Classifying and Assessing the Geologic Contribution

to Rockfall Hazard
CHRISTOPHER J. VANDEWATER

WILLIAM M. DUNNE
Department of Earth & Planetary Sciences, University of Tennessee–Knoxville,
Knoxville, TN 37996

MATTHEW MAULDON
Department of Civil & Environmental Engineering,
Virginia Tech, 200 Patton Hall, Mail Code 0105, Blacksburg, VA 24061

ERIC C. DRUMM
Department of Civil & Environmental Engineering,
University of Tennessee–Knoxville, Knoxville, TN 37996

VANESSA BATEMAN
Geotechnical Engineering Section, Tennessee Department of Transportation,
6601 Centennial Blvd., Nashville, TN 37243

Key Terms: Rockfall Hazard, Rockfall Modes, Geo-
logic Character, Logistic Regression
ABSTRACT
Rockfalls from roadcuts are a major hazard and
pose problems for transportation agencies across the
country. In the context of rockfall hazard manage-
ment, however, no consensus exists about the role of
geology in assessing rockfall hazard. This study
investigates the geologic contribution to rockfall
hazard through application of rockfall hazard rating
systems to roadcuts in Tennessee and through
additional data collection to reveal correlations
between hazard characteristics and geologic attrib-
utes. The geologic character of 80 roadcuts in central
and eastern Tennessee was evaluated using the
Tennessee Rockfall Hazard Rating System (RHRS),
which is a revision of the National Highway Institute
(NHI) RHRS. Scores for both RHRSs were compared
to evaluate whether the improved reproducibility of
scoring for the Tennessee RHRS yielded unintended
losses of scoring accuracy and sensitivity. Additional
geologic attribute data beyond those used in the RHRS
system were collected to determine with logistic
regression analysis whether relationships among the
geologic attributes, rockfall type, and block size exist.
Results indicate the revised geologic component of
Tennessee’s RHRS is more informative and permits
description of a wider spectrum of geologic conditions
than does the NHI version. Logistic regression analysis
indicates rockfall type correlates to lithologic varia-
tion and the number of discontinuity sets; and block
size correlates to structurally controlled rockfall,
lithologic variation, mechanical layer thickness, and
number of discontinuity sets. Consequently, roadcuts
containing potential rockfall modes with two or more
discontinuity sets, no lithologic variation, and me-
chanical thicknesses that exceed 1.0 m are expected to
have greater Geologic Character scores.
INTRODUCTION
Rockfall occurrences along roadcuts create consider-
able risk for human injury and property damage, posing
problems for transportation agencies across the country.
Negative consequences of rockfall include impact damage
to pavement from falling rocks, rocks on roads posing
hazards to motorists, road closures, and environmental
impact due to collisions with vehicles transporting toxic
substances (Royster, 1978; Moore, 1986; and Wyllie and
Norrish, 1996). Consequently, as the demand for rockfall
protection increases (Flatland, 1993), transportation
agencies are expected to respond with practices that
minimize damage and increase driver safety.
Rockfalls occur when rock or debris is shed from
a roadcut or nearby steep slope by processes such as planar

Environmental & Engineering Geoscience, Vol. XI, No. 2, May 2005, pp. 141–154 141
 Vandewater, Dunne, Mauldon, Drumm, and Bateman
sliding, wedge failure, toppling, differential weathering,
and raveling onto the catchment and/or road (Norrish and
Wyllie, 1996). Characterization of rockfall hazard along
roadcuts is necessary for identifying hazard level and
prioritizing remediation activities. The characterization
includes attributes such as vehicular traffic patterns,
roadway geometry, and rock-slope geometry (Wyllie
and Norrish, 1996). However, in the context of rockfall
hazard management, a variety of methods are used to
characterize the role of geology in the rockfall process.
Developing an effective approach to characterizing
geology is important, because this factor and its relation
to the roadway controls whether material is available to be
shed as a rockfall. Approaches to incorporating geology in
hazard assessment have included defining hazard by
association with rock type (Anonymous, 1996; Hadjin,
2002), ascertaining whether geologic discontinuities are
oriented favorably or unfavorably with respect to pro-
moting rockfall (Abbott et al., 1998), and describing the
rockfall process for rock and soil slopes (Lowell and
Morin, 2000).
The goal of this study is to investigate the role of
geology through two approaches: (1) building on the
geologic component of the National Highway Institute
(NHI) Rockfall Hazard Rating System (RHRS) by
modifying it to explicitly evaluate rockfall modes and
their salient characteristics, which is hereafter referred to
as the Tennessee RHRS; and (2) collecting additional
geologic attributes beyond the RHRS system to determine
if these geologic attributes correlate with rockfall type and
block size. The correlation in the second approach
compares rockfall modes and attributes developed for
the first approach with additional geological data that
would not typically be collected during roadcut charac-
terization for rockfall hazard rating. A purpose of the
second approach is to provide transportation departments
and future investigators with correlations that could be
used to consider likely rockfall modes and block sizes for
a prospective roadcut if the geologic unit and its properties
are already known.
Role of Geology in Existing Rockfall Hazard
Rating Systems
The RHRS is a tool to systematically inventory and
rank hazardous roadcuts. The system was originally
developed by Pierson et al. (1990) for the Oregon
Department of Transportation (ODOT) in a study funded
by Oregon, nine other states, and the Federal Highway
Administration. This effort was preceded by earlier work,
dating back to the 1970s, to develop systematic inventory
and ranking procedures for hazardous roadcuts (Fish and
Lane, 2002). The ODOT RHRS is based on a rock slope
inventory and maintenance program developed by Wyllie
(1987). Since 1990, the Federal Highway Administration
142 Environmental & Engineering Geoscience, Vol. XI, No. 2, May 2005, pp. 141–154
has adopted the ODOT RHRS (Pierson and Van Vickle,
1993), hereafter referred to as the NHI RHRS.
The NHI RHRS employs a two-phase slope categori-
zation process (Pierson and Van Vickle, 1993). The first
phase is a preliminary rating, where slopes are assigned
a rating of A, B, or C based first on the estimated potential
for rock to reach roadway and second on historical
rockfall activity. A-rated slopes are most hazardous and
are characterized with a detailed rating that considers the
following factors:

