Kinematic rockfall hazard assessment along a transportation corridor in the Upper Alaknanda valley,...

ORIGINAL PAPER

Kinematic rockfall hazard assessment along a transportationcorridor in the Upper Alaknanda valley, Garhwal Himalaya,India

Vikram Gupta • Ruchika Sharma Tandon

Received: 30 April 2014 / Accepted: 6 May 2014

� Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2014

Abstract The transportation route between Chamoli and

Badrinath in Uttarakhand is mainly a pilgrimage route to the

famous Badrinath temple, at an elevation of *3,100 m asl.

It is estimated that some two to three million vehicles use

this road annually, particularly between May and October.

The Lesser and Higher Himalayan rocks exposed at 23

localities along the transportation corridor contain numer-

ous joints. In view of their orientation, blocks of rock of

varying sizes are susceptible to falling, endangering the

vehicular traffic and the numerous village settlements along

the route. In this study, kinematic rockfall hazard analysis

was carried out for all the 23 localities where in situ rocks

are observed. The results of the analyses were evaluated and

the areas classified as of low, moderate, or high hazard.

Keywords Kinematic rockfall hazard � Alaknanda

valley � Garhwal Himalaya � India

Introduction

Rockfall was defined by Varnes (1978) as the movement of

fragments or blocks of rock along a vertical or sub-vertical

cliff, which occurs mainly as a consequence of the pre-

sence of intersecting discontinuities in the rocks. Factors

such as weathering state, freeze–thaw action, earthquake,

or the growth of tree roots on the rock surface facilitate the

occurrence of rockfalls (Chen et al. 1994; Wasowski and

Gaudio 2000; Marzorati et al. 2002; Dorren 2003), while

the shape and weight of the blocks and the properties of the

material forming the slope also influence rockfall events

(Giani 1992; Azzoni et al. 1995; Dorren 2003).

Rockfalls may involve free fall, bouncing, or rolling,

depending on the shape of the slope (Ritchie 1963), and

more than one mode of movement may be observed. In the

geodynamically active Himalayas, particularly in the very

steep relief of the Higher Himalaya, rockfalls are quite

common and pose a serious threat to lives and property.

Examples of some of the recent destructive rockfall events

in the Himalayas include the Urni rockfall (Satluj Valley)

in 1994 (Gupta 1998), the Malpa rockfall (Kali Valley) in

1998 (Paul et al. 2000), and the Pareechu rockfall (Spiti

valley) in 2003 (Gupta and Sah 2008).

There are a number of methods and techniques for

evaluating rockfall hazard (Giani 1992). Kinematic rockfall

hazard analysis refers to the geometrical relationship

between the orientation of discontinuity planes and the

orientation of the topography (free face), which determines

the possible motion of a body, without consideration of the

forces involved. It is primarily concerned with the kind of

movement possible and the direction of such movement and

is used to evaluate the potential for planar or wedge failure.

This paper reports the kinematic rockfall hazard analysis

along a transportation corridor between Chamoli and

Badrinath in the Chamoli district of Uttarakhand (Fig. 1).

Site characterisation

Location

The study area is north of Delhi, between longitudes

78�450E and 79�350E and latitudes 30�120N and 30�450N. It

V. Gupta (&)

Wadia Institute of Himalayan Geology, 33 General Mahadeo

Singh Road, Dehra Dun 248 001, Uttarakhand, India

e-mail: [email protected]; [email protected]

R. S. Tandon

National Geotechnical Facility, 11-C, Circular Road,

Dehra Dun 248 001, Uttarakhand, India

123

Bull Eng Geol Environ

DOI 10.1007/s10064-014-0623-7

forms a part of the National Highway (NH-108) and runs

along the Alaknanda river between Chamoli and Badrinath

for a length of *100 km in the Chamoli district of Utta-

rakhand (Fig. 1). The National Highway cuts through the

quaternary deposits and the hard in situ bedrock of the

Lesser and Higher Himalayas. As the Badrinath Temple, a

famous Hindu pilgrimage shrine, is located in the Bamni

village at an elevation of *3,100 m asl, an estimated two

to three million vehicles use the highway annually, par-

ticularly between May and October (Sati et al. 2011). All

along the transportation corridor, there are village settle-

ments (Fig. 1). The study area is characterized by many

active, deep-seated landslides, most of which develop in

the quaternary deposits (Fig. 1). Where the road is cut

through the bedrock, frequent rockfalls occur.

