See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.

net/publication/258685828

Rockfall hazard and risk assessment: An example from a high promontory at

the historical site of Monemvasia, Greece

Article  in  Natural Hazards and Earth System Sciences · June 2012

DOI: 10.5194/nhess-12-1823-2012

CITATIONS READS

73 1,884

4 authors:

Harry Saroglou V. Marinos

National Technical University of Athens National Technical University of Athens
87 PUBLICATIONS   1,231 CITATIONS    122 PUBLICATIONS   1,827 CITATIONS   

SEE PROFILE SEE PROFILE

P. Marinos George Tsiambaos

National Technical University of Athens National Technical University of Athens
83 PUBLICATIONS   3,643 CITATIONS    104 PUBLICATIONS   1,837 CITATIONS   

SEE PROFILE SEE PROFILE

Some of the authors of this publication are also working on these related projects:

STructural stABiLity and risk assEssment – STABLE View project

A large scale landslide in a coal mine within marly formations. Evaluation, analysis and rehabilitation View project

All content following this page was uploaded by George Tsiambaos on 01 December 2015.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

Nat. Hazards Earth Syst. Sci., 12, 1823–1836, 2012
www.nat-hazards-earth-syst-sci.net/12/1823/2012/ Natural Hazards
doi:10.5194/nhess-12-1823-2012 and Earth
© Author(s) 2012. CC Attribution 3.0 License. System Sciences

Rockfall hazard and risk assessment: an example from a high

promontory at the historical site of Monemvasia, Greece
H. Saroglou1 , V. Marinos2 , P. Marinos1 , and G. Tsiambaos1
1 School of Civil Engineering, Geotechnical Department, National Technical University of Athens, 9 Iroon Polytechniou str.,
157 80 Athens, Greece
2 Departement of Geology, Aristotle University of Thessaloniki, Greece

Correspondence to: H. Saroglou ([email protected])

Received: 23 August 2011 – Revised: 3 February 2012 – Accepted: 10 February 2012 – Published: 1 June 2012

Abstract. The paper presents the kinematics of rock insta- The main scope of the paper is the presentation of a new
bility of a high limestone promontory, where the Monem- rock-fall risk rating system, which is based on morphologi-
vasia historical site is situated, in Peloponnese in Southern cal and structural criteria of the rock mass and on vulnera-
Greece. The instability phenomena poses a significant threat bility and consequences. This system is applied for the risk
to the town located at the base of the slope. Rockfall episodes assessment of the rock slopes on the Monemvasia historical
occurred in the past due to the relaxation of the high cliff, site. The archaeological site of Monemvasia in South Pelo-
whereas significant undermining of the castle frontiers has ponnese, consists of a historic city situated at the foot of a
been observed at the slope crest. 60 m limestone rock cliff and an ancient and a medieval city
The predominant types of instability are of planar, wedge as well as the castle at the slope crest (Figs. 1 and 2). The
and toppling failure of medium to large blocks. In order to site is a typical example with high impact of rockfalls. The
investigate the existing stability conditions and decide upon city at the foot is inhabited and attracts many visitors under a
the protection measures, stability and rockfall analyses were high risk.
carried out for numerous slope sections under different load- The structural conditions of the slope are mainly charac-
ing conditions and protection measures were suggested. terised by the relaxation of the face of the slope due to its
A rock-fall risk rating system is proposed, which is based high inclination, the spacing of discontinuities allowing the
on morphological and structural criteria of the rock mass and formation of large blocks prone to fall and the lack of per-
on vulnerability and consequences. The rating system is ap- sistency of the discontinuity planes, which results in insta-
plied for individual sections along the slope and a risk map bilities only in specific parts of the slope. Fortunately there
was produced, which depicted areas having different degree are a lack of weak zones, which could result in large shear
of risk against rockfall occurrences. failures.
The identification of similar comparable conditions re-
sulted in the division of the slope in 5 areas, presented in
Fig. 1. Additionally, cross-sections were drawn in specific
1 Introduction locations in order to assist in the stability analysis (denoted
as A to Z and shown in Fig. 11). A general assessment of the
The impact of rockfalls on archaeological sites and histor- rockfall hazard was presented by Marinos et al. (2009).
ical monuments in the Greek territory is significant, since Rockfalls existed long before the development of the city
most of the landscapes are mountainous and the sites are usu- in the ancient time, as evidenced by the foundation of several
ally found near or on steep rock slopes. Geotechnical prob- ancient structures on large fallen blocks of rock as well as
lems related to slope instability and the protection of histor- the abundance of rock fragments on the slope foot. In the
ical sites in Greece have been addressed by several authors recent years a number of severe rockfall events have occurred
(Marinos and Koukis, 1988) and recently, among others, by (Fig. 3a).
Marinos et al. (2002) and Marinos and Rondoyanni (2005).
The hazard of rockfalls is obviously higher in areas with in-
tense seismic activity, where earthquakes are the principal
triggering factor (Marinos and Tsiambaos, 2002).

