<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?>
<!DOCTYPE article PUBLIC "-//NLM//DTD Journal Publishing with OASIS Tables v3.0 20080202//EN" "journalpub-oasis3.dtd">
<article xmlns:xlink="http://www.w3.org/1999/xlink" xmlns:mml="http://www.w3.org/1998/Math/MathML" xmlns:oasis="http://docs.oasis-open.org/ns/oasis-exchange/table" xml:lang="en" dtd-version="3.0"><?xmltex \makeatother\@nolinetrue\makeatletter?>
  <front>
    <journal-meta><journal-id journal-id-type="publisher">NHESS</journal-id><journal-title-group>
    <journal-title>Natural Hazards and Earth System Sciences</journal-title>
    <abbrev-journal-title abbrev-type="publisher">NHESS</abbrev-journal-title><abbrev-journal-title abbrev-type="nlm-ta">Nat. Hazards Earth Syst. Sci.</abbrev-journal-title>
  </journal-title-group><issn pub-type="epub">1684-9981</issn><publisher>
    <publisher-name>Copernicus Publications</publisher-name>
    <publisher-loc>Göttingen, Germany</publisher-loc>
  </publisher></journal-meta>
    <article-meta>
      <article-id pub-id-type="doi">10.5194/nhess-19-1105-2019</article-id><title-group><article-title>Significance of substrate soil moisture content for<?xmltex \hack{\break}?> rockfall hazard
assessment</article-title><alt-title>Significance of substrate soil moisture content</alt-title>
      </title-group><?xmltex \runningtitle{Significance of substrate soil moisture content}?><?xmltex \runningauthor{L.~M.~Vick et al.}?>
      <contrib-group>
        <contrib contrib-type="author" corresp="yes" rid="aff1">
          <name><surname>Vick</surname><given-names>Louise Mary</given-names></name>
          <email>louise.m.vick@uit.no</email>
        <ext-link>https://orcid.org/0000-0001-9159-071X</ext-link></contrib>
        <contrib contrib-type="author" corresp="no" rid="aff2">
          <name><surname>Zimmer</surname><given-names>Valerie</given-names></name>
          
        </contrib>
        <contrib contrib-type="author" corresp="no" rid="aff3">
          <name><surname>White</surname><given-names>Christopher</given-names></name>
          
        </contrib>
        <contrib contrib-type="author" corresp="no" rid="aff4">
          <name><surname>Massey</surname><given-names>Chris</given-names></name>
          
        </contrib>
        <contrib contrib-type="author" corresp="no" rid="aff5">
          <name><surname>Davies</surname><given-names>Tim</given-names></name>
          
        </contrib>
        <aff id="aff1"><label>1</label><institution>Institute of Geosciences, UiT The Arctic University of Norway,
Dramsveien 201, Tromsø 9009, Norway</institution>
        </aff>
        <aff id="aff2"><label>2</label><institution>State Water Resources Control Board, 1001 I Street, Sacramento,
California 95814, USA</institution>
        </aff>
        <aff id="aff3"><label>3</label><institution>Resource Development Consultants Limited, 8/308 Queen Street East,
Hastings, Hawkes Bay, New Zealand</institution>
        </aff>
        <aff id="aff4"><label>4</label><institution>GNS Science, 1 Fairway Drive, Avalon 5010, New Zealand</institution>
        </aff>
        <aff id="aff5"><label>5</label><institution>Department of Geological Sciences, University of Canterbury,
Christchurch 8041, New Zealand</institution>
        </aff>
      </contrib-group>
      <author-notes><corresp id="corr1">Louise Mary Vick (louise.m.vick@uit.no)</corresp></author-notes><pub-date><day>27</day><month>May</month><year>2019</year></pub-date>
      
      <volume>19</volume>
      <issue>5</issue>
      <fpage>1105</fpage><lpage>1117</lpage>
      <history>
        <date date-type="received"><day>13</day><month>January</month><year>2019</year></date>
           <date date-type="rev-request"><day>14</day><month>February</month><year>2019</year></date>
           <date date-type="rev-recd"><day>6</day><month>May</month><year>2019</year></date>
           <date date-type="accepted"><day>10</day><month>May</month><year>2019</year></date>
      </history>
      <permissions>
        <copyright-statement>Copyright: © 2019 </copyright-statement>
        <copyright-year>2019</copyright-year>
      <license license-type="open-access"><license-p>This work is licensed under the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License. To view a copy of this licence, visit <ext-link ext-link-type="uri" xlink:href="https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/">https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/</ext-link></license-p></license></permissions><self-uri xlink:href="https://nhess.copernicus.org/articles/.html">This article is available from https://nhess.copernicus.org/articles/.html</self-uri><self-uri xlink:href="https://nhess.copernicus.org/articles/.pdf">The full text article is available as a PDF file from https://nhess.copernicus.org/articles/.pdf</self-uri>
      <abstract><title>Abstract</title>
    <p id="d1e146">Rockfall modelling is an important tool for hazard analysis in
steep terrain. Calibrating terrain parameters ensures that the model results
more accurately represent the site-specific hazard. Parameterizing rockfall
models is challenging because rockfall runout is highly sensitive to initial
conditions, rock shape, size and material properties, terrain morphology, and
terrain material properties. This contribution examines the mechanics of
terrain impact scarring due to rockfall on the Port Hills of Christchurch,
New Zealand. We use field-scale testing and laboratory direct shear testing
to quantify how the changing moisture content of the loessial soils can
influence its strength from soft to hard, and vice versa.</p>
    <p id="d1e149">We calibrate the three-dimensional rockfall model RAMMS by back-analysing
several well-documented rockfall events that occurred at a site with dry
loessial soil conditions. We then test the calibrated “dry” model at a
site where the loessial soil conditions were assessed to be wet. The
calibrated dry model over-predicts the runout distance when wet loessial
soil conditions are assumed. We hypothesize that this is because both the
shear strength and stiffness of wet loess are reduced relative to the dry
loess, resulting in a higher damping effect on boulder dynamics. For both
realistic and conservative rockfall modelling, the maximum credible hazard
is usually assumed; for rockfall on loess slopes, the maximum credible
hazard occurs during dry soil conditions.</p>
  </abstract>
    </article-meta>
  </front>
<body>
      

<sec id="Ch1.S1" sec-type="intro">
  <label>1</label><title>Introduction</title>
      <p id="d1e161">The distribution of rockfall deposits is largely defined by topography,
physical properties of the boulder (block shape, size, and geology), boulder
dynamics (block velocity, rotations, bounce height, and impact and rebound
angles), and substrate properties (Wyllie, 2014; Wyllie and Mah, 2004).
Ground conditions will influence how much the kinetic energy of the block is
reduced on impact with the substrate (Dorren, 2003; Evans and Hungr, 1993).
A block impacting colluvial material or outcropping rock will retain much of
its energy due to the stiffness of the surface. If the block impacts softer
ground, some of the block's kinetic energy will be dissipated as the soil
deforms (Bozzolo and Pamini, 1986). Terrain material parameters in soil
slopes will change seasonally, having a variable effect on rockfall runout
behaviour; this is especially important for cohesive soils, where the
changes in soil deformation behaviour in the plastic and liquid states are
significant.</p>
      <p id="d1e164">In situ rockfall experiments and other field data show that ground conditions
have an influence on rockfall dynamics (Peng, 2000; Azzoni and de Freitas,
1995; Chau et al., 1998; Giani et al., 2004; Dorren et al., 2005; Ferrari et
al., 2013; Volkwein et al., 2018). The analysis of block impact
characteristics (e.g. Leine et al., 2013) allows for development of more
realistic numerical simulation models. Within these models, terrain types
must be accurately delineated and characterized for results to be meaningful
(Dorren, 2003). Terrain types need to be delineated according to the
behaviour that most affects rockfall dynamics, by dividing substrate<?pagebreak page1106?> material
into soft and hard portions. Hardness, the amount of plastic resistance to
localized impact, will control how much energy is dissipated on boulder
impact with the ground. We theorize that the hardness of soil is controlled
by the shear strength and stiffness of the soil. These properties will have
an effect on the dynamics of rockfall propagation. Where material shear
strength and stiffness vary with soil moisture content, it is necessary to
determine whether soils are dry or wet and to assign specific “terrain”
parameters to model the frictional forces that will be applied to a boulder
during impact as it travels across them. In this paper the term “dry” is
used to indicate a soil with low natural moisture content, typically well
below the plastic limit.</p>
      <p id="d1e167">Discrete rockfall boulder runout events on the loessial soil slopes of the
Port Hills, Christchurch, are affected by variations in soil moisture content
(e.g. Carey et al., 2017), which can cause soil hardness to dramatically
change their effect on rockfall runout. Constraining rockfall modelling
parameters to better reflect actual rockfall behaviour requires
characterization of soil hardness changes due to moisture content. In this
paper, we analyse the results from two recorded rockfall events on loessial
slopes in the Port Hills, Rapaki Bay and Mt Vernon. Both sites have similar substrate material, slope gradient, roughness,
aspect, and density of vegetation. The three-dimensional rockfall model RAMMS
was calibrated to a rockfall event (comprising the fall of multiple rocks)
that occurred in dry conditions (Borella et al., 2016). The calibrated model
was then tested by forecasting rockfall runout on a different slope when the
loessial soil was wet. This was done to provide a data set and methodology
for practitioners to apply when carrying out rockfall hazard and risk
assessments under both wet and dry soil conditions.</p>
</sec>
<sec id="Ch1.S2">
  <label>2</label><title>Geological setting</title>
      <p id="d1e178">The Port Hills form part of Banks Peninsula, a volcanic edifice situated to
the south-east of the city of Christchurch (Fig. 1). It was volcanically active in
the middle–late Miocene, 11–5.8 Ma (Hampton and Cole, 2009). Hawaiian-style
eruptions resulted in conical basaltic lava flow deposits radiating outwards
from three principal eruptive centres and associated local vent structures
(Brown and Weeber, 1992; Hampton and Cole, 2009; Hampton et al., 2012). An
extended period of volcanic quiescence allowed widespread deposits of aeolian
silt, the Banks Peninsula loess, to accumulate on the volcanically formed
slopes (Griffiths, 1973; Goldwater, 1990). These loessial soils are a product
of proglacial fluvial action and wind transport/deposition (Davies, 2013);
the dominantly quartz (&gt; 50 %) and feldspar
(&gt; 20 %) composition of the soil reflects the
schist–greywacke mineralogy of the Southern Alps (Griffiths, 1973; Claridge
and Campbell, 1987; Bell and Trangmar, 1987). Post-depositional slope
processes have resulted in reworking of the loess and loose volcanic material
to form colluvium on the lower slopes, reaching 40 m thick in some foot-slope
locations (Mcdowell, 1989; Jowett, 1995; Claridge and Campbell, 1987). Close
to the underlying basaltic bedrock, mixed loess–volcanic colluvium is often
recognized in the regolith profile (Bell and Crampton, 1986; Bell and
Trangmar, 1987).</p>

