possible construction of
mitigation measures. Each category has a different weight
that depends on the importance of the involved parameters:
Specifically, categories A and B each have a weight of
25 % of the total score, C has a weight of 10 %, and D has
a weight of 40 %.
A rating that ranges from 10 (best condition) to 100
(adverse conditions) is attributed to each parameter in each
category. A weight factor is then considered for each rat-
ing. The product of the rating and the weight is the score.
The total RRRS score is calculated by summing the indi-
vidual scores of each parameter. This absolute score can be
used to compare different sites.
In this method, the hazard includes a qualitative evalu-
ation of the susceptibility, frequency, magnitude and
potential runout.
The susceptibility is determined by considering the
rock mass features. Because it was originally developed
for a case study in Greece, where limestone is the main
lithology, the method considers low intact rock strength
values and the presence of karst. The geomechanical
properties of the joints can be characterized by geome-
chanical surveys.
The method uses a qualitative description of rockfall
frequency and does not require an accurate historical
database. The potential triggering mechanisms are
accounted for in terms of rainfall intensity and seismicity.
The magnitude of the potential rockfall event is
described by the block volume and the number of blocks.
The potential runout of falling blocks includes the
geometric features of the slope, its roughness, and the
presence of vegetation. The reach probability also consid-
ers the width of the catchment zone and the land use.
To evaluate the risk beyond the reach probability, the
temporal and spatial exposure (in terms of the frequency of
human activity and land-use type, respectively) and

Table 31 Detailed rating categories and scores for the RII (from Cancelli and Crosta 1993)
Parameter Rating criteria and scores
0 points 1 points 2 points 3 points

P1: Block size (m3) \0.1 0.1–0.5 0.5–2 [2.0

P2: Slope geometry \25 Steep, channels Very steep Steep, 3D effects
P3: Block motion Sliding Rolling/sliding Rolling Bouncing
P4: Block trajectory Sliding Rolling/sliding Rolling and tense parabola High parabola and 3D effects
P5: Maximum reach/maximum \0.3 0.3–0.7 0.7–1 [1
admissible reach
P6: Maximum velocity (m/s) \5 5–10 10–20 [20
P7: Impact Plastic Elasto-plastic (block/ Elasto-plastic (block/debris Elastic (block/rock)
(block/soil) debris) and rock)
P8: Restitution coefficient 0.1 0.1–0.3 0.3–0.5 0.5–1
P9: Prevailing slope material Soil Fine or loose debris Coarse or dense debris, Sound rock
weak rocks
P10: Rock mass strength (rock mass I–II II–IV IV–V Very dangerous conditions
rating class)
P11: Surface roughness
Velocity-based design [4R 4–2R 2–1R \1R
Bounce height-based design \0.5R 0.1–1.5R 1.5–3R [0.3R
P12: Vegetation Dense forest, Trees, shrubs (rare Shrubs, small trees Absent or rare (meadows,
large trees large trees) bare land, etc.)
P13: Freefall height (m) \5 5–25 25–100 [100
P14: Resistance coefficient (friction [0.8 0.58–0.8 0.2–0.58 \0.2
coefficient)
P15: Design rockfall Perfectly exact Uncertain (no Variability of two or more Extremely complex
previous events) parameters
R is the block radius and is used to define the roughness

123
2900 F. Ferrari et al.

vulnerability (land use) are considered, but the potential
economic losses are not.
Most of the classes in this method are qualitative, and
their evaluation can be subjective, especially the parame-
ters with classes that are described using ambiguous terms
(such as the rainfall, condition of slope drainage and
rockfall frequency). However, the method is simple and
fast to perform and can be used as an initial screening in
the hazard assessment process. Several problems arise for
rock walls with limited accessibility because JCS and intact
rock strength tests are required. However, these factors do
not significantly influence the final score because their
weights are equal to 1 %.
9 Rock Engineering System (RES)
The rock engineering systems (RES) was initially devel-
oped for complex large-scale engineering problems. The
main parameters that affect a specific case are evaluated
first. Then, their interaction is considered through an
asymmetric interaction matrix (Hudson and Harrison 1992;
Mazzoccola and Hudson 1996; Hudson 2013).
The parameters are placed in the leading diagonal of a
square interaction matrix, and their mutual interactions are
placed clockwise at the corresponding off-diagonal positions
of the matrix (Fig. 4). The binary interactions between the
parameters are quantified using codes, which generally range
from 0 (no interaction) to 3 or 4 (strong interaction). The
sums of the codes in each row and in each column of the
matrix describe the ‘‘cause’’ and the ‘‘effect’’, respectively.
The former quantifies the influence of the leading diagonal
parameter on the other parameters (i.e., on the entire system),
whereas the latter represents how much the system affects the
parameter itself. The sum of the cause and effect of each
parameter gives its interactivity; the higher the value, the
more the parameter dominates. The weight of each parameter
can be calculated as follows (Eq. 16):
CPi þ EPi 100
Wi ¼ P P  ; ð16Þ
i CPi þ i CPi n
where C is the cause and E is the effect of each parameter
(Pi), and n is the maximum allowable rating value for each
parameter.
The rockfall intensity index (Cancelli and Crosta 1993)
was initially defined within the RES but was replaced in
2004 by the rockfall hazard index (Zhang et al. 2004). Both
indices are discussed below.
9.1 Rockfall intensity index (RII)
The rockfall intensity index (RII) analyzes the mutual
interactions between the 15 parameters that are related to
rockfall instability, including block size (P1), slope
geometry and topography (P2), block motion (P3), rockfall
trajectory (P4), maximum reach runout (P5), velocity (P6),
impact (P7), normal and tangential restitution coefficients
(P8), slope material (P9), rock mass strength (P10), surface
roughness (P11), vegetation (P12), free-fall height (P13),
resistance coefficient (P14), and rockfall design (P15).

Table 32 Interaction coding

W Interaction matrix C
matrix and weights (W) used to
evaluate the rockfall intensity 2.44 P1 0 3 3 4 3 2 2 3 2 2 1 1 2 4 32
index based on the following
parameters: block size (P1), 1.78 2 P2 3 4 3 3 3 1 2 0 1 1 3 0 4 30
slope geometry and topography 2.40 2 0 P3 3 2 3 2 2 1 1 1 1 1 3 4 26
(P2), block motion (P3), 3.02 2 0 3 P4 3 3 4 3 1 2 1 1 3 2 4 32
rockfall trajectory (P4),
2.62 1 0 2 2 P5 3 1 0 2 1 2 1 0 1 4 20
maximum reach runout (P5),
velocity (P6), impact (P7), 2.84 1 0 2 3 4 P6 3 3 1 2 0 2 2 2 4 29
normal and tangential restitution 2.71 3 0 2 3 3 4 P7 4 1 1 2 1 2 1 3 30
coefficients (P8), slope material 2.22 0 0 2 4 3 4 4 P8 0 1 1 1 1 1 4 26
(P9), rock mass strength (P10),
surface roughness (P11), 2.53 4 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 P9 3 3 1 0 3 4 39
vegetation (P12), freefall height 1.87 3 2 1 2 2 1 2 2 2 P10 1 1 1 3 2 25
(P13), resistance coefficient 1.78 0 2 2 3 2 2 3 2 0 0 P11 0 1 3 3 23
(P14), and design rockfall (P15)
1.33 2 0 2 2 3 2 1 1 2 1 1 P12 0 2 2 21
1.60 2 0 1 2 3 2 2 1 1 2 1 0 P13 0 3 20
2.04 1 2 2 2 4 3 2 1 0 1 0 0 1 P14 4 23
2.13 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 P15 0
E 23 9 28 36 39 36 32 25 16 17 16 11 16 23 49 376
A value of 0 indicates no interaction, whereas a value of 4 indicates a strong interaction. For each
parameter, the cause (C) is given by the sum of the row, and the effect (E) is given by the sum of the
column (from Cancelli and Crosta 1993)

123
Qualitative Rockfall Hazard Assessment: A Comprehensive Review of Current Practices 2901

Table 33 Interaction coding

W Interaction matrix C
matrix and weights (W) used to
evaluate the modified rockfall 3.35 PI1 2 1 2 1 3 3 2 4 4 22
intensity index based on the
following parameters: block 2.07 2 PI2 1 2 1 2 2 0 1 2 13
geometry (PI1), block strength 2.56 2 0 PI3 2 1 4 3 2 4 4 22
(PI2), slope geometry (PI3), 2.96 2 0 0 PI4 1 4 4 4 2 2 19
slope materials (PI4), vegetation
2.47 1 1 0 1 PI5 2 2 3 2 3 15
(PI5), block motion (PI6),
restitution coefficients (PI7), 4.44 1 2 0 0 1 PI6 3 3 4 4 18
resistance coefficient (PI8), 3.55 0 1 0 0 0 4 PI7 0 4 4 15
possible velocity (PI9) and 2.86 1 0 1 0 0 3 0 PI8 4 4 12
maximum travel distance (PI10)
4.73 1 1 0 1 3 3 4 3 PI9 4 20
4.34 3 1 1 3 2 2 0 0 3 PI10 13
E 12 8 4 11 10 27 21 17 28 31 179
A value of 0 indicates no interaction, whereas a value of 4 indicates a strong interaction. For each
parameter, the cause (C) is given by the sum of the row, and the effect (E) is given by the sum of the
column (from Zhang et al. 2004)

A value of 0 to 3 is assigned to each parameter. Higher
values are always related to higher ‘‘intensity’’ classes
(Table 31).
The RII is the sum of the products of the parameter
values (Vi) and their corresponding weights (Wi):
Table 34 Interaction coding matrix and weights (W) used to evaluate
the modified rockfall frequency index based on the following
parameters: the number of blocks (PF1), block stability (PF2), trig-
gering events of rockfalls (PF3), and rockfall history (PF4)
W Interaction coding matrix C

X
15 7.97 PF1 0 3 3 5
RII ¼ Vi  Wi : ð17Þ 7.97 2 PF2 3 4 5
1
6.52 2 0 PF3 3 8
The weights, which are calculated according to Eq. 16 10.87 2 0 3 PF4 5
(with n equal to 3), and the entire interaction matrix are E 6 6 1 10 23
shown in Table 32. A value of 0 indicates no interaction, whereas a value of 4 indicates a
The maximum possible value for RII is 100, which strong interaction. For each parameter, the cause (C) is given by the
represents the highest intensity. This value is an absolute sum of the row, and the effect (E) is given by the sum of the column
score, which allows the most critical location to be pre- (from Zhang et al. 2004)
dicted and different slopes to be compared.
Although the methodology appears to be complex, the occurrence. In this way, only the susceptibility is evaluated
RII can be easily calculated by assigning a value to each because the failure frequency, which is necessary to define
parameter (according to Table 31) and applying Eq. 18. the hazard, is not considered. Zhang et al. (2004) proposed
Once the weights are determined for the first time, they are overcoming this drawback by using the rockfall hazard
fixed and do not need to be calculated again. index (see Sect. 8.2).
The main limitations in any RES are the subjectivity in The susceptibility is essentially described by the RMR
the choice of the parameters, the quantification of the (P10), which is identified through geomechanical surveys
interaction, and the matrix coding. Several methods are and consequently requires direct contact with the rock wall
available for quantifying the interactions. Cancelli and and accurate field measurements.
Crosta (1993) used the conventional expert semi-quantita- The expected magnitude of a rockfall event is given by
tive coding approach, in which one unique code (i.e., a the block size (P1).
numerical value) is assigned to quantify the influence of The intensity is expressed by the maximum expected
one parameter on the others based on the judgment of velocity (P6) instead of the energy. This parameter (P6) is
experts. To reduce the subjectivity, Yang and Zhang (1998) difficult to evaluate.
proposed the use of an artificial neural network to code the The runout is described by the remaining parameters. In
interaction matrix. addition to the common slope features, the slope material, the
The final RII value indicates the potential ‘‘intensity’’ of presence of vegetation and the block motion are also
rockfall events but does not refer to the probability of accounted for. Certain parameters are input values that are

123
2902 F. Ferrari et al.