Published by Copernicus Publications on behalf of the European Geosciences Union.

1824 H. Saroglou et al.: Rockfall hazard and risk assessment

Fig. 1. (a) Panoramic view of the rock promontory, (b) close view of Monemvasia historical site.

Nat. Hazards Earth Syst. Sci., 12, 1823–1836, 2012 www.nat-hazards-earth-syst-sci.net/12/1823/2012/

H. Saroglou et al.: Rockfall hazard and risk assessment 1825

angle is greater than 60◦ ) and two of them are parallel to

the slope plane, thus, they form the rock slope face in some
places. The distance of the discontinuity planes varies sig-
nificantly depending on the degree of fracturing of the rock.
The spacing of the discontinuities is relatively large (more
than 1 m); hence the sizes of the rock blocks are large to very
large. In places, mainly due to stress relief the size of the rock
blocks is smaller, especially on the upper part and the crest of
the slope, where the wall of the upper ancient city is founded.
The distance of the discontinuity planes was measured along
10 vertical scanlines of the slope face and it was determined
to range between 2.5 and 10 m, although locally the distance
can be lower than 2.5 m. The discontinuity planes are rough
(JRC ranges between 4 and 12 with a mean value of 6), while
the joint wall compressive strength is high (JCS is equal to
70 MPa). The discontinuity planes have generally no infill-
ing material. The basic angle of friction along the disconti-
nuities was calculated equal to φ = 38◦ for a stress range up
to 2 MPa.

2.3 Size of unstable rock blocks

In order to assess the hazard against rockfalls, a detailed en-

gineering geological mapping of the entire rock face was car-
ried out. The scope of this mapping was to mark the main
discontinuity planes on the slope and delineate the potentially
unstable rock blocks, thus, allowing for a close approxima-
tion of their volume. An example of this procedure is shown
in Fig. 5. The rock slope was divided in 5 distinct areas (as
shown in Fig. 1) that possess (a) different slope geometry,
(b) different impact type of rockfall on human activities, and
Fig. 2. Photo of a section of the high rock slope and the Monemva-
sia historical site (Section C in Fig. 11).
(c) different engineering geological characteristics (e.g., size
of potentially unstable blocks).
Based on this procedure, it was found that the most fre-
2 Engineering geological conditions quent rock volume of potentially unstable blocks lies be-
tween 0.5 and 1.0 m3 , but with a relative frequency of 22 %
2.1 General (out of a total number of delineated blocks equal to 343).
The results of this statistical analysis are shown in the fre-
The geological formations encountered in the area consist quency chart in Fig. 6. Additionally, there is a large number
of Jurassic bedded, dolomitic limestones and Cretaceous un- of blocks with a volume ranging from 1.0 to 1.5 m3 and 1.5–
stratified massive limestones. The rock slope overhanging 2.0 m3 (14 % and 13 %, respectively). The rockfall barriers,
the historical city consists of the Cretaceous limestone. Two further discussed, were designed to sustain blocks up to a
major fault zones, with E-W and NE-SW strike, intersect the volume of 2.0 m3 , which practically means 70 % of the po-
formation, respectively, forming the horst of the promontory. tentially unstable blocks.
2.2 Rockmass conditions
2.4 Rockfall history
The limestone rock mass is moderately jointed, intersected
by numerous major vertical fractures, which ultimately form A number of rockfall episodes have occurred in the past.
the local face of the cliff. The limestone is karstified in places The following evidence exists: (a) Numerous blocks (vol-
and solution voids of large dimensions are formed, under- ume greater than 4 m3 ) exist in the access road to the castle;
mining the rock slope. (b) in section C, two recent rockfall episodes have occurred,
The rock mass on the slope is intersected by three to five in 2003 and in 2010 with a volume between 1 and 2 m3 ,
major discontinuity sets, as presented in the Schmidt stereo- which ended on a house wall in the slope base. Individual
graphic projection in Fig. 4. These are steep in general (dip fallen blocks exist elsewhere in the perimeter of the castle.

www.nat-hazards-earth-syst-sci.net/12/1823/2012/ Nat. Hazards Earth Syst. Sci., 12, 1823–1836, 2012

1826 H. Saroglou et al.: Rockfall hazard and risk assessment

Fig. 3. (a) View of fallen rock blocks in area of section D (b) overhanging blocks in area of section Z. Range of volumes: 1.5 to 5 m3 .