Geology and geomorphology of the area

Geologically, the study area and its surroundings consist of

the rocks of the Lesser and Higher Himalayas, which are

Fig. 1 Location map of the

study area showing the presence

of in situ rock exposures at 23

locations

V. Gupta, R. S. Tandon

123

separated by a major tectonic zone called the ‘Main Central

Thrust’ (MCT). Near the village of Helang (Fig. 2) the

MCT zone is characterized by the rocks of the Munsiari

Group, consisting dominantly of quartzite, mica schist, and

amphibolites. To the north of the MCT zone, the Higher

Himalayan rocks consist mainly of gneisses and quartzite

belonging to the Vaikrita Group. The rocks strike E–W and

dip northwards at between 20� and 60�. To the south of the

MCT zone the Lesser Himalayan sequence is located and

mainly comprises slate, phyllite, quartzite, and dolomite.

The character of these rocks is highly variable. The rocks

near Pipalkoti are anticlinal with a NW–SE trend. The

rocks are variably deformed and highly deformed near

Mayasur. The geological setting of the area and its sur-

roundings has been described in detail by Srivastava and

Ahmad (1979).

In situ rocks are exposed at 23 localities along the

transportation corridor, as shown on Fig. 2. Of these,

localities 1–12 are located in the Higher Himalaya and

13–23 in the Lesser Himalaya. All the rocks in the study

Fig. 2 Geological map of the

study area

Kinematic rockfall hazard assessment

123

area are massive, foliated, and highly jointed, although the

orientation of the joints varies.

Geomorphologically, the area is characterized by high

relief and moderately dissected topography carved into

high ridges and deep valleys. The Badrinath shrine is at

3,100 m asl and the Chamoli township at 950 m asl.

Although the valley slopes in the lower and upper sections

are generally steep to very steep (50�–80�), in the middle

section they are more gentle (between 15� and 35�) and

generally covered with loose quaternary deposits which

vary in thickness from a few centimetres to [50 m on the

gentler slopes. The majority of the study area lies in the

middle and lower parts of the hill slope but upslope of the

NH-108, the valley slope angle varies between 60� and 90�.

Engineering geological characteristics

The engineering geological characteristics of all the rocks

exposed in the study area have been evaluated on the basis

of field observations and laboratory tests, including density,

effective porosity, point load strength index, uniaxial

compressive strength, Schmidt hammer rebound value

(R value), and ultrasonic wave velocities (both P- and

S-waves). The tests were carried out according to ISRM

(1981); the results are presented in Table 1. It can be seen

that all the rocks have moderate density and low porosity.

Most of the rocks are strong to very strong, with UCS

values varying between 40 and 140 MPa, except the

quartzitic phyllite, which is very weak according to Bie-

niawski’s (1979) classification.

The slope mass rating (SMR) system was used to

evaluate the stability of rock slopes (Romana 1985). This is

a modification of the Bieniawski’s rock mass rating (RMR)

and is obtained by subtracting adjustment factors for the

joints/slope relationship and adding a factor related to the

method of excavation using the following equation:

SMR RMRbasic � ðF1;F2;F3Þ þ F4 ð1Þ

where RMRbasic is the rock mass rating according to Bie-

niawski (1979, 1989). Table 2 lists the relative rating of the

five parameters used.

