Skip to content

The dependence of the kinetic energy, the maximum height of the rebound, the horizontal movement and the velocity of the rockfall fragment on its shape

UDC: 550.394.4
DOI: 10.24412/2519-2418-2024-341-246-267
EDN: JRLFRE
Received: 18.09.2024
Published: 03.10.2024

Original language: ru

Full text of the article | JATS XML

Belov Oleg Dmitrievich, NUST MISIS, Postgraduate student of the Department of Physical Processes of Mining Production and Geocontrol, email: below2idknet@inbox.ru

Abstract
Rockfalls are currently one of the most dangerous phenomena in open-pit mining. In this regard, it is necessary to provide special measures to prevent such cases. At the quarry design stage, this can be achieved by changing the bench parameters; for deposits already put into operation, the main means of preventing rockfalls are catching barriers. The main parameters of such barriers are their height and the maximum energy that the barrier can absorb without destruction. The purpose of this work is to determine the influence of the shape of a rockfall fragment on its kinetic energy, rebound height, horizontal movement and speed in order to select the optimal barrier parameters. For this purpose, a program code was written in the Python software environment, simulating a topographic survey with subsequent modeling in a specialized RAMMS: Rock-fall complex for five forms of fragments that are most widely used in technical literature-cubic, spherical, equivalent, flat and elongated.

Keywords: rockfall, computer modeling, fragment shape, kinetic energy, displacement, rebound height, velocity, topography, Python