Nat. Hazards Earth Syst. Sci., 12, 1823–1836, 2012 www.nat-hazards-earth-syst-sci.net/12/1823/2012/

H. Saroglou et al.: Rockfall hazard and risk assessment 1827

Fig. 4. Stereographic projection of main discontinuity sets and slope faces. Slope faces are denoted in red.

Fig. 5. Potentially unstable blocks in area 4 and 5 are shown in yellow.

3 Rockfall analysis

3.1 General

The rock slope stability analyses were based on the prevail-

ing mode of instability of each potential rock failure. The
principal failure type is rockfall due to a sort of toppling, but
some planar or wedge failures may also exist (Fig. 3b). The
rock blocks were delineated by the engineering geological
mapping and their geometry and mass was determined. Due
to the inaccessible nature of the slope, the assessment of the
above characteristics was based on the geodetic mapping of
the rock cliff. These characteristics were grouped in five (5)
areas and specific sections (A to H) were formed for separate
Fig. 6. Frequency chart of volume of potentially unstable rock analysis (Fig. 11).
blocks on the slope. The surveying and mapping of the high rock cliff was
based on a new geodetic methodology (existing geode-
tic surveying method and its combination by the use of

www.nat-hazards-earth-syst-sci.net/12/1823/2012/ Nat. Hazards Earth Syst. Sci., 12, 1823–1836, 2012

1828 H. Saroglou et al.: Rockfall hazard and risk assessment

Fig. 9. Rockfall analysis at section C, in Fig. 11.

Table 1. Rockfall parameters of limestone slope face.

Method Rn mean value Rt mean value

Back analysis 0.46 0.83
Fig. 7. Range of restitution coefficients, Rn and Rt for limestone Laboratory test 0.48 0.77
based on laboratory tests (Saroglou et al., 2010). Total mean value 0.47 0.80

it reaches 50 m. The size of the unstable blocks, which are

more likely to fall, is between 1.5 m3 and about 4 m3 , except
the area between Sections A and B (Fig. 10) as well as sec-
tion E where the size can be up to 30 m3 . In the area shown
in Fig. 4, the potentially unstable blocks have very large di-
mensions.

3.2 Restitution coefficients of limestone

In order to model the trajectory of the falling rocks and de-

sign the rockfall barriers, it was necessary to calculate effi-
ciently the normal and tangential coefficients of restitution
(Rn and Rt , respectively) of the limestone. For this pur-
Fig. 8. Back analysis of known rockfall event, which occurred in pose, rebound tests of rock spheres on a limestone plate were
section C in 2010. performed in the laboratory for a range of slope inclination.
Based on the test results, the range of the values of the coeffi-
cients of restitution were determined, as presented in Fig. 7.
modern reflector-less total stations), which resulted in a The normal coefficient of restitution, Rn , ranges between 0.3
three-dimensional Digital Terrestrial Model (DTM) of the and 0.7, while the tangential coefficient, Rt , between 0.60
ground surface (Lambrou and Pantazis, 2006). The method- and 0.95 (Saroglou et al., 2010).
ology is mainly based on the capability of the total station The mean value of Rn for the whole range of slope inclina-
to automatically sweep the surface by means of the scanning tions is equal to 0.48, while for Rt equal to 0.77. This range
mode, which takes automatic measurements at defined inter- agrees well with that proposed by Wu (1985) and Richards et
vals predetermined by the user window. The advantage is al. (2001), who notes that the values of Rn are significantly
that the coordinates x, y, z of an adequate number of points lower than those proposed in literature or in rockfall analysis
can be quickly determined. The result of the methodology is software.
the creation of 3-D Digital Terrestrial Model (DTM) of the Additionally, back analysis of a known rockfall event was
surface by an accuracy of about ±2 cm. performed in order to determine the coefficients of restitution
The height of the potential rockfall source is a minimum and the friction angle of the limestone face. The back anal-
of 20 m above the base of the cliff, while in a few places ysis was performed in section C, where a rock block with a

Nat. Hazards Earth Syst. Sci., 12, 1823–1836, 2012 www.nat-hazards-earth-syst-sci.net/12/1823/2012/

H. Saroglou et al.: Rockfall hazard and risk assessment 1829

Fig. 10. Photo of a section of the slope having hanging blocks with very large dimensions.

Fig. 11. Risk zonation of rock slope based on proposed rockfall risk rating system.

www.nat-hazards-earth-syst-sci.net/12/1823/2012/ Nat. Hazards Earth Syst. Sci., 12, 1823–1836, 2012

1830 H. Saroglou et al.: Rockfall hazard and risk assessment

Table 2. Rockfall analysis results in different slope sections.