      <?xmltex \floatpos{t}?><fig id="Ch1.F1" specific-use="star"><?xmltex \currentcnt{1}?><label>Figure 1</label><caption><p id="d1e183">Location map of Christchurch and the Port Hills showing sites
examined in this study. Red dots show mapped rockfall deposit locations
(<inline-formula><mml:math id="M1" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:mi>n</mml:mi><mml:mo>=</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">5719</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula>).</p></caption>
        <?xmltex \igopts{width=341.433071pt}?><graphic xlink:href="https://nhess.copernicus.org/articles/19/1105/2019/nhess-19-1105-2019-f01.jpg"/>

      </fig>

<sec id="Ch1.S2.SS1">
  <label>2.1</label><title>Port Hills rockfall</title>
      <p id="d1e211">The Canterbury Earthquake Sequence (CES) of 2010–2011 on the previously
unmapped Greendale and Christchurch fault traces to the west and east of
Christchurch produced seismic moments up to <inline-formula><mml:math id="M2" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi>M</mml:mi><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">w</mml:mi></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> 7.1 and high peak
ground accelerations (<inline-formula><mml:math id="M3" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:mo>≥</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">1</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> g) (Holden, 2011; Cousins and McVerry, 2010;
Bannister and Gledhill, 2012; Wood et al., 2010; Beavan et al., 2011; Fry et
al., 2011a, b; Kaiser et al., 2012). These large, shallow (&lt; 15 km)
ruptures triggered large slope failures on the Port Hills, of which rockfalls
were the most abundant type and posed the most risk (Massey et al., 2014b).
More than 6000 individual boulders were mobilized, many of which impacted
houses and affected the livelihoods of people within the impacted area.
Rockfall is most likely to occur in closely jointed or weakly cemented
material on slopes of <inline-formula><mml:math id="M4" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:mo>≥</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">40</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula><inline-formula><mml:math id="M5" display="inline"><mml:msup><mml:mi/><mml:mo>∘</mml:mo></mml:msup></mml:math></inline-formula> (Keefer, 1984). The columnar jointed
lava of the Port Hills is generally dominated by three to four joint sets
(Brideau et al., 2012) which vary somewhat between sites, attributed to
variations in the paleotopography (Massey et al., 2014b). Scoria layers are
interbedded with lava in some sites, and these have more widely spaced
discontinuities than the lava (Massey et al., 2014b). Rockfall data were
collected by a rapid-response group immediately following events of the CES
and resulted in a repository of data including 5 719 boulder locations
(Massey et al., 2014b), with their associated earthquake event and boulder
dimensions (Fig. 1).</p>
</sec>
<sec id="Ch1.S2.SS2">
  <label>2.2</label><title>Geotechnical properties of loess</title>
      <p id="d1e262">Loess is defined as a loosely deposited aeolian soil of predominantly
silt-sized particles. Loess often displays high enough strength and cohesion
to allow deposits to be meta-stable in a near-vertical exposure in dry
conditions. When dry, the high cohesion of loess has been attributed to
several possible mechanisms, including clay cohesion, calcite bonding, and
soil suction (e.g. Goldwater, 1990). Post-depositional flocculation of
cohesive clay grains to the larger silt- and sand-sized grains causes the
irregular formation of clay “bridges” between larger grains. As the larger
grains within the soil do not touch, the mechanical behaviour of the material
is dominated by the bonds between the larger grains (Gao, 1988; Lutenegger
and Hallberg, 1988; Derbyshire and Mellors, 1988). Due to the cohesion
between clay particles and negative pore pressure above any water table,
loess generally displays a high dry shear strength; up to 180 kPa has been
reported in Christchurch in loess of &lt; 10 % moisture content
(Mcdowell, 1989). However, loess has been observed to lose significant
strength and cohesion upon wetting, with<?pagebreak page1107?> cohesion and friction angle
generally decreasing with increasing moisture content (Kie, 1988; Mcdowell,
1989; Della Pasqua et al., 2014; Carey et al., 2014). Wetting of the clay
bridges and an increase in pore pressure reduces the shear strength of the
material (Gao, 1988; Lutenegger and Hallberg, 1988; Derbyshire and Mellors,
1988; Della Pasqua et al., 2014; Carey et al., 2014).</p>
      <p id="d1e265">The Port Hills loess is a cohesive predominantly silty soil with minor clay
content. Strength parameters of the soil are largely controlled by the
moisture content as repeatedly shown in testing (e.g. Tehrani, 1988;
Mcdowell, 1989; Goldwater, 1990; White, 2016; Della Pasqua et al., 2014;
Carey et al., 2014). A review of these studies (Massey et al., 2014a) shows
that it displays high cohesion at moisture contents of &lt; 10 %,
while cohesion values are very sensitive to changes in the moisture content
between 10 % and 20 % tests. Carey et al. (2014) found that at
3 % moisture content the loess has cohesion of 45 kPa and a friction
angle of 48<inline-formula><mml:math id="M6" display="inline"><mml:msup><mml:mi/><mml:mo>∘</mml:mo></mml:msup></mml:math></inline-formula>. Comparatively at 16 % moisture content the soil
displayed cohesion of 25 kPa and a friction angle of 28<inline-formula><mml:math id="M7" display="inline"><mml:msup><mml:mi/><mml:mo>∘</mml:mo></mml:msup></mml:math></inline-formula>. At
moisture contents less than 15 % the soil can display a brittle
deformation style. The measured plastic limit for the Port Hills loess is a
moisture content ranging from 16 % to 20 %, with a plasticity index
of between 4 and 8.8, and liquid limit ranging between 22 % and 28 %,
above which the material deforms as a fluid (Hughes, 2002).</p>

      <?xmltex \floatpos{t}?><fig id="Ch1.F2" specific-use="star"><?xmltex \currentcnt{2}?><label>Figure 2</label><caption><p id="d1e288">Hillshade topography of the Rapaki Bay <bold>(a)</bold> and Mt Vernon <bold>(b)</bold> field
sites. Hillshade derived from 2015 lidar, overlaid with 20 m contour
intervals and showing the boulder source location for the rockfalls.</p></caption>
          <?xmltex \igopts{width=369.885827pt}?><graphic xlink:href="https://nhess.copernicus.org/articles/19/1105/2019/nhess-19-1105-2019-f02.jpg"/>

        </fig>

</sec>
</sec>
<sec id="Ch1.S3">
  <label>3</label><title>Study sites</title>
      <p id="d1e312">Two Port Hills rockfall events are compared (Fig. 2). The initial RAMMS model
calibration at Rapaki Bay (Borella et al., 2016) back-analysed mapped
rockfall deposits from the 22 February 2011 (NZST) earthquake. The calibrated
model is then tested against data from a field experiment at Mt Vernon
conducted on the 12 May 2014. Both slopes (which are within 0.6 km of each
other; Fig. 1) have similar gradient (Fig. 2), aspect, and density of
vegetation. Rapaki Bay is a south-east-facing, moderately inclined (average
25<inline-formula><mml:math id="M8" display="inline"><mml:msup><mml:mi/><mml:mo>∘</mml:mo></mml:msup></mml:math></inline-formula>) slope with grass and tussock vegetation. The source area bedrock
ranges from moderately to completely weathered basaltic lava and basaltic
lava breccia, and the slope is mantled by loess and loess–colluvium. The
slope is situated above a small community; more than 200 boulders were
released here during the 22 February 2011 earthquake, impacting several
houses. The slope falls from the peak (390 m a.s.l.) to sea level, with a runout zone ca. 900 m long.</p>
      <?pagebreak page1108?><p id="d1e324">Mt Vernon is a south-facing, moderately to steeply inclined (25–35<inline-formula><mml:math id="M9" display="inline"><mml:msup><mml:mi/><mml:mo>∘</mml:mo></mml:msup></mml:math></inline-formula>)
slope in the Port Hills. Geology at Mt Vernon is similar to Rapaki Bay;
outcropping bedrock also ranges from moderately to completely weathered
basaltic lava and basaltic lava breccia (again forming the rockfall sources).
The slope is mantled by loess and loess–colluvium. The site was chosen due to
its proximity to Rapaki Bay, its similarity in terms of materials, slope
gradient, roughness, and aspect, and low vegetation density, and because it
has a safe zone for physical runout experiments. There is an obvious
discontinuous rockfall source area above a well-constrained long (<inline-formula><mml:math id="M10" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:mo>∼</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">700</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> m) runout zone, and the uninhabited valley extends over 1.5 km from the
boulder source areas to the nearest road, downslope.</p>
</sec>
<sec id="Ch1.S4">
  <label>4</label><title>Methods</title>
<sec id="Ch1.S4.SS1">
  <label>4.1</label><title>Mapping and soil moisture at Rapaki Bay</title>
      <p id="d1e361">Boulder deposit locations were measured in the field using a handheld GPS.
Boulder size (lengths along three axes) and shape were recorded for most
mapped boulders. New rockfall deposits were easily distinguished from paleo-boulders by fresh rock surfaces and their location on top of the substrate.
Impact scars on the substrate were mapped at both Rapaki Bay and Mt Vernon
with lengths (axis parallel to boulder travel direction) and depths of
140 scars recorded. Additional mapped earthquake boulder data were
contributed by the Port Hills Geotechnical Group – only boulder deposit
locations were used from this data set. In total 336 boulders were mapped at
Rapaki Bay.</p>
      <p id="d1e364">To assess soil moisture conditions at the time of the earthquake, weather
data were accessed through the National Climate Database (CliFlo;
<uri>http://www.cliflo.niwa.co.nz</uri>, last access: 11 January 2019) from the Governors Bay station,
3.5 km south-west of the site and also south-east-facing (Fig. 1). The
Governors Bay rainfall data are presented in Table 1. Moisture content of the
soil at Rapaki Bay was not tested at the time of the earthquake and instead
inferred from published testing of 14 Port Hills loess samples in January and
February 2013 and 2014 (taken from the northern side of the Port Hills: Lucas
Lane, Maffeys Road, Redcliffs, Deans Head, Clifton Hill, Richmond Hill, and
Wakefield Avenue; Carey et al., 2014).</p>

