International Journal of Rock Mechanics & Mining Sciences 48 (2011) 1369–1375

Contents lists available at SciVerse ScienceDirect

International Journal of
Rock Mechanics & Mining Sciences
journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/ijrmms

Technical Note

Designing passive rockfall measures based on computer simulation and field

experience to enhance highway safety
Lysandros Pantelidis a,n, Alexandros Kokkalis b
a
Department of Civil Engineering and Geomatics, Cyprus University of Technology, Lemesos, Cyprus
b
Department of Civil Engineering, Democritus University of Thrace, Xanthi, Greece

a r t i c l e i n f o

Article history:
Received 24 July 2010
Received in revised form
24 May 2011
Accepted 11 September 2011
Available online 25 September 2011

1. Introduction
The problem of rocks falling on the pavement is quite common in
mountainous road networks, especially during or after intense
climatic phenomena [1,2]. A rock on road surface represents a
potential hazard for traveler’s safety, especially under restricted
visibility conditions. Among the possible passive rockfall measures,
deep ditches and concrete walls are usually used worldwide. The
function of the passive rockfall measures in question is based on the
creation of catchment area of adequate width and depth, inside
which the kinetic energy of falling bodies is dissipated. In the case of
concrete rockfall walls, the ‘‘depth’’ of catchment area is defined by
the height of the wall. Active mitigation that prevents rockfall events
from ever occurring (e.g. nailing, anchoring, wire-meshing and
shotcrete) is also applied, mainly where there is not adequate width
for catchment area. Considerations about the long term stability and
erosion susceptibility of artificial cuts, as well as full discussion
on rockfall measures, are beyond the scope of the present technical
note. Besides, readers could consult numerous relevant textbooks
(e.g. [3,4]).
The purpose of the present paper is to offer guidelines for the
selection of the most effective rockfall measure between deep ditch
and concrete wall. The problem is approached both from the side
of geotechnical engineering, where catchment area dimensions are
proposed based on theoretical analysis supplemented with field
data, and from the side of highway engineering, where among a
number of possible solutions of given structural adequacy (depth
and width combinations of catchment area), the most cost-effective
solution shall be chosen. Design criteria used in highway
n
Corresponding author. Tel.: þ357 25002271; fax: þ 357 25002769.
E-mail addresses: lysandros.pantelidis@cut.ac.cy,
lyssander_p@hotmail.com (L. Pantelidis).
engineering that often affect the final decision on rockfall measures
constitute also the central point of the present paper.
A great part of the present work is based on the experience
obtained in Egnatia Motorway S.A. (EMSA). EMSA is a company
founded in 1996 and has the responsibility of constructing and
maintaining the Egnatia Motorway. The latter is the Greek part of
the European route E90. This is a motorway that extends from the
western port of Igoumenitsa to the eastern Greek–Turkish border
at Kipi, running a total of 670 km (not including the vertical axes).
The route traverses the Greek mountainous regions of Epirus and
Macedonia, crossing the Pindos and Vermio mountains, which have
posed formidable engineering challenges. Rockfalls is a major pro-
blem in numerous parts along this road and deep rockfall ditches
and concrete rockfall walls (Fig. 1) have been traditionally used to
mitigate that hazard.
2. Minimum required dimensions for deep rockfall ditches
and concrete rockfall walls
2.1. General
Ritchie [5] studied the problem of rockfalls along highways
and in 1963 proposed an empirical design table of rock ditch
dimensions (minimum depth and width) required to restrict rocks
from rolling onto the pavement. This table was later adapted into a
design chart [6] and it is still used by numerous transportation
agencies to design catchment areas. However, a major limitation of
the design criteria of Ritchie is that, for a given slope having height H
and gradient n:1 a unique ditch ‘‘depth–width’’ pair of values is
obtained. It is obvious that, such a rigid methodology does not allow
for the most cost-effective solution. Moreover, a pilot study con-
ducted by Pierson et al. [7] showed that the original Ritchie guide-
lines are not as conservative as previously thought. Rockfall concrete