Section Elevation/height Location of rockfall Intensity of Barrier energy

Fig. 11 of block impact rockfall impact required for block
detachment (m) range 2–3 m3 (kJ)
A +98 (46) Access road to castle Low 1000–1150
B +103 (40) Castle wall Medium 1250–1850
+84 (21)
C +102 (40) Houses and High 1950–3000
pedestrian path
D +93 (32) Houses High 410–600 (on slope)
E +87 (29) Houses High 400–600 (on slope)
Z +98 (48) Houses High 2250–3400
+80 (30) 460–600 (on slope)
H +95 (42) Castle wall Low-Medium 420–650

volume of 1 m3 has fallen in 2010, whose trajectory (detach- Since the volume of the rocks varies, an analysis was car-
ment location and run-out distance) was known (as shown in ried out for a range of rock block volumes 2 m3 and 3 m3
Fig. 8). and for a range of block detachment heights (between 20 and
From the present analyses, it is evident that the values 50 m). The total kinetic energy, which is produced by the
of coefficients of restitution are close to those proposed by falling rock blocks, as calculated at the different sections of
Robotham et al. (1995) and Richards et al. (2001) for lime- the slope, does not exceed 2500 kJ and only in some loca-
stone rocks. tions, as in sections C and Z, with blocks having a volume
The values of the coefficients of restitution, as determined greater than 2 m3 resulted in total kinetic energies greater
by the different methods, are presented in Table 1. From the than 2500 kJ. The results of the rockfall analysis for differ-
back analysis it was found that the rolling friction angle is ent sections of the slope are presented in Table 2, together
equal to 32◦ . with the maximum impact energy at the location of the bar-
rier under consideration and the impact effect of rockfalls for
each section.
3.3 Results of analysis

The analysis was performed using the software RocFall of 4 Slope stabilization
Rocscience Inc (1998). The coefficients of normal and tan-
gential restitution for the limestone were determined as pre- The necessary support measures can be divided into two cat-
sented earlier. The initial velocity of the falls was taken equal egories: (a) those which apply an external force on the rock
to 0.48 m s−1 due to seismic triggering (based on the accel- face e.g., tensioned rock anchors and/or patterned rock bolts,
eration coefficient of the area according to the Greek Earth- and (b) those which offer protection once the rockfall oc-
quake Resistant Regulations, 2004). An example of the anal- curs, mainly rockfall barriers. Other support measures, such
ysis in Section C is shown in Fig. 9. It is evident that the as grouting of rock joints with associated drainage, construc-
installation of a barrier in locations with an adequate catch- tion of buttresses in overhanging areas and removal of un-
ment area can protect the structures and human activities at stable blocks are not always applicable or very difficult to
the foot slope. construct on high rock cliffs.
It should be noted that the width of the zone, just be- The application of tensioned anchors or pattern bolting
hind the barrier, is very decisive for the impact energy since in the locations where large individual blocks exist (or spot
this portion of the slope provides considerable damping and, bolting for smaller ones) at the slope crest is adequate. The
therefore, loss in energy. In some locations, such as in the application of sprayed concrete is not acceptable due to the
area between sections D and E, there is no space behind the archaeological restrictions of the area. The same is true for
barrier resulting in enhanced impact energy. In such cases, the installation of steel nets in a number of locations.
the rockfall barriers in the analysis were installed on the slope As mentioned earlier, the scale of some potential failures
face in order to arrest potential falling blocks before their tra- is such, that no stabilization measures can minimize or with-
jectory impacts the houses at the slope foot. draw the risk of a potential rockfall after their application.

Nat. Hazards Earth Syst. Sci., 12, 1823–1836, 2012 www.nat-hazards-earth-syst-sci.net/12/1823/2012/

H. Saroglou et al.: Rockfall hazard and risk assessment 1831

Table 3. Categories of parameters defining the risk and weight of each category.

Category of Description Weight of category

parameters in the total risk score of category
A Geometry of slope and release area position, 25 %
slope roughness, presence of vegetation
B Geology and rockmass conditions 25 %
C Potential triggering factors (rainfall, seismicity), 10%
condition of drainage
D Consequences and associated factors, 40 %
rockfall history