<?xmltex \floatpos{t}?><table-wrap id="Ch1.T1" specific-use="star"><?xmltex \currentcnt{1}?><label>Table 1</label><caption><p id="d1e373">Rainfall data (mm) recorded at the Governors Bay weather
station between 2010 and 2014,
with the weather station average over 20 years provided for comparison. Bold
indicates months of interest in this study.</p></caption><oasis:table frame="topbot"><oasis:tgroup cols="13">
     <oasis:colspec colnum="1" colname="col1" align="left"/>
     <oasis:colspec colnum="2" colname="col2" align="right"/>
     <oasis:colspec colnum="3" colname="col3" align="right"/>
     <oasis:colspec colnum="4" colname="col4" align="right"/>
     <oasis:colspec colnum="5" colname="col5" align="right"/>
     <oasis:colspec colnum="6" colname="col6" align="right"/>
     <oasis:colspec colnum="7" colname="col7" align="right"/>
     <oasis:colspec colnum="8" colname="col8" align="right"/>
     <oasis:colspec colnum="9" colname="col9" align="right"/>
     <oasis:colspec colnum="10" colname="col10" align="right"/>
     <oasis:colspec colnum="11" colname="col11" align="right"/>
     <oasis:colspec colnum="12" colname="col12" align="right"/>
     <oasis:colspec colnum="13" colname="col13" align="right"/>
     <oasis:thead>
       <oasis:row rowsep="1">
         <oasis:entry colname="col1">Series</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col2">Jan</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col3">Feb</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col4">Mar</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col5">Apr</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col6">May</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col7">Jun</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col8">Jul</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col9">Aug</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col10">Sep</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col11">Oct</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col12">Nov</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col13">Dec</oasis:entry>
       </oasis:row>
     </oasis:thead>
     <oasis:tbody>
       <oasis:row>
         <oasis:entry colname="col1">2010</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col2">66</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col3">23</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col4">30</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col5">24</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col6">216</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col7">205</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col8">64</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col9">175</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col10">58</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col11">49</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col12">63</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col13"><bold>58</bold><inline-formula><mml:math id="M15" display="inline"><mml:msup><mml:mi/><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">1</mml:mn></mml:msup></mml:math></inline-formula></oasis:entry>
       </oasis:row>
       <oasis:row>
         <oasis:entry colname="col1">2011</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col2"><bold>50</bold><inline-formula><mml:math id="M16" display="inline"><mml:msup><mml:mi/><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">1</mml:mn></mml:msup></mml:math></inline-formula></oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col3"><bold>38</bold><inline-formula><mml:math id="M17" display="inline"><mml:msup><mml:mi/><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">1</mml:mn></mml:msup></mml:math></inline-formula></oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col4">78</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col5">99</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col6">45</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col7">68</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col8">75</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col9">104</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col10">40</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col11">138</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col12">62</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col13">62</oasis:entry>
       </oasis:row>
       <oasis:row>
         <oasis:entry colname="col1">2012</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col2">48</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col3">70</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col4">54</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col5">38</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col6">26</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col7">92</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col8">110</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col9">207</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col10">54</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col11">103</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col12">78</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col13"><bold>65</bold><inline-formula><mml:math id="M18" display="inline"><mml:msup><mml:mi/><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">2</mml:mn></mml:msup></mml:math></inline-formula></oasis:entry>
       </oasis:row>
       <oasis:row>
         <oasis:entry colname="col1">2013</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col2"><bold>46</bold><inline-formula><mml:math id="M19" display="inline"><mml:msup><mml:mi/><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">2</mml:mn></mml:msup></mml:math></inline-formula></oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col3"><bold>29</bold><inline-formula><mml:math id="M20" display="inline"><mml:msup><mml:mi/><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">2</mml:mn></mml:msup></mml:math></inline-formula></oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col4">30</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col5">69</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col6">175</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col7">270</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col8">71</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col9">61</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col10">50</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col11">77</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col12">44</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col13">105<inline-formula><mml:math id="M21" display="inline"><mml:msup><mml:mi/><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">3</mml:mn></mml:msup></mml:math></inline-formula></oasis:entry>
       </oasis:row>
       <oasis:row>
         <oasis:entry colname="col1">2014</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col2"><bold>33</bold><inline-formula><mml:math id="M22" display="inline"><mml:msup><mml:mi/><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">3</mml:mn></mml:msup></mml:math></inline-formula></oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col3"><bold>48</bold><inline-formula><mml:math id="M23" display="inline"><mml:msup><mml:mi/><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">3</mml:mn></mml:msup></mml:math></inline-formula></oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col4"><bold>267</bold><inline-formula><mml:math id="M24" display="inline"><mml:msup><mml:mi/><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">4</mml:mn></mml:msup></mml:math></inline-formula></oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col5"><bold>263</bold><inline-formula><mml:math id="M25" display="inline"><mml:msup><mml:mi/><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">4</mml:mn></mml:msup></mml:math></inline-formula></oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col6"><bold>44</bold><inline-formula><mml:math id="M26" display="inline"><mml:msup><mml:mi/><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">4</mml:mn></mml:msup></mml:math></inline-formula></oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col7">53</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col8">84</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col9">41</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col10">41</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col11">36</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col12">85</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col13">30</oasis:entry>
       </oasis:row>
       <oasis:row>
         <oasis:entry colname="col1">Average (1989–2018)</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col2">55</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col3">49</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col4">63</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col5">79</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col6">103</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col7">106</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col8">93</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col9">107</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col10">67</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col11">73</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col12">60</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col13">65</oasis:entry>
       </oasis:row>
     </oasis:tbody>
   </oasis:tgroup></oasis:table><table-wrap-foot><p id="d1e376"><inline-formula><mml:math id="M11" display="inline"><mml:msup><mml:mi/><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">1</mml:mn></mml:msup></mml:math></inline-formula> Rainfall preceding earthquake rockfall event, Rapaki Bay.
<inline-formula><mml:math id="M12" display="inline"><mml:msup><mml:mi/><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">2</mml:mn></mml:msup></mml:math></inline-formula> Rainfall preceding and during Carey et al. (2014) testing, summer 2013.
<inline-formula><mml:math id="M13" display="inline"><mml:msup><mml:mi/><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">3</mml:mn></mml:msup></mml:math></inline-formula> Rainfall preceding and during Carey et al. (2014) testing, summer 2014.
<inline-formula><mml:math id="M14" display="inline"><mml:msup><mml:mi/><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">4</mml:mn></mml:msup></mml:math></inline-formula> Rainfall preceding field experiments, Mt Vernon.</p></table-wrap-foot></table-wrap>

</sec>
<sec id="Ch1.S4.SS2">
  <label>4.2</label><title>Soil testing</title>
      <p id="d1e877">We conducted moisture content and direct shear tests on 36
disturbed hand auger and borehole samples of Port Hills loess and loess–colluvium from 17 Ramahana Road and Centaurus Park (Fig. 1). Unfortunately no
sub-surface investigations could be undertaken at Rapaki Bay, and as such
testing was carried out on samples taken on similar soil types from a site
investigation that was underway at the time of the study (White, 2016).
Samples were taken from a range of soil profile depths (Table 2) and as such
reflect a range of clay and natural moisture content and therefore mechanical
properties. Testing was in accordance with <italic>ISO/TS 17892-10:2004</italic>
<italic>Direct shear tests</italic> and <italic>NZS 4402:1996 Test 2.1 Determination of the water content</italic>. Samples selected displayed a spread of both clay
contents (Table 2; 5 %–19 %) and natural moisture contents below,
near, and above their 16 %–19 % plastic limit (Table 2;
8 %–22 %). The samples were reconsolidated by means of tamping,
using a standard Proctor test within the shear-box test sample rings. A total
of 25 blows from the hammer were used to compact the soil directly into the
shear-box test sample ring, and the method was repeated with a fresh sample
if the blows from the hammer caused the soil to be compacted to below or
&gt; 5 mm above the height of the sample ring. The method was
considered satisfactory; however there was an unavoidable amount of variation
in the<?pagebreak page1109?> density of the samples: the dry density varied between 1658 and
1954 kg m<inline-formula><mml:math id="M27" display="inline"><mml:msup><mml:mi/><mml:mrow><mml:mo>-</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">3</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:msup></mml:math></inline-formula>, with an average of 1750 kg m<inline-formula><mml:math id="M28" display="inline"><mml:msup><mml:mi/><mml:mrow><mml:mo>-</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">3</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:msup></mml:math></inline-formula>. This variation can
be attributed to the variable moisture contents of the soils that were
compacted, which would have allowed greater or lesser compaction depending on
the optimum moisture content for compaction and the soil's particle-size
distribution. The samples were subjected to 20, 50, and 100 kg applied
weight (corresponding to 26, 64, and 126 kPa normal stress and overburden
depths of 1.45, 3.64, and 7.28 m respectively with consideration of the
average sample density (1750 kg m<inline-formula><mml:math id="M29" display="inline"><mml:msup><mml:mi/><mml:mrow><mml:mo>-</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">3</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:msup></mml:math></inline-formula>)) and sheared at a constant rate.</p>