1365-1609/$ - see front matter & 2011 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
doi:10.1016/j.ijrmms.2011.09.008
1370 L. Pantelidis, A. Kokkalis / International Journal of Rock Mechanics & Mining Sciences 48 (2011) 1369–1375
walls also became the subject of research as there are no relevant
documented design charts or tables currently available.
As shown in Pierson et al.’s empirical study, irregularities in
slope face may increase significantly the impact distance of falling
rocks and thus, their corresponding trajectories. Impact distance
is defined as the measured (horizontal) distance from the toe of
the rock cut slope to the point where the falling rock first strikes
the ground, in this respect, the catchment area. During its fall, the
rock may roll or bounce onto the slope face or may be not (free
fall of rock). As it is shown in the rockfall simulation examples of
Fig. 2, the impact distance and thus, the required ditch width is
significantly affected by a small irregularity on slope face that
causes the rock to bounce. The only differences between the two
Monte Carlo simulations in Fig. 2 are the step in the middle of the
slope face and the ditch width.
2.2. Concept of the proposed design guide
The Monte Carlo method is a powerful tool with numerous
engineering and non-engineering applications. However, in rockfall
Fig. 1. Concrete rockfall wall along Egnatia Motorway (Greece). Two different wall
heights are distinguished.
Seed
Seed
Slope toe
Generation of Monte Carlo random numbers
Fig. 2. Example of rockfall simulations: (a) slope having smooth face and (b) slope with 0.1 m horizontal step representing a face irregularity.
simulation it should be used with caution, as the generation of
random numbers starts after the first impact of rocks. As a con-
sequence, the simulated impact distance of rocks is always the same
(e.g. Fig. 2a). Based on this observation, an innovative design guide for
deep rockfall ditches and concrete rockfall walls is presented. The
structural dimensions of the two rockfall measures in question derive
from a combination of Monte Carlo simulations and an extensive
field study. More specifically, the required width of a rockfall ditch or
rockfall wall configuration is derived from the summation of (a) the
simulated catchment area width required to retain all rocks as
obtained by RocfallTM software and (b) the maximum impact
distance of rocks obtained by Pierson et al.’s [8] empirical study.
As outliers are always possible, in Pierson et al.’s design charts,
the highest impact and roll-out distance refers to 99% of the rockfall
incidents and not to 100% [8]. Outlier is a rockfall result (impact or
roll out) that exists away from the body of the collected experi-
mental data [8]. For the sake of convenience in computer simula-
tions, the criterion for the determination of the minimum required
dimensions of rockfall measures was that no rocks were allowed to
roll up onto the pavement (100% retention). It is noted that, taken
into account retention of 99% instead of 100%, the difference in the
dimensions of rockfall ditch or wall configurations was negligible.
Due to the fact that, as mentioned, outliers are always possible and
that the maximum impact distance used refers to 99% of the rocks, it
is logical for the proposed design guide to regard retention capabil-
ities around 99%.
2.3. Proposed dimensions for deep rockfall ditches
Catch ditches at the toe of slopes are often a cost-effective
means of stopping rockfalls, provided that there is adequate space
at the toe of the slope [4]. Using RocFallTM, the effectiveness of
deep rockfall ditches with a 1V:1.5H (tan b) foreslope adjacent
to the roadway and depth equal to 1.0, 1.5 and 2.0 m has been
investigated. The required ditch dimensions, as defined by the depth
(D) and width (W), are related to the height (H) and to the gradient
of the cut slope (tan a) (Fig. 3).
According to [9], the roll-out distance of rocks depends mainly on
the retarding capacity of the surface materials expressed mathema-
tically by the coefficient of restitution and the slope geometry. Other
factors such as the size and shape of rock boulders, the coefficient of
0.1m horizontal step
Generation of Monte Carlo random numbers
 L. Pantelidis, A. Kokkalis / International Journal of Rock Mechanics & Mining Sciences 48 (2011) 1369–1375 1371

Table 2
Recommended dimensions for deep rockfall ditches. (D/W[Vi])¼Depth (m)/Width
(m)d [Indicative excavation volume (m3/m)] (Fig. 3, shaded area).
H α
Cutting Cutting gradient (tan a)
W heighta
5
H(m)
1:1 2:1 4:1 8:1
2
3 10 1.0/3.0 [42.8]b 1.0/3.6 [44.1]b 1.0/4.3 [49.2]b 1.0/5.3 [58.9]b
6
4 N/Rc 1.5/3.3 [44.3] 1.5/4.2 [50.6] 1.5/5.4 [62.4]
α
1.5 N/Rc 2.0/3.0 [44.0]b 2.0/4.1 [51.7] 2.0/5.4 [64.6]
D 1
15 1.0/6.1 [91.5] 1.0/7.9 [133.4]b 1.0/6.9 [113.5]b 1.0/6.2 [100.4]b
1.5/5.8 [87.0]b 1.5/7.6 [135.5] 1.5/6.8 [116.4] 1.5/6.4 [106.9]
1 2.0/4.6 [107.2] 2.0/7.2 [135.4] 2.0/6.6 [117.2] 2.0/6.4 [109.8]

