Guidelines on Transit New Zealand National Rockfall Hazard Rating System

Introduction

The Rockfall Hazard Rating (RHR) System (see standard check form attached) which we
recommend be adopted nationally was originally developed by Pierson et al (1990) for the
Oregon State Highway Division to rapidly classify rockfall hazards. It was subsequently
adopted by several states in America and Canada and is internationally recognised as state
of the art for quick ranking of hazardous rockfall sites. We made slight adaptations to the
system to better suite New Zealand conditions based on our experience.
We have presented the framework of the system here and highlighted in boxes useful
notes which may help in implementing and running the system in any area.
What is important is that all parties are using the same system the same way and there is a
measure of consistency nationwide. The RHR system is intended as a proactive hazard
management tool creating a quick, easy to use first cut prioritisation rather than a
definitive assessment.
Opus International Consultants Ltd for Transit New Zealand introduced this system for
the Central Otago state highway network as part of the slope check prioritisation work to
determine levels of risk. It is used as the primary management tool for hundreds of sites.
The work was carried out by experienced geotechnical engineers combined with the local
NM consultant and contractor. It has proved an effective method of obtaining a first cut of
relative site risk to the motorist. We have found that it is a manageable process to
implement and use in the course of our hazard monitoring program.
Our experience has shown that although the system is relatively simple it does have
certain technical aspects related to geotechnical conditions.
It is therefore essential that proper geotechnical support is used for the implementation of
the system and for review. We would recommend that at least 10% of all sites should be
checked by an experienced geotechnical engineer.
The first stage in using the RHR system is identifying the sites to be included in the
database. The NM staff will play a major role by supplying historical rockfall information,
and should accompany the Geotechnical staff on the initial network driveover.
The RHR system is intended as a proactive hazard management tool rather than a
complete assessment guide. Using the RHR should be seen as a first cut analysis that is
useful to allow resources to be directed towards the higher risk sites for further assessment
and/or physical works.
It is a semi-quantitative system that allocates points to the sites depending on,
1. Road features
2. Geological characteristics
3. Event characteristics and history

The scores for each site are then categorised. We have used our experience of conditions
in Central Otago to establish the following categories,
<275 no action needed, continue to check 6 monthly
>325 should be inspected in closer detail by an experienced geotechnical engineer
>500 is likely to be a serious hazard and remedial work is almost certainly required soon.
Our experience has been that all sites should be generally checked every 6 months and
formally reviewed annually.
The work is kept in a manual quite separate to all other NM activities and controlled by
the geotechnical engineer who covers the area.

Road features

2.1

Slope Height

Rocks on higher slopes have more potential energy, so have higher risk scores. The slope
height measurement should be taken to the highest point from which rockfall is expected
either from within the cut or from the greater natural slope above the cut.
Estimating height can be quite difficult. A good method is to take a survey measuring
staff out into the field with you and stand it up against the slope to help gauge
approximate height.
2.2

Ditch Effectiveness

This is determined by the depth and size of the ditch in conjunction with the slope angle
(i.e. the expected particle motion) and the expected size of the falling material. Any

features on the face which will launch rocks out from the face will reduce the effectiveness
of the ditches, so dont just look at the ditch width but consider its ability to actually catch
rocks given the slope profile above. The figure shows probable trajectories of falling rocks,
and it can be seen that falling rocks (i.e. from a vertical face) will need significantly smaller
ditches than rapidly rolling rocks (i.e. from faces at around 450).
In NZ we dont often have an actual ditch as such as these can be a hazard in themselves.
Assessment will therefore need to be based on verge or shoulder. Grass or gravel
shoulders can be effective in absorbing energy from rockfall. Small bunds on verges or
shoulders have also proved effective in operating like a ditch. Useful information about
ditch effectiveness can be gained from the local NM staff.
2.3

Average Vehicle Risk.

This is a function of the speed environment of the road, the amount of traffic on the road
and the length of the feature. It determines the amount of time that any vehicle is in the
hazard area. It is important to ensure that only the length of the slope where rockfall is
likely to occur is used to calculate AVR.
Please be aware that the formula requires hourly traffic (AAHT), not just AADT which is
what we are most used to using.
We have used AAHT = AADT/24
Then,
AVR = AAHT (cars/hour) x slope hazard length (km) x 100%/posted speed limit (km/h)
Also note that the posted speed limit should be used not the advisory.
2.4

Percent of decision sight distance

This determines the likelihood of a vehicle hitting a rock that has already fallen onto the
road. The measured sight distance is the distance from which a 150mm object on the edge
of the road can be seen with an eye level 1.3m above the roadway. The decision sight
distance is the average distance that is needed for a driver to react to a hazard and stop
their vehicle.
It is important to remember that the formula is based on the posted speed limit rather than
any advisory speed for example as we commonly see in NZ on tight bends etc.
Percent of decision sight distance = Actual site distance x 100%/Decision site distance
Posted Speed Limit (km/h),

Decision Sight Distance (m)

Note: this is not the advisory limit

50

135

60

180

80

230

100

300

2.5

Roadway Width

This influences the risk at a site because it affects the likelihood of a vehicle impacting a
fallen rock. On a wide roadway there will be space for a vehicle to avoid a rock without
risking a collision with oncoming traffic. Narrow roadways will reduce the chance of a
vehicle being able to avoid a fallen rock.