Table 35 Detailed rating categories and scores for the RIIm (from Zhang et al. 2004)
Parameter Rating criteria and scores
0 points 1 points 2 points 3 points

PI1
Block size (m3) \0.01 [0.01 0.01–0.05 [0.05
Shape coefficient – 0.2–0.6 [0.6 [0.6
PI2
Block strength Low Middle High Extremely high
PI3
Slope height (m) – 10–50 [50 [50
Slope angle () \30 [30 30–60 [60
PI4
Slope material Soil Debris, rock fragments Soft rocks Hard rocks
PI5
Vegetation Dense forest Sparse trees, shrubs Shrubs, small trees Grass, bare land
PI6
Block motion Sliding Rolling/sliding Rolling and small bounces Bouncing
PI7
Restitution coefficients 0.1 0.1–0.3 0.3–0.5 0.5–1
PI8
Resistance coefficient (friction coefficient) [0.8 0.58–0.8 0.2–0.58 \0.2
PI9
Possible velocity (m/s) \5 5–10 10–20 [20
PI10
Maximum reach/maximum admissible reach \0.3 0.3–0.7 0.7–1 [1

commonly used in the rockfall modeling simulation; never-
theless, several are difficult to evaluate. Several parameters
should be updated based on the recent findings in the scien-
tific literature and the latest developments in rockfall mod-
eling. For example, the RII rating allows normal restitution
coefficients up to a maximum value of 1, but researchers have
demonstrated that normal restitution coefficients can be
greater than one (Spadari et al. 2012; Ferrari et al. 2013).
Additionally, the RII includes neither threshold values
to identify different classes nor links to any land-use
planning restrictions.
9.2 Rockfall Hazard Index (RHI)
As previously mentioned, the rockfall hazard index (Zhang
et al. 2004) was developed to take rockfall failure fre-
quency into account. Two interaction matrixes were cre-
ated: one for the rockfall ‘‘intensity’’ (which is accounted
for in the RII and is based on 10 parameters) and one for
the rockfall frequency (which is based on four parameters).
The former is involved in the calculation of the modified
rockfall intensity index (RIIm), and the second is used to
calculate the rockfall frequency index (RFI). The rockfall
hazard index (RHI) is obtained by multiplying the RIIm by
the RFI.
The RIIm considers the block geometry (PI1), block
strength (PI2), slope geometry (PI3), slope materials (PI4),
vegetation (PI5), block motion modes (PI6), coefficients of
restitution (PI7), resistance coefficient (PI8), possible
velocity (PI9) and maximum travel distance (PI10). The
parameters that affect the rockfall frequency include the
number of blocks (PF1), block stability (PF2), triggering
events (PF3), and rockfall history (PF4).
Interaction matrixes of the intensity and frequency were
constructed separately (Tables 33, 34). Ratings ranging
from 0 to 3 were set for the intensity (Table 35) and fre-
quency parameters. The RIIm and RFI can be calculated
according to Eqs. 18 and 19, respectively:
X
10
RII m ¼ Vi  Wi ; ð18Þ
1
X
4
RFI ¼ V i  Wi ; ð19Þ
1

123
Qualitative Rockfall Hazard Assessment: A Comprehensive Review of Current Practices 2903

where Vi represents the parameter ratings, and Wi represents
the corresponding weights (reported in Tables 33, 34).
The final RHI is given by:
RII m RFI
RHI ¼  : ð20Þ
100 100
The RHI ranges from 0 to 1, and five hazard classes
have been distinguished:
I. Extremely hazardous: RHI C0.7,
II. Very hazardous: 0.6 B RHI \ 0.7,
III. Hazardous: 0.5 B RHI \ 0.6,
IV. General: 0.3 B RHI \ 0.5,
V. Not hazardous: RHI B0.3.
The RHI correctly treats the hazard by including both
the rockfall intensity and frequency. The weakest part of
the methodology is in the matrix coding, which yields
subjective results because it is based on expert judgment
and the attribution of different ratings to different param-
eters. Several of the parameters that are used to compute
the RIIm (slope material, vegetation, block motion, resti-
tution coefficients, resistance coefficient, velocity, and
travel distance) are equivalent to those used to calculate the
original RII (Cancelli and Crosta 1993). Others (RMR,
block trajectory, kind of impact, roughness, free-fall
height, and design rockfall) have been removed because
they are difficult to evaluate, whereas the block strength
parameter was added. Block size considers smaller blocks
than the original RII and also takes into account the block
shape. The slope geometry factor is treated more objec-
tively by considering both the slope height and the slope
angle. However, the susceptibility is not described properly
in this approach because the rock mass properties and the
release locations are not considered. Because these terms
are missing, the RHI is suitable for large-scale studies
designed to identify and compare the most critical slopes.
Although hazard classes are defined in the methodology,
guidelines and restrictions related to land-use planning are
not included.
10 Analytic Hierarchy Process (AHP) Methods
The analytical hierarchy process (AHP) is a multi-objective
methodology that provides a comprehensive framework for
structuring a problem and representing, relating and
quantifying its elements (Zhao et al. 1986; Saaty 1990).
In any AHP, the weight of each parameter is estimated
through the linear correlation of pairs of parameters using a
table matrix. Each parameter is rated in relation to the
others using numerical values that reflect the significance
of one parameter relative to the others. When the com-
parison is applied in reverse, the new numerical value is the
reciprocal of the first value. All of the values are normal-
ized and averaged across the rows to give the relative
importance weight for each factor (Saaty 2006). The con-
sistency ratio (CR) is then calculated to check the consis-
tency of the assigned weights:
kmax  n
CR ¼ ; ð21Þ
ðn  1ÞRI
where kmax is the maximum eigenvalue of the matrix, n is
the number of parameters, and RI is the average random
coincidence indicator of the matrix. If CR is less than 0.1,
the matrix is consistent, and the calculated weights are
acceptable; otherwise, the table matrix needs to be recon-
structed (Saaty 1990).
The AHP has been used widely for mapping landslide
susceptibility and hazards (Yagi 2003; Ayalew et al. 2004;
Komac 2006; Yoshimatsu and Abe 2006; Yalcin 2008;
Rozos et al. 2011; Yalcin et al. 2011; Hasekioğullari and
Ercanoglu 2012; Pourghasemi et al. 2012; Kayastha et al.
2013), but few applications have focused on rockfalls.
10.1 Risk Assessment of Rockfall Hazard (RARH)
The first method for rockfall hazard evaluation that used
the AHP to determine the weights was developed by Li
et al. (2009). It was applied to investigate the rockfall
hazard along new Chinese highways.

Table 36 Weight matrix of the RARH derived from a case study in China (from Li et al. 2009)
Parameter H SMR Dd h f Ditch AVR PDSD Lc Weight

Slope height (H) 1 1/2 1 1/2 1/3 2 2 2 2 0.100

Slope mass rating (SMR) 2 1 2 1 1 1 1 3 2 0.159
Block size (Dd) 1 1/2 1 1/3 1/3 1/2 1/2 2 2 0.081
Annual rainfall (h) 2 1 3 1 1 2 2 4 3 0.190
Rockfall frequency (f) 3 1 3 1 1 2 2 5 4 0.217
Ditch effectiveness (Ditch) 1/2 1/4 1/2 1/4 1/5 1/2 1/2 1 1 0.046
Average vehicle risk (AVR) 1/2 1 2 1/2 1/2 1 1 1 2 0.099
Percent decision sight distance (PDSD) 1/2 1/3 1/2 1/4 1/5 1 1 1 2 0.058
Roadway width (Lc) 1/2 1/2 1/2 1/3 1/4 1/2 1/2 1/2 1 0.050

123
2904
Fig. 5 Parameters and scores used in the ASRFR (from Bolin et al. 2010)
The method, known as the risk assessment of rockfall
hazard (RARH), is based on the mRHRS (Budetta 2004).
However, instead of adding all of the parameters, it attri-
butes a specific weight to each based on its significance.
The first step of this method is the assignment of scores
to each parameter. The parameters and scores in the RARH
are the same as those in the mRHRS.
The second step consists of determining the weight of
each parameter by applying the AHP. The matrix of the
weight ratios is constructed by approximating the impor-
tance of all of the parameters (Table 36). Because the
consistency ratio is equal to 0.026, the matrix and weights
are acceptable.
The third step consists of dividing the ‘‘hazard’’ and
‘‘vehicle vulnerability’’ parameters. The ‘‘hazard’’
123
F. Ferrari et al.
parameters include the slope height, slope mass rating,
block size, volume of rockfall per event, annual rainfall,
and rockfall frequency, and the ‘‘vehicle vulnerability’’
parameters include the ditch effectiveness, AVR, DSD, and
roadway width. The values for the ‘‘hazard’’ parameters
(PI) and ‘‘vehicle vulnerability’’ (PII) parameters can then
be calculated by multiplying the scores of the parameters
by the relative weights.
The final score, known as the ‘‘total risk value’’ (R), is
calculated as follows (Eq. 22):
R ¼ n ðgI  PI þ gII  PII Þ; ð22Þ
where n is the number of parameters, and gI and gII are the
correction coefficients of the ‘‘rockfall hazard’’ (PI) and
‘‘vehicle vulnerability’’ (PII) values, respectively.
Qualitative Rockfall Hazard Assessment: A Comprehensive Review of Current Practices 2905

The coefficient gI is related to the geometry and prop-
erties of the slope and the properties and shape of the
block. The coefficient gII is related to the pavement and
highway facilities. Both gI and gII range from 1.0 (for
favorable conditions and the presence of an embankment)
to 1.2 (for unfavorable conditions and the presence of
bridge or tunnel portals).
The score R can be used to identify the most hazardous
slopes and determine whether urgent remedial works or
further detailed studies are required. Slopes with scores
lower than 300 require remedial works but not urgently,
whereas those with scores higher than 500 require imme-
diate stabilization. Slopes with relatively high scores
should be investigated further and analyzed in detail to
determine measures that will reduce the rockfall risk.
The considerations made for the mRHRS in evaluating
the hazard and risk are still valid. The main difference
between the two approaches is in the use of the weights: in
the mRHRS (and all other RHRS-based methods), all the
parameters have equivalent weights, whereas each param-
eter in the RARH has a different weight that reflects its
importance. The weights, which are determined through
the AHP, are variable and strictly related to site-specific
conditions. Hence, the weight matrix must be updated for
each site, which is not always straightforward. The weakest
part of this methodology is assigning the weights; this is
done entirely based on expert judgement and investigations
and consequently lacks objectivity.
This methodology is still in its infancy, and further
applications are needed to verify its suitability for rockfall
risk assessment.
10.2 Three Gorges Assessment System Rockfall
Risk (ASRFR)
The assessment system for rockfall risk (ASRFR) was
developed to investigate the rockfall hazard and risk along
the natural slopes of a shipping route located in Wu Gorge,
a reservoir in Hubei Province, China (Bolin et al. 2010).
The risk assessment includes 15 parameters; 7 address
the hazard (H), and 8 address the potential consequences
(C).

