Many examples of rockfall simulation software provide great
flexibility to the user at the expense of a hardly achievable parameter
unification. With sensitive site-dependent parameters that are hardly
generalizable from the literature and case studies, the user must properly
calibrate simulations for the desired site by performing back-calculation
analyses. Thus, rockfall trajectory reconstruction methods are needed. For
that purpose, a computer-assisted videogrammetric 3D trajectory
reconstruction method (CAVR) built on earlier approaches is proposed.
Rockfall impacts are visually identified and timed from video footage and
are manually transposed on detailed high-resolution 3D terrain models that
act as the spatial reference. This shift in reference removes the dependency
on steady and precisely positioned cameras, ensuring that the CAVR method
can be used for reconstructing trajectories from witnessed previous records
with nonoptimal video footage. For validation, the method is applied to
reconstruct some trajectories from a rockfall experiment performed by the
WSL Institute for Snow and Avalanche Research SLF. The results are compared
to previous ones from the SLF and share many similarities. Indeed, the
translational energies, bounce heights, rotational energies, and impact
positions against a flexible barrier compare well with those from the SLF.
The comparison shows that the presented cost-effective and flexible CAVR
method can reproduce proper 3D rockfall trajectories from experiments or
real rockfall events.
Introduction
Many examples of rockfall simulation software provide great flexibility to the user at the expense of a hardly achievable parameter unification, as highlighted by Berger and Dorren (2006), Berger et al. (2011), Volkwein et al. (2011), Jarsve (2018), Garcia (2019), Bourrier et al. (2021), and Noël et al. (2021). Even when using the same rebound model, though it may be implemented in a different piece of software, the results using the same parameters may vary, as shown previously in Noël et al. (2021) when comparing CRSP 4 (Pfeiffer and Bowen, 1989; Jones et al., 2000) with RocFall 8 (Stevens, 1998; Rocscience Inc., 2022). The settings of the rebound model parameters are often specific to the model, rockfall software, and version used. Thus, it is difficult to transpose them from experimental results, such as the apparent coefficient of restitution from impact experiments. Indeed, even if rebound model parameters are classically called “coefficients of
restitution” (e.g., RN and RT for the normal and tangential components), they are not the same as the apparent coefficients of
restitution (e.g., CORN and CORT for the respective components) and cannot be directly interchanged, as explained in Noël et al. (2021). For example, a rebound calculated with the model of Pfeiffer and Bowen (1989) using a normal “coefficient of restitution” of RN=0.35 as damping parameter returns a low normal translational velocity of 1.6 m s-1 for a normal incident velocity of 10 m s-1. In that case, the ratio of returned velocity over the incident velocity gives a calculated apparent coefficient of restitution of CORN=0.16. This apparent value is different than the RN of 0.35 used as input. Because it is difficult to transpose the simulation parameters from experimental results, finding the proper parameter values are thus far more limited to a range of rock sizes and shapes, terrain materials and saturation, perceived roughness, and profile geometry. They are then hardly generalizable from the literature or from one simulation model to another and are often site dependent, as highlighted by Volkwein et al. (2011) and Valagussa et al. (2015) and shown by the variable benchmark results in Berger and Dorren (2006), Berger et al. (2011), Garcia (2019) and C2ROP (2020).
Therefore, it is often emphasized that proper calibration is important for simulations of the
desired site, which is done by performing back calculation analyses on similar sites and
on-site rockfall experiments (Jones et al., 2000; Labiouse, 2004;
Berger and Dorren, 2006; Berger et al., 2011; Volkwein et al., 2011;
Valagussa et al., 2015; Bourrier et al., 2021; Noël et al., 2021). For
that purpose, it is necessary to evaluate the main trajectory paths of the
rockfalls; their runouts; how the velocities, bouncing heights, and energies
evolve along these paths and after each impact; and how the rocks
deviate laterally. This raises the need for cost-effective and flexible 3D
trajectory reconstruction methods to help gather and share the data needed
for a site-specific calibration of rockfall simulations. Additionally, the
gathered data could later be used for the improvement and development of
more objective rockfall simulation methods that are less dependent on the
inconvenient and expensive need to perform back analyses.
As illustrated by Volkwein and Klette (2014) and Caviezel et al. (2019),
different methods exist for reconstructing rockfall trajectories. Some
reconstructed parts of the trajectories in 2D as seen from above (e.g.,
Volkwein and Klette, 2014; Volkwein et al., 2018), and others did so using 2D vertical
profiles (e.g., Glover et al., 2012; Wyllie, 2014; Spadari et al., 2012;
Bourrier et al., 2012). Few reconstructed the trajectories in 3D space
and documented their lateral deviations (e.g., Dorren et al., 2005; Dorren
and Berger, 2006; Dewez et al., 2010; Hibert et al., 2017; Caviezel et al.,
2019; Bourrier et al., 2021). Of these, Dorren et al. (2005) and Dorren and
Berger (2006) used range finders with a tiltmeter and a compass to measure
the position of each impact, requiring time-consuming and potentially
exposed fieldwork to obtain the valuable field data. Dewez et al. (2010)
also reconstructed trajectories in 3D, but this time the rock positions
were remotely estimated from video footage using the cameras as references.
For that, their method required precisely synchronized and undistorted video
pairs captured with a wide field of view (FOV) of ∼ 76∘ from precisely positioned steady cameras. With the help of a
script, the center mass of the falling rocks was manually located
frame by frame on the displayed video pairs. The use of a relatively high
frame rate (50 fps) gave a good time resolution of 1/50th of a second
for precision, but it increased the number of frames on which to perform the
manual tracking of the rocks.
This time-consuming manual process can be partly automated based on the
method proposed by Caviezel et al. (2019), increasing the objectivity of the
reconstruction process. This is done by producing dense 3D point clouds by
photogrammetry from each synchronized undistorted frame of steady video
footage captured from different viewpoints. The 3D points corresponding to
the visible side of the artificial rocks facing the cameras are then
extracted based on their contrasting artificial painted colors compared to
the background. The center of mass of the rocks is estimated from the convex
hulls formed by meshing the extracted 3D points.
Compared to Dewez et al. (2010), this automation process can introduce an
erroneous shift in the reconstructed center of mass toward the cameras if
the 3D points of the occluded backsides of the rocks not visible to the
cameras are missing. However, this can be worked around by fitting 3D models of
the controlled rock shapes onto their partial photogrammetric reconstruction.
Additionally, ultra-high resolution (e.g., 8K UHD in Caviezel et al., 2019)
and sharp contrasting of the falling rocks with their backgrounds are needed
for feature recognition to compensate for the relatively wide FOV needed for
framing the whole site from each fixed viewpoint. Due to recording data rate
constraints, ultra-high resolutions and raw footage can limit the recording
frame rate depending on the acquisition equipment (e.g., 25 fps in Caviezel
et al., 2019), thus reducing the time resolution and related precision.
Consequently, the method requires relatively high-end camera bodies coupled
with proper sharp lenses and powerful computers for processing the
associated data, producing thousands of frame-by-frame dense 3D point clouds
and aligning them.
Despite being partly automated, the time-consuming processing complexifies
the iterative visual validation that the reconstructed trajectories match
with reality and fine-tuning processes following the first reconstructions.
As a result, numerous reconstructed impacts with an energy balance above
1.00 involving an apparent gain in kinetic energy can be obtained with this
method, sometimes with an increase for both the translational and angular
velocities after impact, as shown in Caviezel et al. (2019, 2021). These
abnormal impacts can be explained by energy transfers from the height
differences between the beginning and the end of the impacts with long
rock–ground interactions (Caviezel et al., 2019, 2021). As shown later in the paper, this
may also be attributed to timing and positioning imprecisions, especially
for impacts with short rock–ground interactions.
In this work, an alternative cost-effective and flexible computer-assisted
videogrammetric 3D trajectory reconstruction method (CAVR) is proposed. It
can be used in addition to the aforementioned approaches, as it brings
complementary information when the video footage is not optimal,
automatic tracking is not possible, or abnormal apparent kinetic energy
gain is observed at impact. The improved method is built from the concepts
of the previous methods, and it was preliminarily tested in Noël et al. (2017, 2018). It involves computer-assisted manual tracking of rocks and a
high frame rate (e.g., 120 fps) for a precise time resolution, as in Dewez et al. (2010). The time-consuming tracking of the free-falling phases is,
however, avoided, as this phase can be accurately and efficiently
reconstructed from ballistic equations, as in Volkwein et al. (2011),
Wyllie (2014), Glover (2015), and Gerber (2019) and similar to the method used
in Bourrier et al. (2012) and Hibert et al. (2017).
As in Caviezel et al. (2019), the proposed CAVR method relies on the use of
3D models to estimate the position of the rocks. However, instead of
generating thousands of frame-by-frame 3D photogrammetric models of the
rocks, the proposed method uses one detailed textured 3D terrain model for
the spatial reference coupled to the efficient 3D point cloud impact
detection algorithm by Noël et al. (2021). The algorithm is used to
locate (with proper offset) the center of mass of the rocks above the ground
at impact. Contrary to the tracking methods of Dewez et al. (2010) and
Caviezel et al. (2019), the cameras can be zoomed to narrow FOVs and be moved or
panned to track the rocks, since the 3D detailed terrain model acts as the
spatial reference instead of the cameras. This produces detailed close-up
footage of the rocks and the surrounding terrain features that facilitate
the visual identification of the impact points with the ground. Lens
distortion is less problematic as it equally shifts the captured rocks with
their surrounding terrain that acts as reference. It also increases the
flexibility of the method, as different video footage can be used as input.
Additionally, it reduces its cost by avoiding the need for high-end cameras
and related processing equipment. The computer-assisted reconstruction
process is semiautomatic, and the user obtains a real-time update of the 3D
reconstructed free-falling parabolas forming the trajectory at the center of
mass of the rock projectile that is properly offset from the ground. The impact
point on the ground can be updated in real time following the mouse cursor
on the screen. This incorporates the important visual validation of the
reconstructed trajectories and iterative fine-tuning processes directly as
part of the reconstruction process. This ensures the reconstruction of dissipative
impacts (without apparent gain of kinetic energy) for impacts with short
rock–ground interactions, as detailed later in this paper.
The proposed CAVR method relies on two inputs: the impact positions and
their related time. The impacts are visually identified and timed from the
high-frame-rate video footage, and they are manually transposed on a
detailed corresponding 3D terrain model to obtain the 3D coordinates of
their positions. In this paper, the common ballistic equations used for
reconstructing the trajectories from these two inputs are first given with
the other equations related to the different reconstructed values. Following this,
since the video footage is a central piece for the method, especially if
there is no impact mark on the ground to act as a guide, the details about
the acquisition of the video footage and the related precision and accuracy
are meticulously described. This is followed by short subsections concerning
the 3D terrain model, the rock block geometric characteristics, and the
validation of the reconstructed trajectories. A developed computer tool
incorporating the described concepts to assist and homogenize the
reconstruction process is then described. Finally, a comparison of methods is
presented and discussed.