Slope height

Roadway width

Ditch effectiveness

Average vehicle risk

Decision sight distance

Geologic character

Block size/volume of rockfall per event

Climate/presence of water

Rockfall history
The factors affected by the geologic conditions at
a roadcut are Geologic Character and Block Size.
Geologic Character identifies whether the rockfall type
is controlled by the geologic structure or differential
erosion. Block Size is controlled by rock type, structural
conditions such as joint length and spacing, and roadcut
construction methods.
Since the development and implementation of the NHI
RHRS (Pierson et al., 1990; Pierson and Van Vickle,
1993), more than 17 state and provincial agencies have
adopted the RHRS for rockfall management. Most
transportation agencies have approached roadcut geologic
conditions using the RHRS without modification, but
about seven have modified the RHRS, most notably
Colorado (Stover, 1992), Washington (Lowell and Morin,
2000), New York (Anonymous, 1996), and Ontario,
Canada (Senior, 1999).
The Colorado Department of Transportation (DOT)
incorporated Slope Inclination and Launching Features,
because their experience suggested that these factors
significantly contributed to rockfall hazard (Stover, 1992).
The Washington State system distinguishes soil and rock
materials but does not explicitly incorporate rockfall
modes, because the DOT wished to utilize raters who were
neither geologists nor geotechnical engineers (Lowell and
Morin, 2000). The New York DOT modified the RHRS by
considering hazard associated with two rock categories,
crystalline and sedimentary, based on their assumption
that crystalline rocks tend to have structurally controlled
rockfall, whereas sedimentary rocks tend to have rockfall
controlled by differential erosion (Anonymous, 1996).
Ontario’s Ministry of Transportation (MTO) modified the
RHRS to deal with rockfall modes common in Ontario
roadcuts. For example, in northern Ontario, raveling,
 Geologic Contribution to Rockfall Hazard

Figure 1. Physiographic (A) and geologic maps (B) of central and eastern Tennessee showing location of investigated counties.

toppling, and ice-jacking are the dominant rockfall
behaviors because of well-controlled blasting methods,
pronounced physical weathering, and the fact that roadcut
relief is typically less than 8 m (Senior, 1999). Additional
parameters used by Ontario include height of the water
table at the slope face and looseness of the face.
STUDY AREA
Location and Physiography
Rockfall hazard was evaluated in five counties of
Tennessee during 2001–2002 in the first phase of
a statewide rockfall hazard inventory for the Tennessee
DOT. The five counties were selected to cover a broad
range of physiographic and geologic settings. Data from
the roadcuts in these five counties were used to evaluate
the role of geology in rockfall hazard and to identify
specific geologic controls on rockfall type and block size.
Eighty roadcuts in eastern and central Tennessee were
evaluated with the Tennessee RHRS, and 77 of these 80
cuts were subsequently investigated to examine the
influence of geologic factors on the geologic attributes
of the rockfall hazard rating (Figure 1). Physiographically,
this region is composed of the Blue Ridge Province;
Valley and Ridge; Cumberland Plateau; the Highland