20 1.0/10.0 [229.8] 1.0/11.3 [246.8]b 1.0/9.4 [201.8]b 1.0/7.5 [159.3]b

Fig. 3. Deep rockfall ditch. Typical cross-sections used by EMSA.
1.5/8.7 [216.5] 1.5/10.9 [248.2] 1.5/9.3 [206.0] 1.5/7.6 [165.6]
2.0/7.3 [199.6]b 2.0/10.6 [251.2] 2.0/9.1 [207.7] 2.0/7.7 [171.7]

25 1.0/11.6 [326.4] 1.0/13.5 [363.0]b 1.0/11.9 [315.0]b 1.0/9.1 [239.0]b

Table 1
1.5/10.8 [323.1] 1.5/13.1 [364.8] 1.5/11.7 [318.0] 1.5/9.3 [249.6]
Default mean and standard deviation values in the Material Editor menu of 2.0/9.2 [297.4]b 2.0/12.9 [371.3] 2.0/11.7 [325.9] 2.0/9.3 [254.6]
RocFallTM.
a
The ditch depth is not included (Figure 3).
Element Material Coefficients of Friction angle Slope b
Assuming that the cost of land expropriation is zero, for the given cutting
Editor option restitution (phi) (deg) roughness
geometry this is the most cost-effective solution among the three alternatives.
(RocfallTM) c
Not recommended. A rockfall ditch having D¼ 1.0 m and W¼3.0 m (minimum
Normal Tangential
dimensions used by EMSA) is adequate to collect the falling rocks.
(Rn) (Rt) d
The thickness of gravel layer used to absorb the kinetic energy of rocks is not
included in the magnitude D.
Slope Clean hard m ¼0.53 m ¼0.99 m ¼ 30 ma
face bedrock s ¼0.04 s ¼0.04 s¼2 s¼0
Ditch Talus cover m ¼0.32 m ¼0.82 m ¼ 30 ma
bottom s ¼0.04 s ¼0.04 s¼2 s¼0
Ditch Talus with m ¼0.32 m ¼0.80 m ¼ 30 ma
foreslope vegetation s ¼0.04 s ¼0.04 s¼2 s¼0
α
a
Angle of segment.

H
friction of the rock surfaces and whether or not the rock breaks into W
smaller pieces on impact are all of lesser significance [10]. With α
7
regards to the above input material parameters, it is mentioned that,
the default values found in the Project Settings and Material Editor
D 5
menu dialogs in RocFallTM were used (see Table 1). In addition, the
basic assumptions made in the derivation of the proposed ditch 2% 6
2
dimensions are (a) the number of falling rocks is one hundred, 1 3
9
(b) the rocks are detached from the slope crest (highest point), 8 4

(c) both the vertical and horizontal components of initial speed of 10

falling rocks are zero, (d) the material of slope is a clean hard
bedrock, (e) the base of the catchment area is covered by a layer of
gravel to absorb the energy of falling rocks (as commonly done
in practice) and (f) the material of ditch foreslope adjacent to the
roadway is a soil with vegetation. As regarding ‘‘slope roughness’’
(option in Material Editor menu), the appropriate standard deviation
roughness value depends not only on the materials, but also on the
size of the ‘‘rockfall rocks’’ compared to the surface. For small rocks
( 0.2 m) slope roughness is very likely to change the direction
of the rock, whilst for larger rocks (1.0 m) the slope roughness
is unlikely to have any influence in the direction of the rock [9].
Focusing on more hazardous rocks, larger than 0.2 m in diameter,
the default value of s ¼0 was used as a good approximation.
Besides, according to the RocfallTM Advance Tutorial Manual [9],
typical values of standard deviation slope roughness are usually
quite small.
The results of the analysis are shown in Table 2. It is noted that
the ditch width values in the table in question already include the
maximum impact distance as given by [8]. Assuming that the cost
for land expropriation is zero, it is obvious that among the possible
solutions (W D pair of values), the most economical solution is the
one with the less total excavation volume. Excavation volumes are
given in Table 2 for comparison purposes (see shaded area in Fig. 3).
Therefore, from Table 2 the following can be inferred:
Fig. 4. Concrete rockfall wall. Typical cross-sections used by EMSA.
(a) For cuttings having gradient 2V:1H or steeper, a shallow
rockfall ditch (D ¼1.0 m) is preferable (more cost-effective).
(b) For the gentle cutting gradient of 1V:H1 stands for (i) cuttings
having height in the order of 10 m call for rockfall ditch with
(D ¼1.0 m), (ii) cuttings having height in the order of 20 m or
greater call for rockfall ditch with (D ¼2.0 m) and (iii) for
intermediate cutting heights, that is, for cutting heights of
the order of 15 m, a ditch as deep as 1.5 m is the most cost-
effective solution.
2.4. Proposed dimensions for concrete rockfall walls
Rockfall concrete walls are commonly used as alternative means
of stopping rockfalls, provided that there is also adequate space at
the toe of the slope. Applying the same methodology as for deep
ditches, the effectiveness of rockfall concrete walls having heights
equal to 1.0, 1.5 and 2.0 m has been investigated. The required
width (W) of the catchment area and the height of wall (D) are
related to the height (H) and the gradient of slope (tan a) (Fig. 4). The
implementation of the present analysis was also based on the default
1372 L. Pantelidis, A. Kokkalis / International Journal of Rock Mechanics & Mining Sciences 48 (2011) 1369–1375