Even high-energy rockfall barriers would prove insufficient, Some authors have proposed systems that are applicable
as in the case of the rock block shown in Fig. 10 detached to natural slopes, but most are specific oriented. Bolin et
from the cliff. A possible support solution, in this case, al. (2009) have proposed a new assessment system for rock-
would be to install tensioned wire-rope cables around the fall risk (ASRFR) in the Wu Gorge area in China, which con-
rock block to resist its movement. siders seven factors for hazard and eight factors for conse-
quence.
5 Rockfall risk assessment Another approach for the calculation of risk is presented
by Corominas et al. (2005) while Guzzetti and Reichen-
5.1 General bach (2004) have used a methodology based on rockfall haz-
ard maps produced by three-dimensional rockfall trajectories
The assessment of rockfall risks along roads and on other to determine risk along a part of the transportation network
human activities is of great importance (Budetta, 2004). In of Central Italy.
order to assess rockfall risk, a number of rating systems have The Austrian Service for Torrent and Avalanche Control
been developed. (Tartarotti, 2011) proposed a simple risk classification sys-
Just to mention, Pierson et al. (1990) have developed tem which relies on four parameters, namely: (a) the proba-
the Rockfall Hazard Rating System (RHRS), which is most bility of presence of an event, (b) vulnerability of structures,
widely accepted. A similar system is that proposed by (c) the probability of occurrence, and (d) the process and en-
Pritchard et al. (2005), who developed a rating methodol- ergy class of a rockfall.
ogy which is applied to predict rockfall risk along railways.
McMillan and Matheson (1997) have developed the Rock 5.2 Proposed rockfall risk rating system
Slope Hazard Index (RSHI) system for highway rock slope
inspection in Scotland. Santi et al. (2009) have proposed a The rockfall risk rating systems in literature are well docu-
modification to the Colorado Rockfall Hazard Rating system, mented, but are mostly devoted to reasonable assessment of
developed initially from Andrew (1994) for highway slopes the relative hazards due to rockfalls from cut slopes adjacent
in Colorado. Hungr and Evans (1999) have applied quantita- to highways and railways. In the present study, a rockfall risk
tive risk analysis for determination of total risk on highway rating system is proposed which is mostly applicable to the
and railways in British Columbia, which is based on data calculation of rockfall risk of natural and man-made slopes
on the magnitude and frequency distribution of the rockfall and encompasses all those parameters, which are considered
hazards. Hungr et al. (2003) have proposed a new rockfall important for this purpose. It defines twenty (20) rating pa-
hazard rating system for use along a railway line, again with rameters, grouped in four (4) major categories according to
a Quantitative Risk Assessment (QRA) procedure. the hazard and consequences, with a different weight in the
Vandewater et al. (2005) have proposed a rockfall hazard assessment of the total risk.
system for highways giving emphasis on the contribution of The weight for each category varies, depending on the im-
geological factors. portance of the parameters involved. More specifically, cate-
Most of the existing systems use hazard and consequence gory A is given a weight of 25 % to the total risk score of a
categories. These systems give a reasonable assessment of slope, while B 25 %, C 10 % and D is given 40 %.
the relative hazards due to rockfalls from cut slopes adjacent The first category of hazard, category A, involves parame-
to highways and railways. Thus, they include also the con- ters, related to the geometry of the slope (angle, height, slope
ditions of the anthropgenic cuts and not just those of natural roughness and vegetation) and the height of the rockfall re-
slopes. lease areas. Category B parameters refer to the geological

www.nat-hazards-earth-syst-sci.net/12/1823/2012/ Nat. Hazards Earth Syst. Sci., 12, 1823–1836, 2012

1832 H. Saroglou et al.: Rockfall hazard and risk assessment

Table 4. Parameters of all categories and rating of proposed rockfall rating system for natural rock slopes to define risk.

Nat. Hazards Earth Syst. Sci., 12, 1823–1836, 2012 www.nat-hazards-earth-syst-sci.net/12/1823/2012/

H. Saroglou et al.: Rockfall hazard and risk assessment 1833

Table 4. Continued.

Score
Category/ (Multiply rating
Parameter parameter Rating with weight
weight factor factor of
parameter)

16. Seismic hazard (acceleration

α < 0.16 0.16 < α < 0.24 0.24 < α < 0.36 α > 0.36
coefficient α) C/4 %
Rating 10 30 60 100

17. Width of catchment zone (m) >20 10–20 5–10 2–5 No

D/10 %
Rating 10 15 30 60 100

18. Rockfall history Null to few Occasional Numerous Often Continuous

D/5 %
Rating 10 15 30 60 100

Few types of
All types of Most types of A number of types of Access very
19. Slope accessibility stabilization
D/5 % stabilization possible stabilization possible stabilization possible difficult
possible
Rating 10 15 30 60 100
High; frequent Very high, constant
Negligible; no human Moderate human
20. Potential result of impact and Low; areas of little human presence, human presence,
structures and presence; low
value of structures D/20 % human activity numerous densely inhabited
permanent activities frequency of houses
houses areas
Rating 10 15 30 60 100
Total Score (Maximum 100)