F1, F2, and F3 are the adjustment factors related to joint

orientation with respect to the slope orientation. F1 indi-

cates the degree of parallelism between the strike of the

joint (aj) and the strike of the slope face (as). It ranges from

0.15 (when the angle between the two is [30� and the

failure probability is very low) to 1.0 (when both are

almost parallel and the failure probability is very high).

Empirically, it was established that F1 = (1-sinA)2, where

A denotes the angle between the slope face (as) and the

strike of the joints (aj).

F2 refers to the joint dip angle (bj) in the planar failure

mode and the plunge of the line of intersection of two joints

(bi) in the wedge failure mode. Its value also varies from

0.15 when the dip of the critical joint or the plunge of the

line of intersection of two joints is \20� to 1.0 for joints

when the dip/plunge is [45�. For the toppling mode of

failure, F2 remains equal to 1.0. Empirically, F2 is equal to

tan bj for a planar failure and tan bi for a wedge failure.

F3 refers to the relationship between the declination of

the slope face (bs) and the joint (bj). In planar failure, there

is the probability of joints ‘‘daylighting’’ in the slope face.

Its value varies from 0 to -60. It is zero (failure probability

is very low) when the dip of the joint (bj) or the plunge of

the line of intersection of two or more joints (bi) is [10�lower than the dip of the slope (bs) and is -60 (failure

probability is very high) when the dip of the slope (bs) is

[10� greater than the dip of the joint (bj) or the plunge of

the line of intersection of two or more joints (bi). For the

toppling failure, unfavorable conditions depend upon the

sum of the dip of the joints and the slope (bj ? bs). The

value of adjustment factors F1, F2, and F3 for the different

joint orientations are given in Table 3.

Table 1 Laboratory test results for different rock types encountered in the study area

Rock types Porosity

(%)

Density

(Mg/m3)

Schmidt hammer

rebound (R) value

Point load strength

index (MPa)

Unconfined compressive

strength (UCS) (MPa)

P-wave

velocity

Vp (m/s)

S-wave

velocity

Vs (m/s)

Gneiss 1.21 2.75 35 4.52 51 2,905 1,471

Quartzite

(Higher

Himalaya)

0.76 2.72 52 5.8 88 3,255 1,864

Amphibolite

(gneissic)

0.90 3.19 22 2.70 51 5,245 2,168

Quartzitic

phyllite

2.59 2.77 – 15 4 5,285 3,300

Dolomite 1.21 2.75 34 8.82 40 2,858 1,864

Quartzite (Lesser

Himalaya)

0.50 2.72 62 9.12 140 5,010 3,445


123

F4 is related to the method of excavation (see Table 4).

In the present study, the intact rock strength was

obtained from uniaxial compressive strength tests carried

out following ISRM (1981). The RQD was calculated in

the field following Priest and Hudson (1976), and a scan-

line survey was used to obtain the average spacing and

condition of discontinuities and the groundwater

conditions.

SMR values were calculated for the 23 field sites

(Table 5) and were divided into five classes of instability

as suggested by Romana (1985) (Table 6). It can be seen

that most of the area in the Higher Himalaya is either

stable or partially stable except at four localities (4, 8, 9,

and 11 on Fig. 2). However, most of the area in the

Lesser Himalaya is unstable, except at locality 22, which

is partially stable.

Table 2 The relative weight of observational and laboratory-determined parameters used to calculate RMRbasic

1 Strength of intact rock

Point load

strength

(MPa)

[10 10–4 4–2 2–1

Uniaxial

compressive

strength,

UCS (MPa)

[250 250–100 100–50 50–25 25–5 5–1 \1

Rating 15 12 7 4 2 1 0

2 RQD (%) 100–90 90–75 75–50 50–25 \25

Rating 20 17 13 8 3

3 Average

spacing of

discontinuity

(m)