Table 3 the curves obtained empirically by [8], provided that the input
Recommended dimensions for concrete rockfall walls. (D/V[Vi])¼Depth (m)/Width material parameters are well calibrated.
(m)c [Indicative excavation volume (m3/m)] (Fig. 4, shaded area).
It is important to be noted that, the design charts developed by
Cutting Cutting gradient (tan a) [8] and Ritchie [5] refer to specific rock types. The first, indeed, are
height considered conservative as the rock type at the test site is a hard
H(m) durable basalt that rebounds well after impact and rolls well [8].
1:1 2:1 4:1 8:1
Consequently, as a cut slope can be of any rock type, charts of this
Rockfall concrete walla category provide typical ditch dimensions. On this basis, regard-
10 1.0/3.0 [30]a 1.0/3.6 [36] 1.0/4.1 [41] 1.0/5.3 [53] ing the proposed tables (Tables 2 and 3) the RocFallTM default
N/Rb 1.5/3.4 [34] 1.5/4.0 [40] 1.5/5.2 [52] material settings were used as the best available data.
N/Rb 2.0/3.0 [30]a 2.0/3.8 [38] 2.0/5.1 [51]
The reliability of the proposed table is also shown through the
15 1.0/4.3 [64.5] 1.0/7.4 [111] 1.0/6.6 [99] 1.0/6.4 [96] following example. As part of a pilot study, Pierson et al. [7] rolled
1.5/3.0 [45]a 1.5/7.1 [106.5] 1.5/6.5 [97.5] 1.5/6.3 [94.5]
N/Rb 2.0/6.0 [90] 2.0/6.2 [93] 2.0/6.2 [93]
275 rocks from a 24.4 m high 4V:1H slope into a ‘‘Ritchie’’ catchment
area to determine its effectiveness. The tested ditch was 7.3 m wide
20 1.0/6.6 [132] 1.0/10.6 [212] 1.0/9.1 [182] 1.0/7.5 [150]
1.5/4.2 [84] 1.5/10.3 [206] 1.5/8.9 [178] 1.5/7.4 [148]
and 2.0 m deep with flat bottom and 1V:1H foreslope. Although
2.0/3.0 [60] 2.0/9.3 [186] 2.0/8.6 [172] 2.0/7.3 [146] the Ritchie shaped ditch used for testing was wider, deeper and
25 1.0/8.0 [200] 1.0/12.6 [315] 1.0/11.6 [290] 1.0/9.2 [230]
contained a steeper foreslope than a standard Ritchie ditch, 8% of the
1.5/5.5 [137.5] 1.5/12.2 [305] 1.5/11.4 [285] 1.5/9.1 [227.5] rocks were still able to escape the catchment area (92% were
2.0/4.0 [100] 2.0/11.5 [287.5] 2.0/11.1 [277.5] 2.0/9.0 [225] retained). Pierson et al. [8] also demonstrated that, had the catch-
ment area been designed to a standard Ritchie width of 6.1 m, the
a
The catchment area width of 3 m used is the minimum catchment area
ditch would have been capable of retaining around 85% of the falling
width used by EMSA and adopted by the present analysis.
b
Not recommended. A shorter wall is more cost-effective solution.
rocks. Evans [12] drew a similar conclusion based on real tests with
c
The thickness of gravel layer used to absorb the kinetic energy of rocks is not mine benches. Reproducing the above example in RocFallTM, the
included in the magnitude D. required width of a ditch 2.0 m deep with flat bottom and a 1V:1H
foreslope is 4.5 m (100% retention). According to Pierson et al. [8], the
values of material parameters found in RocFallTM (see Table 1). maximum impact distance of the 99% of rocks is 6.7 m. Therefore,
Finally, the assumptions ‘‘a’’ to ‘‘e’’ mentioned in the previous para- the required width of the ditch in question is 11.2 m. Using the same
graph stand for the case examined herein as well. comparison chart with Pierson [7,8], it is inferred that the calculated
The results of the analysis are shown in Table 3. It is men- ditch is capable of retaining 98.5% of the rockfalls. The latter shows
tioned that the rockfall wall configuration (catchment area) widths the agreement with the 99% used.
in the table in question already include the maximum impact
distance as given by [8]. It is also noted that, the minimum concrete
wall configuration used by EMSA (D¼1.0 m and W¼3.0 m) has 4. Construction features of deep rockfall ditches and concrete
been adopted by the present analysis. Thus, the minimum allowable rockfall walls
catchment area width (width between the slope toe and the inner
surface of wall) taken was equal to 3.0 m. The construction features of both deep rockfall ditches and
Unfortunately, the simple criterion of the ‘‘minimum excavation concrete rockfall walls followed by EMSA are presented in Figs. 3
volume’’ cannot lead by itself to the most cost-effective solution and 4, respectively. The edge of the tarmac is considered as the
(W D pair of values), as in the case of deep rockfall ditches. common reference line. The total width of both configurations is
However, excavation volumes are given in Table 3 for comparison extended between the edge of the tarmac and the cut slope.
purposes (see shaded area in Fig. 4). The final decision should The width (W) of the catchment area is extended between the toe
hereupon be based on the calculation and comparison of a number slope and the inner surface of the concrete wall or the ‘‘ditch
of costs (cost of excavation, wall, etc.) detailed reference on which is foreslope–shoulder’’ edge.
done in a following section. Reinforced concrete with sliding formworks is used for the
Assuming that the cost for land expropriation is zero, from construction of the wall itself as well as for the trafficable drainage
Table 3 some conclusions are drawn: ditch (Fig. 4). Lean concrete having 0.1 m thickness is used under-
neath the wall foundation. The profile of the concrete wall is
(a) For shallow cuttings having gentle gradient (1V:1H), a short standardized and its dimensions are basically proportional to the
rockfall wall is recommended. required height. Hence, the exact quantity of concrete depends on
(b) For deep cuttings having gentle gradient (1V:1H), a high the required height (D) of the wall. The trafficable drainage ditch has
rockfall wall is recommended. standard dimensions (1.2 m wide) and requires a typical amount of
(c) For steep cuttings (4V:1H and 8V:1H), the construction of a 0.35 m3 of concrete per meter length of road.
short wall (D¼1.0 m) is the most advisable choice, as different The base of deep rockfall ditch is covered by a gravel layer
wall heights lead to approximately the same excavation volume (stone-bed) to absorb the energy of falling rocks. Stone bed is also
per meter length. used in the case of concrete rockfall walls. The layer has a typical
thickness of 0.2 m.
Beside the foundation of the concrete rockfall wall there
should be a buried perforated pipe for the drainage of both road
3. Reliability of the proposed findings base/sub-base and ground water (Fig. 4). The pipe follows the
direction of road. Concrete manholes are constructed every 50 m.
The validity of the proposed findings (Tables 2 and 3) depends On the other hand, in the case of deep rockfall ditches such
mainly on the reliability of the RocFallTM codes used to simulate substructures are not needed, as the ditch bottom lies lower than
rockfall trajectories and, as previously mentioned, on the chosen the pavement drainage layer, favoring its gravity-flow drainage.
values of coefficient of restitution. A recent research carried out by To calculate the volume of excavations, the critical parameter
Alejano et al. [11] concluded that the computer simulations per- is to determine the horizontal distance from the crest of cut slope
formed using RocFallTM approximate sufficiently well the trend in to the edge of tarmac (reference line). In the case of concrete
 L. Pantelidis, A. Kokkalis / International Journal of Rock Mechanics & Mining Sciences 48 (2011) 1369–1375 1373