Table 5. Rockfall risk classes and indicative protection measures

Risk Class Total weighted Risk Indicative protection measures (the choice is site specific)
score 1–100
I < 20 Very Low Not necessary. May be sparse spot interventions.
II 21–40 Low In limited extent
III 41–60 Medium Light measures (such as bolts, nets, removal of unstable blocks,
simple light fences)
IV 61–80 High Combination of active (such as bolts, anchors) and passive (such
as nets, wire rope cables, buttress walls, fences removal of
unstable blocks) measures
V 81–100 Very High Critical state of stability, combination of generalized or/and
strong active and passive measures. Residual risk to be
accepted.

and rock mass conditions of the slope. These parameters The proposed risk rating system has been developed on an
describe the condition of the rock discontinuities, the intact empirical basis, with the weight of categories and parameters
rock strength, presence of karst and the block volume and and the parameter rating, based on reasonable geoengineer-
number of potential blocks. Category C parameters relate ing judgment and reasonable facts. The proposed risk system
to the potential triggering factors (rainfall, seismicity of the was designed with special emphasis on rating of natural rock
area) and drainage conditions of groundwater on the rock sta- slopes, which pose a rockfall hazard on human structures and
bility. Category D parameters refer to the consequences – activities, such as in the case of the historic city of Monem-
impact on structures and associated elements, as well as the vasia.
accessibility of the slope. The categories and their weight in Each parameter has an internal, exponential, increase of
the total risk score are presented in Table 3. rating, between 10 and 100, as one moves from favourite
to adverse conditions. The parameter is rated and then is

www.nat-hazards-earth-syst-sci.net/12/1823/2012/ Nat. Hazards Earth Syst. Sci., 12, 1823–1836, 2012

1834 H. Saroglou et al.: Rockfall hazard and risk assessment

Table 6. Application of proposed risk rating system for the Monemvasia historic site high limestone cliff (The value in parenthesis is the
unweighted rating for each parameter).

Area (Fig. 1b) 1 2 3 4 5

Section on slopes (Fig. 11) A B C D E Z H
Parameter
1 Slope angle 4.2 7.0 7.0 7.0 7.0 4.2 4.2
(60) (100) (100) (100) (100) (60) (60)
2 Slope height 2.4 2.4 2.4 2.4 1.2 2.4 2.4
(60) (60) (60) (60) (60) (60) (60)
3 Release area height 7.0 7.0 7.0 4.2 7.0 2.1 7.0
(100) (100) (100) (60) (100) (30) (100)
4 Slope roughness 1.8 1.8 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0
(60) (60) (100) (100) (100) (100) (100)
5 Vegetation of slope 4.0 (100)
6 Roughness of joints/filling 1.8 (30)
of joints/opening of joints
7 Orientation of joints 1.5 (30)
8 Persistence of joints 1.2 (30)
9 Joint strength 1.0 (100)
10 Strength of intact rock 1.0 (100)
11 Block volume 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 2.4 4.0 1.2
(100) (100) (100) (100) (60) (100) (30)
12 Estimated number of blocks 0.6 1.2 0.6 0.6 0.6 1.2 0.6
(30) (60) (30) (30) (30) (60) (30)
13 Karstic features 0.6 0.6 0.6 2.0 1.2 2.0 1.2
(30) (30) (30) (100) (60) (100) (60)
14 Rainfall 0.9 (30)
15 Permeability 0.45 (15)
16 Seismicity 0.4 (100)
17 Catchment zone width 1.0 10 10 10 1.5 3.0 10
(10) (100) (100) (100) (15) (30) (100)
18 Rockfall history 1.5 (30)
19 Accessibility 3.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 3.0 3.0 1.5
(60) (100) (100) (100) (60) (60) (30)
20 Potential impact 3.0 20 20 20 12.0 12.0 3.0
(15) (100) (100) (100) (60) (60) (15)
Score on 10 to 100 scale 41.35 72.75 73.35 71.95 52.65 50.65 47.85
Risk Medium High High High Medium Medium Medium

multiplied by a respective weight factor. Finally, the total Based on the rating method proposed, a slope with the
risk score is calculated by summing the individual score of highest risk will have a total weighted score of 100 in a 10 to
each parameter. The parameters of each category, the weight 100 scale. In order to classify the risk against rockfalls and
factor for each parameter and their rating are presented in decide on protection measures, the proposed risk classifica-
Table 4. tion of rock slopes has five categories, very low to very high
risk, as presented in Table 5.