<?xmltex \floatpos{t}?><table-wrap id="Ch1.T2" specific-use="star"><?xmltex \currentcnt{2}?><label>Table 2</label><caption><p id="d1e929">Direct shear test variables for hand auger and borehole samples at
various depths and displaying various moisture contents.</p></caption><oasis:table frame="topbot"><?xmltex \begin{scaleboxenv}{.93}[.93]?><oasis:tgroup cols="13">
     <oasis:colspec colnum="1" colname="col1" align="left"/>
     <oasis:colspec colnum="2" colname="col2" align="right"/>
     <oasis:colspec colnum="3" colname="col3" align="right"/>
     <oasis:colspec colnum="4" colname="col4" align="right"/>
     <oasis:colspec colnum="5" colname="col5" align="right"/>
     <oasis:colspec colnum="6" colname="col6" align="right"/>
     <oasis:colspec colnum="7" colname="col7" align="right" colsep="1"/>
     <oasis:colspec colnum="8" colname="col8" align="right"/>
     <oasis:colspec colnum="9" colname="col9" align="right"/>
     <oasis:colspec colnum="10" colname="col10" align="right" colsep="1"/>
     <oasis:colspec colnum="11" colname="col11" align="right"/>
     <oasis:colspec colnum="12" colname="col12" align="right"/>
     <oasis:colspec colnum="13" colname="col13" align="right"/>
     <oasis:thead>
       <oasis:row>
         <oasis:entry colname="col1"/>
         <oasis:entry colname="col2"/>
         <oasis:entry colname="col3"/>
         <oasis:entry colname="col4"/>
         <oasis:entry rowsep="1" namest="col5" nameend="col7" align="center" colsep="1">Dry unit weight (kg m<inline-formula><mml:math id="M30" display="inline"><mml:msup><mml:mi/><mml:mrow><mml:mo>-</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">3</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:msup></mml:math></inline-formula>) </oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry rowsep="1" namest="col8" nameend="col10" align="center" colsep="1"><inline-formula><mml:math id="M31" display="inline"><mml:mi mathvariant="italic">ρ</mml:mi></mml:math></inline-formula> (newtons) </oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry rowsep="1" namest="col11" nameend="col13" align="center"><inline-formula><mml:math id="M32" display="inline"><mml:mi mathvariant="italic">τ</mml:mi></mml:math></inline-formula> (kPa) </oasis:entry>
       </oasis:row>
       <oasis:row>
         <oasis:entry colname="col1">Sample</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col2">Sample</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col3">Clay</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col4">Moisture</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col5">Test 1</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col6">Test 2</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col7">Test 3</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col8">20 kg</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col9">50 kg</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col10">100 kg</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col11">26 kPa</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col12">64 kPa</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col13">126 kPa</oasis:entry>
       </oasis:row>
       <oasis:row>
         <oasis:entry colname="col1">location</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col2">depth</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col3">content</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col4">content</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col5"/>
         <oasis:entry colname="col6"/>
         <oasis:entry colname="col7"/>
         <oasis:entry colname="col8">applied</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col9">applied</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col10">applied</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col11">applied</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col12">applied</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col13">applied</oasis:entry>
       </oasis:row>
       <oasis:row rowsep="1">
         <oasis:entry colname="col1"/>
         <oasis:entry colname="col2">(m b.g.l.)</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col3">(%)</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col4">(%)</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col5"/>
         <oasis:entry colname="col6"/>
         <oasis:entry colname="col7"/>
         <oasis:entry colname="col8">weight</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col9">weight</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col10">weight</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col11"><inline-formula><mml:math id="M33" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi mathvariant="italic">σ</mml:mi><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">n</mml:mi></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula></oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col12"><inline-formula><mml:math id="M34" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi mathvariant="italic">σ</mml:mi><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">n</mml:mi></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula></oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col13"><inline-formula><mml:math id="M35" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi mathvariant="italic">σ</mml:mi><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">n</mml:mi></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula></oasis:entry>
       </oasis:row>
     </oasis:thead>
     <oasis:tbody>
       <oasis:row>
         <oasis:entry colname="col1">Hand Auger 5</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col2">1.0</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col3">18.5</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col4">9</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col5">1758</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col6">1709</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col7">1767</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col8">662</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col9">938</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col10">1293</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col11">84</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col12">119</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col13">165</oasis:entry>
       </oasis:row>
       <oasis:row>
         <oasis:entry colname="col1">Hand Auger 1</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col2">2.0</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col3">18.4</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col4">17</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col5">1664</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col6">1731</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col7">1781</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col8">266</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col9">463</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col10">801</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col11">34</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col12">59</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col13">102</oasis:entry>
       </oasis:row>
       <oasis:row>
         <oasis:entry colname="col1">Hand Auger 5</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col2">4.0</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col3">18.9</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col4">19</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col5">1689</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col6">1796</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col7">1775</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col8">171</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col9">374</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col10">801</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col11">22</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col12">48</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col13">88</oasis:entry>
       </oasis:row>
       <oasis:row>
         <oasis:entry colname="col1">Hand Auger 4</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col2">1.0</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col3">15.4</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col4">9</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col5">1759</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col6">1788</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col7">1783</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col8">691</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col9">932</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col10">1414</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col11">88</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col12">119</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col13">180</oasis:entry>
       </oasis:row>
       <oasis:row>
         <oasis:entry colname="col1">Hand Auger 3</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col2">2.0</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col3">15.3</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col4">17</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col5">1658</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col6">1663</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col7">1710</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col8">241</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col9">476</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col10">796</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col11">31</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col12">61</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col13">101</oasis:entry>
       </oasis:row>
       <oasis:row>
         <oasis:entry colname="col1">Hand Auger 2</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col2">4.0</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col3">15.5</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col4">22</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col5">1666</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col6">1665</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col7">1667</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col8">201</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col9">407</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col10">807</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col11">26</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col12">52</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col13">103</oasis:entry>
       </oasis:row>
       <oasis:row>
         <oasis:entry colname="col1">Hand Auger 4</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col2">3.0</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col3">10.2</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col4">10</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col5">1772</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col6">1822</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col7">1860</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col8">456</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col9">752</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col10">1145</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col11">58</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col12">96</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col13">146</oasis:entry>
       </oasis:row>
       <oasis:row>
         <oasis:entry colname="col1">Borehole 3</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col2">2.8</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col3">7.6</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col4">8</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col5">1909</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col6">1949</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col7">1954</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col8">467</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col9">772</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col10">1209</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col11">59</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col12">98</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col13">154</oasis:entry>
       </oasis:row>
       <oasis:row>
         <oasis:entry colname="col1">Borehole 1</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col2">7.0</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col3">8</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col4">16</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col5">1684</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col6">1724</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col7">1735</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col8">199</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col9">405</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col10">763</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col11">25</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col12">52</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col13">97</oasis:entry>
       </oasis:row>
       <oasis:row>
         <oasis:entry colname="col1">Borehole 2</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col2">5.0</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col3">5.6</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col4">21</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col5">1719</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col6">1779</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col7">1779</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col8">202</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col9">52</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col10">101</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col11">26</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col12">52</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col13">101</oasis:entry>
       </oasis:row>
     </oasis:tbody>
   </oasis:tgroup><?xmltex \end{scaleboxenv}?></oasis:table></table-wrap>

</sec>
<sec id="Ch1.S4.SS3">
  <label>4.3</label><title>Rockfall experiment and soil moisture at Mt Vernon</title>
      <p id="d1e1617">We conducted rockfall experiments, which involved the triggering and
recording of 20 boulders at Mt Vernon. The boulders were jacked from the
bedrock along cooling joints by inflation of air compression bladders. Each
boulder was measured for size and shape, dislodged, captured by video during
travel, and impact trail (lines of impact scars) and deposit location were
mapped. Locations were recorded with a handheld GPS and dGNSS. As most
boulders fragmented on initial impact, all fragments were mapped as boulder
deposits – therefore 70 deposited boulder locations were mapped,
including pieces from the initial triggering of only 20 boulders. A total of 19 impact scars were mapped and measured.</p>
      <p id="d1e1620">A total of 13 soil samples were taken at Mt Vernon at the time of the experiments
and analysed according to <italic>NZS 4402:1996 Test 2.1 Determination of the water content</italic> to obtain the natural moisture content. Samples were collected
as 30 cm tube samples from the base of 13 impact scars equally distributed
down the slope.</p>
</sec>
<sec id="Ch1.S4.SS4">
  <label>4.4</label><title>Rockfall modelling approach</title>
      <p id="d1e1634">RAMMS::Rockfall is a rigid-body three-dimensional rockfall simulation
programme (Leine et al., 2013). It was chosen as an appropriate tool because
(1) it allows the user to create a boulder population of varying sizes and
shapes modelled on point clouds of real boulders and (2) the parameters that
control different aspects of the terrain–boulder interaction process can be
sensitively adjusted by the user.</p>
      <p id="d1e1637">In conventional rockfall models, rock interaction with the substrate is
represented by coefficients of restitution, a ratio that defines the change
in velocity after impact in both normal and tangential directions (e.g.
Volkwein et al., 2011). In RAMMS the process of boulder interaction with a
substrate is represented as a function of “slippage” through near-surface material, a
complex interaction with the substrate that includes sliding of a block
through material until maximum frictional resistance is reached, and angular
momentum generated by contact forces cause the block to be launched from the
ground (Glover, 2015; Leine et al., 2013). The slippage can be parameterized
(Table 3) for hard surfaces (e.g. rock) by decreasing the distance over which
impact occurs and its time duration, to better reflect the instantaneous
rebound observed in rock–rock interactions.</p>

<?xmltex \floatpos{t}?><table-wrap id="Ch1.T3" specific-use="star"><?xmltex \currentcnt{3}?><label>Table 3</label><caption><p id="d1e1643">RAMMS parameters used to define the slippage model.</p></caption><oasis:table frame="topbot"><oasis:tgroup cols="2">
     <oasis:colspec colnum="1" colname="col1" align="left"/>
     <oasis:colspec colnum="2" colname="col2" align="left"/>
     <oasis:thead>
       <oasis:row rowsep="1">
         <oasis:entry colname="col1">Parameter</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col2">Function</oasis:entry>
       </oasis:row>
     </oasis:thead>
     <oasis:tbody>
       <oasis:row>
         <oasis:entry colname="col1"><inline-formula><mml:math id="M36" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi mathvariant="italic">μ</mml:mi><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">min</mml:mi></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula></oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col2">Minimum sliding friction</oasis:entry>
       </oasis:row>
       <oasis:row>
         <oasis:entry colname="col1"><inline-formula><mml:math id="M37" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi mathvariant="italic">μ</mml:mi><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">max</mml:mi></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula></oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col2">Maximum sliding friction</oasis:entry>
       </oasis:row>
       <oasis:row>
         <oasis:entry colname="col1"><inline-formula><mml:math id="M38" display="inline"><mml:mi mathvariant="italic">κ</mml:mi></mml:math></inline-formula></oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col2">Time between  <inline-formula><mml:math id="M39" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi mathvariant="italic">μ</mml:mi><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">min</mml:mi></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> and  <inline-formula><mml:math id="M40" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi mathvariant="italic">μ</mml:mi><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">max</mml:mi></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> on contact with the ground</oasis:entry>
       </oasis:row>
       <oasis:row>
         <oasis:entry colname="col1"><inline-formula><mml:math id="M41" display="inline"><mml:mi mathvariant="italic">β</mml:mi></mml:math></inline-formula></oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col2">Time between  <inline-formula><mml:math id="M42" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi mathvariant="italic">μ</mml:mi><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">max</mml:mi></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> and   <inline-formula><mml:math id="M43" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi mathvariant="italic">μ</mml:mi><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">min</mml:mi></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> as rock leaves the ground</oasis:entry>
       </oasis:row>
       <oasis:row>
         <oasis:entry colname="col1">Drag coefficient</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col2">Drag force applied to rock during ground contact</oasis:entry>
       </oasis:row>
     </oasis:tbody>
   </oasis:tgroup></oasis:table></table-wrap>