Table 37 Relative weights of the ASRFR potential rockfall hazard factors related to the rock mass conditions in the Wu Gorge case study (from
Bolin et al. 2010)
Parameter Block size Boundary condition Strength of intact rock Rock-mass structure Weights

Block size 1 1/5 1/3 1/5 0.042

Boundary condition 5 1 1/3 3 0.187
Strength of intact rock 3 1/5 1 1/3 0.084
Rock mass structure 5 1/3 3 1 0.187

Table 38 Relative weights of

Parameter Water on rock face Weathering factor Human activity Weights
the potential rockfall hazard
dynamic factors for the Wu Water on rock face 1 1/2 1/3 0.082
Gorge case study (from Bolin
et al. 2010) Weathering factor 2 1 1/2 0.148
Human activity 3 2 1 0.270

Table 39 Relative weights of the potential rockfall consequence factors derived from the Wu Gorge case study (from Bolin et al. 2010)
Parameter PRA PRPM OS SF&D Block size Block shape DSD SD Weights

Potential rockfall altitude (PRA) 1 2 3 3 4 5 5 5 0.301

Potential rockfall path (PRMP) 1/2 1 2 3 3 4 4 4 0.213
Presence and type of obstacle on slope (OS) 1/3 1/2 1 2 3 4 4 4 0.162
Ship frequency and docking points (SF&D) 1/3 1/3 1/2 1 2 3 3 3 0.111
Block size 1/4 1/3 1/3 1/2 1 3 3 3 0.085
Block shape 1/5 1/4 1/4 1/3 1/3 1 2 2 0.050
Decision sight distance (DSD) 1/5 1/4 1/4 1/3 1/3 1/2 1 2 0.042
Scree distribution (SD) 1/5 1/4 1/4 1/3 1/3 1/2 1/2 1 0.036

123
2906
The hazard-related parameters are the following:
1. Block size (BS), estimated based on the average joint
spacing;
2. Risky rock mass boundary condition (RRBC);
3. Human activity;
4. Weathering factor, estimated from the physical weath-
ering (erosion rates) and chemical weathering;
5. Strength of intact rock (SIR);
6. Rock mass structure;
7. Presence of water on the rock face, which is surveyed
during sunny conditions.
The parameters that describe the potential consequences
of a rockfall event are the following:
1. Ship frequency and docking points (SF&D);
2. Potential rockfall path;
3. DSD, which reflects the reaction time for the ship’s
captain to observe the rockfall and take evasive action;
4. Block size (similar to that used to define the hazard);
5. Potential rockfall altitude (PRA);
6. Scree distribution (SD);
7. Potential rockfall block shape;
8. Presence and type of obstacles on the slope (OS).
Most of the parameters can be determined from field
surveys and aerial photographs.
Each parameter must be assigned a class. The classes
and relative ratings of the hazard and consequence
parameters are determined by dividing the expected range
of values into equal parts (Fig. 5). The ratings range from
0.2 to 1.
The weight of each parameter is obtained by the AHP.
The table matrix is set up by considering the suggestions of
experts in the field and by checking the CR of the matrix.
The weights of the hazard-related parameters are cal-
culated separately by considering the structural parameters
of the rock mass (Table 37) and the dynamic parameters of
the rockfall (Table 38). The structural parameters include
the block size, boundary conditions, intact rock strength
and rock mass structure, and the dynamic parameters
consider human activities, weathering and the presence of
water.
The resulting weights show that human activities,
potential rockfall boundary conditions, rock mass structure
and weathering are the main factors that lead to rock mass
failure. The consequence parameters with the highest
weights are the rock mass altitude, potential rockfall path
and the presence of obstacles along the slope (Table 39).
The score for each parameter can be calculated by
multiplying its rating (determined according to Fig. 5) by
the corresponding relative weight (Tables 37, 38 and 39).
The hazard (H) and consequence (C) values are then cal-
culated by adding the scores of all of the hazard and
123
F. Ferrari et al.
consequence parameters, respectively. The H and C values
are normalized to values between 0 and 1 to represent a
relative probability. The final risk (R) is then calculated by
multiplying H by C.
To distinguish among high-, medium- and low-risk sites,
the resulting R values are divided into three approximately
equal parts. The high-risk sites have the highest priority for
management and monitoring. The ASRFR provides rela-
tive risk classes because the thresholds are not standard and
are determined from the resulting R values. Therefore, the
comparison of different sites is not possible. Moreover,
certain values in the scoring system are strongly related to
the Wu Gorge area and are not applicable to other contexts
(e.g., the maximum considered strength of intact rock is
equal to 50 MPa, which is too low for hard rock masses).
In addition, several factors that are commonly used in the
other methodologies (e.g., rainfall) are not adopted because
they were considered to be constant in the analyzed area.
The definition of the risk in the ASRF is rigorous
because it is calculated as the product of the hazard-related
and consequences-related parameters. The hazard-related
parameters take into account the susceptibility and the
magnitude. The susceptibility includes the rock mass fea-
tures, and the magnitude considers the block size (which is
estimated from the joint set spacing). The frequency is not
directly considered but is related to the block size and rock
mass boundary conditions. Block size is considered in both
the hazard and consequence parameters with the same
classes but different ratings. The ratings of the consequence
parameters increase with the block size, and the ratings of
the hazard parameters decrease (because large blocks fall
less frequently than small blocks).
The potential runout of falling blocks is not considered
in the hazard but is considered in the consequences. The
consequences also take into account the exposure (through
human activities, ship frequency and the presence of
docking points along the river) and partially through the
vulnerability (DSD). No information about the potential
economic losses is provided.
The weak part of this methodology is the attribution of
the weights because the assessment of the relative weights
is largely subjective.
Compared with certain mature and widely used rockfall
risk evaluation systems, this system is still in an early stage
and has the potential for being improved.
11 Rockfall Hazard Assessment Procedure
(RHAP)
The Rockfall hazard assessment procedure (RHAP;
Regione Lombardia 2000; Mazzoccola and Sciesa 2001) is
the most popular semi-quantitative method for addressing
Qualitative Rockfall Hazard Assessment: A Comprehensive Review of Current Practices
rockfall hazards on mountain slopes. The method is widely
used in the Alpine sector of Italy, and several scientists
have applied it to assess the rockfall hazards in well-known
tourist areas and along heavily used transport networks
(Ferrari et al. 2011; Ferrero et al. 2011). The rockfall
volume and the runout of the blocks are both taken into
account quantitatively using kinematic simulations,
whereas the rockfall frequency is estimated qualitatively
without taking into account historical data. The procedure
was developed to carry out rapid but rigorous rockfall
hazard zoning of mountain slopes in the Lombardy region
of Italy. Nevertheless, the methodology is suitable for a
variety of slope conditions provided that limited (not too
wide) areas are considered. The method was developed for
rockfall events with a maximum volume of 1000 m3 and is
based on three main steps:
1. Division of rock wall sectors with potential rockfalls,
2. Simulations of block trajectories to establish prelim-
inary hazard classes,
3. Estimation of the frequency of failure, which is used to
obtain the final hazard classes.
The first step allows homogenous areas to be distin-
guished based on the geomechanical features of the rock
mass (from in situ surveys) and the morphology of the
slope (based on the slope angle). A representative slope
profile must then be identified for each homogenous sec-
tion, which will be used in the numerical simulations of
falling blocks.
The second step investigates the propagation of blocks
using two-dimensional (2D) trajectory modeling. The fol-
lowing recommendations should be followed to conduct
rigorous simulations:
(i) The source area should be at the top of the cliff,
which is the most unfavorable position,
(ii) The modal block volumes and shapes observed at
the bottom of the cliff should be used,
(iii) The maximum observed volume should also be
used in the simulations (to determine the prelim-
inary hazard class H1),
Table 40 Determination of the final hazard class according to the
RHAP methodology
Preliminary hazard class Class of instabilities
Low Medium High
H1 – H1 H2
H2 H1 H2 H3
H3 H2 H3 H4
H4 H3 H4 H5
The hazard levels are classified as very low (H1), low (H2), medium
(H3), high (H4) and very high (H5)
2907
(iv) The restitution coefficients and roughness should
be evaluated by considering the slope character-
istics (e.g., presence of vegetation) using a back-
analysis approach, for which the trajectories and
stopping positions of previous fallen blocks are
taken into account,
(v) At least 1000 simulations should be performed.
The results of the rockfall simulations provide three
classes of preliminary hazard according to the percentage
of stopped blocks (based on the total number of simulated
blocks):
– Preliminary high hazard zone (H4): 70 % of the blocks
stop;
– Preliminary medium hazard zone (H3): 95 % of the
blocks stop;
– Preliminary low hazard zone (H2): 100 % of the blocks
stop.
Additionally, a preliminary very low hazard class (H1)
is developed as a function of the maximum stopping dis-
tance that is observed from historical rockfall events (if it
exceeds the simulated stopping distances) or considering
the maximum stopping distance that is obtained from the
simulations using the maximum block volume.
The third step involves the evaluation of the probability
of occurrence in each homogenous area. This process
involves dividing the rock wall into a regular square grid
composed of cells with sides between 5 and 20 m long. In
each cell, the presence (score equal to 1) or absence (i.e.,
score equal to 0) of the following instability elements is
checked:
– Loose rock mass (with open fractures) and evidence of
possible detachment modes;
– Block tilting;
– Intensely fractured zones;
– Unweathered surfaces (related to recent rockfalls);
– Springs of water at the bottom of the block.
The number of observed instabilities is determined for
each cell. For each homogenous area, the percentage of
instability of the corresponding grid is then calculated as
the ratio between the number of observed instabilities and
the maximum number of possible instabilities (i.e., the total
number of cells in the homogenous area times the maxi-
mum score of 5). The resulting percentages are divided into
three classes: low, medium and high instability. There are
no absolute thresholds; thus, the values are different for
each case study. Homogenous areas with instability per-
centages below 10 % should not be considered to be haz-
ardous zones.
The fourth and final step consists of determining the
final hazard classes (Table 40), which are obtained by
123
2908 F. Ferrari et al.

Fig. 6 Datasheet for the calculation of the ROFRAQ index (from Alejano et al. 2008)

123
Qualitative Rockfall Hazard Assessment: A Comprehensive Review of Current Practices 2909

considering both the preliminary hazard (estimated in the
second step) and the instability class (obtained in the third
step). Five final hazard classes can be defined:
• Very low hazard (H1);
• Low hazard (H2);
• Medium hazard (H3);
• High hazard (H4);
• Very high hazard (H5).
These classes, combined with the categories related to
the land use and the types of elements that are at risk, can
be used to define four levels of risk, which are useful for
land-use planning and territory management.
The RHAP allows qualitative classes of hazard to be
defined based on the binary classification of the presence of
instability elements. The probability of reach of the falling
blocks is quantitatively analyzed using 2D simulations, and
the probability of occurrence is determined qualitatively
A.
from observations of the rock walls. Therefore, no histor-
B.
ical records are necessary to evaluate the state of activity of
C.
the rock wall (i.e., rockfall frequency). This approach is
D.
interesting and innovative because it overcomes the
E.
requirement for detailed information on past rockfall
events. In addition, the five parameters that define the state
of activity can be rated by ground-based photogrammetric
techniques. According to the RHAP methodology, the state
of activity has no predefined thresholds; thus, the thresh-
olds for the instability classes vary from site to site. This
leads to a final hazard assessment that is site-specific and
not suitable for comparing different slopes. However, this
process ensures the coexistence of all state of activity
classes across the same rock wall for the effective identi-
fication of the sections that are most prone to failure.
Because the hazard classes have only relative meanings,
they cannot be related to any guidelines or restrictions.
The magnitude and energy are not taken into account in
the RHAP; the hazard depends only on the runout and
frequency. The runout is calculated via the 2D rockfall
simulations, which not only require detailed topographic
profiles and many modeling assumptions but also time and
data to perform the back analysis. This requirement is
inconsistent with the prerequisites of a qualitative
methodology.
Finally, the definition of the risk is beyond the scope of
this procedure; thus, exposure, vulnerability and econom-
ical value are not addressed.
12 Rockfall Risk Assessment in Quarries
(ROFRAQ)
The rockfall risk assessment in quarries (ROFRAQ) was
specifically designed to address rockfall hazard and risk
assessment in ornamental quarries and open pit-mines
(Alejano et al. 2008). It was the first method to be applied
in this context. The ROFRAQ is a statistics-based empiri-
cal method that analyzes rockfall-related accidents in
mines. The method considers the following aspects:
The presence of block(s) on a slope;
Potentially unstable conditions;
The occurrence of a triggering phenomenon;
The path of the block(s);
The presence of workers or machinery at the bottom of
the slope.
Each criterion is scored between 0 and 10. The product
of the scores plus a final corrective value based on the
rockfall history of the quarry (rating F) yields the final
value of the ROFRAQ index (Fig. 6). This value provides a
yearly estimate of the likelihood of a rockfall-related
accident occurring on any given quarry slope.
Rating A is particularly significant for relatively
unfractured rock masses, and it is determined from in situ
geological surveys and topographic maps. Rating A
investigates if there are any fall-prone blocks on the slope
by examining a series of sub-ratings, including the number
of joint sets (a), their continuity (b), the presence and
features of faults (c), the presence of blasting damage (d),
the bench condition and clean-up (e), the presence of
blocks on the slopes (f), and the slope height (g). A score is
assigned to each sub-rating (a–g) according to Fig. 6. The
final rating A is calculated as follows (Eq. 23):