Environmental & Engineering Geoscience, Vol. XI, No. 2, May 2005, pp. 141–154 143
 Vandewater, Dunne, Mauldon, Drumm, and Bateman
Table 1. NHI Geologic Character rating scheme. Case 1 is for structurally related rockfall, and Case 2 is for erosion-related rockfall.
Geologic Characteristics Low Hazard ƒƒƒƒƒƒƒƒƒƒƒƒƒƒƒƒƒƒƒƒƒƒƒƒƒƒƒƒƒƒƒƒƒƒƒƒƒƒƒƒƒƒ!
Case 1
Structural Condition Discontinuous joints,
favorable orientation
Rock Friction Rough, irregular
Case 2
Structural Condition Few differential
erosion features
Difference in Erosion Rates Small difference
Rim; and the Nashville Basin (Bingham and Helton,
1999) (Figure 1).
Geologic Setting
The Blue Ridge Province is underlain by mostly Early
Cambrian rifted margin sedimentary and volcanic rocks
that were deposited on Grenville basement. The Valley
and Ridge Province consists of a Cambrian and Ordovi-
cian platform and Ordovician to Pennsylvanian synoro-
genic sedimentary rocks that were folded and faulted
during the Late Mississippian–Permian Alleghenian
orogeny (Hatcher et al., 1989). Nearly flat-lying Devonian
to Pennsylvanian sedimentary rocks form the Cumberland
Plateau, and these are moderately to deeply dissected,
creating significant local relief. Adjacent to the Cumber-
land Plateau to the west, but at lower elevation, is the
Highland Rim, containing Ordovician to Mississippian
sedimentary rocks that are moderately to deeply dissected.
The Nashville Basin is a topographic low consisting of
a structural dome of Ordovician to Mississippian sedi-
mentary rocks that gently dip away from the geologic apex
(Hardeman, 1966; Bingham and Helton, 1999).
The five counties present contrasting geologic con-
ditions. Lithologic variations range from crystalline rocks,
composed primarily of granite, orthogneiss and para-
gneiss, amphibolite, and gabbro, which occur in the Blue
Ridge Province (parts of Carter County), to sedimentary
rocks in the other provinces, including mudstones,
siltstones, sandstones, and carbonates that occur in parts
of Carter, Anderson, Bledsoe, Grainger, and Smith
Counties (Figure 1). Additionally, structural variations
occur: horizontally bedded rocks in Smith, Bledsoe, and
Anderson Counties; moderately inclined and folded
sedimentary rocks in Bledsoe, Anderson, Grainger, and
Carter Counties; and igneous and foliated metamorphic
rocks in Carter County. Accordingly, roadcuts in the study
area contain a variety of lithologies, structural domains,
and discontinuity characteristics (i.e., spacing and persis-
tence). This variety potentially influences rockfall modes,
144 Environmental & Engineering Geoscience, Vol. XI, No. 2, May 2005, pp. 141–154
Values of Hazard Assessment
High Hazard
Discontinuous joints, Discontinuous joints, Continuous joints, adverse
random orientation adverse orientation orientation
Undulating Planar Clay infilling or slickensided
Occasional differential Many differential Major differential
erosion features erosion features erosion features
Moderate difference Large difference Extreme difference
because lithologies have different weathering and erosion
characteristics, the presence of rock structures such as
folds and faults changes overall rock geometry, and the
abundance of discontinuities influences rock strength.
METHODOLOGY OF RHRS REVISION
Geological Revisions to NHI RHRS
The Geologic Character category in the NHI RHRS
(Pierson and Van Vickle, 1993) evaluates the geologic
conditions contributing to rockfall hazard at a roadcut.
However, the NHI approach does not explicitly in-
corporate rockfall modes and uses ambiguous terminol-
ogy, as described later in this section. Consequently, the
NHI RHRS produces scores that do not clearly in-
corporate geologic conditions at a roadcut, and scores may
be operator dependent, because the RHRS terminology
can be interpreted differently by different raters, limiting
reproducibility. Given these issues, we revised the NHI
RHRS Geologic Character to explicitly incorporate
rockfall modes, eliminate ambiguous jargon, and promote
reproducibility among different raters.
The Geologic Character category in the NHI RHRS
(Pierson and Van Vickle, 1993) considers two cases
(Table 1). ‘‘Case 1’’ is for structurally controlled rockfall
where key factors are discontinuity size, discontinuity
orientation, and rock friction. ‘‘Case 2’’ is for differential
erosion rockfall, where the factors are differential erosion
features and differential erosion rates. The cases are
mutually exclusive, because only the score for the rockfall
condition with the greater hazard is recorded.
‘‘Case 1’’ considers two factors: Structural Condition
and Rock Friction (Table 1). Structural Condition at-
tempts to describe the relative orientation and length of
joints in the roadcut (Pierson and Van Vickle, 1993).
Discontinuous joints are defined as less than 3.3 m in
length, whereas continuous joints are defined as greater
than 3.3 m in length. Rock Friction describes the surface
smoothness of the joints. Clay-filled and slickensided
 Geologic Contribution to Rockfall Hazard
joints are assigned the highest hazard, because less shear
stress is required to exceed the coefficient of friction.
‘‘Case 2’’ considers two factors: Structural Condition
and Difference in Erosion Rates (Table 1). Structural
Condition describes the surficial weathering features of
a roadcut, whereas Difference in Erosion Rates describes
the formation rate of surficial weathering features (Pierson
and Van Vickle, 1993), as inferred from the amount of
weathering relief in a slope face.
Examination of the scoring factors for the NHI
Geologic Character category during development of the
Tennessee RHRS, as well as field tests for consistency and
repeatability among several raters, highlighted the need
for an improved approach to resolve issues of assessment,
field application, and terminology. Issues included:
(1) The NHI RHRS does not apply well-established
geotechnical or geologic terms (Turner and Schus-
ter, 1996) or rockfall modes (e.g., plane, wedge,
topple, etc.).
(2) The NHI RHRS does not assess the abundance or
degree to which a potential rockfall mode is present
in a rock slope. This factor often controls the
volume of rock that may be shed to the road.
(3) Only the most hazardous condition is considered,
whereas a better assessment of risk is to consider all
rockfall modes in a roadcut that could deliver rock
to the road.
(4) The system does not consider raveling explicitly,
even though it may be a prominent rockfall type, as
Ontario’s MTO (Senior, 1999) and New York
(Anonymous, 1996; Hadjin, 2002) recognized.
(5) Use of ‘‘structural condition’’ for both structural and
nonstructural rockfall creates confusion.
(6) Use of ‘‘random’’ for intermediate orientation
hazard condition is problematic, because ‘‘random’’
could include potentially very hazardous orienta-
tions, and the term does not encompass the case of
parallel discontinuities as an intermediate-risk
orientation.
(7) Use of ‘‘joints’’ is confusing to geologists, because
bedding surfaces, faults, and cleavage may provide
discontinuities for structural cases.
(8) Use of ‘‘continuous’’ and ‘‘discontinuous’’ to de-
scribe discontinuity persistence is confusing.
(9) Use of ‘‘favorable’’ and ‘‘adverse’’ for hazard
conditions is ambiguous. ‘‘Favorable’’ means favor-
able to stability, but it could be misinterpreted as
favorably disposed to rockfall.
(10) Differential erosion is more accurately described by
the term ‘‘differential weathering.’’
The NHI RHRS was revised for use in Tennessee to
incorporate rockfall modes explicitly; to include raveling;
to use measurable attributes, including abundance; to sum
Environmental & Engineering Geoscience, Vol. XI, No. 2, May 2005, pp. 141–154
Table 2. Rockfall modes and characteristics of the Tennessee Geologic
Character rating scheme. X indicates inclusion of rated criteria for
a rockfall mode.
Characteristics
Rockfall Block Block
Modes Abundance Size Inclination Friction Relief Shape
Planar X X X X
Wedge X X X X
Topple X X
Differential
weathering X X X
Raveling X X X
the ratings where more than one rockfall mode is present;
and to eliminate ambiguous terminology.
Tennessee Geologic Character Scoring System
The Tennessee RHRS considers five rockfall modes:
plane, wedge, topple, differential weathering, and ravel-
ing, using appropriate combinations of six characteristics
(Tables 2 and 3). Characteristics common to all rockfall
modes are the relative Abundance of the rockfall mode
and Block Size. The relative Abundance of a rockfall mode
is expressed as a percentage of the total slope face surface
area containing the mode (Figure 2 and Table 3). In the
NHI RHRS, Block Size is treated separately from
Geologic Characteristics, but it is incorporated into the
Tennessee RHRS because block size is primarily a
function of geology.
Characteristics unique to planar and wedge rockfall are
Steepness of the failure plane(s) and wedge intersection,
respectively, and the Roughness Profiles of the failure
plane(s). As rockfall hazard increases with steepness,
frictional resistance, which is largely a function of
roughness, controls whether the rock mass fails. First-
order (planar or undulating) and second-order (rough or
smooth) friction is evaluated in a profile parallel to the
likely movement direction of the rock mass (Figure 3).
First-order (macroscale) roughness is considered to have
the greatest effect on shear strength, because substantial
shear stress is required to overcome first-order asperities,
whereas slip over the second-order asperities requires only
localized shearing (Patton and Deere, 1970; Barton, 1973).
The traditional topple rockfall mode requires disconti-
nuities dipping steeply into a slope face (Norrish and
Wyllie, 1996). However, the degree of discontinuity
steepness usually has little effect on this rotational failure
mechanism. Therefore, discontinuity steepness is not
considered in the Tennessee RHRS for the toppling mode.
Additionally, because interlayer slip is a very small
component of the topple resistance, friction is not
considered in the Tennessee RHRS for the toppling mode
(Table 3).
145
 Vandewater, Dunne, Mauldon, Drumm, and Bateman

Table 3. Scoring schemes for the Tennessee RHRS Geologic Character.

Planar Rockfall Mode

Abundance ,10% 10–20% 20–30% .30%
Score 3 9 27 81
Block size ,1 ft (,0.3 m) 1 to 3 ft (0.3–0.9 m) 3 to 6 ft (0.9–1.8 m) .6 ft (.1.8m)
Score 3 9 27 81
Steepness 0–208 20–408 40–608 .608
Score 2 5 14 41
Friction (micro/macro) Rough/undulating Smooth/undulating Rough/planar Smooth/planar
Score 2 5 14 41
Wedge Rockfall Mode
Abundance ,10% 10–20% 20–30% .30%
Score 3 9 27 81
Block size ,1 ft (,0.3 m) 1 to 3 ft (0.3–0.9 m) 3 to 6 ft (0.9–1.8 m) .6 ft (.1.8 m)
Score 3 9 27 81
Steepness 0–208 20–408 40–608 .608
Score 2 5 14 41
Friction (micro/macro) Rough/undulating Smooth/undulating Rough/planar Smooth/planar
Score 2 5 14 41
Topple Rockfall Mode
Abundance ,10% 10–20% 20–30% .30%
Score 5 4 41 122
Block size ,1 ft (,0.3 m) 1 to 3 ft (0.3–0.9 m) 3 to 6 ft (0.9–1.8 m) .6 ft (.1.8 m)
Score 5 14 41 122
Differential Weathering Rockfall Mode
Abundance ,10% 10–20% 20–30% .30%
Score 3 9 27 81
Block size ,1 ft (,0.3 m) 1 to 3 ft (0.3–0.9 m) 3 to 6 ft (0.9–1.8 m) .6 ft (.1.8 m)
Score 3 9 27 81
Relief ,1 ft (,0.3 m) 1 to 3 ft (0.3–0.9 m) 3 to 6 ft (0.9–1.8 m) .6 ft (.1.8 m)
Score 3 9 27 81
Raveling Rockfall Mode
Abundance ,10% 10–20% 20–30% .30%
Score 3 9 27 81
Block size ,1 ft (,0.3 m) 1 to 3 ft (0.3–0.9 m) 3 to 6 ft (0.9–1.8 m) .6 ft (.1.8 m)
Score 3 9 27 81
Shape Tabular Blocky Round —
Score 3 9 27 —