      <p id="d1e1788">A robust RAMMS calibration exercise was performed for the Rapaki Bay data set
(Borella et al., 2016; this paper) and checked against other dry condition
data sets generated from the same earthquake sequence in other locations on
the Port Hills (Vick et al., 2015). The modelling inputs included a
representative sample of 21 mapped boulders with real shapes and sizes, a
3 m digital elevation model (DEM; 2013 lidar), and a terrain map delineated
by changes in ground cover (outcropping rock, loess–colluvium, and loess).
Following a recent RAMMS update (Bartelt et al., 2016) this calibration
exercise was repeated (this paper) to confirm relevance of the results.</p>
      <p id="d1e1791">Modelling of Mt Vernon boulder runouts was performed using the dry calibrated
parameters. A second set of parameters was created to reflect the wet soil
conditions assessed by the natural moisture content testing. This was done by
modifying the original dry calibrated parameters to incorporate more soil
damping as the boulder interacts with the soil (Table 3). RAMMS parameters
were adjusted incrementally until modelled runout paths showed a similar
spatial distribution to that of the experimental boulder runouts. For each
iteration of the model, parameters were adjusted to more closely represent
wet conditions: the parameter <inline-formula><mml:math id="M44" display="inline"><mml:mi mathvariant="italic">κ</mml:mi></mml:math></inline-formula> was<?pagebreak page1110?> decreased by 16 % for loess–colluvium and 54 % for loess, to reflect the longer slip distance through
the soil (<inline-formula><mml:math id="M45" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">1</mml:mn><mml:mo>/</mml:mo><mml:mi mathvariant="italic">κ</mml:mi><mml:mo>=</mml:mo></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> impact length); the parameter <inline-formula><mml:math id="M46" display="inline"><mml:mi mathvariant="italic">β</mml:mi></mml:math></inline-formula> was decreased
by 16 % for loess–colluvium and 33 % for loess, to reflect the longer
impact time (<inline-formula><mml:math id="M47" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">1</mml:mn><mml:mo>/</mml:mo><mml:mi mathvariant="italic">β</mml:mi><mml:mo>=</mml:mo></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> impact time); the <inline-formula><mml:math id="M48" display="inline"><mml:mi mathvariant="italic">μ</mml:mi></mml:math></inline-formula> values were lowered by
33 % for both soil substrates to reflect the decreased friction applied
to the boulder over the period of the impact; the drag coefficient was
increased by 40 % for both soils, to represent the general greater drag
on the boulder due to decreased soil hardness. These adjustments to the
parameters were considered suitable when the runout envelopes of both the
experimental rockfall and the modelled rockfall were closely aligned, rather
than changing the parameters by a specific predetermined value.</p>
      <p id="d1e1843">Inputs to the Mt Vernon model included a representative sample of five model
boulders, which were based on the measured size and shape of the boulders
used in the field experiments. A 3 m DEM (derived from the 2013 lidar) was
used as the basis for the simulations, and a terrain map delineating field
mapped changes in ground cover (outcropping rock, loess–colluvium, and loess)
was used to proportion the locations of the various terrain material types
across the slope.</p>
      <p id="d1e1846">The boulder density for both modelling exercises was 2700 kg m<inline-formula><mml:math id="M49" display="inline"><mml:msup><mml:mi/><mml:mrow><mml:mo>-</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">3</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:msup></mml:math></inline-formula>,
based on previous laboratory density testing of similar rock by others
(Mukhtar, 2014).</p>
</sec>
</sec>
<sec id="Ch1.S5">
  <label>5</label><title>Results</title>
<sec id="Ch1.S5.SS1">
  <label>5.1</label><title>Soil conditions</title>
      <p id="d1e1878">Soil moisture tests from the Mt Vernon site in May 2014 showed water contents
of between 28 % and 62 %. A prolonged rainy period preceded the
experiments, with rainfall totals of 267, 263, and 44 mm recorded in March,
April, and May, respectively (the average totally monthly rainfall recorded
since 1989 at the same weather station is 125, 144, and 88 mm for March,
April, and May respectively, Fig. 3a, b; Table 1).</p>

      <?xmltex \floatpos{t}?><fig id="Ch1.F3" specific-use="star"><?xmltex \currentcnt{3}?><label>Figure 3</label><caption><p id="d1e1883"><bold>(a)</bold> Rainfall in the months
preceding and during key events of this study: The 2011 earthquake rockfall
event at Rapaki Bay, summer soil testing on the Port Hills in 2013 and 2014,
and the rockfall experiments conducted at Mt Vernon in 2014. <bold>(b)</bold>
Natural soil moisture contents as tested during the summer testing of 2013
and 2014 (Carey et al., 2014) and as tested during the Mt Vernon rockfall
experiments.</p></caption>
          <?xmltex \igopts{width=455.244094pt}?><graphic xlink:href="https://nhess.copernicus.org/articles/19/1105/2019/nhess-19-1105-2019-f03.png"/>

        </fig>

      <p id="d1e1897">Testing conducted by Carey et al. (2014) in January and February 2013 and
2014 (when recorded rainfall for December, January, and February was 65, 46,
and 29 and 105, 33, and 48 mm for each year respectively) showed moisture contents
ranging from 3.5 % to 11 %. The Rapaki Bay rockfalls occurred during
typical dry summer conditions, when rainfall totals of 58, 50, and 38 mm were
recorded for December, January, and February, respectively (Fig. 3a and b).</p>
      <?pagebreak page1111?><p id="d1e1901">Our direct shear testing of loess samples showed a low moisture content
(&lt; 10 %) of the loess resulted in high cohesion
(&gt; 35 kPa) for all clay content variations (Fig. 4). Increased
moisture content correlated with decreased cohesion; samples with
16 %–17 % moisture displayed cohesion of 6–16 kPa for all clay
contents. Moisture contents of &gt; 19 %, above the liquid limit
of the soil, displayed &lt; 5 kPa for all percentages of clay contents tested.
The spread of the cohesion data is large (<inline-formula><mml:math id="M50" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:mo>±</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">14.5</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> kPa) for varying clay
contents at lower moisture contents, noticeable (<inline-formula><mml:math id="M51" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:mo>±</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">5</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> kPa) for
intermediate moisture content, and low (<inline-formula><mml:math id="M52" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:mo>±</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">1.5</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> kPa) for high moisture
content. High clay contents correspond to higher cohesion values at low and
intermediate moisture content, but the effect of clay content is negligible
at high moisture contents.</p>

      <?xmltex \floatpos{t}?><fig id="Ch1.F4"><?xmltex \currentcnt{4}?><label>Figure 4</label><caption><p id="d1e1936">Cohesion of loess at varying moisture contents, when loess clay
content is varied.</p></caption>
          <?xmltex \igopts{width=241.848425pt}?><graphic xlink:href="https://nhess.copernicus.org/articles/19/1105/2019/nhess-19-1105-2019-f04.png"/>

        </fig>

</sec>
<sec id="Ch1.S5.SS2">
  <label>5.2</label><title>Impact scarring</title>
      <p id="d1e1953">Mapped impact scars in the soil display a wedge-like form, with a clear
boulder penetration point at the upslope end and a widening outwards and
downslope and an area of compression (where soil has been compacted and
pushed up) with some excavated and overturned soil on the downslope end
(Fig. 6). Impact scar dimensions at both sites when compared (<inline-formula><mml:math id="M53" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:mi>P</mml:mi><mml:mo>=</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">0.035</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula>)
showed variation in minimum, average, and maximum depth : length ratio: 0.05,
0.29, and 0.4 at Rapaki Bay and 0.125, 0.22, and 0.43 at Mt Vernon respectively
(Fig. 5). Although both data sets display similar maximum depth : length
ratios, the distribution of the values within the Mt Vernon data set (wet
conditions) generally shows a higher depth : length ratio. Scars that show a
greater depth : length ratio are a result of impact of boulders which achieve
depth in a shorter space during slippage/contact with the ground (Fig. 6a and
b). The Rapaki Bay impact scars show a generally lower depth : length ratio,
indicative of shallower slippage through the soil during contact with the
ground.</p>

      <?xmltex \floatpos{t}?><fig id="Ch1.F5"><?xmltex \currentcnt{5}?><label>Figure 5</label><caption><p id="d1e1970">Depth vs. length of impact scars measured at Rapaki Bay (<inline-formula><mml:math id="M54" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:mi>n</mml:mi><mml:mo>=</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">140</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula>)
in dry soil conditions and Mt Vernon (<inline-formula><mml:math id="M55" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:mi>n</mml:mi><mml:mo>=</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">19</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula>) in wet soil conditions.
<inline-formula><mml:math id="M56" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:mi>P</mml:mi><mml:mo>=</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">0.025</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula>.</p></caption>
          <?xmltex \igopts{width=241.848425pt}?><graphic xlink:href="https://nhess.copernicus.org/articles/19/1105/2019/nhess-19-1105-2019-f05.png"/>

        </fig>

      <?xmltex \floatpos{p}?><fig id="Ch1.F6" specific-use="star"><?xmltex \currentcnt{6}?><label>Figure 6</label><caption><p id="d1e2017"><bold>(a)</bold> Schematic representation of impact scar morphology, where
depth : length of the scar ratio is low, representing dry conditions, and
where it is high, representing wet conditions <bold>(b)</bold>. <bold>(c)</bold> Images of impact scars from Rapaki
Bay showing typical scar morphology from four different boulders.</p></caption>
          <?xmltex \igopts{width=426.791339pt}?><graphic xlink:href="https://nhess.copernicus.org/articles/19/1105/2019/nhess-19-1105-2019-f06.jpg"/>