Fig. 7 Determination of face

irregularity (from Alejano et al.
2008)

123
2910 F. Ferrari et al.

 
a  bþcþdþeþf and in situ observations. The final score of rating D is
A¼  g: ð23Þ calculated using Eq. 25:
2
D ¼ ðDb þ a þ b þ cÞ  d: ð25Þ
Rating B analyzes whether any block is prone to failure.
This rating is the most complex factor to estimate because Rating E is the most significant because it represents the
it requires a detailed geomechanical study of the rock likelihood that a falling block will hit machinery or
surface and estimates of the orientations of the disconti- workers. It considers two different components: one for
nuities (dip and dip direction) with respect to the orienta- people (Epers) and one for machinery (Emach). Its sub-rat-
tions of the slope face and the bench. This analysis allows ings are as follows:
the presence of an instability and the type of instability
(a) Block size (for one falling block) or block volume (if
mechanisms (planar, circular and wedge failure, toppling,
many blocks are involved);
and other types of failure mechanisms) to be determined.
(b) Time spent at the bottom of the slope by machinery
Taking into account the spacing and persistence of the
or workers;
discontinuities, the percentage of the slope face that is
(c) Space occupied by machinery (cmach) or workers
affected by each type of mechanism is then estimated using
(cpers) expressed in terms of the percentage of slope
numerical analyses. The final value of rating B is calculated
length;
according to Eq. 24:
( "   #) (d) Locations of the elements at risk (i.e., machinery and
Yn
Pi workers) in relation to the toe of the slope.
B ¼ 10 1  1 ; ð24Þ
100
i¼1 The sub-ratings are obtained from in situ observations
where Pi is the percentage of the affected slope for each and the yearly mining plan. Sub-rating d is calculated as
failure mode (n). the ratio between the distance from the elements at risk to
Rating C describes the presence of events that could the bottom of the slope (x) and the slope height (H). Rating
trigger potential instabilities. Five sub-ratings are consid- E is defined as follows:
  
ered based on historical meteorological datasets, in situ ð10  Emach Þ  10  Epers
observations and the mining plan: E ¼ 10  ; ð26Þ
10
(a) Maximum 24 h rainfall for a 50-year return period; where
(b) Average 0 C frost-free period (expressed in days);
(c) Presence of water on the slope face; b cmach
Emach ¼ a    d  10; ð27Þ
(d) Degree of weathering of the rock mass; 100 100
(e) Blasting vibrations. b cpers
Epers ¼a    d  10: ð28Þ
100 100
A score is assigned to each sub-rating according to
Fig. 6. The final C rating is calculated as the sum of the Rating F considers the rockfall history of the specific
scores attributed to each sub-rating. quarry. Without a historical dataset or accident report, F is
Rating D analyzes the reach probability, defined as the set equal to 1.
probability that blocks will reach the mine floor. The first Once all of the ratings are calculated, the ROFRAQ
sub-rating (Db) requires the use of kinematic rockfall index is calculated as the product of all of the ratings. The
simulations (e.g., 2D lumped-mass methods) that take into final ROFRAQ score ranges from 0 to 150,000 and pro-
account the effective slope geometry (including the width vides an indication of the level of risk and the necessity for
and height of catch-benches) to estimate the percentage of mitigation measures (Fig. 6). Moreover, different risks can
blocks that can reach the working areas. Four additional be estimated for workers and machinery:
sub-ratings are also considered: ROFRAQmach ¼ A  B  C  D  Emach  F;
(a) General slope dip; ð29Þ
(b) Berm conditions and clean-up; ROFRAQpers ¼ A  B  C  D  Epers  F:
(c) Face irregularity;
ð30Þ
(d) The presence of mesh and/or ditches.
The ROFRAQBASIC index, which measures the likeli-
Sub-rating c is determined by a visual comparison
hood of a rockfall occurring on a slope without taking into
between the in situ observations and Fig. 7, whereas sub-
account the presence of workers or machinery, can be
ratings a, b, and d can be obtained from topographic maps
calculated as follows:

123
 Table 41 Summary of the information required by each methodology
Method Field In situ Remote Laboratory Meteorological General information on Detailed Traffic Human Trajectory Developed Useful
observations measurements sensing tests data rockfall activity historical data data activity modeling for for

RHRS 4 4 – – 4 4 – 4 – – H P
RSRP 4 – – – – 4 – 4 – – H P
mRHRS 4 4 – – 4 – 4 4 – – H I
MORFH 4 4 4 – – 4 – 4 – – H P
RS
ORHRM 4 4 – 4 – 4 – 4 – – H I
TRHRS 4 – – – – 4 – 4 – – H P
CRHRS 4 4 – 4 4 4 – 4 – – H P
RHRON 4 4 4 4 – 4 – 4 – – H P
R3S2 4 – 4 – – 4 – – – – S Z
FRHI 4 4 – – – 4 – – – – E Z
RRRS 4 4 – 4 4 4 – – 4 – N Z
RII 4 4 – – – – – – – – N I
RHI 4 – – – 4 4 – – – – N Z
Qualitative Rockfall Hazard Assessment: A Comprehensive Review of Current Practices

RARH 4 4 – – 4 – 4 4 – – H I
ASRFR 4 4 4 4 – – – 4 4 – N I
RAPH 4 – – – – 4 – – – 4 N Z
ROFRAQ 4 4 – – 4 4 – 4 4 – Q P
The symbols 4 and – indicate that the factor is required and not required, respectively. The application field and purposes are also reported
H highways, E excavated rock slopes, S settlements (inhabited areas), N natural rock slopes, Q indicates quarries, P prioritization of mitigation measures, I identification of the most dangerous
slopes, Z represents hazard zoning
2911

123
 Table 42 Summary of the rock mass input parameters required by each methodology
2912

Method Rock type Rock mass structure Number of joint sets Joint spacing RQD Persistence Aperture Presence of faults Presence of infilling

123
RHRS & & – – – 4 – – 4
RSRP 4 & – – – – – – &
mRHRS 4 – – 4 4 4 4 – 4
MORFH RS – 4 – – – – & – –
ORHRM 4 – – – – 4 – – –
TRHRS – – – – – – – – –
CRHRS 4 4 4 4 – 4 4 4 –
RHRON 4 – 4 – – – 4 – –
R3S2 – – – – – 4 4 – –
FRHI – 4 – 4 4 – – – –
RRRS 4 – – – – 4 4 – 4
RII – – – 4 4 4 4 – –
RHI – – – – – – – – –
RARH 4 – – 4 4 4 4 – 4
ASRFR – 4 – – – – – – –
RHAP – 4 – – – – 4 – –
ROFRAQ – – 4 – – 4 – 4 –
Method Joint roughness Orientation Failure modes Intact rock strength JCS Weathering Karst Presence of water Excavation method Rock mass classification

RHRS 4 & – – – & – 4 – –

RSRP 4 4 & – – – – 4 – –
mRHRS 4 4 4 4 – 4 – 4 4 SMR
MORFH RS & 4 – & – 4 4 4 – –
ORHRM JRC 4 – – – SDI – 4 – –
TRHRS 4 – 4 – – & – 4 – –
CRHRS & 4 – – – 4 – – – –
RHRON & – 4 UCS – SDI – 4 – –
R3S2 4 4 – – – – – 4 – –
FRHI – – – – – – – – 4 –
RRRS 4 4 – 4 4 – 4 & – –
RII 4 – – 4 – 4 – 4 – RMR
RHI – – – & – – – – – –
RARH 4 4 4 4 – 4 – 4 4 SMR
ASRFR – – & 4 – 4 – 4 – –
RHAP – – & – – 4 – 4 – –
ROFRAQ – 4 4 – – 4 – 4 4 –

The symbols 4, & and – indicate that the factor is considered, is only partially or qualitatively addressed, and is not assessed, respectively
RQD rock quality designation index, JRC joint roughness coefficient, UCS uniaxial compressive strength, JCS joint wall compressive strength, SDI slake durability index, SMR slope mass
rating, RMR rock mass rating
F. Ferrari et al.
 Table 43 Summary of the parameters used to define the rockfall magnitude, intensity and runout in each methodology
Method Block Block Event Number of Block Block Slope Release area Slope Slope Vegetation Outcropping Mitigation
size (m) volume volume blocks mass (kg) shape height (m) height (m) angle () roughness materials measures
(m3) (m3)

RHRS 0.3–1.2 – 2.3–9.2 – – – 7–31 – – & – – &

RSRP 0–[1.5 – – – – – – – 0–[35 – – & 4
mRHRS 0.3–1.2 0.03–1.7 2.3–9.2 – – – 7–31 – – & – – 4
MORFH & – & – – – 3–18 – 30–90 – – – 4
RS
ORHRM 0.3–1.2 – 2.3–9.2 – – – – – 20–90 – – – 4
TRHRS 0.3–1.2 – – – – 4 7–31 – 4 – – – 4
CRHRS 0.3–[1.5 0.75–[7.6 – – – 4 0–[30 – 4 4 4 – 4
RHRON 0.02–2 1–10 1–100 – – – 0–30 – & 4 – – 4
R3S2 – 0–[10 – – – – 0–[500 – – 4 4 & –
FRHI 0–0.3 – – – 0–22.7 – 0–[7.5 – 4 4 – – –
RRRS – 0–[8 & 0–[10 – – 0–[60 4 25–[60 4 4 – 4
RII 0–[2 – – – – – – \5–[100 & – 4 4 &
Qualitative Rockfall Hazard Assessment: A Comprehensive Review of Current Practices

RHI – 0–[0.05 – & – 4 0–[50 – \30–[60 – 4 4 &

RARH 0.3–1.2 0.03–1.7 2.3–9.2 – – – 7–[30 – – – – – 4
ASRFR 0–[1.5 – – – – 4 – – 20–80 & 4 & –
RHAP & – \10,000 – – – & – & – – – –
ROFRAQ 0–[1 \0.1–[50 – 0–10 – – \25–[250 – – 4 – – &
The considered range of values, if specified, is reported. Otherwise, the symbols 4, & and – indicate that the factor is considered, is considered using only qualitative classes, and is not
considered, respectively. 2D indicates that two–dimensional rockfall simulations are required to evaluate the potential runout
2913

123
2914 F. Ferrari et al.