In many parts of Tennessee, especially on the
Cumberland Plateau, adjacent sedimentary beds of the
same lithology dip into the roadcut. This geometry
produces rockfall because the blocks fail in tension across
bedding, releasing from the bed above. The behavior
occurs without a difference in lithology between beds, and
thus it is not the result of differential weathering, so a new
descriptive term is required. We refer to this failure mode
as ‘‘bedding plane release.’’ Although the mechanism is
not classic topple failure, the failure is not governed by
sliding, such as wedge or planar failure, but does involve
discontinuities dipping into the roadcut, and thus it is
included in the topple category in the Tennessee RHRS.
Amount of Relief is an attribute unique to differential
weathering, and it is defined in this article as referring to
the extent that a rock mass overhangs the material directly
underneath (Tables 2 and 3). Block Shape is an important
attribute for raveling, because of the greater runout
potential for spherical blocks than tabular or blocky
blocks. Therefore, block shapes are described in order of
increasing hazard as tabular, blocky, or spherical.
The NHI RHRS uses point values equal to powers of 3
to score characteristics (Pearson and Van Vickle, 1993). A
score of 31 ¼ 3 points is assigned for the lowest hazard
category and 34 ¼ 81 points for the highest hazard
category, with intermediate values of 32 ¼ 9 and 33 ¼ 27.
The premise behind exponential scoring is to give added
weight to high-hazard roadcuts so they will be readily
identifiable in the database.
Following the NHI approach, each characteristic in the
Tennessee system was scored using four categories (Table
3). For Raveling, only three categories were used for the
block shape score, because it was felt that the use of
a fourth category overemphasized the hazard for this
mode, which typically sheds only small blocks in
Tennessee. With this reduction for Raveling, each of the

146 Environmental & Engineering Geoscience, Vol. XI, No. 2, May 2005, pp. 141–154
 Geologic Contribution to Rockfall Hazard

Figure 2. Roadcuts showing different failure modes and example Abundance values for the failure modes. Abundance values reflect only the percentages
visible in the photograph. (A) Example of subhorizontal sedimentary rocks: differential weathering at the sandstone/coal contact with abundance of 10 to
20 percent, and bedding release at the cross-bed surfaces in the sandstones as toppling at .30 percent. (Percentages neglect portion of slope above bench,
which is not fully visible in the photograph. Vehicles and people for scale.) (B) Example of inclined sedimentary rocks: planar mode along inclined
bedding surfaces in the sandstone at .30 percent and raveling on the right in mudstone at ,10 percent. (C) Example of metamorphic rocks: raveling with
abundance .30 percent related to discontinuities created from cleavage surfaces, bedding surfaces, joints, and blasting fractures.

Environmental & Engineering Geoscience, Vol. XI, No. 2, May 2005, pp. 141–154 147
 Vandewater, Dunne, Mauldon, Drumm, and Bateman

Figure 3. Visual scoring aid for friction. Terms indicate micro- and macrofriction profiles, respectively (modified from Barton, 1973).

other four rockfall modes can yield scores of up to 244
(Table 3). For Toppling, which has two scoring character-
istics, each characteristic has a maximum score of 122.
For Differential Weathering, with three scoring character-
istics, the maximum characteristic score is 81. For planar
and wedge rockfall, with four scoring characteristics,
Abundance and Block Size have maximum scores of 81,
but to maintain a total possible score of 244, Friction and
Steepness are limited to 41 points each. This difference
in maximum score between characteristics is justified on
the basis that the Friction term is the most difficult to
judge in the field (Barton, 1973), and so it was combined
with Steepness to share 82 points.
METHODS FOR RELATING GEOLOGIC
ATTRIBUTES TO RHRS CHARACTERISTICS
Geologic Attributes
Slope geometry, lithology, and discontinuity data for
134 potential rockfall modes at 77 roadcuts were
collected. A statistical analysis using logistic regression
was conducted to relate RHRS characteristics to geologic
Table 4. Geologic attributes collected for logistic regression.
Attribute Values
attributes. Logistic regression requires categorical values
(Table 4) for many geologic attributes (Hosmer and
Lemeshow, 1989). Slope orientation data were collected,
because it was expected that north-facing roadcuts could
have high abundance of differential weathering rockfall.
Rock type, fissility/cleavage, and geomechanical layer
thickness could affect block size, and lithologic variation
could affect rockfall mode and abundance. Discontinuity
geometric data were collected to investigate association
with rockfall mode and block size.
Most data values in Table 4 are self-explanatory, but
a few require comment. Layer thickness as defined in this
study is not actual bedding thickness in sedimentary rocks,
but rather geomechanical thickness between upper and
lower bounding discontinuities for a set of beds with the
same geomechanical and weathering characteristics. In
metamorphic rocks, well-defined foliation surfaces and
rock layer boundaries were used to define the geo-
mechanical thickness. A discontinuity set, as defined in
this study, is typically (but is not limited to) systematic
fractures or geomechanical layer surfaces that have
parallel to subparallel orientation and measurable spacing.
For analytical purposes, all data, including the number of
discontinuity sets, were collected with respect to each
identified rockfall mode and not necessarily the entire
roadcut.

Slope orientation and failure mode information
Slope aspect
Rockfall type
Rockfall mode
Lythology of potential rockfall
Rock type
Lithologic variation
Fissility/cleavage
Geomechanical layer thickness
Discontinuity data
Number of discontinuity sets
Logistic Regression: Method Overview
Slope trend þ 90
We chose to investigate the presence or absence of
Structural, nonstructural
Planar, wedge, topple, differential correlations between RHRS characteristics and geologic
weathering, raveling attributes using logistical regression, because Tennessee
RHRS data are categorical, and the method is well suited
Based on field description; clastic for analyzing categorical data (Hosmer and Lemeshow,
sedimentary, carbonate 1989; Allison, 1999; Stokes et al., 2000; and Ott and
sedimentary, crystalline Longnecker, 2001). Logistic regression is often used in
Yes, no the social sciences (Cleary and Angel, 1984; Wang and
Yes, no
Fitzhugh, 1995; and Studenmund, 1997) and is now being
,0.2 m, 0.2 m–0.5 m,
0.5 m–1.0 m, .1.0 m applied to fields such as landslide hazard assessment (Dai
and Lee, 2001; Apt et al., 2002), hydrology (Zain, 2001;
Bent and Archfield, 2002), and resource exploration
0, 1, 2, .2
(Harris and Pan, 1999; Sahoo and Pandalai, 1999).