        </fig>

</sec>
<sec id="Ch1.S5.SS3">
  <label>5.3</label><title>Modelling</title>
      <p id="d1e2042">Modelling was performed at Rapaki Bay to ensure that results were the
same/similar following RAMMS updates since the publication of the original
calibration (Borella et al., 2015). The RAMMS simulation of boulders at
Rapaki Bay still compares favourably with the runout envelope of mapped
boulders (Fig. 7). Mapped and simulated boulder distribution within the
envelope was compared: the largest proportion of boulders from both data sets
were deposited in the upper slope (33<inline-formula><mml:math id="M57" display="inline"><mml:msup><mml:mi/><mml:mo>∘</mml:mo></mml:msup></mml:math></inline-formula> shadow angle) and the
middle–lower slope (26<inline-formula><mml:math id="M58" display="inline"><mml:msup><mml:mi/><mml:mo>∘</mml:mo></mml:msup></mml:math></inline-formula> shadow angle). Both data sets showed a
maximum runout within the
22<inline-formula><mml:math id="M59" display="inline"><mml:msup><mml:mi/><mml:mo>∘</mml:mo></mml:msup></mml:math></inline-formula> shadow zone. The distributions of the data sets were both
constrained by lateral ridges and a creek at the toe. A large proportion of
the boulders from both data sets were channelled into a gully running
parallel with the slope direction.</p>

      <?xmltex \floatpos{p}?><fig id="Ch1.F7" specific-use="star"><?xmltex \currentcnt{7}?><label>Figure 7</label><caption><p id="d1e2074">Mapped (yellow squares, <inline-formula><mml:math id="M60" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:mi>n</mml:mi><mml:mo>=</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">281</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula>) and simulated (purple circles,
<inline-formula><mml:math id="M61" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:mi>n</mml:mi><mml:mo>=</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">5292</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula>) rockfall boulder stopping locations within each shadow zone (the
zone between projected shadow angles, according to Evans and Hungr, 1993) at Rapaki Bay. Shadow zones are
displayed from highest (darkest red is 33<inline-formula><mml:math id="M62" display="inline"><mml:msup><mml:mi/><mml:mo>∘</mml:mo></mml:msup></mml:math></inline-formula>) to lowest (darkest green
is 22<inline-formula><mml:math id="M63" display="inline"><mml:msup><mml:mi/><mml:mo>∘</mml:mo></mml:msup></mml:math></inline-formula>). Runout extent of mapped (yellow line) and simulated (purple
line) boulder populations is compared using envelopes. Inset: Proportion
(%) of mapped and simulated boulders stopping within shadow zones.</p></caption>
          <?xmltex \igopts{width=455.244094pt}?><graphic xlink:href="https://nhess.copernicus.org/articles/19/1105/2019/nhess-19-1105-2019-f07.jpg"/>

        </fig>

      <?pagebreak page1112?><p id="d1e2125">A RAMMS simulation of Mt Vernon boulder motions was performed using the dry
calibration parameters. The runout envelope of the simulated boulders
compares unfavourably to the envelope from the experimental rockfall rolling
(Fig. 8). Runout of the simulated boulders is 175 m further downslope. The
topography is more constrained than Rapaki Bay, with a channelization effect
that means lateral dispersion was not large; however the simulated rockfall
showed a divergence of boulder paths into a neighbouring gully, behaviour
that was not observed during the field experiments.</p>

      <?xmltex \floatpos{t}?><fig id="Ch1.F8"><?xmltex \currentcnt{8}?><label>Figure 8</label><caption><p id="d1e2131">Comparison of Mt Vernon experimental rockfall (<inline-formula><mml:math id="M64" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:mi>n</mml:mi><mml:mo>=</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">70</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula>) runout
envelope (yellow line) with simulated rockfall using the initial calibration
parameters (blue line <inline-formula><mml:math id="M65" display="inline"><mml:mo>=</mml:mo></mml:math></inline-formula> dry) and modified parameters (red line <inline-formula><mml:math id="M66" display="inline"><mml:mo>=</mml:mo></mml:math></inline-formula> wet)
(boulder <inline-formula><mml:math id="M67" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:mi>n</mml:mi><mml:mo>=</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">1800</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula>).</p></caption>
          <?xmltex \igopts{width=241.848425pt}?><graphic xlink:href="https://nhess.copernicus.org/articles/19/1105/2019/nhess-19-1105-2019-f08.jpg"/>

        </fig>

      <p id="d1e2178">An adjustment of parameters from the original values, to reflect wetter soil
conditions (Table 4), resulted in a better match between the field experiment
and runout simulation envelopes (Fig. 8).</p>

<?xmltex \floatpos{t}?><table-wrap id="Ch1.T4" specific-use="star"><?xmltex \currentcnt{4}?><label>Table 4</label><caption><p id="d1e2184">RAMMS terrain parameters (as described in Table 3) for typical Port
Hills terrain types, calibrated to the original data set and adjusted to
wet soil conditions.</p></caption><oasis:table frame="topbot"><oasis:tgroup cols="7">
     <oasis:colspec colnum="1" colname="col1" align="left"/>
     <oasis:colspec colnum="2" colname="col2" align="left"/>
     <oasis:colspec colnum="3" colname="col3" align="right"/>
     <oasis:colspec colnum="4" colname="col4" align="right"/>
     <oasis:colspec colnum="5" colname="col5" align="right"/>
     <oasis:colspec colnum="6" colname="col6" align="right"/>
     <oasis:colspec colnum="7" colname="col7" align="right"/>
     <oasis:thead>
       <oasis:row>
         <oasis:entry colname="col1">Terrain</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col2">Calibration</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col3"><inline-formula><mml:math id="M68" display="inline"><mml:mi mathvariant="italic">μ</mml:mi></mml:math></inline-formula> min</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col4"><inline-formula><mml:math id="M69" display="inline"><mml:mi mathvariant="italic">μ</mml:mi></mml:math></inline-formula> max</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col5"><inline-formula><mml:math id="M70" display="inline"><mml:mi mathvariant="italic">β</mml:mi></mml:math></inline-formula></oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col6"><inline-formula><mml:math id="M71" display="inline"><mml:mi mathvariant="italic">κ</mml:mi></mml:math></inline-formula></oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col7">Drag layer</oasis:entry>
       </oasis:row>
       <oasis:row rowsep="1">
         <oasis:entry colname="col1"/>
         <oasis:entry colname="col2"/>
         <oasis:entry colname="col3"/>
         <oasis:entry colname="col4"/>
         <oasis:entry colname="col5"/>
         <oasis:entry colname="col6"/>
         <oasis:entry colname="col7">coefficient</oasis:entry>
       </oasis:row>
     </oasis:thead>
     <oasis:tbody>
       <oasis:row>
         <oasis:entry colname="col1">Outcropping rock</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col2">Original</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col3">0.7</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col4">2</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col5">50</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col6">0.5</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col7">0.3</oasis:entry>
       </oasis:row>
       <oasis:row>
         <oasis:entry colname="col1">Talus/colluvium</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col2">Original</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col3">0.45</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col4">2</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col5">30</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col6">0.6</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col7">0.5</oasis:entry>
       </oasis:row>
       <oasis:row>
         <oasis:entry colname="col1"/>
         <oasis:entry colname="col2">Wet soil conditions</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col3">0.3</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col4">2</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col5">25</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col6">0.5</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col7">0.7</oasis:entry>
       </oasis:row>
       <oasis:row>
         <oasis:entry colname="col1">Loess</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col2">Original</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col3">0.3</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col4">2</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col5">30</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col6">0.65</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col7">0.5</oasis:entry>
       </oasis:row>
       <oasis:row>
         <oasis:entry colname="col1"/>
         <oasis:entry colname="col2">Wet soil conditions</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col3">0.2</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col4">2</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col5">20</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col6">0.3</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col7">0.7</oasis:entry>
       </oasis:row>
       <oasis:row>
         <oasis:entry colname="col1">Asphalt</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col2">Original</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col3">0.8</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col4">2</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col5">200</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col6">4</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col7">0.3</oasis:entry>
       </oasis:row>
     </oasis:tbody>
   </oasis:tgroup></oasis:table></table-wrap>