[2 2–0.6 0.6–0.2 0.2–0.06 \0.06

Rating 20 15 10 8 5

4 Condition of

discontinuity

Very rough

discontinuity,

no separation,

unweathered

Rough walls,

separation

\0.1 mm,

slightly

weathered

Slightly rough,

separation

\1 mm,

highly

weathered

Slickensides or gouge

\5 mm thick or

separation 1–5 mm,

continuous

Soft gouge [5 mm thick

or separation [5 mm

continuous, decomposed

rock wall

Rating 30 25 20 10 0

5 Groundwater

condition

Completely dry Damp Wet Dripping Flowing

Rating 15 10 7 4 0

Table 3 Values of adjustment factors for different joint orientations (after Romana 1985)

Adjustment

factors

Case of slope failure Very favourable

(very low failure

probability)

Favourable Fair Unfavourable Very unfavourable

(very high failure

probability)

F1 Planar (P)

Toppling (T)

Wedge (W)

|aj - as|

|aj - as - 180|

|aj - as|

[30� 30�–20� 20�–10� 10�–5� \5�

P/W/T F1 rating 0.15 0.40 0.70 0.85 1.00

F2 Planar (P)

Wedge (W)

|bj|

|bi|

\20� 20�–30� 30�–35� 35�–45� [45�

P/W F2 rating 0.15 0.40 0.70 0.85 1.00

T F2 rating 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00

F3 Planar (P)

Wedge (W)

|bj - bs|

|bj - bs|

[10� 10�–0� 0� 0�–(-10�) \–10�

T |bj ? bs| \110� 110�–120� [120� – –

P/W/T F3 rating 0 -6 -25 -50 -60


123

Kinematic analysis of joints

Kinematic analysis geometrically examines the possible

failure direction in a jointed rock mass. The angular rela-

tionship between discontinuities and slope surfaces is used

to determine the potential for and likely modes of failure

(Markland 1972; Goodman 1976; Hocking 1976; Cruden

1978; Lucas 1980; Hoek and Brey 1981; Matherson 1988;

Kliche 1999). For planar failure to occur, the following

geometrical conditions must be satisfied (Fig. 3a):

(a) The plane on which sliding occurs must strike

parallel or nearly parallel (within ±20�) to the slope

face;

(b) The failure plane must ‘‘daylight’’’ in the slope face.

This means that its dip (bj) must be smaller than the

dip of the slope face (bs);

(c) The dip of the failure plane (bj) must be greater than

the friction angle (u) of the discontinuity plane.

For a wedge failure to occur, the line of intersection

must plunge downwards towards and ‘daylight’ out of the

slope face, and thus the following geometrical conditions

must be satisfied (Fig. 3b):

(a) The trend of the line of intersection (ai) must be

oriented within 90� of the dip direction of the slope

face;

(b) The plunge of the line of intersection (bi) must be

smaller than the dip of the slope face (bs);

(c) The plunge of the line of intersection (bi) must be

greater than the friction angle (u) of the discontinu-

ity plane.

The surfaces of discontinuity planes are highly variable,

and thus, the angle of friction is not considered in the

Table 4 Values of adjustment factor F4 for different methods of

excavation (after Romana 1985)

Adjustment

factor

Method of excavation F4

rating

F4 Natural slope ?15

Pre-splitting ?10

Smooth blasting ?8

Normal blasting/mechanical

excavation

0

Poor blasting -8

Table 5 SMR values for all 23 localities along the Badrinath–Chamoli transportation corridor