List of variables for the rockfall ballistics.
VariablesDescriptionUnitsVariablesDescriptionUnitstTimesEkTotal kinetic energy of the rockJXPosition of the rock in 3D spacemNVector normal to the ground surfaceorientationmvTranslational velocity of the rockm s-1θ1Incident impact angle with the ground∘vTTangential component of the velocitym s-1θ2Returned impact angle with the ground∘vNNormal component of the velocitym s-1ΔθtrendDelta of the trend direction of the incidenttrajectory and the aspect or dip direction of the terrain∘ωAngular velocityrad s-1θNDeviation of the incident and returned vT (around N axis)∘gAcceleration of the rockm s-2θdevTotal deviation that the rock undergoes by the impact∘mMass of the rockkgCORvTotal kinematic coefficient of restitution–IMoment of inertia of the rockkg m2CORTTangential kinematic coefficient of restitution–pTranslational momentum of the rockkg m s-1CORNNormal kinematic coefficient of restitution–LAngular momentum of the rockkg m2 s-1––Rockfall ballistics
Rockfall trajectories can be reconstructed from the impact positions and the
associated times. This section details the ballistic equations required for
the reconstruction of the 3D trajectories, related angles, velocities,
kinetic apparent coefficient of restitution, momentum, and energies.
Impact configurations for the reconstructed parabolas. Note how
the offset of the impacts minimizes the common issues associated with the
exaggerated parabola's lengths of impacts simplified to single points.
The airborne 3D rockfall trajectory segments are a sequence of oblique
throws, and their parabolic nature has been described previously by Galileo Galilei
(Drake and MacLachlan, 1975). The position, translational velocity, and
acceleration of a rock during its ballistic (free-falling) phase is defined
by Eqs. (1), (2), and (3) as follows:
1Xt=Xt0+vt0t+12gtt2,2vt=dXtdt=vt0+gtt,3gt=dvtdt.
When neglecting drag due to air resistance (see Appendix A for information about
significance of air drag), the acceleration components are written as
follows (Eq. 4):
gt=gxtgytgzt≅00-9.81.
Following this, the incident and the returned translational velocity are estimated for
each impact from the previous equations. For this the position of the
rock's center of mass must be known for a series of successive impacts. The
rock–ground interaction periods must also be very short relative to the
free-fall periods to ensure that they can be considered impulses (Wyllie,
2014). Note that impacts simplified to single points require short
rock–ground interaction periods. Most problems related to the single-point
methods due to incorrect path lengths are minimized by offsetting the points
to the center mass of the rock projectiles (Fig. 1). The velocities of an
impact b are preceded by an impact a and followed by an impact c as in Fig. 1, which is given by Eqs. (5) and (6) as follows:
5vb1=vxb1vyb1vzb1≅vxa2vya2vza2-9.81Δtab,6vb2=vxb2vyb2vzb2≅ΔXxbcΔXxbcΔtbcΔtbcΔXybcΔXybcΔtbcΔtbcΔXzbcΔtbc+129.81Δtbc.
The translational and angular momenta p and L are given by Eqs. (7) and (8) as
follows:
7p=mv,8L=Iω.
The total kinetic energy is given by Eq. (9) as follows:
Ek=12mv2+12Iω2.
Geometric configuration at impact of the reconstructed
translational velocity vectors and the related angles (see Table 1 for the
variable's descriptions). Note that such angles are measured based on the
normal vector to the terrain (N) and not to the vertical. For a perfectly
reflected impact, such as a light beam on a flat mirror, the incident and
the returned velocity vectors (v1 and v2) would be coplanar with
N. Here, the lateral deviation (θN) is measured as the angle
around N, making v2 deviate from the previous coplanar situation. Note
that this rotation axis should be tilted slightly toward where the rock
projectile is from depending on the amount of scarring, slipping, and
skidding, but it is kept around N for simplicity. The total deviation
(θdev) is simply measured as the angle between v1 and
v2. It is close to the sum of the incident and the returned angles
(θ1 and θ2) when θN is small.
Apparent coefficients of restitution can be calculated for each impact from
the components of the obtained velocities (Fig. 2). They also correspond to
the ratio of momentum preserved by the rock projectile after each impact.
One should not use them directly as parameters for rockfall simulations
since they generally do not correspond to the parameters used in the rebound
models as mentioned in introduction and described in Noël et al. (2021).
The total, tangential, and normal apparent kinematic coefficients of
restitution are given by Eqs. (10), (11), and (12), respectively, as follows:
10CORv=v2v1,11CORT=vT2vT1,12CORN=vN2vN1.
The rock–ground geometric configuration at impact can be analyzed simply
with vector dot products. The incident and the returned impact angles with
the ground (Fig. 2) are given by Eqs. (13) and (14) as follows:
13θ1=sin-1v1⋅Nv1N,14θ2=sin-1v2⋅Nv2N.
The angular difference in the horizontal plane between the trend direction
of the incident velocity projected on the plane (vxy1) and the
aspect direction of the terrain face from the normal projected on the plane
(Nxy) is given by Eq. (15) as follows:
Δθtrend=cos-1vxy1⋅Nxyvxy1Nxy.
The rock lateral deviation from a “perfectly reflected” rebound, i.e., the
lateral deviation making v2 deviate from being coplanar with
v1 and N, is measured by a rotation around the normal
vector axis and is given by Eq. (16) as follows:
θN=±cos-1vT1⋅vT2vT1vT2,
where θN is set to negative if this deviation brings the azimuth of
v2 closer to that of N or to positive if this deviation
brings the azimuth of v2 away, as shown in Fig. 2.
The rock's total deviation due to the impact is given by Eq. (17) as
follows:
θdev=cos-1v1⋅v2v1v2.
Trajectory reconstruction method
As defined with the previous equations, it is possible to reconstruct
rockfall trajectories with their velocity in between recorded impacts with a
short rock–ground interaction period. The impact time and position are
visually evaluated from video footage of rockfall events. The impact
positions are then transposed onto a detailed 3D high-resolution terrain model
used as the spatial reference to retrieve their precise coordinates. Such
coordinates on the ground need to be offset to the center of mass of the
rocks, requiring the acquisition of the rock block geometry. Finally, the
reconstructed trajectories must be visually validated, ensuring that they
are aligned with the falling rocks. Such steps and inputs are detailed in
this section.
Video footage
Because the detailed 3D terrain model is the spatial reference for the
position of the impact, the reconstruction method is not constrained to the
use of a special type of video footage or steady cameras with fixed
viewpoints or lenses without distortion. Thus, it is well suited for
reconstructing trajectories from previously witnessed records to help gather
the data needed for site-specific calibration of sensitive rockfall
simulations. Good video footage for this method is any footage where the
position of the impacts can be visually located and timed. Therefore,
“zoomed” footage with a narrow field of view (FOV), a manual panning to
track the falling rocks, a high captured frame rate, and a high resolution
adapted to the “sharpness” given by the acutance and resolving power of
the lens is ideal for obtaining the most precision out of the method. The
precision and the related acquisition setup concepts are detailed in the
following subsections.
Conceptualization of the spatial accuracy from projecting the
picking accuracy to the terrain. The picking accuracy is degraded to ±100 px to better illustrate the concept. In reality, the precision and
accuracy depend on the resolving power and the acutance of the lens used,
sensor size and resolution, general quality and sharpness of the footage, and
ease of distinguishing the rock projectile from the background. The
elongation of the resulting conic section ellipses depends on the viewing
“incident angle” with the terrain. The accuracy is maximal when the
ellipses are small and not elongated, but they can also be maximized by
combining two or more viewpoints. The size of the projected pixels depends
on the resolution and the FOV used. The local accuracy can be improved, even
at a lower resolution, by using lenses with a small FOV. This also helps to
distinguish the rock from the background, improving the picking precision
and accuracy, which in turn also improves the local precision and accuracy.
Precision and accuracy
The optimal video footage for this method is any footage where a series of
successive impacts can be visually located and timed. The sharper and more
detailed the image around the impact point is, the easier it is to precisely
visually locate and time it. The resolving power of a camera system or of a
lens attached to the camera body can be measured with the modulation
transfer function (MTF). This optical performance measurement is often
expressed as the number of alternating black and white line pairs (lp) that
can be resolved on 1 mm of a camera sensor or film at a given
contrast (Rowlands, 2020). The more lines that are captured, the finer the
details that can be captured are. The more detailed the images captured are, the
more accurate and precise they are for transposing the impact positions when
picking their position on the detailed terrain model. The circular area of
the picking accuracy (pr [px]) around the impact point is analogous to
the error bars around a point; the shorter the error bars (i.e., the radius
of the circular area) are, the better (Fig. 3). The corresponding spatial
accuracy on the terrain can be obtained by projecting this circular area to
the terrain, following the reversed paths of the light rays that reached the
camera sensor during the video capture (Rowlands, 2020). The same applies
when transposing the accuracy of the camera system to distant objects to
locally obtain the corresponding spatial resolution of the system.
For an impact close to the center of the video frame, the simplified
projection of the circular area perpendicular to the camera viewpoint
generates a right circular cone with an aperture (θa
[∘]) given by the adjusted diagonal field of view (FOV) of the
lens objective for the cropped portion of the camera sensor used at the
desired video resolution (Reshorizontal×Resvertical [px]) using Eq. (18) as follows:
θa=2tan-1prtan0.5FOV0.5Reshorizontal2+Resvertical2.
The intersection of the cone with the terrain forms a conic section in the
shape of an ellipse. The semi-major axis (a) of this ellipse of accuracy
corresponds to the orientation with the lowest precision and accuracy from
the camera viewpoint (i.e., in the direction of the “steepest” depth
gradient), and the semi-minor axis (b) corresponds to the maximal precision
and accuracy. The angle (φter-cam) of the terrain with the
camera viewpoint, and thus the angle of the conic section with the central
axis of the cone, is given by Eq. (19) as follows:
φter-cam=sin-1ΔXter-cam⋅NΔXter-camN.
The more the viewpoint is perpendicular to the terrain, the less the
ellipse of accuracy is elongated while the semi-minor axis remains constant.
The semi-major axis is reduced to the shortest length, and it is equal to the
semi-minor axis for the special case where the terrain is perpendicular to
the viewpoint (e.g., the circular yellow ellipse from UAV camera 1 in Fig. 3). The constant semi-minor axis b length, corresponding to the maximal
precision and accuracy, is given by Eq. (20) as follows:
b=ΔXter-cam⋅tanθa2.