rockfall walls, this distance comprises of the following compo-
nents: (i) width of the trafficable ditch (1.2 m), (ii) the typical
working width of a safety barrier (1.5 m), (iii) the stem thickness
(max{0.25 m, D/10}), (iv) the width of the catchment area (W) and (v)
the horizontal distance from cutting toe to crest.
Correspondingly, in the case of deep rockfall ditches, the
distance comprises of the following components: (i) the free
distance from the edge of tarmac to the safety barrier (0.5 m),
(ii) the distance between the safety barriers and the shoulder–
ditch foreslope edge (1.5 m), (iii) the width of the catchment area
(W) and (iv) the horizontal distance from cutting toe to crest.
5. Cost analysis
A cost analysis of both deep rockfall ditches and concrete rockfall
walls follows. Cost items are calculated based on the construction
features described above, with reference to Figs. 3 and 4. A detailed
description of each cost item is given below, whilst a condensed
presentation is given in Table 4. All prices below are indicative and
refer to the construction of Egnatia Motorway in Northern Greece
(time span 1996–2009). Prices have been normalized to Euros
per meter length of each structure (h/m).
c. Trafficable drainage ditch: It mainly depends on the concrete
volume per meter length. A typical cost value is 40 h/m.
5.2. Cost item ii: excavation
The cost in question depends on rock mass conditions. It is
obvious that the better the quality of rock mass, the more difficult
and expensive the excavation is. However, the better the quality
of rock mass, the steeper the cutting can be constructed and thus,
the lesser is the required excavation volume. Indicative cost
values based on the Egnatia Motorway experience are as follows:
1, 2, 3.5 and 5 h/m3 for cut gradient 1V:1H, 2V:1H, 4V:1H and 8V:1H,
respectively.
5.3. Cost item iii: stone-bed
The minimum stone-bed thickness is 0.2 m. The cost in question
depends also on the width of catchment area (W). A typical cost
value is 4 h/m.
5.4. Cost item iv: drainage pipe