Geological Characteristics.

There are two cases within the geological characteristics of the rockfall, either defect or
erosion driven events.
At this point it is well worth consulting with a geotechnical engineer and decide on the
overall classification of typical exposures in the region. Consistency is more important
than necessarily being technically correct.
3.1

Case 1: Events that are defect driven.

For the defect dominated sites, the presence and orientation of defects and the friction
available to resist sliding are the two controlling factors on failure. The following two
tables show the point values associated with different conditions.
Defect Presence and Orientation
3 points

9 points

27 points

81 points

Discontinuous Joints, Favourable Orientation

Jointed rock with no adversely oriented joints, bedding
planes, etc.
Discontinuous Joints, Random Orientation
Rock slopes with randomly oriented joints creating a
three-dimensional pattern. This type of pattern is likely
to have some scattered blocks with adversely oriented
joints but no dominant adverse joint pattern is present.
Discontinuous Joints, Adverse Orientation
Rock slope exhibits a prominent joint pattern, bedding
plane, or other discontinuity, with an adverse
orientation. These features have less than 3m of
continuous length.
Continuous Joints, Adverse Orientation
Rock slope exhibits a dominant joint pattern, bedding
plane, or other discontinuity, with an adverse orientation
and a persistency greater than 3m.

Continuous joints are defined as being greater than 3m long.

Friction Available to resist sliding.
3 points

Rough, Irregular
The surface of the joints is rough and the joint planes are
irregular enough to cause interlocking. This macro and
micro roughness provides an optimal friction situation

9 points

Undulating
Also macro and micro rough but without the interlocking
ability.

3.2

27 points

Planar
Macro smooth and micro rough joint surfaces. Surface
contains no undulations. Friction is derived strictly from
the roughness of the rock surface.

81 points

Clay Infilling or Slickensided

Low friction materials, such as clay and weathered rock,
separate the rock surfaces negating any micro or macro
roughness of the joint planes. These infilling materials
have much lower friction angles than a rock on rock
contact. Slickensided joints also have a very low friction
angle and belong in this category.

Case 2: Events that are erosion driven or are oversteepened slopes.

Erosion dominated sites are scored in two categories, the presence of erosion features, and
the difference in erosion rates. The presence of erosion features scores 3 points for few,
minor differential erosion features and 81 points for major erosion features, including
overhangs or severely oversteepened talus slopes. The difference in erosion rates is the
other category, and covers the rate at which new erosion features develop. A small
difference in erosion rates (i.e. a slope that is near equilibrium) scores 3 points, while a
slope with erosion features developing rapidly (multiple times per year) scores 81 points.
Note that this category also includes sites which are simply overstep irrespective of their
tendency to erode.
3.3

Climate and presence of water on slope

The hydrological characteristics of the area are also important causal factors in rockfalls, so
the presence of water, ice jacking and freeze thaw activity is given points. 3 points are
assigned for sites with no freezing periods, no water flows, and little precipitation. 27
points are assigned for slopes with either a high precipitation, long freezing periods or
water on the slope. 81 points are scored when the site has long periods of freezing and
either continual water on the slope or high precipitation.
We have modified the values for the rainfall to reflect NZ conditions. The brackets that we
have created are intended to reflect mountainous areas (high rainfall, >1250mm/yr), very
dry areas such as Central Otago (<450mm/yr).

Event Characteristics and history

4.1

Block Size

The maximum block size expected in an event is included in the hazard rating. Large
rocks do more damage than multiple small ones, so carry a higher risk rating.
4.2

Quantity of rockfall per event

The size of the event also affects the severity of the event.
These values have been modified to create greater differentiation between sites and avoid
score clustering. It is based on our experiences of using the system and consideration of
risk to take account of typical rockfall sizes we have experienced in Central Otago and
take account of both block size and volume (rather than either/or).

4.3

Rockfall History

This can be obtained from the NM team responsible for the area. In some cases there may
not be any history of rockfall events, such as new slopes or in areas where rockfalls have
been cleared up without any reporting being carried out. If there are no records, the
maintenance costs for rock clearing in the area in general may give an indication of the
rockfall history.
The table below shows the points assigned for the different categories within rockfall
history.
3 points

Few Falls
Rockfalls have occurred several times according to historical
information but it is not a persistent problem. If rockfall only
occurs a few times a year or less, or only during severe storms
this category should be used. This category is also used if no
rockfall history data is available.