UCS RQD Av spacing of

discontinuity

Condition of

discontinuity

Groundwater F1 F2 F3 F4 SMR corrected Class Stability

7 13 10 15 15 0.15 0.4 -50 15 72 II Stable

12 13 15 10 15 0.15 0.15 0 15 80 II Stable

7 13 10 15 15 0.15 0.15 -60 -8 50.65 III Partially stable

12 13 15 10 15 0.7 1 -25 -8 39.5 IV Unstable

7 13 10 15 15 0.15 1 -60 -8 43 III Partially stable

7 13 10 10 15 0.15 0.15 0 -8 47 III Partially stable

12 13 15 10 15 0.15 0.15 -60 15 78.65 II Stable

7 13 10 15 15 0.7 1 -60 -8 10 V Completely unstable

7 13 10 10 15 0.15 1 -60 -8 38 IV Unstable


7 8 10 10 15 1 0.15 -60 -8 33 IV Unstable



12 13 10 10 15 0.4 1 -60 -8 28 IV Unstable


4 8 5 8 15 0.85 1 -60 -8 -19 V Completely unstable

7 13 10 15 15 0.4 1 -60 -8 28 IV Unstable

4 8 5 8 15 1 1 -50 -8 -18 V Completely unstable

4 8 5 8 15 0.7 1 -60 -8 -10 V Completely unstable

4 8 5 8 15 0.85 1 -50 -8 -10.5 V Completely unstable

4 13 8 8 15 0.7 0.85 -60 -8 4.3 V Completely unstable

12 13 10 15 15 0.85 1 -6 -8 51.9 III Partially stable



123

analyses. Its value is assumed to be zero as the worst-case

scenario.

At each locality, *50 joint readings were taken, as

well as foliation and slope data (direction as well as

amount) as suggested by ISRM (1978), and plotted on the

lower hemisphere of a stereonet and contoured using the

Dips v 5.1 program (Fig. 4). In the litho-units of the

Higher Himalaya between Badrinath and Helang (locali-

ties 1–12) two to three joint sets were present in addition

to the foliation surfaces, whereas 3–5 prominent joint sets

were present in the litho-units of the Lesser Himalaya

between Helang and Chamoli (in addition to the foliation

surfaces).

(a) Locality numbers 6, 7, and 12 are characterised by

one joint set.

(b) Locality numbers 2–5, 9, 11, and 21 are character-

ized by two joint sets.

Table 6 Various stability classifications from the SMR method together with the failure potential and probability of failure (after Romana 1985)

Class no. V IV III II I

SMR value 0–20 21–40 41–60 61–80 81–100

Rock mass

description

Very bad Bad Normal Good Very good

Stability Completely unstable Unstable Partially stable Stable Completely stable

Failures Big planar or soil-like

or circular

Planar or big

wedges

Planar along some

joints and many

wedges

Some block

failures

No failure

Probability of failure 0.9 0.6 0.4 0.2 0

Fig. 3 Block diagrams and stereo-plot of structural discontinuities for a planar failure b wedge failure


123

(c) Locality numbers 1, 8, 10, 14, and 17 are charac-

terized by three joint sets.

(d) Locality numbers 13, 15–16, 18–20, and 22–23 are

characterized by 4–5 joint sets.

Random joints are present at localities 1, 3, 7–9, 11, 12,

14, and 19–20.

The relative position of the planes representing joint

sets, foliation planes, the slope faces, and possible wedge

Fig. 4 Lower hemisphere stereographic plots of the discontinuities together with the foliation and slope for all 23 localities


123

Fig. 4 continued


123

Table 7 Joint sets, foliation, and the slope data at 23 localities including joints likely to be involved in failure (planar as well as wedge) and the

classification of the area as low, moderate, or high hazard potential

Site no. Slope

(amount/

direction)

Foliation (dip

amount/dip

direction)

Joints (dip

amount/dip

direction)

Random Joints

(dip amount/dip

direction)

Joints

responsible for

Planar Failure

Joints responsible for

wedge failure (plunge/trend

of the line of intersection)

Hazard class

1 30�/210 55�/345 (J1) 61�/129

(J2) 45�/143

(J3) 40�/200

(R1) 59�/085 J3 J1–J2 (27�/203) Low

2 30�/325 48�/006 (J1) 43�/135

(J2) 67�/093

Foliation joint

Nil Nil No

3 20�/230 35�/005 (J1) 50�/204

(J2) 69�/259

(R1) 15�/282

(R2) 56�/019

Nil Foliation—J1 (08�/286) Low

4 80�/80 42�/010 (J1) 80�/100

(J2) 41�/150

Foliation Foliation—J1 (41�/018)