Table 44 Summary of the parameters used to define the rockfall frequency in each methodology
Method Past rockfall Silent Instability Slope Rainfall Frost–thaw Seismicity Blasting
events witnesses elements aspect cycles vibration

RHRS & – – – 4 4 – –
RSRP 4 – – – – – – –
mRHRS 4 – – – 4 4 – –
MORFH RS & – – – – – – –
ORHRM & – – – – – – –
TRHRS 4 4 – – – – – –
CRHRS 4 – – 4 4 4 – –
RHRON 4 – – – – – – –
R3S2 4 4 – 4 – – – –
FRHI & – – – – – – –
RRRS & – – – 4 – 4 –
RII – – – – – – – –
RHI & – – – – – – –
RARH 4 – – – 4 – – –
ASRFR & – – – – – – –
RHAP – – 4 – – – – –
ROFRAQ & – – – 4 4 – 4
The symbols 4, & and – indicate that the factor is considered, is only partially or qualitatively addressed, and is not assessed, respectively

Table 45 Summary of the risk–related parameters considered in each reported methodology

Method Length of Road Clear zone Number of Land– Human Travel Average AVR SSD DSD
rockfall zone width width lanes use activity speed traffic

RHRS – 4 – – – – – – 4 – 4
RSRP 4 – – – – – 4 4 – 4 4
mRHRS – 4 – – – – – – 4 – 4
MORFH RS – – – 4 – – – 4 4 – 4
ORHRM – 4 – – – – – – 4 – 4
TRHRS – 4 – – – – – – 4 – 4
CRHRS – – – – – – – – 4 – 4
RHRON – 4 4 – – – – – 4 – 4
R3S2 – – – – 4 4 – – – – –
FRHI – – – – – – – – – – –
RRRS – – – – 4 4 – – – – –
RII – – – – – – – – – – –
RHI – – – – – – – – – – –
RARH – 4 – – – – – – 4 – 4
ASRFR – – – – – 4 – & – – &
RHAP – – – – – – – – – – –
ROFRAQ – – – – – 4 – – – – –
The symbols 4, & and – indicate that the factor is considered, is only partially or qualitatively addressed, and is not considered, respectively
AVR average vehicle risk, SSD stopping sight distance, and DSD decision sight distance