148 Environmental & Engineering Geoscience, Vol. XI, No. 2, May 2005, pp. 141–154
 Geologic Contribution to Rockfall Hazard

In logistic regression, the dependent ‘‘outcome’’ vari-

able is restricted to two values, 1 and 0, which represent
the occurrence or nonoccurrence, respectively, of an
outcome event. The analysis determines if the outcome is
predicted by one or more independent ‘‘explanatory’’
variables and produces the coefficients of a prediction
model formula, with their standard errors of estimate, and
significance levels and odds ratios, with their 95 percent
confidence intervals (Allison, 1999; Stokes et al., 2000).
Odds are defined as the probability of the event divided by
the probability of the nonevent. An odds ratio is the ratio
of the odds of an outcome occurring, given a value for the
explanatory variable, compared to the odds of the same
outcome occurring for a given reference value of the
explanatory variable.
The logistic regression equation has the log-linear
form (Allison, 1999):

lnðp=½1  pÞ ¼ a þ BX þ errorB , ð1Þ

Figure 4. Graphical relationship between the log odds of Y, where py is
the probability that event Y occurs, and the independent variable, X, in
where p is the probability that ‘‘outcome’’ event Y occurs the logistic regression equation.
(yes ¼ 1), ln( p/[1  p]) is the natural-log odds, a is the
intercept coefficient, B is the coefficient of the in-
dependent ‘‘explanatory’’ variable X, and errorB is the
standard error of B (Figure 4). The method uses the lnðodds j X ¼ 1Þ  lnðodds j X ¼ 0Þ
 
independent variable, X, values and the probabilities of odds j X ¼ 1
the dependent variable, p, to calculate values for the ¼ ln ¼B ð2Þ
odds j X ¼ 0
coefficients by maximum-likelihood estimates, and co-
efficient significance is indicated by the significance where the vertical bar means ‘‘given that.’’ Taking both
probability value ( pw value) determined from the Wald sides of Eq. 2 as exponents of e yields the odds ratio,
statistic with significance level of .05 (Hosmer and
Lemeshow, 1989).
Evaluation of model parameters is accomplished by odds j X ¼ 1
considering: (1) the likelihood ratio (chi-square statistic) odds ratio ¼ ¼ eB ð3Þ
odds j X ¼ 0
to determine if the overall model is statistically significant
by testing the global null hypothesis that the coefficients
of all independent variables are equal to 0; (2) the
For example, if coefficient B ¼ 1.6, then the odds ratio
Hosmer-Lemeshow goodness-of-fit statistic to test the
(e1.6) equals 5, meaning that when the independent
global null hypothesis that the model fits the data,
variable, X, increases 1 unit, the odds that Y will equal 1
rejecting the hypothesis if the model does not fit the data;
increase by a factor of 5. Odds ratios of 1 indicate a 50/50
and (3) the c-statistic, which measures the logistic
chance the event will occur with a change in X. If the 95
equation discriminatory power. The c-statistic varies from
percent confidence interval for eB does not include the
0.5 (predictions no better than chance) to 1.0 (predictions
value 1.0, a change in X from 0 to 1 produces a statistically
are always correct) (Hosmer and Lemeshow, 1989).
significant change in the odds for Y.

Odds Ratios Data Models

The slope coefficient in logistic regression is inter-
preted as the rate of change in the log-odds of Y as X
changes (Figure 4). However, a more intuitive interpre-
tation of the coefficient utilizes the odds ratio (Hosmer
and Lemeshow, 1989; Allison, 1999; and Stokes et al.,
2000). The graph in Figure 4 shows that the coefficient, B,
is equal to the change in log odds as follows:
For this study, the software package SAS (Stokes et al.,
2000) was used to perform logistic regression, with the
dependent variables being the two major factors in both
the Tennessee RHRS and the NHI RHRS: Rockfall Types
and Block Size (Table 5). The dependent variable
ROCKFALL is equal to 1 if rockfall type is nonstructural
and 0 if structural. Nonstructural rockfall types are

Environmental & Engineering Geoscience, Vol. XI, No. 2, May 2005, pp. 141–154 149
 Vandewater, Dunne, Mauldon, Drumm, and Bateman

Table 5. Variables and interactions for logistic regression models.

Logistic Regression Rockfall Block Size

Model Model Model

Dependent ROCKFALL BLOCKSIZE

variable, Y
Modeled category Nonstructural Block size . 0.3 m
( p j Y ¼ 1)
Independent Slope aspect Rockfall type
variables, X
(geologic
attributes)
Rock type Geomechanical
layer thickness
Lithologic variation Lithologic variation
Number of Fissility/cleavage
discontinuity sets
Rock type
Number of
discontinuity sets

differential weathering and raveling modes, and structural

rockfall types are plane, wedge, and topple modes. The
dependent variable BLOCKSIZE is equal to 1 if block
length is greater than 0.3 m and 0 otherwise.
Independent geologic or physical variables were
selected to test for correlation with the dependent variable
of ROCKFALL type and BLOCKSIZE (Tables 4 and 5).

Figure 6. Number of rockfall modes at a roadcut (A) and rockfall

mode occurrence at roadcuts (B), showing that multiple modes
may be present at a roadcut.

Independent variables are categorical or ordinal, and one

value for a variable becomes the reference value (Hosmer
and Lemeshow, 1989; Kleinbaum et al., 1998; and Stokes
et al., 2000).

Figure 5. Comparison of Tennessee Geologic Character scores with
NHI Geologic Character and Block Size scores. Note: Points without
lettering indicate only a single rockfall mode at that roadcut. P ¼ plane;
W ¼ wedge; T ¼ topple; D ¼ differential weathering; R ¼ raveling.
Some points represent identical scores for multiple roadcuts.
RESULTS
Comparison of Tennessee RHRS Scores to
NHI Scores for Geologic Character
Roadcuts were scored using both the Tennessee RHRS
and the NHI Geologic Character schemes (Figure 5).
Both systems yielded the same score at roadcuts where
Differential Weathering is the only mode. Yet, the
average Geologic Character score of 84 for the Tennessee
system is higher than the average NHI Geologic
Character/Block Size score of 66 (Figure 5). One reason
that the Tennessee system scores are higher is because
scores are cumulative for all potential rockfall modes at
a roadcut, whereas the NHI RHRS records only the
highest-case score. Of the 80 roadcuts rated, 62 percent
have multiple rockfall modes, with Differential Weather-
ing and Raveling being most common (Figures 5 and 6).