REFERENCES
  1. Горбачева, Т. М. Обеспечение безопасности объекта под скалистым уступом от камнепадов: решение «Маккаферри» во Франции // Геоинфо. – 2022. – № 12. – С. 46-55.
  2. Фольквейн, А. Оценка возможностей и надежности гибких систем защиты от камнепадов / А. Фольквейн, М. Фулде, И. Кригер – Хауксон // Геоинфо. – 2021. – № 7. – С. 42-47.
  3. Шеина, Т. В. Технологии защиты автодорог от камнепадов / Т. В. Шеина, Е. А. Авдеева // Градостроительство и архитектура. – 2018. – № 8(1). – С.28-34.
  4. Bichler, A. Special solutions in hazard mitigation / A. Bichler, G. Stelzer // Proceedings of the 6-th Canadian GeoHazards Conference (GeoHazards 6) Queen’s University in Kingston, Kingston, Ontario, Canada, 15-18 June 2014. – The Canadian Geotechncial Society (CGS). – 2014.
  5. Решетняк, С. П. Гравитационные аспекты обеспечения безопасности работ в прибортовой зоне карьера / С. П. Решетняк, В. А. Фокин, Г. Е. Тарасов, В. А. Александров, М. Б. Тогунов, А. А. Данилкин, В. Е. Каира // Горный журнал. – 2005. – № 2. – С. 71-72.
  6. Мелихов, М. В. Применение технологии скейлинг для защиты карьерного автотранспорта от камнепадов / М. В. Мелихов, Г. В. Чащинов // Труды Ферсмановской научной сессии ГИ КНЦ РАН. – 2017. – № 14. – С. 311-314.
  7. Kalenchuk, K. S. Characterizing block geometry in jointed rockmasses / K. S. Kalenchuk, M. S. Diederichs, S. McKinnon // Int. J. Rock Mech. Min. Sci. 2006. – V.43 I. 8. – p. 1212-1225. DOI:10.1016/j.ijrmms.2006.04.004
  8. Kalenchuk, K.S. Block geometry and rockmass characterization for prediction of dilution potential into sub-level cave mine voids / K. S. Kalenchuk, M. S. Diederichs, S. McKinnon // Int. J. Rock Mech. Min. Sci. 2008. – V. 45. – I.6. – p. 929-940. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijrmms.2007.10.006
  9. Umili, G. Influence of uncertainties: A focus on block volume and shape assessment for rockfall analysis / G. Umili, B. Taboni, A. M. Ferrero // Journal of Rock Mechanics and Geotechnical Engi-neering. 2023. – V.15. – I. 9. – p. 2250-2263. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jrmge.2023.03.016.
  10. Kong D. In – Situ Block Characterization of Jointed Rock Exposures Based on a 3D Point Cloud Model / D. Kong, F. Wu, C. Saroglou, P. Sha, B. Li // Remote Sens. – 2021. – V. 13. – p. 2540. https://doi.org/10.3390/rs13132540
  11. Shen, W. DEM analyses of rock block shape effect on the response of rockfall impact against a soil buffering layer / W. Shen, T. Zhao, F. Dai, M. Jiang, G.G.D. Zhou // Engineering Geology. – 2019.– V. 249.–p.60 – 0.https://doi.org/10.1016/j.enggeo.2018.12.011
  12. Dijke, J. Rockfall hazard: a geomorphologic application of neighbourhood analysis with ILWIS / J. Dijke, C. J. Westen // ITC Journal. – 1990. – Vol. 1. – pp. 40-44.
  13. Scheidegger A. Physical aspects of natural catastrophes / A. Scheidegger // Elsveir. – 1975. – 312 p.
  14. Kirby, J. Surface stone movement and scree formation / J. Kirby, L. Statham // The Journal of Geology. – 1975. – Vol. 83. – I.3. – pp. 349-362. https://doi.org/10.1086/628097
  15. Dorren, L. A review of rockfall mechanics and modelling approaches / L. Dorren // Organic Geochemistry. – 2003. – Vol 27. – I.1. – pp. 69-87. 10.1191/0309133303pp359ra.
  16. Hengxing, Lan RockFall analyst: A GIS extension for three – dimensional and spatially distributed rockfall hazard modeling / Lan Hengxing, C. D. Martin, C. H. Lim // Computers & Geosciences. – 2007. – vol. 33. – no. 2. – pp. 262-279. DOI: 10.1016/j.cageo.2006.05.013.
  17. Zhan, J. Rockfall hazard assessment in the Taihang Grand Canyon Scenic Area integrating regional – scale identification of potential rockfall sources / J. Zhan, Z. Yu, Y. Lv, J. Peng, S. Song, Z. Yao // Remote Sensing. – 2022. – vol. 14. – article 3021. DOI: 10.3390/rs14133021.
  18. Noël, F. Comparing Flow – R, Rockyfor3D and RAMMS to Rockfalls from the Mel de la Niva Mountain: A Benchmarking Exercise / F. Noël, S. F. Nordang, M. Jaboyedoff, M. Digout, A. Guerin, J. Locat, B. Matasci // Geosciences. – 2023. – vol. 13. – p. 200. DOI: 10.3390/geosciences13070200.
  19. Utlu, M. Evaluation of rockfall hazard based on UAV technology and 3D Rockfall Simulations / M. Utlu, M. Z. Öztürk, M. Şimşek, M. F. Akgümüş // International Journal of Environment and Geoinformatics. – 2023. – vol. 10. – no. 4. – pp. 001-016. DOI: 10.30897/ijegeo.10323768.
  20. Horton, P. Flow-R, a model for susceptibility mapping of debris flows and other gravitational hazards at a regional scale / P. Horton, M. Jaboyedoff, B. Rudaz, M. Zimmermann // Natural Haz-ards and Earth System Sciences. – 2013. – vol. 13. – pp. 869-885. DOI: 10.5194/nhess – 13 – 869 – 2013.
  21. Sturzenegger, M. Semi – automated regional scale debris flow and debris flood susceptibility mapping based on digital elevation model metrics and Flow – R software / M. Sturzenegger, K. Holm, L. Carie – Ann, J. Matthias // 7th International Conference on Debris – Flow Hazards Mitigation. – 2019. – pp. 1-9.
  22. Wulandary, H. Rock endpoints and barriers estimation of slope failure in pinousuk gravel slopes using rocfall simulation / H. Wulandary, B. Musta // IOP Conference Series: Earth and Envi-ronmental Science. – 2019. – vol. 1103. – no. 1. – article 012033. DOI: 10.1088/1755 – 1315/1103/1/012033.
  23. Yuanyuan, H. The study of rockfall trajectory and kinetic energy distribution based on numerical simulations / H. Yuanyuan, N. Lei, L. Yan, H. Wang, J. Senfeng, Z. Xiaohan // Natural Hazards. – 2021. – vol. 106. – pp. 1-21. DOI: 10.1007/s11069 – 020 – 04457 – z.
  24. Krautblatter, M. Rock slope instability and erosion: toward improved process understanding / M. Krautblatter, J. R. Moore // Earth Surf. Process. Landform. – 2014. – Vol. 39. – p. 1273-1278.
  25. D’Amato, J. Engineering Geology for Society and Territory / J. D’Amato, A. Guerin, D. Hantz, J. – P. Rossetti, M. Jaboyedoff // Professional Ethics and Public Recognition of Engineering Geology. – 2014. – Vol.2. – p. 1919-1923.
  26. Blott S. J. Particle shape: a review and new methods of characterization and classification / S. J. Blott, K. Pye // Sedimentology. – 2008. – Vol. 55. – p. 31-63.
Мы используем файлы cookie и рекомендательные технологии. Пользуясь сайтом, вы соглашаетесь с Политикой обработки персональных данных.
Принять
Политика конфиденциальности