The minimal precision and accuracy from one viewpoint can be found from the
length of the semi-major axis a using Eq. (21) as follows:
a=ΔXter-camsinθa2sinφter-cam-θa2.
For situations where the viewing angle is far from being perpendicular to
the terrain, the ellipse of accuracy is very elongated. An impact position
picked in such a configuration would be greatly inaccurate in the direction
of the “steepest” depth gradient. This situation can be greatly improved
if the impact is also captured from a second point of view. Indeed, two or
more viewpoints can be combined to maximize the precision and accuracy to
the constrained area of the overlapping ellipses. In doing so, the accuracy
can approach that given by the semi-minor axes, even if the accuracy ellipses
are elongated, as shown by the green areas in Figs. 3 and 4.
Examples of spatial accuracies from the projection of ±4 px
picking accuracies for the Riou Bourdoux rockfall test site that involved
multiple ground-based and airborne camera viewpoints (Hibert et al., 2022). The maximized local precision and accuracy of the 376 constrained
areas of the overlapping ellipses are shown in bright green (as in Fig. 3). The maximal sizes (worst values) of some maximized local
accuracies are written in bright green next to their impacts. Note that each
impact accuracy is unique and depends on many variables, such as the impacted
terrain geometric configuration and texture, its distance from the
viewpoints, and the video acquisition setup, that locally influence the ease
of visually identifying the impact location.
Acquisition setup
Concerning the sharpness associated with the level of detail of the footage,
counterintuitively, lower-resolution footage with a narrow FOV can be better
than ultra-high resolution for this method. Sharp and detailed
ultra-high-resolution footage (e.g., at 8K UHD resolution, 7680×4320 px) requires the use of a proper large sensor and a high-end lens
combo designed to have enough resolving power and acutance for that task.
For example, a 4K UHD (3840×2160 px) Super 35 sized sensor with an
effective area that is 24.89 mm wide is ∼ 154 px wide per
millimeter. It has a corresponding capacity to resolve a maximum of 77 line
pairs at its Nyquist frequency, i.e., when half of the 154 line pairs match
the corresponding 154 px binning sampling (vertical axes of Fig. 5).
Lenses are often the limiter at high resolution given their lower contrast
at such high line pair amounts per millimeter.
Abacus showing the lens-resolvable line pairs given
by the modulation transfer function (MTF) for the corresponding video
resolution at maximum resolving capacity for different common sensor sizes
and perpendicular distant object diameters equivalent to four line pairs that
can be resolved through lenses of different fields of view (FOVs) given by
their 35 mm equivalent focal lengths. The equivalent focal lengths of the
Canon at 400 and Zeiss 55 mm lenses used on cameras with Super 35/∼ APS-C sensor sizes for the Chant Sura rockfall test site
used as an example are shown with dashed blue and red lines. The central MTF
values at 50 % contrast for the lenses are shown with dots for different
aperture values. Unless capturing objects with fine grid patterns where
aliasing could be a problem, it is recommended to sample above the Nyquist
frequency to avoid being constrained by the camera body or sensor before
downscaling to the resolvable video resolution. For example, the Samsung NX1
camera body used for the CAVR method samples at ∼ 6.5 K from
the whole ∼ APS-C sensor readout before performing the in-body
downscaling).
Combining the previous concept of the lens sensor resolving power with the
precision and accuracy concepts of the previous section, the on-sensor
resolving power can be transposed to a perpendicular distant object to
predict the level of detail that can be captured in the center of the frame
for a desired contrast (Fig. 5). As shown, the amount of captured detail at
a lower resolution (e.g., at HD or FHD) with a narrower FOV can be very
similar or even better than if captured at an ultra-high resolution with a
wider FOV (Fig. 5). In the following paragraphs, the previous data captured
at the Chant Sura rockfall test site with a wider FOV and steady cameras
(Caviezel et al., 2020), referred to with the acronym “SLF 2020”, are
compared to newer footage captured with a narrower FOV and manual tracking
allowed by the CAVR method as acquisition examples (Fig. 5).
The WSL Institute for Snow and Avalanche Research SLF performed novel
rockfall experiments with instrumented rocks at the Chant Sura test site
(Fig. 6) that involved a 5 m tall by 60 m long 2000 kJ ROCCO flexible
barrier from Geobrugg (Caviezel et al., 2019, 2020, 2021; Sanchez and
Caviezel, 2020). They opened their experiment to the public with Geobrugg at
the GEO summit 2019 conference and publicly shared part of the acquired data
in Caviezel et al. (2020). The transparency of such an action toward open
science should be emphasized. The accessible data can be very helpful to the
geohazard community when assessing the sensitivity of current rockfall
simulation software and for finding the right simulation parameters to be
used for similar sites.
Simple camera setup based on the presented acquisition concepts
for the CAVR method tested here at the Chant Sura rockfall test site during
the 13 September 2019 SLF experiment. The white rectangle shows the
close-up area of the site used in Fig. 7 to compare the SLF RED video
footage to the FHD footage from this simple camera setup. The Samsung NX1
camera body from 2014 could deliver 4K UHD footage (6.5K full sensor readout
downscaled to 4K), but the lens from 1998 used here does not have the
resolving power for the resolution on the ∼ super 35/APS-C
sized sensor (23.5×15.7 mm, crop factor of 1.53). Thus, the footage was
recorded at FHD and could reach a higher frame rate instead (119.88 fps).
Comparison of the FHD (a) and HD (c) narrower FOV video footage
captured with the CAVR camera setup shown in Fig. 6 with the wider SLF RED
video footage (b) from Caviezel et al. (2020), described in Caviezel et al. (2019) for rocks with similar trajectories. The visible outline of the rocks
is highlighted with a black line roughly drawn by hand on the stacked frames to
help distinguish the rocks from their background. Note the difference in
sharpness and the level of detail of the footage related to the captured
resolution and field of view. For scale, the 1 m3 sized 2670 kg rocks
have their rotations aligned around their shortest diameters of 0.72 m and
have their longest diameters equal to 1.45 m. They are the largest blocks
tested at that site in Caviezel et al. (2021) and are therefore the
easiest to see on the video footage. The smallest equant blocks (45 kg) are
approximately one-fifth of the length of these blocks and require detailed
footage for proper tracking.
In parallel to the common acquisition setup previously used by the SLF at
that site (Caviezel et al., 2019), the alternative CAVR camera setup
following the previously described concepts was deployed from one viewpoint
for the rockfall experiment performed on 13 September 2019 (some
footage is publicly available in Caviezel et al., 2020). The simple and
affordable alternative setup consists of a camera capturing at FHD
resolution, 119.88 fps, and a fast shutter speed, coupled to a zoom telephoto
lens used at 400 mm (∼ 612 mm full frame equivalent) for a
narrow FOV of approximately 4∘ and manually panned to track the
rock projectiles (Fig. 6).
The CAVR narrower FOV FHD footage is compared to the SLF 2020 older 8K UHD
high-end RED video footage from the SLF (Caviezel et al., 2020) in Fig. 7
for rocks sharing similar trajectories. The resolution of the CAVR narrower
FOV footage is also downscaled to HD in Fig. 7c to compare with the SLF
2020 footage at 4K UHD downscaled from the 8K UHD visible in Fig. 7b. Even with
a resolution reduced by half from FHD, it is possible to see that the
sharpness of the CAVR narrower FOV footage at HD surpasses the SLF 2020
high-end RED footage. Indeed, the CAVR narrower FOV footage (Fig. 7a)
resolves smaller distant objects, as foreseen in the abacus (Fig. 5) and
confirmed by the sharper edges and the visible details around the bright
outcrops. The CAVR narrower FOV footage following the previously described
concepts shows more details and sharpness thanks to the narrow FOV used,
despite having been captured with a 5-year-old camera body coupled with a
20-year-old telephoto lens at the time of performing the experiment.
The limitations by the lens, as previously observed on the older SLF 2020
footage, are likely to occur on super 35/APS-C sensors, even with the
extremely sharp Zeiss Otus 55 mm f/1.4 used in Caviezel et al. (2019).
Reducing the aperture could help (Fig. 5), as no lens is perfect when wide
open, especially in the corners. This is especially true when the camera is
kept still with the rocks moving across the frame and potentially reaching the
corners. However, with the CAVR reconstruction method, one can pan to track
the rock projectiles to keep them close to the center of the frame where
lenses are most of the time at their best, allowing a wider aperture to be
used without degrading the sharpness in the center. A wider aperture comes
with a shorter exposure period from a faster shutter speed or a lower ISO
sensitivity, reducing the motion blur or the noise level of the captured
footage. With the panning motion, a narrower FOV can be used while tracking
the moving rock, as with the FHD camera setup shown in Fig. 6. A camera body
with a fast sensor read should be used to reduce the rolling shutter skew
distortion with such a configuration.
Therefore, as conceptualized in Figs. 3 and 5 and shown in Fig. 7, more
detail around the impact points can be obtained at lower resolution if the
panning motion and the narrow FOV are combined for tracking the rocks. This
in turn allows a higher constant frame rate and a faster shutter speed to be
used, as often required for tracking the angular velocities and for timing
the impacts. Lower-resolution file handling and playback are also simplified
because the footage can be played fluently and edited efficiently on most
common computers to add, for example, an overlaying time code and electronic
image stabilization. Additionally, blurry footage can still be sufficient
for timing impacts if they can be located from the impact marks left on the
terrain. As the 3D detailed terrain model is the spatial reference for the
impact positions and not the cameras, this CAVR method is flexible enough for use with the many
types of video footage available. Thus, it is well suited for reconstructing
3D trajectories from nonoptimal previous records to help gather data needed
for site-specific calibration of sensitive rockfall simulations.
Consequently, valuable rockfall data, such as the data gathered by the SLF
(Caviezel et al., 2021), could also be acquired with an affordable camera
setup and from previously witnessed rockfall events.
Digital terrain model
A corresponding detailed 3D model of the terrain is needed to extract the
coordinates of the impacts for reconstructing the trajectories. As covered
in Noël et al. (2021), it can be acquired in many ways, e.g., by
structure from motion photogrammetry (SfM) or by a airborne, mobile, or
terrestrial laser scanner (ALS, TLS). The SfM method is preferable because it
is often exempt of occluded part and properly captures the terrain roughness
as perceived by the rocks (Noël et al., 2021). It can also texture the
3D model from the acquired pictures, which is very helpful to visually
locate the impacts and extract their position coordinates when no
indentation mark or scar is visible. Other methods can be textured from
projected photos and orthophotos or from the return signal's intensity.