9 points

Occasional Falls
Rockfall occurs regularly. Rockfall can be expected several
times per year and during most storms

27 points

Many Falls
Typically rockfall occurs frequently during a certain season,
such as the winter or spring wet period, or the winter freezethaw, etc. This category is for sites where frequent rockfalls
occur during a certain season and is not a significant problem
during the rest of the year. This category may also be used
where severe rockfall events have occurred.

81 points

Constant Falls
Rockfalls occur frequently throughout the year. This category
is also for sites where severe rockfall events are common.

Overall Sites Ranking

Once all the sites have been ranked they should be collated into a ranking sheet as shown
below (example from Central Otago network, SH8). The sheet also includes our landslide
assessment, which is calibrated to align with the rockfall risk levels but is not currently
part of this work.
SLOPE CHECK
RANKING SHEET

Updated 10/5/04
Alexandra to Raes Junction

Location SH: 8

RP

Site

328/7.3 Lye Bow

Previous Score
Rockfall
Landslide No. of events
in last 6 mths
357
357

Current Score
Rockfall
Landslide

Rank

249

1
2

350/6.65

198

198

198

343/2.2 Miners Monument

276

276

189

343/0.1

219

219

189

343/3.7 Gorge Creek

228

228

147

381/16.3

120

120

120

350/5.5

147

147

117

381/16.7

114

114

114

328/1.7

186

186

111

350/2.8 LHS
RHS
350/5.3

96

D V.Low

D Low to Mod.

D V.Low to Low

10
11

Rockfall Hazard Rating Fieldsheet

SH:

RP:

Area:

Category

Rating Criteria and Score

RHS/LHS

Length

Points 3

Points 9

Points 27

Points 81

Slope Height

7.6m

15.2m

22.9m

30.5m

Ditch effectiveness

Good catchment:
all or nearly all of
falling rocks are
retained in the
catch ditch

Moderate catchment:
falling blocks
occasionally reach
the roadway

Limited catchment:
falling rocks
frequently reach the
roadway

No catchment: no
ditch or ditch totally
ineffective

Average vehicle risk

25%

50%

75%

100%

% of decision sight
distance

Adequate sight
distance, 100% of
low design value

Moderate sight
distance, 80% of low
design value

Limited sight
distance, 60% of
low design value

Very limited sight

distance, 40% of low
design value

Roadway width including

paved shoulders

13.4 m

11.0 m

8.5 m

6.1 m

Calculated Road width Pts

Case 1

Structural
condition

Discontinuous
joints, favourable
orientation

Discontinuous joints,
random orientation

Discontinuous
joints, adverse
orientation

Continuous joints
(joint persistency
>3m), adverse
orientation

Rock Friction

Rough, irregular

Undulating

Planar

Clay infilling,
slickensided or low
friction mineral
coating

CASE 2: for slopes where differential erosion or oversteepened slopes is the dominant condition that
controls rockfall. Common slopes that are susceptible to this condition are: layered units containing
easily weathered rock that erodes undermining more durable rock.
Case 2

Geological Character

CASE 1: for slopes where discontinuities are the dominant structural feature

Structural
Condition

Few differential
erosion features

Occasional erosion
features

Many erosion
features

Major erosion
features

Difference in
Erosion Rates

Small difference;
erosion features
develop over many
years

Moderate difference;
erosion features
develop over a few
years

Many erosion
features; erosion
features develop
annually

Major erosion
features; erosion
features develop
rapidly

300 mm

600 mm

900 mm

1500 mm

Block size

1.5 m

3.0 m3 or greater

Quantity of rockfall/event

1m

Climate and presence of

water on slope (adjusted
for NZ conditions)

Low to moderate
precipitation
eg<450mm /year;
no freezing, no
water on slope

Moderate
precipitation 4502m/yr or short
freezing (<1 week)
periods or intermittent
water on slope
(seasonal or in
response to rainfall)

High precipitation
>2m/yr or long
freezing periods (>1
week frozen) or
continual water on
slope

High precipitation
>2m/year and long
freezing periods or
continual water on
slope and long
freezing periods
(>1week frozen)

Rockfall history

Few falls; rockfall

only occurs a few
times a year or less

Occasional falls;
rockfall can be
expected several
times a year

Many falls; frequent

rockfalls during a
certain season, e.g.
winter freeze-thaw

Constant rockfalls;
rockfalls occur
frequently
throughout the year

AAHT = AADT/24

Posted Speed
Limit
km/h

Measured Sight
Distance m

Decision Sight
Distance m

Total

g:\projects\6xt000.50\325dd national rockfall register\rhr words.doc

2.5 m