</sec>
</sec>
<sec id="Ch1.S6">
  <label>6</label><title>Discussion</title>
      <p id="d1e2437">Typical natural moisture contents in the Port Hills range from
10 % to 25 % (Goldwater, 1990). The moisture content at the time of the
22 February 2011 earthquake was likely between 3 % and 11 % (Carey et
al., 2014), considered representative of dry soil conditions for the
purposes of this study. Soil moisture contents at the time of the Mt Vernon
experiments were tested as being between 28 % and 62 %, due to a prolonged
period of heavy rainfall in the months preceding the experiments, weather
typical of the autumn season, and thus are considered to be representative of
wet soil conditions. High moisture content of the Port Hills Loess correlates
well with low cohesion/shear strength. By increasing moisture contents past
the liquid limit of the soil, cohesion values decrease from as high as 65 to
5 kPa or less for all samples tested, regardless of the recorded proportion
of clay particles within the samples. The amount of clay has an influence
over the strength (cohesion) of the soil when dry (8 %–11 %
moisture), but in wetter conditions (15 %–18 % moisture) its
influence is reduced. When wet (moisture contents of 19 %–22 %,
above the plastic limit), the influence of clay content is indistinguishable,
with cohesion values at or below 5 kPa. This is likely due to the increase
in pore pressure reducing the strength of the particle bonds.</p>
      <p id="d1e2440">Impact scar morphology displays evidence of the impact process: the soil
penetration point and ploughing movement of the boulder – pushing soil
forward as it slides in a downslope motion, causing compression and shear –
reach a maximum friction and rotational momentum, marking the downslope and
widened end of the scar. Overturned soil downslope marks the exit point of
the boulder from the soil profile. A comparison of depth vs. length of impact
scars for the two field sites (Fig. 5) shows that there is (generally) a
greater depth relative to length of scarring during the winter when soil is
wet, compared to the summer when the soil is dry (although we acknowledge
that the scars have not been related to boulder
size or impact angle, and the interpretations thereof are limited). As the
measured soil moisture content at Mt Vernon was above its liquid limit
(measured minimum 28 %), the lower shear strength for the wet soil
results in earlier plastic deformation and higher strain on boulder impact.
As a result, the boulder achieves higher penetration depth within the soil
during the slippage process. When the soil is dry it is harder, and therefore
the boulder does not slip as deeply through the soil during contact with the
ground, as shown by generally lower depth to length ratios of impact scars at
Rapaki Bay in dry soil conditions (Fig. 5). It is likely that the boulder
loses less energy to the soil as a result of shallower slippage. As the soil
response to impact is mechanically different when the moisture content is
different, it follows that the parameterization of the substrate material
within the rockfall model should also be altered.</p>
      <?pagebreak page1114?><p id="d1e2443">RAMMS modelling at Mt Vernon, using parameters calibrated to the Rapaki Bay
data set (dry conditions), shows that runout distance is overestimated when
compared with rockfall field runout experiments. Adjustments of some of the
RAMMS terrain parameters, to reflect the lowering of shear strength of the
loess (evidenced by both the direct shear testing results and measurements of
impact scar depth to length ratio), results in a more favourable match
between the actual and modelled runout. All impact scars recorded during
mapping at Rapaki Bay and following rockfall experiments conducted at
Mt Vernon show a morphology that confirms the efficacy of the slippage
model component in RAMMS (and parameterization thereof), and adjustments to
the parameters set to reflect changes in impact dynamics under different soil
moisture contents (and therefore strength) are valid. RAMMS is the only
rockfall runout model currently available that represents boulder–substrate
interaction as slippage, with parameterization thereof. Other runout models
may require a different approach to representing the change in soil
conditions and its effect on the boulder runout, for example, reduction of the
traditional coefficient of restitution for wet soil conditions, to represent
the increased damping effect the soil has on the boulder during impact.</p>
      <p id="d1e2446"><?xmltex \hack{\newpage}?>We propose that under rapid-loading stress conditions (boulder impact), the
proportion of recoverable (elastic) deformation is lower and irrecoverable
(inelastic) deformation is higher for wet soil than for dry soil. We also
propose that in a soil impact scenario, the irrecoverable stress proportion
of the soil deformation in wet conditions results in a greater impact depth
in the soil by the boulder due to lower stiffness, as noted by the increase
in impact scar depth in wet conditions. Furthermore, the greater plastic or
viscous soil deformation under boulder impact loading in wet conditions
results in a greater proportion of energy lost to the soil. As boulder
motion in rockfall events ends when the kinetic energy is completely
dissipated, the runout distance of the boulder will be shorter under wet
soil conditions compared to the same soil under dry conditions.</p>
      <p id="d1e2451">By increasing the duration of slip through soil on impact in RAMMS, the
decreased shear strength of the soil under wet conditions is represented.
The runout of dry vs. wet soil modelling shows that by adjusting the
parameters to suit the ground conditions, the actual runout is better
represented. Dry soil will produce greater boulder runout distances than the
same soil when wet. For hazard analysis purposes, practitioners should
consider their terrain representation under different moisture conditions
within rockfall models to ensure the maximum possible rockfall runout and
hence damage potential has been accounted for.</p>
      <p id="d1e2454">The method of linking direct shear test results with soil performance under
boulder impact is limiting, as the method of compacting disturbed soil
during shear testing means that the internal structure of the soil is lost
due to the remoulding. The strength values are therefore not wholly
representative of in situ conditions, and greater accuracy in the strength
properties of the loess would be achieved by performing similar tests on
undisturbed samples.</p>
      <p id="d1e2457">Furthermore, representing soil conditions as only either dry or wet is a
crude representation of actual conditions. Realistically the mechanics of
soil behaviour will change continually with incremental increases in
moisture content, and we recommend this contribution is further developed to
explore the effect a range of moisture conditions will have on<?pagebreak page1115?> rockfall
runout. In the future rockfall model parameterization should be fine-tuned
to a range of soil properties.</p>
</sec>
<sec id="Ch1.S7" sec-type="conclusions">
  <label>7</label><title>Conclusions</title>
      <p id="d1e2468">Rockfall modelling using terrain parameters calibrated to rockfall events
during dry loess soil conditions over-simulates runout distance for rockfall
events in wet conditions. Under wet conditions loess soil has a lower shear
strength, and depth of boulder penetration at impact during a rockfall event
will be greater, resulting in a higher damping effect to the boulder and
therefore a shorter overall runout distance. Rockfall model users should
take soil conditions into account to ensure they have allowed for the
worst-case runout distance when simulating rockfall events for hazard
prediction purposes.</p>
</sec>

      
      </body>
    <back><notes notes-type="dataavailability"><title>Data availability</title>

      <p id="d1e2475">The data used in this study are not
publicly available; however the lead author can be contacted for acquisition
of select data (louise.m.vick@uit.no).</p>
  </notes><notes notes-type="authorcontribution"><title>Author contributions</title>

      <p id="d1e2481">LMV conceptualized
and conducted the study, analysed the data, and wrote and edited all drafts.
VZ contributed to the conceptualization of the study as well as to the formal analysis and writing of the original draft. CW conducted investigations and
analysis and contributed to review and editing of the later draft. CM and TD
procured funding for the PhD project, supervised the project, and contributed
to validation, reviewing, and editing.</p>
  </notes><notes notes-type="competinginterests"><title>Competing interests</title>

      <p id="d1e2487">The authors declare that they have no conflict of
interest.</p>
  </notes><ack><title>Acknowledgements</title><p id="d1e2493">This project was undertaken at the University of Canterbury. Mt Vernon
experiment costs were covered by Bell Geoconsulting Ltd, with a contribution
from Solutions 2 Access. The publication charges for this article have been
funded by a grant from the publication fund of UiT The Arctic University of
Norway. We would like to acknowledge Marlène Villeneuve for help with
editing, James Glover for assistance with the experiments and editing, Marc
Christen and the SLF Davos for assistance with RAMMS and providing multiple
free licences, and Ellery Daines for edits and suggestions. We also thank the editor and the reviewers whose careful critique and valid suggestions have greatly improved the paper.</p></ack><notes notes-type="financialsupport"><title>Financial support</title>

      <p id="d1e2498">This research has been supported by the Natural Hazards
Research Platform (grant no. C05X0907). The publication charges for this article have been funded
by a grant from the publication fund of UiT The Arctic University of Norway
(project 551011).</p>
  </notes><?xmltex \hack{\newpage}?><notes notes-type="reviewstatement"><title>Review statement</title>

      <p id="d1e2506">This paper was edited by Paola Reichenbach and reviewed by
Mark Eggers and Greg Stock.</p>
  </notes><ref-list>
    <title>References</title>