This refers to the cost of supply and installation of drainage pipe.

5.1. Cost item i: reinforced concrete
Normal concrete is usually used with compression strength of
16 or 20 MPa at 28 days (C16/20 or C20/25 type, respectively).
With regards to the reinforcement, steel having tensile strength
400 MPa is usually used (S400 type). Reinforced concrete is used
in the following cases:
a. Rockfall wall: The wall requires approximately [Dþ0.6D]  max
(0.25 m, D/10) cubic meters of reinforced concrete per meter
length, where D is the stem height and 0.6D is the width of the
wall base. The stem thickness is equal to max(0.25 m, D/10).
As in the present study the maximum D is two meters, the stem
thickness arises equal to 0.25 m. The construction cost of a
rockfall wall is approximately 110 h/m3.
b. Manholes: The total cost of each manhole for the underground
drainage system amounts to 400h, which means a correspond-
ing cost of 8h/m.
Plastic perforated pipe of hard PVC-100 with small slits suitable
for drainage, with a nominal diameter of F200 (mm) and slit
opening of 50 cm2/m covered by geotextile of specific porosity,
strength and weight is used following the pattern of Fig. 4. Its cost
is, approximately, 10 h/m.
5.5. Cost item v- land expropriation
This cost item is strongly correlated to the catchment area
width and receives a wide range of values. From this point of
view, this may be the critical parameter. For public rural land it
approaches zero, whilst for private rural land it amounts to 1–2 h/m2.
For suburban land a typical value reaches 100 h/m2. If expropria-
tion of buildings is involved, the cost item in question is even
higher. The expropriation area usually extends 5 m beyond the
cut crest.
5.6. Cost item vi: road base and sub-base

This refers to the unit cost of base and sub-base of road, which in
Table 4
the case of concrete rockfall walls are extended underneath the
Costs per meter road length (h/m) for deep rockfall ditches and concrete
rockfall walls. trafficable drainage ditch (Fig. 4). Therefore, taking into account
the width of 1.2 m of drainage ditch and the thickness of base and
Cost item Passive rockfall measure sub-base (0.4 m in total), the purchase and placement of an
additional volume of approximately 0.5 m3 per meter length of
Deep ditch Concrete wall
unbound aggregates is required. This corresponds to an additional
i Reinforced concrete structures cost of the order of 5 h/m.
(a) Rockfall wall – Cc
(b) Manholes (one every L meters) – Cmh/L
5.7. Cost item vii: safety barriers
(c) Trafficable drainage ditch – Cd
ii Excavations Ce,1Ve,1 Ce,2Ve,2
iii Stone-bed Csb,1Vsb,1 Csb,2Vsb,2 This refers to the cost of supply and installation of safety barriers.
iv Perforated pipe þGeotextile – Cp/g It is considered that safety barriers are required for both occa-
v Land expropriation Cexpb1 Cexpb2
sions, thus there is no cost differentiation.
vi Base and sub-base of road – Cb/sbVb/sb
vii Safety barriers Csb Csb

