Rockfall Engineering 2013
DOI: 10.1002/9781118601532.ch6
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

Rockfall Dynamics: A Critical Review of Collision and Rebound Models

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
2
2
1

Citation Types

1
27
0
1

Year Published

2013
2013
2021
2021

Publication Types

Select...
7
1

Relationship

3
5

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 29 publications
(29 citation statements)
references
References 28 publications
1
27
0
1
Order By: Relevance
“…Taking the impact and rebound of rock as an example, the time functions of interaction forces during this process are extremely complex and will probably never be determined precisely. Any model describing rock-slope interactions relies on some degree of simplification (Bourrier and Hungr 2011). Errors in modeling can derive from either the model or the model inputs.…”
Section: Uncertainties In Numerical Modelingmentioning
confidence: 99%
See 1 more Smart Citation
“…Taking the impact and rebound of rock as an example, the time functions of interaction forces during this process are extremely complex and will probably never be determined precisely. Any model describing rock-slope interactions relies on some degree of simplification (Bourrier and Hungr 2011). Errors in modeling can derive from either the model or the model inputs.…”
Section: Uncertainties In Numerical Modelingmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Rebound behavior is constrained by the substrate properties, rock properties, and incident configurations (e.g., Labiouse and Heidenreich 2009;Bourrier and Hungr 2011). In numerical modeling, errors in the classification of substrate and rock properties are inevitable.…”
Section: Uncertainties In Numerical Modelingmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…(di Prisco and Vecchiotti, 2006). A review of the different existing rebound models can be found in Bourrier and Hungr (2011). Some models also consider impacts with trees (Dorren et al 2005;Dupire et al 2016) or mitigation structures such as fences and ditches using specific impact models (Lambert et al 2013).…”
Section: -Block Shapementioning
confidence: 99%
“…Some of these models also include explicitly the rolling motion of blocks Lan et al, 2007), but the study of the interaction of the blocks with the topographic surface during the successive contacts (impacts) is the main scientific challenge in rockfall modelling (Bourrier and Hungr, 2011). Propagation models can be classified by how they simplify reality and the hypotheses they consider with respect to the following aspects:…”
Section: Introductionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…According to the barrier physical behavior to stop the rock, can be established three different typologies (Bourrier & Hungr, 2013): the first one consists of static barriers, which are composed by rigid elements that employ their high inertia to stop the stones. The most common solutions are walls (of concret or gabions), formed by metal profiles and earth ridges; the second type corresponds to dymac barriers of static deformation, having a reduced capacity of energy absorption (below 150-200 kJ), which are mainly used as energy dissipators elements in docks with shock absorbers, which are not useless after impact; finally, can be found dynamic barriers of plastic deformation characterized by current absorption capacity of 8.000 kJ, using special elements that deform and tear for dissipating this high energy, so that they must be replaced after an impact.…”
Section: Introductionmentioning
confidence: 99%