Foliation—J2 (16�/079)

Moderate

5 80�/45 49�/007 (J1) 66�/090

(J2) 42�/117

Nil Foliation—J1 (47�/028)


Low—moderate

6 90�/100 44�/015 (J1) 85�/150 Nil Foliation—J1 (33�/063) Low

7 88�/075 45�/021 (J1) 74�/209

Foliation joint

(R1) 28�/159 Nil Foliation—R1 (14�/095)

J1–R1 (25�/126)

Low

8 80�/250 49�/011 (J1) 48�/239

(J2) 74�/293

(J3) 55�/168

(R1) 85�/270 J1 J1–J2 (46�/219)

J1–J3 (42�/216)

J2–J3 (42�/217)

J1–J2–J3 (44�/218)

High

9 75�/195 62�/015 (J1) 79�/163

(J2) 66�/305

(R1) 79�/140

(R2) 58�/140

(R3) 52�/100

(R4) 44�/180

(R5) 29�/359

(R6) 73�/280

(R4) J1–J2 (45�/241) Low

10 75�/345 39�/014 (J1) 80�/270

(J2) 58�/236

(J3) 64�/314

Nil Foliation—J1 (37�/353)

J1–J3 (60�/342)

Low—moderate

11 60�/360 28�/359 (J1) 69�/212

(J2) 66�/305

(R1) 75�/104

(R2) 39�/230

(R3) 72�/260

(R4) 79�/279

Foliation Foliation—J2 (26�/020)

Foliation—R3 (26�/340)

Foliation—R4 (28�/002)

J2–R4 (58�/351)

Low

12 40�/290 51�/046 highly

variable with

? -20

(J1) 33�/176 (R1) 68�/225

(R2) 70�/019

(R3) 44�/140

(R4) 58�/199

(R5) 64�/270

(R6) 28�/018

(R7) 60�/340

Nil R1–R2 (32�/301) Low

13 75�/285 30�/010 (J1) 61�/213

(J2) 77�/277

(J3) 47�/267

(J4) 60�/359

J2

J3




J1–J3 (14�/190)

J1–J4 (27�/285)

J2–J4 (59�/344)

J3–J4 (42�/300)

High


123

Table 7 continued

Site no. Slope

(amount/

direction)

Foliation (dip

amount/dip

direction)

Joints (dip

amount/dip

direction)

Random Joints

(dip amount/dip

direction)

Joints

responsible for

Planar Failure

Joints responsible for

wedge failure (plunge/trend

of the line of intersection)

Hazard class

14 87�/300 35�/030 (J1) 82�/74

(J2) 65�/240

(J3) 79�/212

(R1) 23�/016

(R2) 69�/079

(R3) 58�/033

(R4) 60�/160

Nil J1–J3 (79�/229)

J2–J3 (57�/284)

Low—moderate

15 88�/340 40�/030 (J1) 78�/065

(J2) 70�/263

(J3) 77�/323

(J4) 54�/310

(J5) 18�/154

J3 Foliation—J4 (37�/004)

J1–J3 (48�/349)

J1–J4 (18�/150)

J2–J3 (54�/323)

J2–J4 (04�/233)

J2–J5 (24�/239)

J1–J2—Foliation (29�/340)

High

16 80�/360 63�/356 (J1) 78�/085

(J2) 39�/019

(J3) 79�/280

(J4) 9�/187

Foliation joint

Foliation joint

J2



J1–J2–J3 (38�/003)

J2–J3 (37�/001)

High

17 85�/320 15�/025 (J1) 71�/221

(J2) 54�/349

(J3) 85�/249

J2 J1–J2 (39�/294)

J2–J3 (53�/332)

Moderate

18 70�/080 35�/350 (J1) 70�/085

(J2) 88�/340

(J3) 79�/255

(J4) 54�/346


J1–J2 (69�/063)