150 Environmental & Engineering Geoscience, Vol. XI, No. 2, May 2005, pp. 141–154
 Geologic Contribution to Rockfall Hazard

Table 6. Logistic regression results.

Reference Wald Wald Odds 95% Confidence

Variable Value B ErrorB Statistic pw Value Ratio Interval

ROCKFALL dependent variable

Lithologic variation: yes No 1.8 0.7 6.7 .01 5.8 1.5, 22.0
Number of discontinuity sets: 0 .2 sets 2.3 0.7 11.8 ,.01 9.7 2.6, 35.4
Number of discontinuity sets: 1 .2 sets 1.8 0.8 5.6 .02 6.0 1.4, 26.4
Number of discontinuity sets: 2 .2 sets 1.4 0.6 5.3 .02 4.0 1.2, 13.3
BLOCKSIZE dependent variable
Failure type: structural Weathering 2.6 0.6 15.4 ,.01 19.3 4.4, 84.5
Lithologic variation: yes No 1.72 0.52 11.0 ,.01 5.6 2.0, 15.4
Number of discontinuity sets: 2 .2 sets 1.5 0.7 5.2 .02 0.22 0.06, 0.8
Mechanical thickness: ,0.2 m .1.0 m 2.0 0.7 8.0 ,.01 0.13 0.03, 0.5

For dependent variable ROCKFALL, modeled category ¼ weathering. The likelihood chi-square value was 25.7 (df ¼ 4, p , .01). The Hosmer-
Lemeshow goodness-of-fit value was 0.91 (df ¼ 5, p ¼ .97). The c-statistic value was 0.788. For dependent variable BLOCKSIZE, modeled cate-
gory ¼ block size . 0.3 m. The likelihood chi-square value was 48.8 (df ¼ 8, p , .01). The Hosmer-Lemeshow goodness-of-fit value was 6.7
(df ¼ 8, p ¼ .57). The c-statistic value was 0.824.

Another reason for the higher scores is the large
percentage of roadcuts that have Raveling, which would
not typically be scored for the 80 roadcuts with the NHI
RHRS, because Raveling is not typically the greatest
scoring rockfall mode.
Abundance is another factor that is not evaluated in the
NHI RHRS. However, Abundance causes a relative
decrease for some Tennessee scores versus NHI scores
for two reasons. First, where multiple rockfall modes are
present, the scores for each individual mode tend to be
lower for the Tennessee system than for the NHI system,
because mode abundances tend to be smaller where
multiple rockfall modes are present. Second, NHI scores
tend to be higher than the Tennessee scores where only
structural modes are present and in Low Abundance,
which occurs at five roadcuts.
Results of Logistic Regression: ROCKFALL
Dependent Variable
The results from the ROCKFALL logistic regression
analysis (Table 6) indicate that rockfall type is influenced
by the occurrence of lithologic variation and by the
number of discontinuity sets. Based on the odds ratio,
lithologic variation increases the odds of nonstructural
rockfall by a factor of 6. Odds for nonstructural rockfall
are: 10 times greater where no discontinuity sets are
present, as compared with slopes containing three or more
discontinuity sets; 6 times greater where there is one
discontinuity set as compared with slopes containing three
or more; and 4 times greater when there are two
discontinuity sets as opposed to three or more. The
remaining variables are not statistically significant pre-
dictors of rockfall type and were not included in the model.
The overall model is significant at the .05 level according
to the likelihood chi-square statistic and predicts 79
percent of the responses correctly according to the c-
statistic. The goodness-of-fit statistic indicates that the
logistic regression model fits the data.
Results of Logistic Regression: BLOCKSIZE
Dependent Variable
The results from the BLOCKSIZE logistic regression
analysis (Table 6) indicate that block size is influenced by
rockfall type, lithologic variation, geomechanical thick-
ness, and number of discontinuity sets. The odds for block
sizes larger than 0.3 m in the longest dimension are 19
times greater for structural than for nonstructural rockfall
and 6 times greater where a lithologic variation is present
than where absent. However, the odds for block sizes
larger than 0.3 m in longest dimension are decreased by
4.5 times (eB ¼ 0.22) where there are two discontinuity
sets as compared to the presence of three or more sets, and
odds are decreased by 8 times (eB ¼ 0.13) when the
geomechanical thickness is less than 0.2 m than where it is
greater than 1.0 m. The remaining variables are not
statistically significant predictors of block size and were
not included in the model. Overall, the model is significant
at the .05 level according to the likelihood chi-square
statistic, and the goodness-of-fit statistic indicates that the
logistic regression model fits the data and predicts 82
percent of responses as indicated by the c-statistic.
DISCUSSION
Tennessee RHRS
As demonstrated by the greater geologic character
scores where raveling is present (Figure 5), the Tennessee
RHRS captures the significance of raveling with respect to
the production of rockfall material. Though raveling