Notation: Cc ¼cost of concrete wall (h/m), Cmh ¼ cost of a manhole (h), Cd ¼cost of
drainage ditch (h/m), Ce,i ¼excavation cost (h/m3), Csb,i ¼cost of stone-bed (h/m3),
Cp/g ¼cost of perforated pipe and geotextile (h/m), Cexp ¼cost of land (h/m2),
Cb/sb ¼ cost of base and sub-base of road (h/m3), Csb ¼ cost of safety barriers
(h/m), Vei ¼ required excavation volume (m3/m), Vsb,i ¼ volume of stone-bed material
(m3/m), Vb/sb ¼volume of base and sub-base material (m3/m), bi ¼width of
expropriated land (m), L¼ distance between two successive manholes (m).
6. Additional evaluation parameters
Apart from the purely economic parameters mentioned above,
engineers have to consider a number of factors that may influence
the final decision on rockfall measures. These have been categor-
ized and outlined below.
1374 L. Pantelidis, A. Kokkalis / International Journal of Rock Mechanics & Mining Sciences 48 (2011) 1369–1375
6.1. Factors of hydraulic interest
The bottom of deep rockfall ditches lies one to two meters
lower than the level of the bottom of catchment area of concrete
rockfall walls. It is obvious that, this may cause an additional
implication with regards to the discharge of deep rockfall ditches.
Moreover, if there are successive cuttings of different depth, a
deep rockfall ditch of uniform depth (the greater among all)
should be constructed. Otherwise, the water from the antecedent
portions of the road would be difficult to drain away. Certain
difficulties may also arise at tunnel portals, where the long-
itudinal gradient of a deep rockfall ditch is to the portal.
On the other hand, deep rockfall ditches have much larger flow
capacity than the configuration of concrete rockfall walls; hence,
not many outlets are required. This large in magnitude flow
capacity, indeed, may become an important advantage, e.g. if a
ravine is met along a road cutting. If there is a wall instead of a
deep ditch, a sink shaft draining water away may be required.
Such shafts often become unreliable because they may be blocked
by sediment and debris.
Generally, the hydraulic function of deep rockfall ditches is
generally simpler and more reliable than the respective one of
concrete rockfall walls, because no perforated pipes and no man-
holes exist.
Finally, as a deep rockfall ditch has a simultaneous hydraulic and
geotechnical function, a potential rockfall incident may hinder its
hydraulic function.
6.2. Factors of travel safety interest
In the case of deep rockfall ditches the possibility of a serious
accident involving a heavy vehicle (which cannot be restrained by
the safety barriers) should also be considered, especially in relatively
tight curves at a down-grade alignment.
On the other hand, deep rockfall ditches provide better visibility
to drivers in such tight horizontal curves as compared to concrete
rockfall walls, which may cause confining driving aspects.
In the case of deep rockfall ditches, the position of safety barriers
always has the same distance from the asphalt edge (i.e., 0.5 m)
regardless of whether the road section is in a cutting or embank-
ment. This gives a uniform appearance of the road at nights, as the
reflectors on the safety barriers are always at the same distance from
the asphalt edge. In the wall case, due to the interposition of the
highway drainage ditch, the ‘‘reflectors–asphalt edge’’ distance varies
from 0.5–1.2 m (Fig. 4) and this may arise dubiousness at nights.
6.3. Factors related to the stability of structures
As mentioned, the construction of deep rockfall ditches increases
the total depth of cuttings by one to two meters. This, apart from
increasing the expropriation area (which has already been consid-
ered as cost item in a previous section), may have environmental or
even slope-stability implications.
In the concrete rockfall wall case, the concrete drainage ditch
encases the base, sub-base (both made my unbound aggregates)
and asphalt layers or road, enhancing the stability of the struc-
ture. Furthermore, it ensures that no erosion-related problems
will occur beyond the edges of the asphalt layers, as those that
may arise at the slopes of deep rockfall ditches.
6.4. Other factors
At both ends of rockfall walls, there are usually removable safety
barriers. Thus, the space behind the wall can be easily approached
and cleaned by an excavator or loader. The maintenance of deep
rockfall ditches may be more difficult and usually, affects traffic flow
for a longer period (lane closure is necessary).
The base as well as the face of rockfall wall may follow the
profile pattern of the ‘‘New Jersey’’ safety barrier. If this is
acceptable, the required width of the catchment area decreases
by 1–1.5 m, as no safety barrier with its working width is required
ahead of the wall. This may decisively reduce the cost by reducing
land acquisition acts.