Vegetation is often not a problem for freshly affected sites, since large
rockfall events usually remove part of it. Artifacts and bushes might be
present, however, and should be avoided when evaluating the impact position
and the local terrain orientation. They can be highlighted by artificial
shading methods, such as the eye dome lighting method (EDL) (Boucheny, 2009)
or the ambient occlusion method (PCV) (Duguet and Girardeau-Montaut, 2004;
Tarini et al., 2006). Local geomorphological features and impact marks are
also highlighted with these shading methods (Fig. 8). These methods can also
be combined with coloring methods based on the local terrain orientation
(e.g., the Coltop method by Jaboyedoff et al., 2007, which is also
implemented with a slightly different color distribution in the CloudCompare
open-source software; Girardeau-Montaut, 2006). A comparison of two terrain
models, from before and after the rockfall event(s), can also help highlight
the impact marks if such models are available, as shown by Caviezel et al. (2019).
The same 3D scene with different rendering settings for the 3D terrain model. The EDL shading filter can be very useful for highlighting artifacts and impact marks. The scenes are rendered in a custom tool developed to help assist the reconstruction process, as described in Sect. 4. The trajectory under reconstruction shown in red with dotted white normal vectors from each impact mark visible on the ground corresponds to the block with the longest runout from the 2015 Mel de la Niva rockfall event (Noël et al., 2022; Lu et al., 2018). It transitions from longer free-falling phases to a “rolling–bouncing” phase.
Rock block geometry
It is then necessary to evaluate the rock block geometry to properly offset
the impact positions to the center of mass. It can be tempting to simply use
the impact positions without the offsets, but the resulting trajectories
would not have the right lengths, which is highlighted by Volkwein et al. (2011) as shown in Fig. 1, and incorrectly reconstructed velocities would be
obtained (see Appendix B for information about how the change in impact-to-impact distance
can affect the results). The rock geometry can be evaluated from on-field
measurements, with 3D models acquired by SfM, or by mobile and TLS methods.
The mass can be determined from the volume (V) of the rock and the volumetric
mass density (ρrock) of rock samples (assuming a homogeneous
distribution of the mass). First, an estimation of the volume can be done by
simplifying their shapes to ellipsoids from measuring the d1, d2,
and d3 diameters of the rocks on field, with d1, d2, and
d3 being the lengths of the longest, intermediate, and shortest sides,
respectively. In that case, the geometric properties are given with Eqs. (22) to (26) as follows:
22V=π6d1d2d3,23m=ρrockV,24Id3=120md12+d22,25Id2=120md12+d32,26Id1=120md22+d32,
where Id1, Id2, and Id3 are the principal moment of inertia when the rock is rotating around the d1, d2, and d3 axes,
respectively. Such estimation from ellipsoids can be performed efficiently
from 3D models containing numerous rocks using the automatic method
described in Steer et al. (in review). The precise moments and principal
axes of inertia can also be identified from an analysis on the 3D meshed
model of individualized rocks (e.g., with MeshLab from Cignoni et al., 2008). The dimensions can then be expressed based on the size of the bounding boxes aligned on the main inertia axes of the rock. This is similar to the adjusted bounding box method presented by Bonneau et al. (2019); therefore, the 3D meshed model should be exempt from artifacts. Following this, the offset distance for each impact can be approximated to half of approximately 90 % of either d1, d2,d3, or some intermediate values based on the visually identified amount of scarring and rock configuration at impact. It is then possible to extrapolate the position of the center of mass from the coordinate of the center of each impact mark on the ground with the proper offset normal to the terrain. Trajectories with the rock's translational velocity can be reconstructed from these positions and the impact times using Eqs. (5) and (6).
If the video frame rate is sufficient, the angular velocity can be estimated
by counting the number of rock rotations completed over the free-falling
period between the impacts. The main axis that the rock rotates around
should be noted. The angular momentum and kinetic energy can then be
estimated by selecting the corresponding moment of inertia. As this is
time consuming, the method can be combined with the approaches from Volkwein
and Klette (2014) and Caviezel et al. (2019) to retrieve the angular
velocity from inboard gyroscopes.
Visual validation and fine-tuning of the results
It is recommended to visually validate if the reconstructed trajectory
matches what is seen from the video footage. For this purpose, the trajectory can be
loaded into 3D visualization software together with the terrain model. They
can then be analyzed visually by placing the viewpoint from the same
position as the cameras used to capture the event with perspective and a
similar field of view. Properly reconstructed trajectories should be aligned
with the rocks from the video footage. In other words, they should align with
the same background elements on the terrain model (e.g., characteristic
ground textures, bushes, or rocks on the ground) as those momentarily
occluded by the falling rocks in the video footage when the rocks pass in
front of them. This approach is later used to compare the older
reconstructed trajectories from the SLF (Caviezel et al., 2020) with newer
trajectories using the CAVR reconstruction method.
The total apparent kinematic coefficient of restitution (CORv) should be
under 1.00. In exceptional cases, it can be slightly above 1.00 if a considerable
amount of angular momentum is transferred to a translational momentum at the
impact. Overall, the total kinematic energy cannot be greater after the
impact point than before. If the opposite is observed, the reconstructed
impact must be fine-tuned or discarded for impacts with long rock–ground
interactions.
Computer-assisted reconstruction
To facilitate and homogenize the reconstruction process, we develop a tool
with a graphical user interface (GUI) that incorporates the previously
mentioned concepts of the reconstruction method. The 3D detailed terrain
model can be visualized with a perspective from two viewpoints
simultaneously (Fig. 9). The field of view can be adjusted to match the
video footage. The pre-rendered terrain from the chosen viewpoints can be
shown with only its textured RGB colors, only the EDL shader, or a
combination of the two to facilitate the localization of the impact point
and the eventual scars (Fig. 8). The terrain can be explored by panning
around the camera point of view on either one of the two viewing windows,
reproducing the panning motion from the video footage to track the rock
projectiles. The other window then pans automatically to follow the same
part of the terrain tracked in the center.
From there, a trajectory and impact number to be edited must be selected.
The frame number at which the impact occurs in the main video file can be
set. The impact time is then calculated from the constant frame rate set for
the video file (e.g., the 13th impact being reconstructed in Fig. 9 has
an impact time related to the beginning of the cropped video file of
1802[frames]119.88[fps]=15.03 s). This is quicker than having to enter the time in minutes, seconds, and frames and reduces the risk of transcription error. The diameter of the rock to use for the desired offset must also be set (e.g., ∼ 90 % of d1, d2, d3, or in between these points, depending on the observed amount of scarring and the visually identified rock configuration at the impact). Half of this value is then used for the offset to place the center of mass using the impact detection algorithm described in Noël et al. (2021).
It is possible to define an impact position on the ground either by directly
pointing at the terrain model with the mouse cursor or by entering the
coordinates manually. The normal to the terrain is then updated
automatically in real time using the efficient impact detection algorithm
that works on a detailed 3D terrain model while considering the rock size
(Noël et al., 2021). The normal is shown as a white line perpendicular
to the terrain in the footprint of the rock and follows the mouse cursor if
the position is defined with it. The trajectory is then updated in
real time and is properly perpendicularly offset to the terrain from the mouse
cursor. The impact time can also be slightly adjusted by scrolling while
picking the impact point with the mouse to see the effect on
the reconstructed parabolas in real-time.
Graphical user interface for assisting the reconstruction process,
shown here during the reconstruction of the trajectory of the eighth
rockfall run performed by the SLF at the Chant Sura test site on
13 September 2019 (Caviezel et al., 2020; Sanchez and Caviezel, 2020). A
trajectory being reconstructed is shown in red in the two viewing windows,
with the impact points and normal vectors for the automatic offset shown in
white. The on-ground impact position can be entered manually (minus a global
shift translation to bring the coordinates close to a local origin) or set
by clicking directly on the 3D terrain model. The reconstructed trajectory
is updated in real time following the mouse cursor.
This emphasis on the real-time updating of the reconstructed trajectories is
important because the validation and fine-tuning processes then become part
of the reconstruction process. The goal for this process is, after all, to
reconstruct data that match with what is observed as much as possible despite
sometimes having to struggle with some unknowns or nonoptimal video footage.
Therefore, having the flexibility to instantly see the reconstructed result
when hesitating between two frames for the impact time or when hesitating
regarding the impact location by a few centimeters to decimeters truly helps find
the best parameters to make the trajectory match what is seen on the video
footage. Of course, the quality of the reconstructed trajectories depends on
the quality of the input footage and the 3D terrain model. Therefore, if it
is impossible to see part of a trajectory and its bounding impacts on the
footage or the terrain, this part should simply be discarded or kept
for qualitative purposes only.
To further ease the reconstruction and validation process, some
reconstructed properties of the impacts are shown in two graphs (CORN as a
function of θ1 and CORv as a function of θdev).
They are also updated in real time. The edited impact and its direct
neighbors are highlighted with different colors, with red for the current
impact, blue for the previous impact, and green for the next impact (if
present). The other impacts are shown in different shades of gray, with
darker values if the periods preceding and following the impact are longer,
and therefore have relatively precise reconstructed values. It is
possible to quickly notice if an impact is behaving strangely, for
example, if the total returned translational velocity is largely above the
incident one or if the impact is not following the trends. From there, more
emphasis can be placed on understanding the reasons behind the strange
behavior of an outlier (e.g., the rock shattered) and fixing the impact if any
error is made on the position or timing. However, this should never be used
to choose parameters that would force a fit on the trends. See Appendix A for information
about the significance of air drag using the CAVR method with
small rock projectiles and/or important free-falling distances reaching high
velocities. More details about the positioning and timing precision of the
method can be found in Appendix B.
Method comparison
In this section, the presented trajectory reconstruction method (CAVR) is
challenged by being compared to the results of an existing peer-reviewed
method. A comparison of the produced results can provide a validation that
the presented method produces valid results. The concept of this comparison
is as follows: if the rockfall trajectories are properly reconstructed, they
should align with the real rock positions from the video footage. The
reconstructed trajectories and energies should also correspond with those
from the existing reconstruction method. Such a comparison would show that
the presented flexible rockfall reconstruction method reproduces proper 3D
trajectories from real rockfall events or experiments.
Comparison approach
For this exercise, the CAVR method is used with the presented computer
assisting tool to reconstruct the nine trajectories from the SLF rockfall
experiment performed on 13 September 2019 at the Chant Sura site
(Sanchez and Caviezel, 2020). The reconstruction is quickly performed in
approximately 1 d for the purpose of this comparison, and with the
nonoptimal configuration of using only one viewpoint. The 119.88 fps FHD
video footage with a narrower FOV using the camera setup previously
described (Fig. 6) is used for the reconstruction (footage available for the
sixth and seventh rockfall runs in Caviezel et al., 2020).