Nat. Hazards Earth Syst. Sci., 12, 1823–1836, 2012 www.nat-hazards-earth-syst-sci.net/12/1823/2012/

H. Saroglou et al.: Rockfall hazard and risk assessment 1835

6 Rockfall risk assessment for Monemvasia rock slope optimized protection. Therefore, the application of active
support measures, such as bolts and wire rope nets will be
The Rockfall Risk Rating system was applied at selected lo- necessary.
cations along the rock cliff of Monemvasia, since the param- In order to calculate the potential risk of the rockfalls, a
eter rating differs for each slope area. The locations coincide rating system for natural rock slopes was proposed and the
with the topographical sections (A to H, Fig. 11) as presented locations with maximum risk are defined. This system in-
previously. The application of this risk rating is shown in Ta- volves 20 parameters, appropriately weighted, grouped in
ble 6. categories according to the geometry of the slope, the ge-
The parameters that vary from one location to another are: ological conditions, the potential triggering mechanisms of
(a) the volume and number of rock blocks, (b) the spacing the rockfall and the consequences of the hazard. Support
and persistence of discontinuities, (c) the height of the re- measures suggestions associated with the proposed risk rat-
lease area, (d) the width of the available catchment zone, and ing assessment. An application of the proposed system is
(e) the existence of structures or human activity at the un- presented for the Monemvasia cliff. The proposed system
derlying area. The slope height and angle of Monemvasia has to be further developed and ratified by back analysis for
slopes do not vary significantly. As it can be seen from the the optimum adjustment of the weight of the big variety of
application of the risk system, 10 parameters out of 20 have parameters involved.
the same rating for the Monemvasia slope.
The result of the application is a risk zonation of the cliff Acknowledgements. The research is the result of a project of the
against rockfall occurrence, presented on the risk map shown National Technical University of Athens funded by the Greek
Ministry of Culture.
in Fig. 11. The map depicts the areas having a medium and
high risk due to either increased number of existing unstable Edited by: F. Luino
blocks or restricted area for their catchment or combination Reviewed by: two anonymous referees
of both.
The risk in section A and in the area between sections A
and B (area 1) is medium. This area has very restricted catch- References
ment zone and the installation of barriers will be on the slope
foot. However, the impact on the derelict structures in this Andrew, R. D.: The Colorado Rockfall Hazard Rating System, Col-
orado Dept. of Transportation, Report # CTI-CDOT-2-94, 1994.
area is relatively low, hence the risk is medium.
Bolin, H., Lide, C., Xuanming, P., Guanning, L., Xiaoting, C.,
The slope foot area between sections B and E (area 2 and Haogang, D., and Tianci, L.: Assessment of the risk of rock-
3) presents high risk due to the numerous unstable blocks on falls in Wu Gorge, Three Gorges, China. Landslides, 7, 1–11,
the cliff and the proximity of structures as well as human ac- doi:10.1007/s10346-009-0170-7, 2010.
tivity (stairs to upper city). The area between sections E and Budetta, P.: Assessment of rockfall risk along roads, Nat. Hazards
H (area 4 and 5) has medium risk, due to the wide catchment Earth Syst. Sci., 4, 71–81, doi:10.5194/nhess-4-71-2004, 2004.
zone at the base, which offers ideal conditions for installation Corominas, J, Copons, R., Moya, J., Vilaplana, J. M., Altimir, J.,
of barriers. and Amigó J.: Quantitative assessment of the residual risk in a
The proposed system has to be further developed and rat- rockfall protected area, Landslides, 2, 343–357, 2005.
ified by back analysis for the optimum adjustment of the Greek Earthquake Resistant Regulations: Earthquake Planning and
Protection Organisation, 2004.
weight of the big variety of parameters involved. This could
Guzzetti, F. and Reichenbach, P.: Rockfall Hazard and Risk Assess-
be the case of other rock slopes, where most of the parame-
ment Along a Transportation Corridor in the Nera Valley, Central
ters may have a significant range, in order to assess the sen- Italy, Environ. Manage., 34, 2, 191–208, 2004.
sitivity of each parameter in the determination of the total Hungr, O., Evans, S. G., and Hazzard, J.: Magnitude and frequency
risk. of rockfalls and rock slides along the main transportation cor-
ridors of southwestern British Columbia, Can. Geotech. J., 36,
224–238, 1999.
7 Conclusions Hungr, O., Fletcher, L., Jakob, M., MacKay, C., and Evans, S. G.:
A system of rockfall and rock slide Hazard Rating for a rail-
The rock slope stability of the high limestone cliff overhang- way, Proc. 3rd Canadian Conference on Geotechnique and Nat-
ing the historical site of Monemvasia promontory in Pelo- ural Hazards (Geohazards 2003), Canada, 2003.
ponnese in southern Greece was studied based mainly on Lambrou, E. and Pantazis, G.: A new geodetic methodology for
kinematic analysis of the unstable blocks and calculation the accurate documentation and monitoring of inaccessible sur-
faces, Proc. of 12th FIG Symposium, Baden, Germany, Digital
of their rockfall trajectories. In the case of blocks having
proceedings Austria, 2006.
weights higher than 10 tn, the installation of high capacity Marinos, P. and Koukis, G.: The Engineering Geology of Ancient
rockfall barriers cannot remove the hazard due to impact of Works, Monuments and Historical Sites, Balkema, 4, Proc. of
falling rocks on structures, either because the impact energy Int. Symp. of Greek National Group of IAEG, 1998.
is extremely high or the catchment zone is not sufficient for

www.nat-hazards-earth-syst-sci.net/12/1823/2012/ Nat. Hazards Earth Syst. Sci., 12, 1823–1836, 2012