Environmental & Engineering Geoscience, Vol. XI, No. 2, May 2005, pp. 141–154 151
 Vandewater, Dunne, Mauldon, Drumm, and Bateman
occurs at 70 percent of the roadcuts in the study area
(Figure 6), the mode typically involves a small block size.
However, raveling can be a traffic threat or a source of
roadway damage if these small blocks are shed from large
heights; if large masses of raveled blocks are shed
simultaneously; or if the blocks roll or launch onto the
roadway, necessitating raveling characterization for
effective rockfall management.
The cumulative scoring of potential rockfall modes in
the Tennessee RHRS yields greater total Geologic
Character scores compared to the NHI RHRS. One
possible concern is that the score increase would over-
emphasize the role of Geologic Character in total hazard
score, but the following points counterbalance this. First,
although the importance of an accurate geologic evalua-
tion is the focus here, the Tennessee system also evaluates
traffic volume and roadway conditions with the same
proportion of possible score as the NHI RHRS. For
example, a roadcut could score very high on Geologic
Character, but if catchment is sufficient to minimize
rockfall affecting the roadway, the overall difference in
total scores will not be large, despite the Geologic
Character score.
Second, considering all potential rockfall modes, not
just the rockfall type with the greatest Geologic Character
score, as occurs using the NHI RHRS, gives insight to the
structural and weathering condition of a roadcut. This
assessment is critical because, for example, another
rockfall mode with a lower Geologic Character score
may cause greater roadway damage after failure because
of block size. Similarly, the possibility also exists that
rockfall by one mode can trigger rockfall by another
mode. Therefore, recognition of all modes more com-
pletely defines the portion of a roadcut that is prone to
failure, and scoring all modes characterizes the cumulative
contribution of Geologic Character to the RHRS rating.
Third, scoring all potential rockfall modes at a roadcut
provides an indication of likely successful remediation
techniques (Wyllie and Norrish, 1996). Furthermore, by
evaluating all potential rockfall modes at a roadcut, the
need to separate the roadcut into segments where different
modes are present is obviated, thereby reducing data
collection complexity. Overall, the methodology of
scoring all rockfall modes captures useful information
omitted by the single-case methodology in the NHI RHRS
and does not overemphasize the role of geology in the
hazard assessment.
Compared to the NHI RHRS, the contribution of
individual rockfall modes to the Geologic Character score
is appropriately lower in the Tennessee system when the
mode is less abundant. The advantage of this result is that
the use of Abundance as a geologic characteristic in the
Tennessee RHRS differentiates roadcuts that would score
identically in the NHI RHRS, which does not evaluate
Abundance. Additionally, the use of Abundance over-
152 Environmental & Engineering Geoscience, Vol. XI, No. 2, May 2005, pp. 141–154
comes a potential problem for the NHI RHRS, which is
that the rockfall type with the greatest score for Geologic
Character, as identified by the NHI RHRS, may occupy
only a small portion of the roadcut and may be less
abundant than another mode with a smaller score.
However, second mode, which is not recorded for the
NHI system, increases the cumulative risk because of
greater abundance along the roadcut. Therefore, the use of
Abundance in the Tennessee RHRS acts as a sensitivity
indicator to the overall role of potential rockfall mode.
Finally, the use of rockfall modes and distinctive
characteristics eliminates some of the terminology prob-
lems of the NHI RHRS.
Predictors of Rockfall Type and Block Size
The logistic regression results (Table 6) indicate that
both lithologic variation and number of discontinuities are
significant predictors of rockfall type. Intuitively, litho-
logic variation should affect rockfall type through its
effect on differential weathering. Similarly, as the number
of discontinuity sets increases, structural conditions are
created that promote planar, wedge, and topple rockfall,
because planar and topple modes require at least one set
of systematic discontinuities, and wedges require at least
two sets.
The logistic regression results (Table 6) indicate that
rockfall type, number of discontinuities, geomechanical
thickness, and lithologic variation are significant predic-
tors of block sizes. Structural rockfall strongly favors block
sizes larger than 0.3 m, and conversely, nonstructural
rockfall favors block sizes smaller than 0.3 m. Lithologic
variation also favors larger block size, because roadcuts
with such variation have nearly 5.5 times greater odds to
produce large blocks, suggesting that lithologic contrast
favors the creation of overhangs greater than 0.3 m.
Rock units with geomechanical thicknesses smaller
than 0.2 m favor the formation of blocks with length less
than 0.3 m. As intuitively expected, rock units with
smaller geomechanical thickness have greater odds for
shedding small blocks, whereas units with larger geo-
mechanical thickness have greater odds for shedding large
blocks.
Interestingly, rockfall modes with more than two
discontinuity sets are more likely to produce block sizes
greater than 0.3 m than those with just two discontinuity
sets. One might expect that as the number of discontinuity
sets increases, a multiplicity of intersecting surfaces is
created, and therefore, smaller block sizes should be
observed. However, this relationship is not observed.
Rather, as the number of discontinuity sets increases,
a multiplicity of intersecting surfaces is created, generat-
ing discontinuity geometries that define structural rockfall
modes (Norrish and Wyllie, 1996), typically yielding
larger blocks.
 Geologic Contribution to Rockfall Hazard
Implications
The logistic regression results highlight geological
attributes of roadcuts that correlate to greater or lesser
rockfall block size or with particular rockfall modes.
Lithologic variation increases the odds for nonstructural
rockfall, because roadcuts without lithologic variation
include a large majority of the structural rockfall modes.
Furthermore, the Tennessee RHRS average Geologic
Character score for structural modes is 84, as compared
with 43 for nonstructural modes.
Additionally, as the number of discontinuity sets
increases, the odds of structural rockfall increase.
Similarly, the odds of block sizes greater than 0.3 m are
greatest with the existence of more than two discontinuity
sets. In the Tennessee RHRS, structural rockfall modes
have an average Block Size score of 26, which translates
approximately to the third hazard category (1–2 m).
Therefore, if a roadcut contains rocks without lithologic
variation and two or more discontinuity sets, a greater
Geologic Character score is expected because of the
increased odds of large intact rock blocks shed by
structural rockfall modes. This expectation is even greater
where geomechanical layer thicknesses exceed 1.0 m,
because of the increased odds of block sizes greater than
0.3 m.
CONCLUSIONS
The Geologic Character category utilized in the
Tennessee RHRS gives consistent descriptions of a wider
spectrum of geologic conditions than the NHI version
because it:

Explicitly identifies potential rockfall modes, including
raveling

Accumulates hazard scores for all potential modes at
a roadcut

Considers the abundance of occurrence for particular
modes

Avoids ambiguous terminology
The Tennessee RHRS does yield greater Geologic
Character scores, in general, than the NHI RHRS, but
this difference reflects the importance of scoring all
rockfall modes, including raveling, that have the potential
for delivering rock to the roadway.
An analysis of relationships between geologic attrib-
utes and RHRS characteristics shows:

Lithologic variation and number of discontinuity sets
are significant predictors of rockfall type, because
lithologic variation coincides with differential weath-
ering, and a greater number of discontinuity sets
increases the odds of structural rockfall modes.
Environmental & Engineering Geoscience, Vol. XI, No. 2, May 2005, pp. 141–154