The detailed digital terrain model (DTM) used as a spatial reference for the
reconstruction corresponds to the model from before the experiment performed
that day. The DTM is generated by the SLF with structure from motion
photogrammetry using precisely geolocated pictures acquired with a DJI
Phantom 4 RTK. For the reconstruction with the CAVR method, the terrain
model is textured based on the orthophoto after the experiment using the
publicly available terrain models and orthophotos from the SLF in Caviezel
et al. (2020).
With one camera input per rock publicly available for that site at the time
of writing, it is not possible to independently reproduce the method of
Caviezel et al. (2019), which relies on video stereo pairs.
Therefore, the method comparison focuses on comparing the reconstructed
trajectories from the CAVR method with the rocks visible on the stacked
aligned FHD video frames. Nevertheless, the older 3D reconstructed
trajectories from the SLF (Caviezel et al., 2020) based on Caviezel et al. (2019) can be visually compared side-by-side with the newer trajectories
based on the CAVR method. The newer reconstructed trajectories, however,
differ by being offset to the center of mass of the rocks instead of being
reconstructed directly from the contact points on the ground, as illustrated
in Fig. 1. This side-by-side height difference affects the reconstructed
bounce heights by approximately half of d1.
The intercepting reconstructed impacts at the 2000 kJ flexible ROCCO barrier
from Geobrugg in Sanchez and Caviezel (2020) are used to refine the
comparison with the reconstructed energies and bounce heights. Apart from
the fact that the intercepted rocks were all stopped by the flexible
barrier, the related information is here kept succinct, as the authors do
not want to impinge on future publications focusing on the behavior of the
flexible barrier. The reader is referred to Sanchez and Caviezel (2020) for
more information about the novel experimental setup with the flexible
barrier.
Results and discussion
The reconstructed translational velocities and related energies, parabola
lengths, and vaulted shapes from the two side-by-side 3D reconstructed
trajectories (r1 and r2) overlaying the stacked video frames of the sixth
and seventh rockfall runs in Fig. 10 are similar. Despite being visually
aligned with the center of the orange rocks most of the time, slight rare
misalignments persist between the CAVR reconstructed trajectories and the
visible rocks in the video footage (Figs. 10a, c and 11). This
suggests that the reconstruction could be refined further, especially if
improved by also using video footage from other view angles. Visual
alignment mismatch is also present on the SLF's older reconstructed
trajectories (Fig. 10b and d).
Unlike in Caviezel et al. (2019, 2021), only dissipative impact processes
are obtained with the CAVR approach. Indeed, no apparent gain of kinetic
energy at impact that would be manifested by CORv above 1.00 is obtained.
This is because the presented reconstruction methodology excels in the
resolution of smaller bounces in complex and steep impact configurations,
especially with the easy validation process from the real-time update of the
reconstructed trajectories with the computer-assisted approach. The CAVR
method is, however, limited to short rock–ground interactions simplified to
single impact points offset from the ground. Longer rock–ground interactions
in steep terrain have different potential energies at the start compared to
the end of the interactions that contribute to some of the apparent gain of
kinetic energy previously obtained by the SLF (Caviezel et al., 2019).
Side-by-side comparison of the reconstructed translational
velocities, positions, translational energies, and bounce heights of the
reconstructed trajectories with the CAVR method compared to the older
trajectories from the SLF (Caviezel et al., 2020). The r1 and r2 rockfall
runs correspond to the sixth and seventh runs performed by the SLF on
13 September 2019. The 3D reconstructed trajectories are overlaid
on the stacked frames, showing the rock positions every 10 frames (every
∼1/12th of a second for the footage captured at 119.88 fps with the camera setup shown in Fig. 6). For scale, the dimensions of the
2670 kg reinforced orange disk- or wheel-shaped concrete rock are 1.45 m (d1 and d2) by 0.72 m (d3). The reconstructed trajectory
segments are shown in black with their respective slope profiles in gray as
background elements of the 2D vertical profiles shown in (e) and (f). The
characteristic sawtooth shape of the energy profiles helps distinguish them
from the bounce heights. The values from the CAVR method are shown in blue,
while those from the SLF are shown in red for a quantitative comparison. The
portion of reconstructed trajectory segments shown over stacked video frames
in (a–d) and in Fig. 11 are highlighted in the 2D profiles
(e) and (f) with vertical white bands.
The bounce heights from the center of mass of the rocks with the CAVR method
are always above the terrain surface and have values that rarely fall under
one radius of the rocks (d1 of 1.45 m) (Fig. 10e and f). They
follow the heights from the older reconstructed trajectories from the SLF, but
they are slightly higher (by the equivalent of approximately one radius of
the rocks) and are never negative. This is due to the applied offset
perpendicular to the impacted terrain bringing the reconstructed
trajectories to the center of mass of the rocks for each impact.
Most energy peaks from the typical sawtooth rockfall energy profiles align
and reach similar values between the two methods. This shows that the
presented flexible rockfall reconstruction method can reproduce proper 3D
trajectories from real rockfall events or experiments. Focusing on the few
abnormal local differences, the reconstructed translational energy values
mostly differ for r1 (Fig. 10e) for one free-falling phase after reaching the
maximum translational energy from 216 to 233 m. For r2 (Fig. 10f), they
mostly only differ for two free-falling phases from 163 to 173 m and 190
to 201 m. These rare abnormal energy mismatches deserve a closer look.
The reconstructed trajectory segments of the few abnormal energy mismatches
previously highlighted are detailed in Fig. 11. For proper trajectory
reconstruction, the impact position and timing must be chosen precisely by
deciding on the right free-falling period (see Appendix B about the
positioning and timing precision). The timed dashed pattern should follow
the appearance of each new stacked frame if the timing of the chosen period
is correct. The chosen bounding impact position for the beginning and the
end of the three free-falling reconstructed parabolas should also align with
the yellow frames with thicker added black contours corresponding to the
observed rock positions at the start and the end of each period. With the
timing and position of the bounding points of the parabola matching the
observations, the reconstructed parabolas from the CAVR method in Fig. 11a,
c, and e align well visually with the observed positions of the
free-falling rocks. Therefore, the resulting reconstructed translational
velocity and energy values are close to reality. Sharp detailed video
footage with a high frame rate for a precise time resolution following the
presented acquisition concepts, combined with the computer-assisted tool,
helps in the identification of the right free-falling period and the accurate transposition of the impact positions. In the 3D space, the r1 parabola reconstructed with the CAVR
method in Fig. 11a is 2.21 m away on average from the one from the SLF (Fig. 11b), with an SD of 0.89 m. Concerning the two r2 parabolas in Fig. 11c and e, they are, respectively, separated by 0.77 m with an SD of 0.10 and 0.79 m with an SD of 0.02 m from the SLF parabolas (Fig. 11d and f).
Conversely, choosing bounding impact positions further apart or free-falling
periods shorter than the observed would artificially boost the reconstructed
translational velocities as longer travel distances must be connected in
shorter periods. This can explain the three abnormal higher mismatching
reconstructed translational energies of the older reconstructed trajectories
from the SLF shown in Fig. 10e and f and detailed in Fig. 11b, d, and f. Such timing and positioning imprecision can also
contribute to some of the apparent gain in kinetic energy at impact
manifested by CORv above 1.00 or the positive energy ratio obtained by the
SLF with other reconstruction methods in Caviezel et al. (2019, 2021).
Detailed portion of the three abnormally mismatching
reconstructed trajectory segments previously highlighted in Fig. 10e and f. The reconstructed trajectories repeatedly change colors every
1/12th of a second. They are overlaid onto the stacked video frames
showing the rock's position every 10 frames (every ∼1/12th of a second for the footage captured at 119.88 fps). The rocks
from the frames corresponding to the chosen period for the three free-falling
phases with the energy mismatches are colored in yellow. The visible rocks
in yellow from the added frames corresponding to the beginning and the end
of the chosen period for the reconstructed parabola are highlighted with a
thicker black contour.
For the intercepting impacts at the 2000 kJ flexible ROCCO barrier from
Geobrugg, the reconstructed trajectories overlaid with the CAVR method on
the stacked video frame using the same viewpoint in Fig. 12 show a good
match with the artificial reinforced rocks. The automatically calculated white vectors normal to the
terrain are used to obtain a proper offset at the
center of mass of the rocks from the impact point chosen on the detailed 3D
terrain model. With a proper offset and precise timing from 119.88 fps,
which is 10 times more frames than those shown in the figures (Figs. 7, 10, 11 and 12), the reconstructed parabolas of the trajectories
have heights matching the positions of the real rocks. Thus, the
reconstructed velocities are close to reality. Slight visual misalignments
are present in rare occasions, within a margin of approximately half
of a radius of the related rocks in that case. For example, the 840 kg
equant rock at the fifth contact point in line with the posts from the
left appears slightly too far to the left or the impact with the ground
preceding the impact with the fence of the outermost right trajectory is
slightly too high. Therefore, these impacts could be refined further,
especially if improved by using video footage from other viewing angles.
Reconstructed trajectories using the CAVR method overlaid on the
stacked video frames of the different rockfall runs from the SLF experiment
performed on 13 September 2019. For every 10 frames, only a single frame is shown for
each trajectory from the 119.88 fps footage captured with the FHD camera
setup shown in Fig. 6. All of these rocks that are intercepted by the flexible
ROCCO barrier from Geobrugg are stopped (Sanchez and Caviezel, 2020). The
reconstructed energies in line with the posts from both methods are put
side by side.
Despite the slight visual misalignments, the impact positions and heights in
line with the posts match the impact fields and points from the nine sectors in
Sanchez and Caviezel (2020). The red points numbered from 1 to 7 from left
to right in Fig. 12 correspond to rockfall runs 1.3, 1.9, 1.4, 1.5, 1.2, 1.8,
and 1.1, respectively, in Sanchez and Caviezel (2020). The rotational
energies with the CAVR method are equal to or slightly above the older
values from the SLF. The differences between the two methods are relatively
low, with an average of ±7 % and an SD of 5 % for the seven
reconstructed impact values. Thus, the estimated angular velocities from the
counted number of rotations during the free-falling periods are equivalent to
the SLF values from gyroscopes. Therefore, with the CAVR cost-effective
method, it is possible to reconstruct valuable information even if rocks are
not instrumented. The use of gyroscopes can, however, save time during the
posttreatment and can be of great help when the rotations of the rocks are
not aligned around their principal axes of inertia, highlighting the
complementary value of combining different reconstruction methods. The
slight differences in rotational energies could be attributed to the use of
slightly different moments of inertia. The rock shapes are considered with
the CAVR method, but the inhomogeneous mass distribution caused by the
denser steel reinforcement of the artificial concrete rocks is ignored. The
moments of inertia used for the equant rocks are 62 and 440 kg m2 and
90 and 689 kg m2 for the disk- and wheel-shaped rocks, respectively.