J1–J4 (49�/018)

High

19 70�/330 27�/135 (J1) 52�/342

(J2) 49�/052

(J3) 55�/305

(J4) 77�/238

(R1) 81�/114

(R2) 64�/023

(R3) 80�/349

(R4) 78�/285

J1

J3

J1–J2 (45�/020)

J1–J3 (55�/333)

J1–J4 (48�/313)

J2–J3 (36�/002)

J3–J4 (56�/306)

High

20 70�/025 50�/340 (J1) 34�/029

(J2) 69�/019

(J3) 25�/079

(J4) 37�/270

Foliation joint

(R1) 90�/149

(R2) 59�/060

(R3) 48�/160

(R4) 64�/250

J1

J2


J1–J3 (26�/075)

Moderate—high

21 80�/010 35�/200 (J1) 43�/029

(J2) 10�/190

J1 Nil Low

22 50�/340 19�/200 (J1) 69�/059

(J2) 74�/040

(J3) 54�/344

(J4) 66�/314

J3 Nil Low

23 80�/010 35�/160 (J1) 84�/229

(J2) 71�/265

(J3) 23�/209

(J4) 50�/359


J1–J2 (65�/307)

J1–J4 (41�/313)

J2–J4 (48�/333)

High


123

intersections were compared visually to identify which

slopes have plane or wedge failure conditions (Fig. 4). The

results are summarised in Table 7.

Conclusions

The stability of the rock slopes along a pilgrimage route

through the Lesser and Higher Himalayas was assessed

using kinematic analysis and an SMR system. Twenty-

three localities were considered where in situ rocks are

exposed along the transportation corridor between Chamoli

and Badrinath. Of these, 12 localities are located in the

Higher Himalaya and 13 in the Lesser Himalaya.

In the kinematic analyses, the area was classified as

having a low hazard potential if there were up to two joints

or intersections of joints susceptible to fall; moderate

hazard potential was 2–4 joints or intersections of joints

susceptible to fall, and high hazard potential was[4 joints

or intersections of joints susceptible to fall.

The results indicated that most of the Higher Himalaya

area falls either in the low hazard or moderate hazard

category, while the area in the Lesser Himalaya falls in the

moderate to high hazard potential, with the exception of

localities 21 and 22.

The stability class determined from the SMR classifi-

cation of the rocks conforms well with the hazard potential

indicated by the kinematic analyses of the joints. In the

Higher Himalaya, the SMR method classified the rock

mass as dominantly class II (stable) or class III (partially

stable) with the exception of localities 4, 8, 9, and 11,

which were unstable or marginally stable. In the Lesser

Himalaya area, the SMR method classified the rock mass

either as class IV (unstable) or class V (completely

unstable) with the exception of locality 22, which was class

III (partially stable).

At localities 16 and 18–20, the SMR values were neg-

ative. This may be attributable to the thinly bedded and

fissile nature of the rock mass.

Acknowledgments The authors thank the Director, Prof. Anil K.

Gupta, for providing all the necessary facilities and his constant

encouragement to publish the paper.