Block sizes greater than 0.3 m are predicted by the
occurrence of structural rockfall modes, the presence
of more than two discontinuity sets, lithologic
variation, and geomechanical thicknesses greater than
1.0 m.
With respect to the Tennessee RHRS, roadcuts without
lithologic variation but with two or more discontinuity
sets are expected to have relatively high geologic
character scores because of the increased odds of large
intact rock blocks shed by structural rockfall modes. This
expectation is even greater where geomechanical thick-
nesses exceed 1.0 m because of the increased odds of
block sizes greater than 0.3 m.
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
The authors would like to acknowledge Bill Trolinger,
Len Oliver, Harry Moore, and the Tennessee Department
of Transportation for their contributions and funding for
this research. The manuscript was improved by reviews
by Tom Badger, Martin Woodward, and Robert Watters.
REFERENCES
ABBOTT, B.; BRUCE, I.; SAVIGNY, W.; KEEGAN, T.; AND OBONI, F., 1998,
Application of a new methodology for the management of
rockfall risk along a railway. In Moore, D. P., Hungr, O.
(Editors), 8th Congress of the International Association of
Engineering Geologists: Vancouver, BC, A. A. Balkema
Publishers, Netherlands, pp. 1201–1208.
ALLISON, P. D., 1999, Logistic Regression Using the SAS System:
Theory and Application: BBU Press, Cary, NC, 288 p.
ANONYMOUS, 1996, GEM-15: Rock Slope Rating Procedure: State of
New York Department of Transportation Geotechnical Engineer-
ing Bureau, 41 p.
APT, J.; SKAUGSET, A. V.; AND PYLES, M., 2002, Discriminating
between landslide sites and adjacent terrain using topographic
variables: Geological Society America Abstracts with Programs,
Vol. 34, No. 6, p. A40.
BARTON, N. R., 1973, Review of a new shear strength criterion for rock
joints: Engineering Geology, Vol. 7, pp. 287–332.
BENT, G. C. AND ARCHFIELD, S. A., 2002, A Logistic Regression
Equation for Estimating the Probability of a Stream Flowing
Perennially in Massachusetts: U.S. Geological Survey Water-
Resources Investigations Report 02-4043, 51 p.
BINGHAM, E. AND HELTON, W. L., 1999, Physiographic Map of
Tennessee: State of Tennessee Division of Geology, scale 1:
500,000.
CLEARY, P. D. AND ANGEL, R., 1984, The analysis of relationships in-
volving dichotomous dependent variables: Journal Health Social
Behavior, Vol. 25, No. 3, pp. 334–348.
DAI, F. C. AND LEE, C. F., 2001, Terrain-based mapping of landslide
susceptibility using a geographical information system: A case
study: Canadian Geotechnical Journal, Vol. 38, No. 5, pp.
911–923.
FISH, M. AND LANE, R., 2002, Linking New Hampshire’s rock cut
management system with a geographic information system:
Transportation Research Record, No. 1786, pp. 51–59.
FLATLAND, R., 1993, Application of the Rockfall Hazard Rating System
153
 Vandewater, Dunne, Mauldon, Drumm, and Bateman
to the Rock Slopes Adjacent to US50 and State Route 28 in the
East Side of Lake Tahoe, Nevada: Unpublished M.S. Thesis,
University of Nevada, Mackay School of Mines, Reno, 316 p.
HADJIN, D. J., 2002, New York State Department of Transportation
rock slope rating procedure and rockfall assessment: Trans-
portation Research Record, No. 1786, pp. 60–68.
HARDEMAN, W. D., 1966, Geologic Map of Tennessee: State of
Tennessee Department of Conservation, Division of Geology,
4 sheets, scale 1:250,000.
HARRIS, D. AND PAN, G., 1999, Mineral favorability mapping: A
comparison of artificial neural networks, logistic regression,
and discriminant analysis: Natural Resources Research (In-
ternational Association Mathematical Geology), Vol. 8, No. 2,
pp. 93–109.
HATCHER, R. D., JR.; THOMAS, W. A.; AND VIELE, G. W., 1989, The
Appalachian-Ouachita Orogen in the United States: The Decade
of North American Geology Project Series, Vol. F-2, Geological
Society of America, Boulder, CO, 767 p., 12 plates.
HOSMER, D. W. AND LEMESHOW, S., 1989, Applied Logistic Regression:
John Wiley and Sons, New York, 307 p.
KLEINBAUM, D. G.; MULLER, K.; KUPPER, L.; AND NIZATI, A., 1998,
Applied Regression Analysis & Multivariable Methods, 3rd ed.:
Brooks/Cole Publishing Company, Pacific Grove, CA, 736 p.
LOWELL, S. AND MORIN, P., 2000, Unstable slope management:
Washington State: TR News, No. 207, pp. 11–15.
MOORE, H. L., 1986, Wedge rockfalls along Tennessee highways
in the Appalachian region: Their occurrence and correction:
Bulletin Association Engineering Geologists, Vol. 23, No. 4, pp.
441–460.
NORRISH, N. I. AND WYLLIE, D. C., 1996, Rock slope stability analysis.
In Turner, A. K. and Schuster, R. L. (Editors), Landslides:
Investigation and Mitigation: Transportation Research Board
Special Report 247, National Research Council, Washington, DC,
pp. 391–425.
OTT, R. L. AND LONGNECKER, M., 2001, An Introduction to Statistical
Methods and Data Analysis, 5th ed.: Duxbury, Pacific Grove,
CA, 1152 p.
PATTON, F. D. AND DEERE, D. U., 1970, Significant geologic factors in
rock slope stability. In Planning Open Pit Mines: A. A. Balkema,
Capetown, South Africa, pp. 143–151.
PIERSON, L. A.; DAVIS, S. A.; AND VAN VICKLE, R., 1990, Rockfall
Hazard Rating System: Implementation Manual: Federal High-
way Administration Report OR-EG-90-01, 172 p.
154 Environmental & Engineering Geoscience, Vol. XI, No. 2, May 2005, pp. 141–154
PIERSON, L. A. AND VAN VICKLE, R., 1993, Rockfall Hazard Rating
System: Participant’s Manual: Federal Highway Administration
Publication SA-93-057, 104 p.
ROYSTER, D. L., 1978, Landslide Remedial Measures: Tennessee
Department of Transportation, Prepared for the 37th Annual
Southeastern Association of State Highway and Transportation
Officials Convention, Nashville, TN, 62 p.
SAHOO, N. R. AND PANDALAI, H. S., 1999, Integration of sparse
geologic information in gold targeting using logistic regression
analysis in the Hutti-Maski schist belt, Raichur, Karnataka, India:
A case study: Natural Resources Research (International
Association Mathematical Geology), Vol. 8, No. 3, pp. 233–250.
SENIOR, S. A., 1999, Rockfall hazard remediation along Ontario
highways: Proceedings, 50th Highway Geology Symposium,
Roanoke, VA, May 20–23, p. 276–286.
STOKES, M. E.; DAVIS, C. S.; AND KOCH, G. G., 2000, Categorical Data
Analysis Using the SAS System, 2nd ed.: BBU Press, Cary, NC,
626 p.
STOVER, B. K., 1992, Highway Rockfall Research Report: Colorado
Geological Survey Special Publication, Denver, CO, 27 p.
STUDENMUND, A. H., 1997, Using Econometrics: A Practical Guide,
3rd ed.: Addison-Wesley, Reading, MA, 670 p.
TURNER, A. K. AND SCHUSTER, R. L., 1996, Landslides: Investigation
and Mitigation: Transportation Research Board Special Report
247, National Research Council, Washington, DC, 673 p.
WANG, E. J. M. AND FITZHUGH, E. C., 1995, Application of odds ratio
and logistic models in epidemiology and health research: Health
Values, Vol. 19, No. 1, pp. 59–62.
WYLLIE, D. C., 1987, Rock slope inventory: Proceedings, Federal
Highway Administration Rockfall Mitigation Seminar, FHWA
Region 10, Portland, OR. 25 p.
WYLLIE, D. C. AND NORRISH, N. I., 1996, Stabilization of rock slopes.
In Turner, A. K. and Schuster, R. L. (Editors), Landslides:
Investigation and Mitigation: Transportation Research Board
Special Report 247, National Research Council, Washington, DC,
pp. 474–504.
ZAIN, H. H. M., 2001, Assessing ground-water vulnerability using
logistic regression. In Hayes, D. F. and McKee, M. (Editors),
Proceedings, American Water Resources Association (AWRA)
Summer Specialty Conference and Universities Council on Water
Resources (UCOWR) Annual Conference. Decision Support
Systems for Water Resources Management, American Water
Resources Association, Middleburg, VA, pp. 265–271.