Abstract
Rockfall simulations are often performed at various levels of detail depending on the required safety margins of rockfall-hazard-related assessments. As a pseudo benchmark, the simulation results from different models can be put side-by-side and compared with reconstructed rockfall trajectories, and mapped deposited block fragments from real events. This allows for assessing the objectivity, predictability, and sensitivity of the models. For this exercise, mapped data of past events from the Mel de la Niva site are used in this paper for a qualitative comparison with simulation results obtained from early calibration stages of the Flow-R 2.0.9, Rockyfor3D 5.2.15 and RAMMS::ROCKFALL 1.6.70 software. The large block fragments, reaching hundreds of megajoules during their fall, greatly exceed the rockfall energies of the empirical databases used for the development of most rockfall models. The comparison for this challenging site shows that the models could be improved and that combining the use of software programs with different behaviors could be a workaround in the interim. The findings also highlight the inconvenient importance of calibrating the simulations on a per-site basis from onsite observations. To complement this process, a back calculation tool is briefly described and provided. This work also emphasizes the need to better understand rockfall dynamics to help improve rebound models.