The differences are greater with the translational energy from the two
trajectory reconstruction methods. For the smaller rocks (approximately 800 kg), they are ±17 % on average with a maximal difference of 21 %
for the seventh impact from the left in Fig. 12 (first rockfall run of
the day, on the outermost right in the figure). This increases for the four
values of the larger 2670 kg rocks with an average difference of ±46 % and a maximal difference of 92 % for the third impact from the
left (fourth rockfall run of the day). These translational energy
mismatches are similar to the rare abnormal ones previously covered for the
r1 and r2 reconstructed trajectories of the sixth and seventh rockfall
runs. They could be attributed to similar timing and positioning imprecision of
the older reconstructed trajectories from the SLF.
With the publicly shared data, it is possible to use the CAVR method for the
comparison of the nonoptimal single viewpoint configuration, highlighting
the flexibility of the method to handle the variable available footage. It
is demonstrated that the reconstructed trajectories align relatively well
with the real timed rock positions from the stacked video frames. The
velocities and energies also compare well with those from the older
reconstructed trajectories of the SLF from the side-by-side comparison. The
bounce heights, rotational energies, and impact positions against the
flexible barrier also compare well with those from the SLF. Therefore, the
comparison shows that the presented reconstruction method can reproduce
proper 3D rockfall trajectories from experiments or real events, despite
some discrepancies observed with the older reconstructed translational
energies from the SLF. All methods can be improved, and the CAVR method is
no exception. Therefore, opening access to the valuable input data as
previously done by the SLF allows for the independent review of the data, the
combination of different approaches, and the development of innovative
solutions. The contribution enables transparent and open rockfall science to
be very helpful for the geohazard community when assessing the sensitivity
of current rockfall simulation software and for finding the right simulation
parameters to be used for similar sites. This will hopefully also facilitate
the development of more objective rockfall simulation models that are less
dependent on inconvenient and expensive back analyses.
Conclusions
As has been shown in this paper, the implications of the CAVR reconstruction method can be
numerous. The reconstructed trajectories and associated information provided
can serve three main purposes. (1) The first purpose is facilitating the
calibration of rockfall simulations from back analysis. (2) The second
purpose is allowing a better understanding of the rockfall and impact
dynamics. (3) The last purpose is helping in the development of new
simulation rebound models. The presented flexible and cost-efficient
reconstruction method offers many benefits over automatic tracking methods
or frame-by-frame photogrammetry of video footage, especially for
reconstructing part of the trajectories of past rockfall events where video
footage is not optimal. Indeed, it works with nonoptimal video footage,
including the following issues:
blurry footage,
unstable footage from a handheld camera,
low-resolution footage,
loss of sight of the rock for some frames,
low contrast of the falling rock with the background,
acquired from only one point of view.
Furthermore, the relatively light file handling helps by saving time and
resources. Indeed, most current computer hardware can easily handle FHD
footage. Scrolling through video timelines is not interrupted by frame
drops, even at a high bitrate, and does not require a powerful graphics
processing unit (GPU). Common affordable camera equipment can capture
footage at an FHD resolution and should be combined with a bright telephoto
lens with good resolving power and acutance at that resolution for the
aperture range that is used. The provided abacus can be used to help plan
video and photo acquisitions for similar experiments that rely on remote
imagery. It can also be used in other situations to ensure that the inputs
for photographic monitoring, photogrammetric models, or gigapixel panoramic
images have the desired level of detail.
Moreover, the CAVR method can work with large rockfall volumes and high
energy values unlikely to be experimented with artificially. The exposure to
hazardous slopes is reduced since there is no need to measure the impact
positions with GNSS. It does not require time-consuming installation of rock
inboard sensors, and thus it is not sensitive to high angular velocity changes
or acceleration at impact that could saturate the sensors. Additionally, it
is not affected by sensor drift due to the accumulation of measurement
errors. As a drawback of not using inboard sensors, it does not provide the
fine details, such as the accelerations and changes in angular velocity that
occur during the short contacts with the ground. The single-point impact
information is rather generalized to the form of impulses but with detailed
evolution of the free-falling phases, which provides data that fulfill the
first purpose of facilitating the calibration of rockfall simulations from
the back analysis and the two other main purposes to a certain extent.
Instrumented rocks provide complementary valuable information depending on
what is needed. Therefore, methods should be combined based on the desired
advantages when needed.
The computer-assisted trajectory reconstruction with live visual validation
of the output parabola and CORv during the whole reconstruction process
ensures that no impact is reconstructed with more energy after the contact
than before. This is also helped by the trajectory that is reconstructed
close to the center of mass of the block. Thus, the reconstructed parabolas
are closer to their true lengths for as long as the impacts are short enough
to be simplified as single points. Additionally, the computer-assisted
reconstruction simplifies and homogenizes the application of the method to
ensure that the work can be spread across a wider range of users.
Concerning the understanding of rockfalls and impact dynamics, as well as
helping the development of new simulation rebound models, the
computer-assisted method reconstructs trajectories using an impact detection
algorithm that ensures that the geometrical impact configuration is properly
measured. The way the terrain is perceived by the rocks relative to their
sizes is measured in the same way as how a rebound model can be applied for
simulations. In that sense, further developments will consist of using this
reconstruction method to acquire data from a previously witnessed large rockfall
event and from a collaborative rockfall experiment, which will be analyzed
in detail and combined with the reconstructed data from this paper.
Significance of air drag
For simplicity, the CAVR method, its ballistic equations, and comparison
results given as examples in this paper neglect the resistance due to air
drag. The method could, however, estimate the drag force (FD) acting on
the rock during free fall using Rayleigh's law as done for rockfall
simulations in Noël et al. (2021) with Eq. (A1) as follows:
FD=-12ρairv2CDAv^,
where ρair is the air density (∼ 1.2 [kg m3]),
CD is the drag coefficient of the rock (∼ 0.9), A is
the reference surface of the rock (∼ ellipse: 14πd1d3 [m2]), and v^ is the unit vector in the direction of
the rock velocity. The acceleration components from Eq. (4) then become
gt=gxtgytgzt≅FxDmFyDm-9.81+FzDm.
Because the acceleration is not constant anymore, new position and velocity
equations could be found by integrating Eq. (A2) over time. Using the
Newton–Cotes trapezoidal rule with small time step increments (e.g., Δt1000), the rock positions and velocities can be approximated numerically from Eq. (1) and (2) (Fortin, 2016). By doing so, approximated values from reconstructed trajectories considering the air drag can be compared to those neglecting the drag to quantify the error introduced by such omission.
To illustrate the differences induced by air drag, an arbitrary
unlikely or unrealistic extreme bounce of a hockey-puck-sized ellipsoid rock
over an impact-to-impact distance (s) and slope (βs) of 1 km and
25∘ is shown in Fig. A1. Note that for such an illustrative extreme
example involving velocities near and beyond the speed of sound, the effect
of drag should be even higher due to the compressibility drag dominating at
transonic speeds. Despite neglecting such additional drag mostly present at
transonic speeds, the differences are sufficient for giving a visual
perception of the effect of drag on the reconstructed trajectory that can be
pictured behaving similarly to those of shuttlecocks during badminton games
but at different scales. At the starting point, “impact a”, the returned
angle (θa2) of 29.88∘ is lowered by 15.21∘
to a resulting value with drag of 14.67∘, giving a difference
of -52 % of the value without drag. The returned translational velocity
(va2) is strongly increased by 464.59 m s-1 (516 %) to
compensate for the important losses during free fall due to drag. The
resulting first half of the trajectory with drag thus appears straighter and
closer to the ground due to the higher velocities. The maximal vertical
bounce height (f) and its component perpendicular to the impact-to-impact
line (fp) are shifted toward the impact (b) but are reached earlier than
Δt/2 by -1.29 s (-26 %). Inversely at impact (b), the incident
angle (θb1) is increased by 19.29∘ (94 %) while
the incident translational velocity (vb1) is reduced by 74.01 m s-1
(-58 %). Interestingly, in this extreme example the velocity of the
rock projectile is maximal at the start and decreases toward its terminal
velocity when considering drag. Without drag, the rock instead accelerates
from the apex of its parabola and reaches its maximal velocity after losing
more than 400 m in height at the impact (b).
For more realistic and applicable examples evaluating the differences induced
by air drag, the longest parabola and a following smaller parabola of the
reconstructed r1 rockfall run corresponding to the sixth run performed by the
SLF on 13 September 2019 at the Chant Sura test site are used (Fig. A2a). The highest translational velocity from the nine runs performed that day
is obtained at the end of the longest r1 parabola. Maximal “realistic”
differences can thus be expected with this example, while values closer to
the average can be expected with the smaller parabola. The r1 run used
EOTA221 2670 kg wheel- and disk-shaped artificial reinforced concrete rocks that were d1=d2: 1.45 m and d3:0.72 m in diameter, respectively, that propagated
downslope rotating mostly around their d3 axis. To give a range of
differences that can be expected with the presented reconstruction method
for similar parabolas, a range of rock sizes going from 0.5 cm to 16 m is
tested with and without drag by scaling the r1 rock up and down. Their
related masses range from 0.1 g to 3500 t, and they are all simulated from
and to the same parabola bounding points located at the center of mass of
the initial 2670 kg rock.
Unlikely or unrealistic extreme bounce of a hockey-puck-sized rock
over an impact-to-impact distance (s) and slope (βs) of 1 km and
25∘. The dotted trajectory considers the resistance caused by air
drag but neglects the compressibility drag. The latter may play an important
role in this extreme example due to the high velocities beyond the
speed of sound in the air. The drag is approximated numerically by updating
gt every Δt/1000 (0.01 s in that case), with one dot of the trajectory shown every 15 iterations.
Chosen parabolas to evaluate the significance of air drag on the
reconstructed results and the positioning and timing precision in Appendix B. Note that θa2 and θb1 are calculated relative to the impact-to-impact line in 2D vertical profiles and not in 3D in this case. The differences when comparing the reconstructed incident and returned velocities and angles with and without drag for different rock sizes are shown in the graphs. Crosses are placed to show indicative rock d1
diameters as references for the Riou Bourdoux test site (Hibert et al., 2022), the Chant Sura test site (Caviezel et al., 2019, 2020, 2021; Sanchez
and Caviezel, 2020), and the 2015 Mel de la Niva rockfall event
(Noël et al., 2022; Lu et al., 2018).