123
Qualitative Rockfall Hazard Assessment: A Comprehensive Review of Current Practices
ROFRAQBASIC ¼ A  B  C  D: ð31Þ
The ROFRAQ considers the susceptibility, magnitude,
runout, frequency, reach probability, and exposure but not
the vulnerability and economic values. Therefore, the final
score represents neither the hazard nor the risk but rather
the likelihood of the occurrence of an accident. The most
significant parameter is rating E: a susceptible slope with a
high hazard but with no elements at risk at the base of the
slope has a very low ROFRAQ index. Additionally,
ROFRAQBASIC does not consider the real hazard because it
does not take into account the failure frequency, magnitude
and intensity. Although the final ROFRAQ value could be
useful in mine planning, the method does not evaluate
block trajectories. Therefore, this method does not provide
the probability that a block will hit a worker or machinery.
Furthermore, it does not take into account variability in the
rockfall phenomena and does not account for improve-
ments in stability that result from the installation of rock-
fall protection measures, such as drapery nets or net fences
(Peila et al. 2011).
This method was developed especially for ornamental
quarries within hard rock masses (crystalline rocks).
Therefore, several modifications should be made to address
sedimentary rocks, which are mainly characterized by
instabilities due to differential erosion. The ROFRAQ
considers the presence of both joints and faults. The pos-
sible failure modes are considered in rating B, but the
percentage of the affected slope for each mode is difficult
to evaluate because it requires detailed geologic mapping
of the rock walls.
The frequency takes into account both the historical
database (score F) and the likelihood of the occurrence of a
triggering event (score C).
The ROFRAQ is site-specific and is not suitable for a
rapid first assessment of the rockfall hazard, because rat-
ings B and D cannot be evaluated on site. For example,
rating D requires computer-based analyses and simulations,
making the procedure time-consuming.
13 Discussion
The identification of the most appropriate methodology for
a specific site is not straightforward. First, the method-
ologies were developed for different purposes and fields of
application. Most of them focus on the evaluation of
rockfall hazard along transportation corridors (i.e., roads,
highways and railways), and a few refer to the hazards on
natural rock slopes. The R3S2 method was developed
specifically for settlements, the FRHI was developed for
excavated rock slopes, and the ROFRAQ was proposed for
open pit quarries. Second, the availability of data
2915
(Table 41) will influence the choice of one method over
another one. All of the methodologies require in situ
observations: some require in situ measurements, and a few
also require laboratory tests. These last methods should be
avoided whenever rock samples cannot be collected.
Similarly, both the mRHRS and RARH require detailed
historical data and are thus not applicable whenever a
historical database is missing. In addition, if trajectory
modeling cannot be performed, the RAPH cannot be used.
Third, the choice of methodology should take into account
the possibility of collecting/inferring the required data
input and their degree of detail. Table 42 provides a
detailed description of the parameters required for the
characterization of a rock mass. Some methods have scores
depending on the slope mass rating or rock mass rating;
thus, these methods cannot be used if these rock quality
indexes cannot be determined. Table 43 focuses on the
parameters that are used in each methodology to define the
potential magnitude, intensity and runout, which essen-
tially include both block and slope features. Similarly,
some methods can be applied only if the slope angle can be
measured and/or deduced. In addition to the inputs, the
ranges of values considered in each methodology are also
reported in Table 43. The provided information allows the
selection of the most appropriate method based on the
block dimension and/or slope and the release area heights.
For instance, if the hazard of a 100-m-high rock cliff has to
be assessed, only the ROFRAQ and R3S2 methods can be
used. Alternatively, the MORFH RS was specifically
developed for short cliffs. The former is suitable for
quarries, whereas the latter should be used for mountains
slopes. Table 44 reports the parameters that are used to
define the rockfall frequency in each methodology. For
instance, the only method that accounts for seismicity is the
RRRS. Table 45 lists the risk-related parameters required
in each methodology, including block runout zones, land-
use type and human activity types, as well as road and
traffic data.
A direct comparison of the results derived from the
application of different methods cannot be easily per-
formed due to the differences in purposes, geological set-
tings, inputs and outcomes of the different methodologies.
However, some authors have applied different method-
ologies for studies of the same case. The general results of
the comparisons are summarized as follows:
Mazzoccola and Sciesa (2001) applied the RHAP and
RII methodologies to a rock cliff located in Italy. The
RHAP results are summarized in a map reporting five
different hazard classes, whereas RII yields relatively close
scores (ranging from 62 to 75), which are not really helpful
in distinguishing the hazard level. It is worth noting that
higher values of RII do not correspond to the higher hazard
zones identified with the RHAP. This latter method, which
123
2916
is currently used as a guideline in the Lombardy region
(Italy), is a less subjective and more time-consuming
method that requires 2D modeling to identify the cumula-
tive percentage of stopping blocks.
Vandewater et al. (2005) applied both RHRS and
TRHRS along 80 road cuts and compared the resulting
scores for geological character. Even if a direct correlation
between the geological scores obtained using the TRHRS
and RHRS methods was observed, the former yields higher
scores because it considers the sum of the potential rockfall
modes rather than their mutual exclusion, as is used in the
original RHRS method. Moreover, TRHRS includes the
raveling and abundance parameters that are not considered
in the RHRS.
Pack et al. (2006) evaluated 318 road cuts located in
Utah using RHRS and RSRP. The obtained rankings were
compared, and although both systems use similar data to
evaluate relative risk, significant variation was observed in
the detection of hazardous sites. The differences were
mainly related to the presence of large catchment areas
and/or wide ditches, leading to a section factor obtained by
the RSRP of less than one, a low final hazard score, and
consequently a very low priority ranking. Conversely, the
RHRS does not place much emphasis on the presence of
large catchment areas and/or wide ditches. The RHRS
scores follow a Gaussian distribution, with the majority of
the scores falling into a centralized range. This could be
related to the subjective character of some variables and
their inexact fit within the categories, leading to the
assignment of a mid-range value in too many cases. In
contrast, RSRP showed a wider range of scores (from less
than 1 to 1682), with most of the scores falling within the
lowest 1–5 % range.
Alejano et al. (2008) analyzed the rockfall risk in 39
quarries and open-pit mine slopes by calculating the
ROFRAQBASIC and developed adapted versions of both
RHRS and RHRON, named RHRSBASIC and
RHRONBASIC, respectively. The former neglects three
traffic-related ratings (i.e., AVR, PSDS and roadway
width), whereas the latter excludes the consequence factor
(F4) and is calculated by averaging the magnitude (F1),
instability (F2) and reach probability (F3) factors. The
results show that ROFRAQ is capable of describing the
rockfall hazard in quarry slopes. Alejano et al. (2008)
demonstrated the occurrence of direct correlations between
ROFRAQBASIC and RHRSBASIC (with a determination
coefficient R2, of 0.9), between ROFRAQBASIC and
RHRONBASIC (R2 = 0.7), and between RHRSBASIC and
RHRONBASIC (R2 = 0.8).
Russell et al. (2008) defined the CRHRS by modifying
the original RHRS. These researchers added several cli-
matic and geological factors that contribute to rockfall in
Colorado and replaced subjective terminology with
123
F. Ferrari et al.
numerical values or more descriptive parameters. Once the
system was defined, 200 slopes were rated according to
both the RHRS and CRHRS. The results were compared to
ensure that the modifications yield a better prediction of
rockfall potential. Most of the rated slopes (157) are
crystalline, but block-in-matrix (35) and sedimentary
slopes (8) were also considered. The CRHRS results
showed a wider spread of scores than the RHRS, which is
based on only 10 parameters. Thus, slopes characterized by
a high rockfall potential can be more easily detected by
applying the CRHRS.
Ferlisi et al. (2012) analyzed rockfall risk along the
Amalfi costal road using both RHRS and QRA, which were
applied to the two traffic directions separately. Based on
the RHRS scores, no significant differences were observed
along the two different directions. The RHRS results were
found to be particularly useful for detecting the most risky
rockfall sections that should be used for site-specific QRA
analyses. QRA involves a markedly more complex
approach. Three different scenarios were evaluated along
the Amalfi costal road: (1) the impact of a rock block
against a moving vehicle, (2) the impact of a moving
vehicle against a fallen block, and (3) the impact of a
falling block against a stationary vehicle. The RHRS and
QRA results were compared along four rockfall sections
and were found to be quite consistent for scenario 2.
Therefore, RHRS and QRA are complementary tools for
prioritizing mitigation measures along a road.
Budetta and Nappi (2013) utilized the RHRS, mRHRS
and CRHRS along a tortuous road path of 11 km. Thirty-
nine sections were defined as a function of the geological
characteristics of the outcropping rock masses. For each
section, the rockfall hazard was evaluated by applying both
the RHRS and CRHRS methods. The RHRS scores were
lower than the CRHRS scores because the latter involves
more parameters (i.e., 18 instead of 10). Nevertheless, the
results for both methods presented low variability. In
general, the results obtained using the RHRS and CRHRS
methods are consistent. The mRHRS, which is more
complex and laborious, was applied to only six sections.
General qualitative agreement with the mRHRS results was
obtained, despite the low number of evaluated sections.
Overall, RHRS and CRHRS were found to be more easily
applied than mRHRS, which requires detailed geome-
chanical surveys that allow achieving a higher degree of
characterization. On the one hand, the RHRS method is the
easiest to use and quickest and can be applied to all geo-
logical settings. For these reasons, it is suitable for the
analysis of very long roads. However, it entails a high
degree of subjectivity that can lead to unreliable results. On
the other hand, the mRHRS method is more complex and
laborious, but more objective. It can be applied to roads
with limited length by trained and experienced engineering
Qualitative Rockfall Hazard Assessment: A Comprehensive Review of Current Practices
geologists. The mRHRS results are considered very reli-
able, particularly for sedimentary rock masses dissected by
clear discontinuity sets. Overall, the CRHRS represents a
compromise between the RHRS and mRHRS methods. It
can be fairly applied by engineering geologists to long road
stretches and is a flexible method that can be applied to all
geological settings. In addition, its results are generally
reliable and suitable for the prediction of rockfall hazards
through statistical analyses. Finally, Budetta and Nappi
(2013) pointed out that qualitative methods are really
useful because the input data quality is often inadequate for
a rigorous quantitative risk assessment.
14 Conclusions
This paper summarizes the most widely used methodolo-
gies for the qualitative assessment of rockfall hazards at
local and site-specific scales.
According to the Joint Technical Committee on land-
slides and engineered slope (Fell et al. 2008), a rigorous
definition of any natural hazard should include the
assessment of the susceptibility, magnitude, intensity,
potential runout and frequency. However, most of the
analyzed methodologies do not consider all five parame-
ters. Additionally, several of the methodologies define the
hazard by taking into account risk-related parameters, such
as the vulnerability and the spatial and temporal exposure.
The susceptibility parameter describes where a rockfall
event (of a given magnitude) is likely to occur. This factor
mainly depends on the geologic setting, the rock mass
properties and factors that weaken the rock mass, such as
weathering and the presence of water on the rock slope.
The rockfall magnitude is generally quantified using
block size, which is described by the median size of the
blocks (D50) and the diameter at which 90 % of a sample’s
mass is composed of smaller blocks (D90) in the RHRON
and R3S2 methods, respectively. In all other methods, the
most appropriate block dimension is unclear. However,
recent quantitative rockfall hazard assessment methods
discourage using the maximum block dimension, energy
and distance because they represent extremely unfavorable
conditions that are unlikely to occur (Abbruzzese et al.
2009).
Certain methodologies take into account the volume of
individual blocks, whereas others consider the volume of
the entire rockfall event. The number of blocks and the
block mass are seldom addressed because these factors
cannot be evaluated quickly. The only method that does not
directly address the rockfall magnitude is the RHAP.
The weakest part of the analyzed methodologies is
generally the evaluation of the rockfall intensity, even
though it plays a key role in hazard zoning in many national
2917
guidelines (Raetzo et al. 2002; Corominas et al. 2003;
Copons et al. 2004). The rockfall intensity can be described
by the kinetic energy or the velocity. These parameters are
particularly difficult to estimate with a qualitative approach.
The intensity is directly considered only in the RII and RHI,
which use classes to represent the maximum expected
velocity. In quantitative approaches, the energy is quanti-
fied via rockfall simulations. The RHAP uses 2D rockfall
simulations to define the block runout unless the energy is
considered in the definition of the hazard levels.
The expected rockfall runout is only quantified in the
RHAP by means of simulations. The other methodologies,
except the RII and RHI, qualitatively estimate the runout
using slope-related parameters, including the slope height,
slope angle and presence of mitigation measures to catch
falling blocks. The presence of launching features (i.e.,
slope roughness) is not always taken into account but is
known to have a significant influence on the block trajec-
tories and runout. The RII and RHI describe the block
runout by means of input parameters that are commonly
used in rockfall simulations, such as the restitution and
rolling friction coefficients.
The rockfall history plays a critical role in evaluating the
frequency and is generally determined from databases of