1836 H. Saroglou et al.: Rockfall hazard and risk assessment

Marinos, P. and Rondoyanni Th.: The archaeological site of Del- Pierson, L. A., Davis, S. A., and Van Vickle, R.: Rockfall Hazard
phi, Greece: a site vulnerable to earthquakes, rockfalls and land- Rating System Implementation Manual. Federal Highway Ad-
slides, Proc. of the 1st General Assembly of the international ministration Report FHWA-OR-EG-90-01. FHWA, U.S. Depart-
consortium on Landslides: Landslides-Risk analysis and sustain- ment of Transportation, 1990.
able disaster management (2001), edited by: Sassa, K., Springer, Richards, L. R., Peng, B., and Bell, D. H.: Laboratory and field
Kyoto, ch. 31, 241–249, 2005. evaluation of the normal coefficient of restitution for rocks, Proc.
Marinos, P. and Tsiambaos, G.: Earthquake triggering rockfalls af- of. Int. Symp. Rock Mechanics a Challenge for Society, 149–
fecting historic monuments and a traditional settlement in Skyros 156, edited by: Särkkä, P. and Eloranta, P., 2001.
Island, Greece. Proc. of the International Symposium: Landslide Rocscience Inc: RocFall, User’s Guide, 1998–2002.
risk mitigation and protection of cultural and natural heritage, Robotham, M. E., Wang, H., and Walton, G.: Assessment of risk
Kyoto, Japan, 343–346, 2002. from rockfall from active and abandoned quarry slopes, I.M.M.,
Marinos, P., Kavvadas, M., Tsiambaos, G., and Saroglou, H.: Rock Section A., 104, 25–33, 1995.
slope stabilization in Mythimna castle, Lesvos island, Greece, 1st Santi, M. P., Russell, P. C., Higgins, D. J., and Spriet, I. J.: Modi-
European Conference on landslides, Balkema, edited by: Rybar fication and statistical analysis of the Colorado Rockfall Hazard
Stemberk & Wagner, Prague, 635–639, 2002. Rating System, Eng. Geol., 104, 55–65, 2009.
Marinos, P., Tsiambaos, G., Saroglou, H., and Marinos, V.: Rock- Saroglou, H., Mpekri, E., and Tsiambaos, G.: Determination of
fall hazard and risk for a high promontory: Monemvasia histori- Critical Parameters of Geological Formations Used in Studying
cal site, Greece, Proc. of 1st World Landslide Forum Landslides Rockfall Impacts on Rock Slopes, Proc. of 6th Hellenic Congress
– Disaster Risk Reduction, edited by: Kyoji, S. and Canuti, P., of Geotechnical and Geoenvironmental Engineering, 2, 43–50,
Springer, XVIII, 59–62, ISBN 978-3-540-69966-8, 2009. 2010.
McMillan, P. and Matheson, G. D.: A two stage system for highway Tartarotti, Th.: Standardized risk assessment of rockfall pro-
rock slope assessment, Int. J. Rock. Mech. Min. Geomechanics cesses for protection planning. Austrian Service for Torrent and
Abstr., 34, 3–4, 196, 1997. Avalanche Control, Rocexs2011, Interdisciplinary Workshop on
Pritchard, M., Porter, M., Savigny, W., Bruce, I., Oboni, F., Keegan, Rockfall protection, Innsbruck 2011, 2011.
T., and Abbott, B.: CN rockfall hazard risk management system: Vandewater, C. J., Dunne, W. M., Mauldon, M., Drumm, E. C.,
Experience, enhancements, and future direction. Landslide Risk and Batemann, V.: Classifying and assessing the geologic con-
Management: Proc. of the Int. Conference on Landslide Risk tribution to rockfall hazard, Environ. Eng. Geosci., 11, 141–154,
Management, Vancouver, Balkema, 2005. 2005.
Wu, S. S.: Rockfall evaluation by computer simulation, Transp.
Res. Rec., 1031, 1–5, 1985.

Nat. Hazards Earth Syst. Sci., 12, 1823–1836, 2012 www.nat-hazards-earth-syst-sci.net/12/1823/2012/