The 2D vertical profile of the longest parabola of r1 reconstructed
with and without air drag.
The 2D vertical profile of the smaller parabola of r1 reconstructed
with and without air drag.
The ranges of obtained differences when considering drag vs. without drag
for reconstructing the trajectory segments of the two chosen parabolas are
shown in Fig. A2 and are detailed for the 2670 kg wheel- or disk-shaped rock of the r1 run in Fig. A3 for its longest parabola and in Fig. A4 for its
smaller parabola. Cross markers are placed as indicative rock size
references in Fig. A2 with the 780 and 2670 kg wheel- or disk-shaped rocks
used at the Chant Sura test site. Markers are also used to indicate the size
of the smallest and average rock d1 diameters used at the Riou Bourdoux
test site (Hibert et al., 2022) and for the two large rock block
fragments that propagated downslope over more than a kilometer in 2015 from
Mel de la Niva (Noël et al., 2022; Lu et al., 2018). As for the previous extreme example, the reconstructed initial returned velocities (va2) must be greater to compensate for the losses due to air resistance when drag is considered. The trajectories must also be closer to the ground initially, as shown with the lower returned angles (θa2). The incident velocities (vb1) are lowered by drag and come with steeper plunge, shown with the higher incident angles
(θb1), as seen previously. Those differences are, however,
marginal for large rocks like the 2670 kg rock of the r1 run, and they are
visually imperceptible at Figs. A3 and A4. For the two chosen parabolas,
the differences increase as the size of the rocks decrease. The same would
happen with increasing impact-to-impact distances and/or involved
velocities.
The obtained differences are lower than ±2.5 % for rocks larger
than 0.15 m (>3 kg) in the case of the longest r1 parabola (Fig. A2b) and for rocks larger than 0.09 m(>0.6 kg) in the case of the smaller r1 parabola (Fig. A2c). In the case of such differences, an impact bounded by two similar parabolas would have an apparent coefficient of restitution (CORv) underestimated by 4.9 % when neglecting the air resistance due to the combined error of the incident and returned reconstructed velocities. For impacts bounded by two parabolas like the longest r1 example, the CORv neglecting drag would be underestimated from the smallest to the largest rock markers by 2.3, 1.6, 1.1, 0.8, 0.2, and 0.2 %, respectively. For the smaller r1 parabola, the CORv neglecting drag would be underestimated by 0.9, 0.6, 0.5, 0.3, <0.1, and <0.1 %, respectively.
As shown, neglecting the effect of the air resistance has
little influence on the obtained results most of the time. Still, the effect of air drag
might be significant in the case of reconstructing the trajectories of small
free-falling rock fragments over long distances at high velocities. In that
case, the method can be improved, for example, by implementing the air drag from Eqs. (A1)
and (A2).
Positioning and timing precision
When the impact position cannot be resolved from visible impact marks on the
detailed terrain model and when the impact timing cannot be resolved from
rock inboard sensors or proximal geophones, both must be determined visually
from the video footage. Sharp and detailed video footage is of great help in
that case. When multiple cameras are used, they can be synchronized visually
from fast-changing objects, like the face of the rotating rock quickly
passing from being exposed to sunlight to shadow, or from the quick
projection of small fragments. Whatever timing method is used, the error in
the estimation of the free-falling period (Δt) can significantly
affect the reconstructed values. To quantify the effect of the positioning
and timing precision, the previously used longest parabola and smaller
parabola (Fig. A2a) of the reconstructed r1 rockfall run are used here with
different Δt and impact-to-impact distances (s). The reference
impact-to-impact distance and period are, respectively, set to 49.2830 m and
2.3774 s for the longest parabola and to 18.1957 m and 1.1512 s for the
smaller parabola.
The obtained differences when comparing the reconstructed values at
different impact-to-impact distances relative to their references are
shown in Fig. B1a and b. Those related to different Δt
relative to their references are shown in Fig. B1c and d. Their
vertical grid lines are horizontally spaced by 1/120th of a second to
correspond to the frame rate of the camera used in this
paper (119.88 fps). The smaller parabola is more sensitive to the
positioning and timing precision due to its shorter impact-to-impact
distance and period. In addition, when an impact point is erroneously shifted
toward its previous impact point or if its impact time is delayed, the
effect is doubled.
Its incident parabola becomes more vaulted and with lower velocities, as
shown by the increase in the incident and returned angles and decrease in
corresponding velocities due to the shortened impact-to-impact distance or
prolonged period.
Its returned parabola behaves in the opposite way due to its extended
impact-to-impact distance or shortened period. In such circumstances, a shift of 0.5 m in an impact bounded by two similar
parabolas would overestimate its CORv by 1.7 % and 5.0 % for bounding parabolas like the longest r1 parabola and the r1
smaller parabola,
respectively. An impact time delayed by 1/30 s, which corresponds to
4 frames at 120 fps or 2 frames at 60 fps, would overestimate its
CORv by 1.9 % and 4.6 % for bounding parabolas like the
longest r1 parabola and the r1 smaller parabola, respectively. This highlights the
importance of prioritizing sharp, detailed, and high-frame-rate video
footage if the acquisition setup can be customized.
Fortunately, an erroneous position or time shift induces opposite changes in
the vaults of the incident and returned parabolas, which can be noticed if they are
pronounced enough during the visual validation and fine-tuning of the
results. The impact can then be fine-tuned to balance the bounding parabolas
until they match with the observations. This highlights the advantage of the
computer-assisted reconstruction where the reconstructed parabolas updated
in real-time can be quickly validated without time-consuming intermediate
steps.
Differences induced by erroneous positioning or timing shifts for
the two reference parabolas of the r1 rockfall run.
Code and data availability
The video footage, 3D detailed high-resolution terrain models, and older reconstructed trajectories are available via 10.16904/envidat.174 (Caviezel et al., 2020).
The 3D reconstructed trajectories for the side-by-side comparison are
available as in the Supplement. As previously mentioned, they can be
refined further.
The reconstruction tool can be customized for different rockfall test sites
and camera setups and can be freely obtained upon request to the first
author.
The impact detection algorithm applicable to 3D rockfall simulations from
Noël et al. (2021) can be freely obtained via
https://stnparabel.org (Noël, 2020) or upon request to the first author.
The supplement related to this article is available online at: https://doi.org/10.5194/esurf-10-1141-2022-supplement.
Author contributions
FN, MJ, AC, CH, FB, and JPM conceptualized the research. FN
and AC oversaw the data curation. FN and MJ did the formal analysis.
FN and AC contributed to the investigation. FN, MJ, and AC
developed the methodology. FN, MJ, and AC oversaw the project
administration. FN, MJ, and AC provided the resources. FN developed
the software. MJ and AC supervised the experiment and the research.
FN, MJ, AC, CH, FB, and JPM validated the reconstruction
approach. FN designed and produced the figures. FN wrote the original
draft. FN, MJ, AC, CH, FB, and JPM reviewed and edited the
original draft.
Competing interests
The contact author has declared that none of the authors has any competing interests.
Disclaimer
Publisher's note: Copernicus Publications remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.
Acknowledgements
The authors acknowledge American Journal Experts (AJE) for editing the English of the manuscript. A special thanks goes to the SLF and Geobrugg for the collaboration and access to the Chant Sura test site during the rockfall experiment on 13 September 2019. We thank Synnøve Flugekvam Nordang for her help with the reconstruction of the trajectories with the presented CAVR method and with the design of the figures. Finally, the authors would like to acknowledge the reviewers of the present paper.
Review statement
This paper was edited by Wolfgang Schwanghart and reviewed by two anonymous referees.
References
Berger, F. and Dorren, L. K. A.: Objective comparison of rockfall models using real size experimental data, in: Disaster mitigation of debris flows, slope failures and landslides, Universal Academy Press. Inc., Tokyo, Japan,
245–252, ISBN 4-946443-98-3, 2006.Berger, F., Martin, R., Auber, B., and Mathy, A.: Etude comparative, en
utilisant l'événement du 28 décembre 2008 à Saint Paul de
Varces, du zonage de l'aléa chute de pierre avec différents outils
de simulation trajectographique et différentes matrices d'aléa,
report, Cemagref, Grenoble, 226 pp., http://www.risknat.org/pages/programme_dep/projets/cemagref_epm/berger_2009b.html (last access: 10 November 2022), 2011.Bonneau, D. A., Hutchinson, D. J., DiFrancesco, P.-M., Coombs, M., and Sala, Z.: Three-dimensional rockfall shape back analysis: methods and implications, Nat. Hazards Earth Syst. Sci., 19, 2745–2765, 10.5194/nhess-19-2745-2019, 2019.
Boucheny, C.: Visualisation scientifique interactive de grands volumes de
données: pour une approche perceptive, PHD thesis, Université
Joseph Fourier, HAL Id: tel-00438464, version 1, 198 pp., 2009.Bourrier, F., Berger, F., Tardif, P., Dorren, L., and Hungr, O.: Rockfall
rebound: comparison of detailed field experiments and alternative modelling
approaches, Earth Surf. Process. Landforms, 37, 656–665,
10.1002/esp.3202, 2012.Bourrier, F., Toe, D., Garcia, B., Baroth, J., and Lambert, S.: Experimental
investigations on complex block propagation for the assessment of
propagation models quality, Landslides, 18, 639–654,
10.1007/s10346-020-01469-5, 2021.C2ROP, all participants of A. 3.1: Benchmark des approches d'analyse
trajectographique par analyse comparative de simulations prédictives et
d'essais de terrain, Rev. Française Géotechnique, 12 pp.,
10.1051/geotech/2020015, 2020.Caviezel, A., Demmel, S. E., Ringenbach, A., Bühler, Y., Lu, G., Christen, M., Dinneen, C. E., Eberhard, L. A., von Rickenbach, D., and Bartelt, P.: Reconstruction of four-dimensional rockfall trajectories using remote sensing and rock-based accelerometers and gyroscopes, Earth Surf. Dynam., 7, 199–210, 10.5194/esurf-7-199-2019, 2019.Caviezel, A., Demmel, S. E., Bühler, Y., Ringenbach, A., Christen, M.,
and Bartelt, P.: Induced Rockfall Dataset #2 (Chant Sura Experimental
Campaign), Flüelapass, Grisons, Switzerland, Envidat [data set],
10.16904/envidat.174, 2020.Caviezel, A., Ringenbach, A., Demmel, S. E., Dinneen, C. E., Krebs, N.,
Bühler, Y., Christen, M., Meyrat, G., Stoffel, A., Hafner, E., Eberhard,
L. A., von Rickenbach, D., Simmler, K., Mayer, P., Niklaus, P. S., Birchler,
T., Aebi, T., Cavigelli, L., Schaffner, M., Rickli, S., Schnetzler, C.,
Magno, M., Benini, L., and Bartelt, P.: The relevance of rock shape over
mass—implications for rockfall hazard assessments, Nat. Commun., 12, 5546,
10.1038/s41467-021-25794-y, 2021.Cignoni, P., Callieri, M., Corsini, M., Dellepiane, M., Ganovelli, F., and
Ranzuglia, G.: MeshLab: An open-source mesh processing tool, in: 6th
Eurographics Italian Chapter Conference 2008 – Proceedings, 129–136, ISBN 978-3-905673-68-5,
https://doi.org/10.2312/LocalChapterEvents/Ital, 2008.