past rockfall events. However, complete databases that
report the date, rockfall volume and runout of each rockfall
that occurred in a given area are seldom available. Con-
sequently, most of the methodologies use qualitative terms
to rank the rockfall frequency classes. Only the mRHRS
and the RARH require a detailed database of past rockfall
events. All the other methodologies, except the RAPH, RII
and ASRFR, consider general information and observa-
tions of rockfall frequency. In addition, the TRHRS and
R3S2 consider signs of recent rockfall events (‘‘silent wit-
nesses’’), such as unweathered surfaces on the rock cliff,
impacts on the ground, scars on trees, and the presence of
fallen blocks. To overcome the requirement of a database,
the RHAP defines the rockfall frequency through the state
of activity via direct observations of the rock slope.
Several methodologies also take into account predis-
posing and triggering factors. The frequency and the
maximum intensity of rainfall are the two most commonly
used parameters. Freeze–thaw cycles, which play a sec-
ondary role, are seldom considered and are mainly a
function of where the methodology was developed. The
RRRS is the only method that includes seismicity, although
seismicity has been recognized as a crucial parameter in all
rockfall hazard assessments (Corominas et al. 2014). The
ROFRAQ, which was developed for ornamental quarries,
includes blasting vibration among the potential triggers.
Although many methodologies have been developed to
manage the hazard, they mix hazard-related and risk-re-
lated parameters. Nevertheless, certain methodologies were
123
2918
developed before the currently used and accepted terms
were defined (Fell et al. 2008).
The spatial and temporal exposure, vulnerability and
economic damage parameters define the risk. Economic
damage is strictly quantitative and is thus never addressed
in qualitative methods. The other parameters are strictly
related to the element at risk. Most of the described
methodologies address vehicles because they were devel-
oped to define hazards along transportation corridors. In
these cases, the vulnerability is generally described by the
stopping sight distance (SSD) and the decision sight dis-
tance (DSD). The temporal exposure is quantified by the
travel speed, the average traffic and the average vehicle
risk (AVR), which is calculated by considering the posted
speed limit and the average traffic conditions. The spatial
exposure is described by the length of the rockfall zone, the
road width or clear zone width, and the number of lanes.
The dimensions of the vehicles are never quantified,
although this factor should play a key role in the risk
assessment. If people are at risk, the land use and human
activity parameters describe both the spatial and temporal
exposure of the people.
Although the risk is defined as the product of the hazard,
exposure, vulnerability and economic value of elements at
risk, certain methodologies calculate the sum of the hazard
and risk scores. Each methodology associates a value with
each parameter to determine the final score, which can be
calculated by adding, multiplying or averaging the values.
Several methods associate weights with each parameter.
The weighting coefficients are generally calculated using
an interaction matrix that is defined according to either the
rock engineering systems (RES) or an analytical hierarchy
process (AHP). The former, which analyzes binary inter-
actions between parameters, defines the weights more
objectively than the latter (Rozos et al. 2011).
Most of the methods that are described in this review
provide final absolute scores that are not dependent on the
location and are thus useful in the comparison of different
sites to identify where the critical slope sections are loca-
ted, prioritize the mitigation measures and allocate funds
for mitigation measures. However, the final scores of few
methods are linked to hazard zoning rules or guidelines.
The final scores refer to the susceptibility, hazard or risk
as functions of the considered parameters. A rigorous
evaluation of the risk is never achieved within the con-
sidered methodologies. Most of the methods can be applied
at local (1:5000–1:25,000) or more often site-specific
(1:5000–1:1000) scales. The qualitative methodologies use
basic methods with heuristic or empirical procedures that
allow a rapid evaluation of the hazard. This process,
involving coarse input data, leads to a preliminary level of
accuracy that is useful in delineating critical areas that
could potentially be affected by rockfall events. All the
123
F. Ferrari et al.
methodologies are strongly based on field data and obser-
vations; thus, in situ surveys play a key role in the quali-
tative hazard assessments.
In general, qualitative methods generate hazard esti-
mates that are subject to uncertainties related to the accu-
racy of the input data and the level of knowledge.
Nevertheless, these methodologies are extremely useful in
the comparison of rock slopes to identify, in a reproducible
manner, the critical sections that are most in need of
detailed investigations.
This paper describes and discusses qualitative method-
ologies for evaluating rockfall hazards and highlights their
advantages and limitations as a function of the accepted
definitions of susceptibility, hazard and risk. Useful
tables with the key features of each methodology are pro-
vided at the end of this paper. The tables are designed to help
practitioners choose the most appropriate methodology.
Acknowledgments The study was financially supported by the
Australian Coal Association Research Program (ACARP C23026).
The financial support provided by the Australian Research Council
Centre of Excellence for Geotechnical Science and Engineering
(CGSE) is also gratefully acknowledged.
References
AASHTO—American Association of State Highway and Transporta-
tion Officials (1994) A policy on geometric design of highways
and streets. AASHTO, Washington
AASHTO—American Association of State Highway and Transporta-
tion Officials (2004) A policy on geometric design of highways
and streets (the green book). AASHTO, Washington
Abbruzzese JM, Sauthier C, Labiouse V (2009) Considerations on
Swiss methodologies for rock fall hazard mapping based on
trajectory modelling. Nat Hazards Earth Syst Sci 9(4):1095–1109
Alejano LR, Stockhausen HW, Alonso E, Bastante FG, Oyanguren
PR (2008) ROFRAQ: a statistics-based empirical method for
assessing accident risk from rockfalls in quarries. Int J Rock
Mech Min Sci 45(8):1252–1272
Andrew RD (1994) The Colorado rockfall hazard rating system.
Colorado Department of Transportation, report CTI-CDOT-2-94
Ayalew L, Yamagishi H, Ugawa N (2004) Landslide susceptibility
mapping using GIS-based weighted linear combination, the case
in Tsugawa area of Agano River, Niigata Prefecture, Japan.
Landslides 1(1):73–81
Barton N (1973) Review of a new shear-strength criterion for rock
joints. Eng Geol 7(4):287–332
Bateman V (2003) Development of a database to manage rockfall
hazard: the Tennessee rockfall hazard database. Proceedings of
82nd annual meeting of Transportation Research Board,
Washington
Bieniawski ZT (1989) Engineering rock mass classifications. Wiley,
New York
Bolin H, Lide C, Xuanming P, Guanning L, Xiaoting C, Haogang D,
Tianci L (2010) Assessment of the risk of rockfalls in Wu Gorge,
Three Gorges, Chinab. Landslides 7(1):1–11
Brabb EE (1984) Innovative approaches to landslide hazard mapping.
In: Proceedings 4th international symposium on landslides,
Toronto, vol 1, pp 307–324
Qualitative Rockfall Hazard Assessment: A Comprehensive Review of Current Practices
Brawner CO, Wyllie D (1976) Rock slope stability on railway
projects. Am Railw Eng Assoc Bull 656:449–474
Brown ET (1981) Rock characterization, testing and monitoring.
ISRM suggested methods. Pergamon, Oxford, pp 171–183
Budetta P (2004) Assessment of rockfall risk along roads. Nat
Hazards Earth Syst Sci 4:71–81
Budetta P, Nappi M (2013) Comparison between qualitative rockfall
risk rating systems for a road affected by high traffic intensity.
Nat Hazards Earth Syst Sci 13(6):1643–1653
Bunce CM, Cruden D, Morgenstern N (1997) Assessment of the
hazard from rock fall on a highway. Can Geotech J 34:344–356
Cancelli A, Crosta GB (1993) Hazard and risk assessment in rockfall
prone areas. In: Telford T (ed) Risk reliability in ground
engineering, pp 177–190
Cascini L (2008) Applicability of landslide susceptibility and hazard
zoning at different scales. Eng Geol 102:164–177
Cascini L, Bonnard C, Corominas J, Jibson R, Montero-Olarte J
(2005) Landslide hazard and risk zoning for urban planning and
development. Landslide risk management. Taylor and Francis,
London, pp 199–235
Castelli M, Scavia C (2008) A multidisciplinary methodology for
hazard and risk assessment of rock avalanches. Rock Mech Rock
Eng 41(1):3–36
CNR—Consiglio Nazionale delle Ricerche (1980) Norme tecniche
per le costruzioni stradali. Pon 1:11–15
Copons R, Vilaplana JM, Corominas J, Altimir J, Amigó J (2004)
Rockfall risk management in high-density urban areas. The
Andorran experience, landslide hazard and risk, pp 675–698
Corominas J, Mavrouli O (2011) Rockfall quantitative risk assess-
ment. In: Lambert S, Nicot F (eds) Rockfall engineering. John
Wiley & Sons, Hoboken, pp 255–296
Corominas J, Moya J (2008) A review of assessing landslide
frequency for hazard zoning purposes. Eng Geol 102(3):193–213
Corominas J, Copons R, Vilaplana JM, Altimir J, Amigó J (2003)
Integrated landslide susceptibility analysis and hazard assess-
ment in the principality of Andorra. Nat Hazards 30(3):421–435
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, Hervas J, Smith JT (2014) Recommendations for the
quantitative analysis of landslide risk. Bull Eng Geol Environ
73:209–263
Crosta GB, Agliardi F (2003) A methodology for physically based
rockfall hazard assessment. Nat Hazards Earth Syst Sci
3:407–422
Crosta GB, Agliardi F (2004) Parametric evaluation of 3D dispersion
of rockfall trajectories. Nat Hazards Earth Syst Sci 4(4):583–598
Crosta GB, Locatelli C (1999) Approccio alla valutazione del rischio
da frane per crollo. In: Proceedings Studi geografici e geologici
in onore di Severino Belloni. Glauco Brigatti Publisher, Genoa,
pp 259–286
Crosta GB, Frattini P, Sterlacchini S (2001) Valutazione e gestione
del rischio da frana: principi e metodi. Regione Lombardia
Publication, Milano 169
Cruden DM, Fell R (1997) Landslide risk assessment. Balkema,
Rotterdam
Cruden DM, Varnes DJ (1996) Landslide types and processes. In:
Turner AK, Schuster RL (eds) Landslides: investigation and
mitigation, transportation research board special report 247.
National Research Council, USA, pp 36–75
Dai FC, Lee CF, Ngai YY (2002) Landslide risk assessment and
management: an overview. Eng Geol 64:65–87
Deere DU, Deere DW (1988) The rock quality designation (RQD)
index in practice. In: Symposium on rock classification systems
for engineering purposes, Cincinnati
2919
Derron MH, Jaboyedoff M, Blikra LH (2005) Preliminary assessment
of rockslide and rockfall hazards using a DEM (Oppstadhornet,
Norway). Nat Hazards Earth Syst Sci 5:285–292
Dussauge-Peisser C, Helmstetter A, Grasso JR, Hantz D, Desvarreux
P, Jeannin M, Giraud A (2002) Probabilistic approach to rock
fall hazard assessment: potential of historical data analysis. Nat
Hazards Earth Syst Sci 2:15–26
Dussauge-Peisser C, Grasso JR, Helmstetter A (2003) Statistical
analysis of rockfall volume distributions: implications for
rockfall dynamics. J Geophys Res Sol Ea 108:1–11
Evans S, Hungr O (1993) The assessment of rockfall hazard at the
base of talus slopes. Can Geotech J 30:620–636
Fell R (1994) Landslide risk assessment and acceptable risk. Can
Geotech J 31(2):261–272
Fell R, Hartford D (1997) Landslide risk management. Cruden and
Fell. Landslide risk assessment, Balkema, Rotterdam, pp 51–109
Fell R, Ho K, Lacasse S, Leroi E (2005) A framework for landslide
risk assessment and management. In: Hungr O, Fell R, Couture
R, Eberhardt E (eds) Landslide risk management. Taylor and
Francis Group, London
Fell R, Corominas J, Bonnard C, Cascini L, Leroi E, Savage WZ
(2008) Guidelines for landslide susceptibility, hazard and risk
zoning for land-use planning. Eng Geol 102(3):99–111
Ferlisi S, Cascini L, Corominas J, Matano F (2012) Rockfall risk
assessment to persons travelling in vehicles along a road: the
case study of the Amalfi coastal road (southern Italy). Nat
Hazards 62(2):691–721
Fernandez-Hernandez M, Paredes C, Castedo R, Llorente M, de la
Vega-Panizo R (2012) Rockfall detachment susceptibility map in
El Hierro Island, Canary Islands, Spain. Nat Hazards
64:1247–1271
Ferrari P, Giannini F (1975) Geometria e progetto di strade.
Ingegneria stradale, I, ISEDI, Milano
Ferrari F, Apuani T, Giani GP (2011) Applicazione di modelli
cinematici per lo studio di frane di crollo in media Val San
Giacomo (SO). Geologia Ambientale e Mineraria
48(1):55–64
Ferrari F, Giani GP, Apuani T (2013) Towards the comprehension of
rockfall motion, with the aid of in situ tests. Ital J Eng Geol
Environ 6:163–171
Ferrero AM, Migliazza M, Roncella R, Segalini A (2011) Rock cliffs
hazard analysis based on remote geostructural surveys: the
Campione del Garda case study (Lake Garda, Northern Italy).
Geomorphology 125(4):457–471
Fookes PG, Sweeny M (1976) Stabilization and control of local
rockfalls and degrading rock slopes. Quart J Eng Geol 9:37–55
Franklin JA, Senior SA (1997) The Ontario rockfall hazard rating
system. In: Proceedings of the conference on engineering
geology and environment, Athens, pp 647–658
Franklin JA, Wood DF, Senior SA, Blair JA, Wright J (2013)
RHRON: Ontario rockfall hazard rating system—field proce-
dures manual, Ontario Ministry of Transportation Materials
Engineering and Research Office Report, MERO-043
Frattini P, Crosta G, Carrara A, Agliardi F (2008) Assessment of
rockfall susceptibility by integrating statistical and physically-
based approaches. Geomorphology 94:419–437
Gardner J (1983) Rockfall frequency and distribution in the High-
wood Pass area, Canadian Rocky Mountains. Zeitschrift für
Geomorphologie 27(3):311–324
Gerath R, Jakob M, Mitchell P, VanDine D, Finn L, Gillespie D,
Kuan S, Naesgaard E, Patrick B, Skermer N, Wallis D (2006)
Guidelines for legislated landslide assessments for proposed
residential development in British Columbia. Association of
Professional Engineers and Geoscientists of British Columbia,
Vancouver, BC
123
2920
Guenther A, Carstensen A, Pohl W (2004) Automated sliding
susceptibility mapping of rock slopes. Nat Hazards Earth Syst
Sci 4:95–102
Guzzetti F (2005) Review and selection of optimal geological models
related to spatial information available. Risk advanced weather
forecast system to advise on risk events and management action
1.14. IRPI CNR, Perugia, Italy
Guzzetti F, Carrara A, Cardinali M, Reichenbach P (1999) Landslide
hazard evaluation: a review of current techniques and their
application in a multi-scale study, central Italy. Geomorphology
31:181–216
Guzzetti F, Reichenbach P, Wieczorek GF (2003) Rockfall hazard
and risk assessment in the Yosemite Valley, California, USA.
Nat Hazards Earth Syst Sci 3:491–503
Guzzetti F, Galli M, Reichenbach P, Ardizzone F, Cardinali M
(2006a) Landslide hazard assessment in the Collazzone area,
Umbria, central Italy. Nat Hazards Earth Syst Sci 6:115–131
Guzzetti F, Reichenbach P, Ardizzone F, Cardinali M, Galli M