In the case of concrete rockfall walls, graffiti may apply on
their face, which, in the majority of cases, means an esthetic
degradation in their appearance.
Rockfall walls may severely be damaged by large blocks having
high velocity due to the stiffness of concrete. If such a case is
expected, deep rockfall ditches should be preferred.
Finally, in certain cases, an existing deep rockfall ditch could
be replaced by a concrete rockfall wall configuration that requires
less catchment area width (compare Table 2 with 3). This allows,
if necessary, the ex post facto widening of the highway without
additional excavation and expropriation.
7. Dicsussion and concluding remarks
In this paper, guidelines for designing passive rockfall measures
along highways based on computer simulation and field experience
are proposed. This research focuses on deep rockfall ditches and
concrete rockfall walls, as being the most commonly used.
Design tables referring to cuttings of simple geometry with
gradient from 1:1 to 8:1 and heights up to 25 m are proposed for
both deep ditches and concrete walls. These tables are the result
of a semi-analytical approach, where the outcomes of compu-
ter simulation carried out using RocFallTM were combined with
field data. More specifically, in every case the maximum impact
distance of rocks obtained by Pierson et al. [8] empirical study has
been added to the calculated catchment area width. This correc-
tion was necessary in order to overcome the problem of zero
impact distance of rocks in computer simulations (unrealistic in
the vast majority of cases) when cuttings without benches and
outcrops are studied. The latter not only gives a new percep-
tion regarding computer simulation of rockfall trajectories but
also emphasizes that the relevant software should be used with
caution. Comparison of the results obtained by the proposed
methodology with respective field data from Egnatia Motorway,
where rockfalls are a common phenomenon showed excellent
agreement.
In the second stage, deep rockfall ditches are compared with
concrete rockfall walls from the cost-effectiveness point of view. The
analysis in question was based on the construction of rockfall ditches
and walls along the Egnatia Motorway (E90). Generally, it is con-
cluded that, none of the two solutions can be used as a panacea.
A number of parameters affect the cost and thus, the decision on
which rockfall measures have to be used. These parameters refer
to reinforced concrete structures (rockfall wall, manholes and
trafficable drainage ditch), excavation, stone-bed, underground
drainage system, land expropriation, road base and sub-base and
safety barriers. The above cost-items are presented in a table
format providing a decision tool for highway engineers (adapta-
tion in site-specific conditions/requirements may be required).
Finally, although structural adequacy and cost-effectiveness
are the central axis in designing rockfall measures, a number of
qualitative factors of major or minor importance often influence
the final decision, of course, at the expense of the cost. These
factors have been categorized and are referred, among others, to
travel safety, the drainage function of rockfall measures and the
stability of structures.
 L. Pantelidis, A. Kokkalis / International Journal of Rock Mechanics & Mining Sciences 48 (2011) 1369–1375
References
[1] Pantelidis L. Rock slope stability assessment through rock mass classification
systems. Int J Rock Mech Min Sci 2009;46(2):315–25.
[2] Pantelidis L. An alternative rock mass classification system for rock slopes.
Bull Eng Geol Environ 2010;69(1):29–39.
[3] Gianni GP. Rock slope stability analysis. Rotterdam: Balkema; 1992.
[4] Wyllie DC, Mah CW. Rock slope engineering.4th edition London: Spon; 2004.
[5] Ritchie AM. Evaluation of rockfall and its control. Highw Res Rec 1963;17:13–28.
[6] FHWA. Rock slopes: design, excavation, stabilization, FHWA-TS-89-045.
McLean, Virginai: Turner-Fairbank Highway Research Center, 1989.
[7] Pierson LA, Davis SA, Pfeiffer TJ. The nature of rockfalls as the basis for a new
fallout area design criteria for 0.25:1 slopes, Rep FHWA-OR-GT-95-05. Salem,
Oregon: Oregon Dept Transport, 1994.
1375
[8] Pierson LA, Gullixson CF, Chassie RG. Rockfall catchment area design
guide—final report, SPR-3(032). Salem, Oregon: Oregon Dept Transport,
2001.
[9] Rocscience Inc. Advanced Tutorial: determining input parameters for a
RocFall analysis. Available from: /http://www.rocscience.comS.
[10] Hoek E. Practical rock engineering. Available from: /http://www.rockscience.
comS.
[11] Alejano LR, Pons B, Bastante FG, Alonso E, Stockhausen HW. Slope geometry
design as a means for controlling rockfalls in quarries. Int J Rock Mech Min
Sci 2007;44(6):903–21.
[12] Evans CL. The design of catch bench geometry in surface mines to control
rocktrap. MS thesis. Tucson: University of Arizona; 1989.