References

Azzoni A, Barbera LG, Zaninetti A (1995) Analysis and prediction of

rockfalls using a mathematical model. Int J Rock Mech Min Sci

Geotech Abstr 32:709–724

Bieniawski ZT (1979) The geomechanics classification in rock

engineering applications. In: Proceedings 4th International

Congress on Rock Mechanics, Momtreux, vol 2, pp 41–48

Bieniawski ZT (1989) Engineering rock mass classification. Wiley-

Interscience, New York

Chen H, Chen RH, Huang TH (1994) An application of an analytical

model to a slope subject to rockfalls. Bull Assoc Eng Geol

31:447–458

Cruden DM (1978) Discussion of G. Hocking’s paper ‘‘A method for

distinguishing between single and double plane sliding of tetrahe-

dral wedges’’. Int J Rock Mech Min Sci Geotech Abstr 15:217

Dorren LKA (2003) A review of rockfall mechanics and modeling

approaches. Progr Phys Geogr 27:69–87

Giani GP (1992) Rock slope stability analysis. A.A Balkema,

Rotterdam

Goodman RE (1976) Methods of geological engineering in discon-

tinuous rocks. West Publishing, San Francisco

Gupta V (1998) Structure and geomorphology of the Upper Satluj

Valley, District Kinnaur, Himachal Pradesh with special refer-

ence to landslides. Unpublished D.Phil. thesis, H.N.B. Garhwal

University, Srinagar

Gupta V, Sah MP (2008) Impact of the trans-Himalayan landslide

lake outburst flood (LLOF) in the Satluj catchment, Himachal

Pradesh, India. Nat Hazards 45:379–390. doi:10.1007/s11069-

007-9174-6

Hocking G (1976) A method for distinguishing between single and

double plane sliding of tetrahedral wedges. Int J Rock Mech Min

Sci Geomech Abstr 13:225–226

Hoek E, Brey J (1981) Rock slope engineering. Institution of Mining

and Metallurgy, London

ISRM (1978) Suggested methods for the quantitative description of

discontinuities in rock masses. In: ET Brown (ed) Rock

characterization testing and monitoring, Pergamon

ISRM (1981) Suggested methods for determining the uniaxial

compressive strength and deformability of rock materials.

International Society for Rock Mechanics Commission on

Standardization of Laboratory and Field Tests, pp 111–116

Kliche CA (1999) Rock slope stability. Society for Mining, Metal-

lurgy and Exploration, Inc. (SME), Littleton

Lucas JM (1980) A general stereographic method for determining

possible mode of failure of any tetrahedral rock wedge. Int J

Rock Mech Min Sci Geomech Abstr 17:57–61

Markland JT (1972) A useful technique for estimating the stability of

rock slopes when the rigid wedge sliding type of failure is

expected. Imp Coll Rock Mech Res Rep 19:10 p

Marzorati S, Luzi L, Amicis MD (2002) Rockfalls induced by

earthquakes: a statistical approach. Soil Dyn Earthq Eng

22:567–577

Matherson GD (1988) The collection and use of field discontinuity

data in rock slope design. Q J Eng Geol 22:19–30

Paul SK, Bartarya SK, Rautela P, Mahajan AK (2000) Catastrophic

mass movement of 1998 monsoons at Malpa in Kali Valley,

Kumaun Himalaya (India). Geomorphology 35:169–180

Priest SD, Hudson JA (1976) Discontinuity spacing in rock. Int J

Rock Mech Min Sci Abstr 13:135–148

Ritchie AM (1963) Evaluation of rockfall and its control. Highw Res

Board Rec 17:13–27

Romana M (1985) New adjustment ratings for application of

Bieniawski classification to slopes. In: International symposium

on the role of rock mechanics, Zacatecas, pp 49–53

Sati SP, Sundriyal YP, Rana N, Dangwal S (2011) Recent landslides

in Uttarakhand: nature’s fury or human folly. Curr Sci

100:1617–1620

Srivastava RN, Ahmad A (1979) Geology and Structure of Alaknanda

valley, Garhwal Himalaya. Himal Geol 9(I):225–254

Varnes DJ (1978) Slope movement, types and processes. In: Eckel EB

(ed) Landslides and engineering practices, Highway Research

Board special report 29, pp 20–47

Wasowski J, Gaudio VD (2000) Evaluating seismically induced mass

movement hazard in Casamanico Terme (Italy). Eng Geol

58:291–311


123

http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s11069-007-9174-6

http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s11069-007-9174-6

Date post:	25-Jan-2017
Category:	Documents
Upload:	ruchika-sharma
View:	212 times
Download:	0 times

Kinematic rockfall hazard assessment along a transportation corridor in the Upper Alaknanda valley,...

Documents