Dewez, T., Nachbaur, A., Mathon, C., Sedan, O., Kobayashi, H., Rivière,
C., Berger, F., Des Garets, E., and Nowak, E.: OFAI: 3D block tracking in a
real-size rockfall experiment in the weathered volcanic context of Tahiti,
French Polynesia, in: RSS Rock Slope Stability 2010 symposium, Paris, France, 1–13, 2010.Dorren, L. K. A., Berger, F., le Hir, C., Mermin, E., and Tardif, P.:
Mechanisms, effects and management implications of rockfall in forests, For.
Ecol. Manage., 215, 183–195, 10.1016/j.foreco.2005.05.012,
2005.Dorren, L. K. A., Berger, F., and Putters, U. S.: Real-size experiments and 3-D simulation of rockfall on forested and non-forested slopes, Nat. Hazards Earth Syst. Sci., 6, 145–153, 10.5194/nhess-6-145-2006, 2006.Duguet, F. and Girardeau-Montaut, D.: Rendu en Portion de Ciel Visible de
Gros Nuages de Points 3D, in: Actes des journées de l'AFIG, Poitiers, France, https://hal.inria.fr/inria-00606751 (last access: 10 November 2022), 2004.Drake, S. and MacLachlan, J.: Galileo's Discovery of the Parabolic Trajectory, Scientific American, a division of Nature America, Inc.,
https://www.jstor.org/stable/24949756 (last access: 10 November 2022),
1975.
Fortin, A.: Analyse numérique pour ingénieurs, 5th ed., Presses
internationales Polytechnique, 490 pp., ISBN 9782553016806, 2016.Garcia, B.: Analyse des mécanismes d'interaction entre un bloc rocheux
et un versant de propagation: application à l'ingénierie, PHD
thesis, Grenoble Alpes University, https://tel.archives-ouvertes.fr/tel-02445651 (last access: 10 November 2022), 2019.
Gerber, W.: Naturgefahr Steinschlag – Erfahrungen und Erkenntnisse, WSL
Berichte, 149 pp., ISSN 2296-3448, 2019.Girardeau-Montaut, D.: Détection de changement sur des données
géométriques tridimensionnelles, PHD thesis, Télécom
ParisTech, 207 pp., https://tel.archives-ouvertes.fr/pastel-00001745/ (last access: 10 November 2022), 2006.
Glover, J., Denk, M., Bourrier, F., Volkwein, A., and Gerber, W.: Measuring
the kinetic energy dissipation effects of rock fall attenuating systems with
video analysis, Proc. Interpraevent Congr., 1, 151–160, 2012.Glover, J. M. H.: Rock-shape and its role in rockfall dynamics, PHD
thesis, Durham University, http://etheses.dur.ac.uk/10968/ (last access: 10 November 2022), 2015.Hibert, C., Malet, J.-P., Bourrier, F., Provost, F., Berger, F., Bornemann, P., Tardif, P., and Mermin, E.: Single-block rockfall dynamics inferred from seismic signal analysis, Earth Surf. Dynam., 5, 283–292, 10.5194/esurf-5-283-2017, 2017.Hibert, C., Noël, F., Toe, D., Talib, M., Desrues, M., Wyser, E., Brenguier, O., Bourrier, F., Toussaint, R., Malet, J.-P., and Jaboyedoff, M.: Machine learning prediction of the mass and the velocity of controlled single-block rockfalls from the seismic waves they generate, EGUsphere [preprint], 10.5194/egusphere-2022-522, 2022.Jaboyedoff, M., Metzger, R., Oppikofer, T., Couture, R., Derron, M. H.,
Locat, J., and Turmel, D.: New insight techniques to analyze rock-slope
relief using DEM and 3D-imaging cloud points: COLTOP-3D software, in: Rock
mechanics: Meeting Society's Challenges and demands, 61–68, 10.1201/NOE0415444019, 2007.Jarsve, K. T.: Uncertainties of Simulating Rockfalls and Debris Flows Using
RAMMS, MS thesis, University of Oslo, http://urn.nb.no/URN:NBN:no-66993 (last access: 10 November 2022), 2018.Jones, C. L., Higgins, J. D., and Andrew, R. D.: Colorado Rockfall
Simulation Program [software], https://coloradogeologicalsurvey.org/publications/colorado-rockfall-simulation-program/ (last access: 10 November 2022), 2000.Labiouse, V.: Fragmental rockfall paths: comparison of simulations on Alpine
sites and experimental investigation of boulder impacts, in: Landslides:
Evaluation and Stabilization/Glissement de Terrain: Evaluation et
Stabilisation, Set of 2 Volumes, CRC Press, 457–466,
10.1201/b16816, 2004.Lu, G., Caviezel, A., Christen, M., Bühler, Y., and Bartelt, P.:
Modelling rockfall dynamics using (convex) non-smooth mechanics, in:
Numerical Methods in Geotechnical Engineering IX, CRC Press, 575–583,
10.1201/9781351003629-72, 2018.Noël, F.: stnParabel, https://stnparabel.org/ (last access: 4 November 2022), 2020.Noël, F., Wyser, E., Jaboyedoff, M., and Derron, M.: Real-size rockfall
experiment: A relatively simple method to acquire 3D impact characteristics
from video footage, in: 15th Swiss Geoscience Meeting, 17 and 18 November 2017, Davos, Switzerland, https://geo.scnat.ch/en/swiss_geoscience_meetings/sgm2017_davos
(last access: 10 November 2022), 2017.Noël, F., Wyser, E., Jaboyedoff, M., Derron, M.-H., Cloutier, C.,
Turmel, D., and Locat, J.: Real-size rockfall experiment: How different
rockfall simulation impact models perform when confronted with reality?, in:
Geohazards 7 Engineering resiliency in a Changing Climate, 8, 3–6 June 2018,
Canmore, Canada,
https://cgs.ca/docs/geohazards/canmore2018/GeoHazards2018/authors.html#N (last access: 10 November 2022), 2018.Noël, F., Cloutier, C., Jaboyedoff, M., and Locat, J.: Impact-Detection
Algorithm That Uses Point Clouds as Topographic Inputs for 3D Rockfall
Simulations, 11, 188, 10.3390/geosciences11050188, 2021.Noël, F., Nordang, S. F., Jaboyedoff, M., Travelletti, J., Matasci, B., Digout, M., Derron, M.-H., Caviezel, A., Hibert, C., Toe, D., Talib, M., Wyser, E., Bourrier, F., Toussaint, R., Malet, J.-P., and Locat, J.: Highly energetic rockfalls: Back analysis of the 2015 event from the Mel de la Niva, Switzerland, Zenodo [data set], 10.5281/zenodo.7296498, 2022.Pfeiffer, T. J. and Bowen, T. D.: Computer Simulation of Rockfalls, xxvi,
135–146, 10.2113/gseegeosci.xxvi.1.135, 1989.
Rocscience Inc.: RocFall [software], https://www.rocscience.com, last access: 4 November 2022.Rowlands, A.: Physics of Digital Photography (Second Edition), IOP
Publishing Ltd, 10.1088/978-0-7503-2558-5, 2020.
Sanchez, M. A. and Caviezel, A.: Full-scale testing of rockfall nets in real
terrain. Results of tests at Chant Sura: 13th September and 4th October,
2019, report, WSL Berichte, 81 pp., ISSN 2296-3456, 2020.Spadari, M., Giacomini, A., Buzzi, O., Fityus, S., and Giani, G. P.: In situ
rockfall testing in New South Wales, Australia, Int. J. Rock Mech. Min.
Sci., 49, 84–93, 10.1016/j.ijrmms.2011.11.013, 2012.Steer, P., Guerit, L., Lague, D., Crave, A., and Gourdon, A.: Size, shape and orientation matter: fast and automatic measurement of grain geometries from 3D point clouds, EGUsphere [preprint], 10.5194/egusphere-2022-75, 2022.
Stevens, W. D.: RocFall, a tool for probabilistic analysis, design of
remedial measures and prediction of rockfalls, MS thesis, University of
Toronto, 143 pp.,urlhttps://hdl.handle.net/1807/16244 (last access: 4 November 2022), 1998.Tarini, M., Cignoni, P., and Montani, C.: Ambient Occlusion and Edge Cueing for Enhancing Real Time Molecular Visualization, IEEE Trans. Vis. Comput. Graph., 12, 1237–1244, 10.1109/TVCG.2006.115, 2006.Valagussa, A., Crosta, G. B., Frattini, P., Zenoni, S., and Massey, C.:
Rockfall Runout Simulation Fine-Tuning in Christchurch, New Zealand, in:
Engineering Geology for Society and Territory, vol. 2, edited by:
Lollino, G., Giordan, D., Crosta, G. B., Corominas, J., Azzam, R., Wasowski,
J., and Sciarra, N., Springer International Publishing, Cham, 1913–1917,
10.1007/978-3-319-09057-3_339, 2015.Volkwein, A. and Klette, J.: Semi-Automatic Determination of Rockfall
Trajectories, 14, 18187–18210, 10.3390/s141018187, 2014.Volkwein, A., Schellenberg, K., Labiouse, V., Agliardi, F., Berger, F., Bourrier, F., Dorren, L. K. A., Gerber, W., and Jaboyedoff, M.: Rockfall characterisation and structural protection – a review, Nat. Hazards Earth Syst. Sci., 11, 2617–2651, 10.5194/nhess-11-2617-2011, 2011.Volkwein, A., Brügger, L., Gees, F., Gerber, W., Krummenacher, B.,
Kummer, P., Lardon, J., and Sutter, T.: Repetitive Rockfall Trajectory
Testing, 8, 88, 10.3390/geosciences8030088, 2018.Wyllie, D. C.: Rock fall engineering: development and calibration of an
improved model for analysis of rock fall hazards on highways and railways,
PHD thesis, The University of British Columbia, 238 pp., 10.14288/1.0167542, 2014.