(2006b) Estimating the quality of landslide susceptibility mod-
els. Geomorphology 81:166–184
Hadjin DJ (2002) New York State Department of Transportation rock
slope rating procedure and rockfall assessment. Transp Res Rec
1786:02–3978
Hantz D, Vengeon JM, Dussauge-Peisser C (2003) An historical,
geomechanical and probabilistic approach to rock-fall hazard
assessment. Nat Hazards Earth Syst Sci 3(6):693–701
Hasekioğulları GD, Ercanoglu M (2012) A new approach to use AHP
in landslide susceptibility mapping: a case study at Yenice
(Karabuk, NW Turkey). Nat Hazards 63(2):1157–1179
Heim A (1932) Bergsturz und Menschenleben. Fretz und Wasmuth,
Zurich
Hoek E (1999) Putting numbers to geology—an engineer’s viewpoint.
Q J Eng Geol Hydrogeol 32(1):1–19
Hoek E (2000) Analysis of rockfall hazards. In: Hoek E (ed) Practical
rock engineering, pp 117–136
Hudson JA (1992) Rock engineering systems: theory & practice. Ellis
Horwood, Chichester
Hudson JA (2013) A review of rock engineering systemss (RES)
applications over the last 20 years. In: Feng XT, Hudson JA, Tan
F (eds) Rock characterisation, modelling and engineering design
methods. Taylor and Francis Group, London, pp 419–424
Hudson JA, Harrison JP (1992) A new approach to studying complete
rock engineering problems. Q J Eng Geol 25:93–105
Hungr O, Evans S, Hazzard J (1999) Magnitude and frequency of
rockfalls and rock slides along the main transportation corridors
of south-western British Columbia. Can Geotech J 36:224–238
Hungr O, Fell R, Couture R, Eberhardt E (2005) Landslide risk
management. Taylor and Francis Group, London
ISRM—International Society for Rock Mechanics, Commission on
Standardization of Laboratory and Field Tests (1978) Suggested
methods for the quantitative description of discontinuities in rock
masses. Int J Rock Mech Min Sci Geomech Abstr 15:319–368
ISRM—International Society for Rock Mechanics, Commission on
Standardization of Laboratory and Field Tests, Committee on
Laboratory Tests (1979) Suggested methods for determining
water content. Porosity, density, absorption and related proper-
ties and swelling and slake-durability index properties. Int J
Rock Mech Min Sci Geomech Abstr 16(2):151–156
Jaboyedoff M, Labiouse V (2003) Preliminary assessment of rockfall
hazard based on GIS data. In: 10th international congress on rock
mechanics, ISRM, pp 575–578, Johannesburgh
Jaboyedoff M, Baillifard F, Hantz D, Heidenreich B, Mazzoccola D
(2001) Terminologie. In: Carere, Ratto, Zanolini (eds) Preven-
tion des mouvements de versants et des instabilites de falaises,
pp 48–57
123
F. Ferrari et al.
Jaboyedoff M, Baillifard F, Philippossian F, Rouiller JD (2004)
Assessing fracture occurrence using ‘‘weighted fracturing den-
sity’’: a step towards estimating rock instability hazard. Nat
Hazards Earth Syst Sci 4:83–93
Jaboyedoff M, Dudt JP, Labiouse V (2005) An attempt to refine
rockfall hazard zoning based on the kinetic energy, frequency
and fragmentation degree. Nat Hazards Earth Syst Sci 5:621–632
Kayastha P, Dhital MR, De Smedt F (2013) Application of the
analytical hierarchy process (AHP) for landslide susceptibility
mapping: a case study from the Tinau watershed, west Nepal.
Comput Geosci 52:398–408
Koleini M, Van Rooy JL (2011) Falling rock hazard index: a case
study from the Marun Dam and power plant, south-western Iran.
Bull Eng Geol Environ 70(2):279–290
Komac M (2006) A landslide susceptibility model using the analytical
hierarchy process method and multivariate statistics in perialpine
Slovenia. Geomorphology 74(1):17–28
Lambert S, Nicot F (2011) Rockfall engineering. John Wiley & Sons,
Hoboken
Li ZH, Huang HW, Xue YD, Yin J (2009) Risk assessment of rockfall
hazards on highways. Georisk Assess Manag Risk Eng Syst
Geohazards 3(3):147–154
Maerz NH, Youssef A, Lauer R (2004) MORFH RS: a rockcut rating
system for Missouri highways. In: Proceedings of the 55th
highway geology symposium, Kansas City, Missouri, pp 406–424
Maerz NH, Youssef A, Fennessey TW (2005) New risk—conse-
quence rockfall hazard rating system for Missouri highways
using digital image analysis. Environ Eng Geosci 11(3):229–249
Malamud B, Turcotte D, Guzzetti F, Reichenbach P (2004) Landslide
inventories and their statistical properties. Earth Surf Proc Land
29:687–711
Marquinez J, Duarte RM, Farias P, Sánchez MJ (2003) Predictive
GIS-based model of rockfall activity in mountain cliffs. Nat
Hazards 30(3):341–360
Mauldon M, Drumm EC, Dunne WM, Bateman N, Rose B, Kim M
(2007) Rockfall management system for Tennessee. Tennessee
Department of Transportation Division of Material and Tests,
Nashville, p 301
Mavrouli OC (2011) Quantitative evaluation of the rockfall risk.
Application to the Solà d’Andorra. PhD thesis, Universitat
Politècnica de Catalunya
Mazzoccola, D, Sciesa E (2001) La metodologia RHAP (rockfall hazard
assessment procedure). Prevenzione dei fenomeni di instabilita
delle pareti rocciose. In: Programme Interreg II C, pp 84–95
Mazzoccola DF, Hudson JA (1996) A comprehensive method of rock
mass characterization for indicating natural slope instability. Q J
Eng GeolHydrogeol 29(1):37–56
Mazzoccola D, Sciesa E (2000) Implementation and comparison of
different methods for rockfall hazard assessment in the Italian
Alps. In: 8th international symposium on landslides, vol 2,
pp 1035–1040. Balkema, Rotterdam
Mölk M, Poisel R, Weilbold J, Angerer H (2008) Rockfall rating
systems: is there a comprehensive method for hazard zoning in
populated areas? In: Proceedings of the 11th interpraevent
congress 2:207–218, Dornbirn, Austria
National Highway Institute (1993) Rockfall hazard rating system
participant’s manual. NHI course no. 130220, US Department of
Transportation, Federal Highway Administration, publication no.
FHWA SA-93-057
New York State DOT (1996) Rock slope rating procedure. Geotech-
nical engineering manual, 15, Geotechnical Engineering Bureau,
Albany
New York State DOT (2007) Rock slope rating procedure. Geotech-
nical Engineering Manual, 15, revision no. 1. Geotechnical
Engineering Bureau, Albany
Qualitative Rockfall Hazard Assessment: A Comprehensive Review of Current Practices
OFAT, OFEE and OFEFP (1997) Recommandations 1997—prise en
compte des dangers dus aux mouvements de terrain dans le cadre
des activités de l’aménagement du territoire, edited by: OFAT/
OFEE/OFEFP, Bern
Pack R, Boie K, Mather S, Farrell J (2006) UDOT rockfall hazard
rating system: final report and user’s manual (report UT-06.07).
Utah State University, Logan
Pantelidis L (2009) System of quantitative and qualitative assessment
of highway geotechnical assets failure hazard and relevant
consequences. PhD thesis, Aristotle University of Thessaloniki
Pantelidis L (2011) A critical review of highway slope instability risk
assessment systems. Bull Eng Geol Environ 70:395–400
Peila D, Patrucco M, Falanesca M (2011) Quantification and
management of rockfall risk in opencast quarrying activities.
Environ Eng Geosci 17(1):39–51
Pierson LA (1992) The rockfall hazard rating system. Transportation
research record: rockfall prediction and control and landslide
case histories, no 1343, pp. 6–13
Pierson LA, Van Vickle R (1993) Rockfall hazard rating system.
Participant’s manual, report FHWA-SA-93-057. FHWA, NHI
Pierson LA, Davis SA, Van Vickle R (1990) Rockfall hazard rating
system implementation manual, federal highway administration
(FHWA), report FHWA-OR-EG-90–01, FHWA. US Department
of Transporation, Oregon
Pierson LA, Beckstrand DL, Black BA (2005) Rockfall hazard
classification and mitigation system. Montana Department of
Transportation, final report, FHWA/MT-05-011/8176
Pourghasemi HR, Pradhan B, Gokceoglu C (2012) Application of
fuzzy logic and analytical hierarchy process (AHP) to landslide
susceptibility mapping at Haraz watershed, Iran. Nat Hazards
6(32):965–996
Raetzo H, Lateltin O, Bollinger D, Tripet J (2002) Hazard assessment
in Switzerland—code of practice for mass movements. B Eng
Geol Environ 61:263–268
Ravanel L, Deline P (2011) Climate influence on rockfalls in high-
Alpine steep rockwalls: the north side of the Aiguilles de
Chamonix (Mont Blanc massif) since the end of the ‘Little Ice
Age’. Holocene 21(2):357–365
Regione Lombardia (2000) Procedure per la valutazione e la
zonazione della pericolosità e del rischio da frana in Regione
Lombardia. Boll Uff Reg Lomb 51
Reichenbach P, Galli M, Cardinali M, Guzzetti F, Ardizzone F (2005)
Geomorphologic mapping to assess landslide risk: concepts,
methods and applications in the Umbria Region of central Italy.
In: Glade T, Anderson M, Crozier MG (eds) Landslide risk
assessment. Wiley, Chichester
Ritchie AM (1963) Evaluation of rockfall and its control. Highway
research board record, 17, Washington
Romana M (1985) New adjustment ratings for application of
Bieniawski classification to slopes. In: Proceedings of
international symposium on the role of rock mechanics,
Zacatecas
Romana M (1988) Practice of SMR classification for slope appraisal.
In: Proceedings of 5th international symposium on landslides.
Balkema, Rotterdam
Romana M (1991) SMR classification. In: Proceedings of 7th
international congress on rock mechanics. Balkema, Rotterdam
Romana M, Serón JB, Montalar E (2003) SMR geomechanics
classification: application, experience and validation. In: Pro-
ceedings of the 10th congress of the international society for
rock mechanics (ISRM), pp 1–4
Rose BT (2005) Tennessee rockfall management system. Ph.D. thesis,
Virginia Polytechnic Institute and State University
Rossi M, Guzzetti F, Reichenbach P, Mondini AC, Peruccacci S
(2010) Optimal landslide susceptibility zonation based on
multiple forecasts. Geomorphology 114:129–142
2921
Rouiller JD, Marro C (1997) Application de la methodologie
Matterock a ĺevaluation du danger lie aux falaises. Eclogae
Geol Helv 90:393–399
Rozos D, Bathrellos GD, Skillodimou HD (2011) Comparison of the
implementation of rock engineering system and analytic hierar-
chy process methods, upon landslide susceptibility mapping,
using GIS: a case study from the Eastern Achaia County of
Peloponnesus, Greece. Environ Earth Sci 63(1):49–63
Russell CP, Santi PM, Humphrey JD (2008) Modification and
statistical analysis of the Colorado rockfall hazard rating system.
Colorado Department of Transportation, DTD Applied Research
and Innovation Branch (No. CDOT-2008-7)
Saaty TL (1990) How to make a decision: the analytic hierarchy
process. Eur Oper Res 48:2–26
Saaty TL (2006) Rank from comparisons and from ratings in the
analytic hierarchy/network processes. Eur J Oper Res
168(2):557–570
Santi PM, Russell CP, Higgins JD, Spriet JI (2009) Modification and
statistical analysis of the Colorado rockfall hazard rating system.
Eng Geol 104(1):55–65
Saroglou H, Marinos V, Marinos P, Tsiambaos G (2012) Rockfall
hazard and risk assessment: an example from a high promontory
at the historical site of Monemvasia, Greece. Natural Hazards
Earth Syst Sci 12:1823–1836
Senior SA (2003) Ontario rockfall hazard rating system. Field
procedures manual. Report draft, Materials Engineering and
Research Office, Ontario, p 36
Shakoor A, Woodard MJ (2005) Development of a rockfall hazard
rating matrix for the state of Ohio. Kent State University,
FHWA/OH-2005/005, Kent, Ohio, p 369
Singh A (2004) FRHI—a system to evaluate and mitigate rockfall
hazard instable rock excavations. J Div Civ Eng Inst Eng (India)
85:62–75
Soeters R, Van Westen CJ (1996) Slope instability recognition,
analysis and zonation. Landslides, investigation and mitigation.
Transp Res Board Natl Res Counc Spec Rep 247:129–177
Spadari M, Giacomini A, Buzzi O, Fityus S, Giani GP (2012) In situ
rockfall testing in New South Wales, Australia. Int J Rock Mech
Min Sci 49:84–93
Stover BK (1992) Highway rockfall research report. Colorado
Geological Survey, Department of Natural Resources
Turner AK, Jayaprakash GP (2013) Rockfall: characterization and
Control. Transportation Research Board Miscellaneous Publica-
tion, TR News, 284, Washington
Turner AK, Schuster RL (1996) Landslides: investigation and
mitigation. Transportation Research Board Special Report 247.
National Research Council, Washington
UNISDR (2009) Terminology on disaster risk reduction. http://www.
unisdr.org/we/inform/terminology
Van Westen CJ, Rengers N, Terlien MTJ, Soeters R (1997) Prediction
of the occurrence of slope instability phenomenal through GIS-
based hazard zonation. Geol Rundsch 86:404–414
Van Westen CJ, Castellanos E, Kuriakose SL (2008) Spatial data for
landslide susceptibility, hazard, and vulnerability assessment: an
overview. Eng Geol 102(3):112–131
Vandewater C, Dunne WM, Mauldon M, Drumm EC, Bateman V
(2005) Classifying and assessing the geologic contribution to
rockfall hazard. Environ Eng Geosci 11(2):141–154
Varnes DJ (1978) Slope movement types and processes. In: Schuster
RL, Krizek RJ (eds) Landslide analysis and control. Transporta-
tion Research Board, Special report 176. National Academy
Sciences, Washington, DC, pp 11–33
Varnes DJ, IAEG—International Association Engineering Geology,
Commission on Landslides and other Mass-Movements Land-
slide (1984) Hazard zonation: a review of principles and
practice, the UNESCO Press, Paris
123
2922
Volkwein A, Schellenberg K, Labiouse V, Agliardi F, Berger F,
Bourrier F, Dorren LKA, Gerber W, Jaboyedoff M (2011)
Rockfall characterisation and structural protection—a review.
Nat Hazards Earth Sys 11:2617–2651
Whiteside PGD (1986) Discussion on rockfall protection measures.
Conference on rock engineering and excavation in an urban
environment. Institution of Mining and Metallurgy, Hong Kong
Woodard M (2004) Development of a rockfall hazard rating system
Matrix for the State of Ohio. PhD dissertation, Kent State
University
Woodard MJ, Baker MJ, Shakoor A (2005) Development of a rock
fall hazard rating matrix for Ohio, USA. In: Proceedings of
Geoline, Lyon, France
Wyllie DC (1987) Rock slope inventory system. In: Proceedings of
the Federal Highway Administration Rockfall Mitigation Sem-
inar FHWA Region 10
Wyllie DC (2005) Risk management of rock fall hazards. In:
Proceedings of Canadian geotechnical society annual confer-
ence, Vancouver
Yagi H (2003) Development of assessment method for landslide
hazardness by AHP. In: Abstract volume of the 42nd annual
meeting of the Japan Landslide Society, pp 209–212
Yalcin A (2008) GIS-based landslide susceptibility mapping using
analytical hierarchy process and bivariate statistics in Ardesen
123
F. Ferrari et al.
(Turkey): comparisons of results and confirmations. Catena
72(1):1–12
Yalcin A, Reis S, Aydinoglu AC, Yomralioglu T (2011) A GIS-based
comparative study of frequency ratio, analytical hierarchy
process, bivariate statistics and logistics regression methods for
landslide susceptibility mapping in Trabzon, NE Turkey. Catena
85(3):274–287
Yang YJ, Zhang Q (1998) The application of neural networks to rock
engineering systems (RES). Int J Rock Mech Min Sci
35(6):727–745
Yoshimatsu H, Abe S (2006) A review of landslide hazards in Japan
and assessment of their susceptibility using an analytical
hierarchic process (AHP) method. Landslides 3(2):149–158
Youssef AM, Maerz NH (2012) Development, justification, and
verification of a rock fall hazard rating system. Bull Eng Geol
Environ 71:171–186
Zhang LQ, Yang ZF, Liao QL, Chen J (2004) An application of the
rock engineering systems (RES) methodology in rockfall hazard
assessment on the Chengdu-Lhasa Highway, China. Int J Rock
Mech Min Sci 41:833–838
Zhao HC, Xu SB, He JS (1986) Analytic hierarchy process. Science
and Technology Press, Beijing