      <ref id="bib1.bib1"><label>1</label><mixed-citation>Azzoni, A. and de Freitas, M. H.: Experimentally gained parameters, decisive
for rock fall analysis, Rock Mech. Rock Eng., 28, 111–124,
<ext-link xlink:href="https://doi.org/10.1007/BF01020064" ext-link-type="DOI">10.1007/BF01020064</ext-link>, 1995.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib2"><label>2</label><mixed-citation>Bannister, S. and Gledhill, K.: Evolution of the 2010–2012 Canterbury
earthquake sequence, New Zeal. J. Geol. Geop., 55, 295–304,
<ext-link xlink:href="https://doi.org/10.1080/00288306.2012.680475" ext-link-type="DOI">10.1080/00288306.2012.680475</ext-link>, 2012.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib3"><label>3</label><mixed-citation>Bartelt, P., Bieler, C., Bühler, Y., Christen, M., Christen, M., Dreier,
L., Gerber, W., Glover, J., Schneider, M., Glocker, C., Leine, R., and
Schweizer, A.: RAMMS::ROCKFALL User Manual v1.6., available at:
<uri>http://ramms.slf.ch/ramms/downloads/RAMMS_ROCK_Manual.pdf</uri> (last access:
11 January 2019), 2016.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib4"><label>4</label><mixed-citation>Beavan, J., Fielding, E., Motagh, M., Samsonov, S., and Donnelly, N.: Fault
Location and Slip Distribution of the 22 February 2011 <inline-formula><mml:math id="M72" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi>M</mml:mi><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">w</mml:mi></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> 6.2
Christchurch, New Zealand, Earthquake from Geodetic Data, Seismol. Res.
Lett., 82, 789–799, <ext-link xlink:href="https://doi.org/10.1785/gssrl.82.6.789" ext-link-type="DOI">10.1785/gssrl.82.6.789</ext-link>, 2011.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib5"><label>5</label><mixed-citation>
Bell, D. H. and Crampton, N. A.: Panel report: Engineering geological
evaluation of tunnelling conditions, Lyttelton-Woolston LPG Project,
Christchurch, New Zealand, in 5th International Congress of the International
Association of Engineering Geology, AA Balkema, Buenos Aires, 2485–2502,
1986.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib6"><label>6</label><mixed-citation>
Bell, D. H. and Trangmar, B. B.: Regolith materials and erosion processes on
the Port Hills, Christchurch, New Zealand, in 5th International Conference
&amp; Field Workshop on Landslides, 93–105, 1987.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib7"><label>7</label><mixed-citation>Borella, J. W., Quigley, M., and Vick, L.: Anthropocene rockfalls travel
farther than prehistoric predecessors, Sci. Adv., 2, 1–11,
<ext-link xlink:href="https://doi.org/10.1126/sciadv.1600969" ext-link-type="DOI">10.1126/sciadv.1600969</ext-link>, 2016.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib8"><label>8</label><mixed-citation>
Bozzolo, D. and Pamini, R.: Simulation of Rock Falls down a Valley Side, Acta
Mech., 63, 113–130, 1986.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib9"><label>9</label><mixed-citation>
Brideau, M., Massey, C., Archibald, G., and Jaboyedoff, M.: Photogrammetry
and LiDAR investigation of the cliffs associated with the seismically
triggered rockfalls during the February and June 2011 Christchurch,
Landslides Eng. Sloped Prot. Soc. through Improv. Underst., 1179–1185,
2012.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib10"><label>10</label><mixed-citation>
Brown, L. J. and Weeber, J. H.: Geology of the Christchurch urban area,
Intitute of Geological and Nuclear Sciences, Lower Hutt, New Zealand, 1992.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib11"><label>11</label><mixed-citation>
Carey, J. M., Misra, S., Bruce, Z. R., and Barker, P.: Canterbury Earthquakes
2010/11 Port Hills Slope Stability: Laboratory Testing Factual Report, GNS
Sci. Consult. Rep. 2014/53, 2014.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib12"><label>12</label><mixed-citation>Carey, J. M., McSaveney, M. J., and Petley, D. N.: Dynamic liquefaction of
shear zones in intact loess during simulated earthquake loading, Landslides,
14, 789–804, <ext-link xlink:href="https://doi.org/10.1007/s10346-016-0746-y" ext-link-type="DOI">10.1007/s10346-016-0746-y</ext-link>, 2017.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib13"><label>13</label><mixed-citation>Chau, K. T., Wong, R. H. C., and Lee, C. F.: Rockfall problems in Hong Kong
and some new experimental results for coefficients of restitution, Int. J.
Rock Mech. Min. Sci., 35, 662–663, <ext-link xlink:href="https://doi.org/10.1016/S0148-9062(98)00023-0" ext-link-type="DOI">10.1016/S0148-9062(98)00023-0</ext-link>, 1998.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib14"><label>14</label><mixed-citation>
Claridge, G. and Campbell, I.: Loess sources and eolian deposits in
Antarctica, in: Loess: Its distribution, Geology and Soils, edited<?pagebreak page1116?> by: Eden,
D. N. and Furkert, R. J., Rotterdam, Balkema, Palmerston North, New Zealand,
33–45, 1987.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib15"><label>15</label><mixed-citation>
Cousins, J. and McVerry, G.: Overview of strong motion data from the Darfield
earthquake, Bull. New Zeal. Soc. Earthq. Eng., 43, 222–227, 2010.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib16"><label>16</label><mixed-citation>
Davies, T. R.: Fluvial Processes in Proglacial Environments, in: Treatise on
Geomorphology, edited by: Shroder, J., Academic Press, p. 6386, 2013.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib17"><label>17</label><mixed-citation>
Della Pasqua, F., Massey, C., Lukovic, B., Ries, W., Archibald, G., and
Heron, D.: Canterbury Earthquakes 2010/11 Port Hills Slope Stability: Risk
assessment for Maffeys Road, 112 pp., 2014.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib18"><label>18</label><mixed-citation>Derbyshire, E. and Mellors, T. W.: Geological and geotechnical
characteristics of some loess and loessic soils from China and Britain: A
comparison, Eng. Geol., 25, 135–175, <ext-link xlink:href="https://doi.org/10.1016/0013-7952(88)90024-5" ext-link-type="DOI">10.1016/0013-7952(88)90024-5</ext-link>, 1988.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib19"><label>19</label><mixed-citation>Dorren, L. K. A.: A review of rockfall mechanics and modelling approaches,
Prog. Phys. Geogr., 27, 69–87, <ext-link xlink:href="https://doi.org/10.1191/0309133303pp359ra" ext-link-type="DOI">10.1191/0309133303pp359ra</ext-link>, 2003.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib20"><label>20</label><mixed-citation>Dorren, L. K. A., Berger, F., le Hir, C., Mermin, E., and Tardif, P.:
Mechanisms, effects and management implications of rockfall in forests,
Forest Ecol. Manag., 215, 183–195, <ext-link xlink:href="https://doi.org/10.1016/j.foreco.2005.05.012" ext-link-type="DOI">10.1016/j.foreco.2005.05.012</ext-link>, 2005.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib21"><label>21</label><mixed-citation>Evans, S. G. and Hungr, O.: The assessment of rockfall hazard at the base of
talus slopes, Can. Geotech. J., 30, 620–636, <ext-link xlink:href="https://doi.org/10.1139/t93-054" ext-link-type="DOI">10.1139/t93-054</ext-link>, 1993.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib22"><label>22</label><mixed-citation>
Ferrari, F., Giani, G. P., and Apuani, T.: Towards the comprehension of
rockfall motion, with the aid of in situ tests, in International Conference
on Vajont – 1963–2013 – Thoughts and analyses after 50 years since the
catastrophic landslide, Vol. 6, Italian Journal of Engineering Geology and
Environment, Padua, 163–171, 2013.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib23"><label>23</label><mixed-citation>Fry, B., Benites, R., Reyners, M., Holden, C., Kaiser, A., Bannister, S.,
Gerstenberger, M., Williams, C., Ristau, J., and Beavan, J.: Strong shaking
in recent New Zealand earthquakes, Eos (Washington DC), 92, 349–351,
<ext-link xlink:href="https://doi.org/10.1029/2011EO410001" ext-link-type="DOI">10.1029/2011EO410001</ext-link>, 2011a.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib24"><label>24</label><mixed-citation>Fry, B., Benites, R., and Kaiser, A.: The Character of Accelerations in the
<inline-formula><mml:math id="M73" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi>M</mml:mi><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">w</mml:mi></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> 6.2 Christchurch Earthquake, Seismol. Res. Lett., 82,
846–852, <ext-link xlink:href="https://doi.org/10.1785/gssrl.82.6.846" ext-link-type="DOI">10.1785/gssrl.82.6.846</ext-link>, 2011b.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib25"><label>25</label><mixed-citation>Gao, G.: Formation and development of the structure of collapsing loess in
China, Eng. Geol., 25, 235–245, <ext-link xlink:href="https://doi.org/10.1016/0013-7952(88)90029-4" ext-link-type="DOI">10.1016/0013-7952(88)90029-4</ext-link>, 1988.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib26"><label>26</label><mixed-citation>Giani, G. P., Giacomini, A., Migliazza, M., and Segalini, A.: Experimental
and theoretical studies to improve rock fall analysis and protection work
design, Rock Mech. Rock Eng., 37, 369–389, <ext-link xlink:href="https://doi.org/10.1007/s00603-004-0027-2" ext-link-type="DOI">10.1007/s00603-004-0027-2</ext-link>,
2004.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib27"><label>27</label><mixed-citation>Glover, J.: Rock-shape and its role in rockfall dynamics, Durham University,
available at: <uri>http://etheses.dur.ac.uk/10968/</uri> (last access:
11 January 2019), 2015.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib28"><label>28</label><mixed-citation>Goldwater, S.: Slope failure in loess: a detailed investigation, Allandale,
Banks Peninsula, University of Cantebury, available at:
<uri>http://hdl.handle.net/10092/9378</uri> (last access: 11 January 2019), 1990.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib29"><label>29</label><mixed-citation>Griffiths, E.: Loess of Banks Peninsula, New Zeal. J. Geol. Geop., 16,
657–675, <ext-link xlink:href="https://doi.org/10.1080/00288306.1973.10431388" ext-link-type="DOI">10.1080/00288306.1973.10431388</ext-link>, 1973.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib30"><label>30</label><mixed-citation>Hampton, S. J. and Cole, J. W.: Lyttelton Volcano, Banks Peninsula, New
Zealand: Primary volcanic landforms and eruptive centre identification,
Geomorphology, 104, 284–298, <ext-link xlink:href="https://doi.org/10.1016/j.geomorph.2008.09.005" ext-link-type="DOI">10.1016/j.geomorph.2008.09.005</ext-link>, 2009.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib31"><label>31</label><mixed-citation>Hampton, S. J., Cole, J. W., and Bell, D. H.: Syn-eruptive alluvial and
fluvial volcanogenic systems within an eroding Miocene volcanic complex,
Lyttelton Volcano, Bank Peninsula, New Zealand, New Zeal. J. Geol. Geop., 55,
53–66, <ext-link xlink:href="https://doi.org/10.1080/00288306.2011.632424" ext-link-type="DOI">10.1080/00288306.2011.632424</ext-link>, 2012.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib32"><label>32</label><mixed-citation>Holden, C.: Kinematic Source Model of the 22 February 2011 <inline-formula><mml:math id="M74" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi>M</mml:mi><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">w</mml:mi></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> 6.2
Christchurch Earthquake Using Strong Motion Data, Seismol. Res. Lett., 82,
783–788, <ext-link xlink:href="https://doi.org/10.1785/gssrl.82.6.783" ext-link-type="DOI">10.1785/gssrl.82.6.783</ext-link>, 2011.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib33"><label>33</label><mixed-citation>Hughes, T. J.: A Detailed Study of Banks Peninsula Loess Shear Strength,
University of Canterbury, available at:
<uri>http://hdl.handle.net/10092/10021</uri> (last access: 11 January 2019), 2002.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib34"><label>34</label><mixed-citation>Jowett, T. W. D.: An Investigation of the Geotechnical Properties of Loess
from Canterbury and Marlborough, University of Canterbury, available at:
<uri>http://hdl.handle.net/10092/7580</uri> (last access: 11 January 2019), 1995.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib35"><label>35</label><mixed-citation>Kaiser, A., Holden, C., Beavan, J., Beetham, D., Benites, R., Celentano, A.,
Collett, D., Cousins, J., Cubrinovski, M., Dellow, G., Denys, P., Ficlding,
E., Fry, B., Gerstenberger, M., Langridge, R., Massey, C., Motagh, M.,
Pondard, N., McVerry, G., Ristau, J., Stirling, M., Thomas, J., Uma, S. R.,
and Zhao, J.: The Mw6.2 Christchurch earthquake of February 2011: Preliminary
report, New Zeal. J. Geol. Geop., 55, 67–90,
<ext-link xlink:href="https://doi.org/10.1080/00288306.2011.641182" ext-link-type="DOI">10.1080/00288306.2011.641182</ext-link>, 2012.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib36"><label>36</label><mixed-citation>
Keefer, D. K.: Landslide caused by earthquakes, GSA Bull., 95, 406–421,
1984.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib37"><label>37</label><mixed-citation>Kie, T. T.: Fundamental properties of loess from Northwestern China, Eng.
Geol., 25, 103–122, <ext-link xlink:href="https://doi.org/10.1016/0013-7952(88)90022-1" ext-link-type="DOI">10.1016/0013-7952(88)90022-1</ext-link>, 1988.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib38"><label>38</label><mixed-citation>
Leine, R., Schweizer, A., Christen, M., Glover, J., Bartelt, P., and Gerber,
W.: Simulation of rockfall trajectories with consideration of rock shape,
Multibody Syst. Dyn., 32, 1–31, 2013.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib39"><label>39</label><mixed-citation>Lutenegger, A. J. and Hallberg, G. R.: Stability of loess, Eng. Geol., 25,
247–261, <ext-link xlink:href="https://doi.org/10.1016/0013-7952(88)90030-0" ext-link-type="DOI">10.1016/0013-7952(88)90030-0</ext-link>, 1988.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib40"><label>40</label><mixed-citation>
Massey, C., Della-Pasqua, F., Lukovic, B., Yetton, M., Archibald, G., and
Ries, W.: Canterbury earthquakes 2010/11 Port Hills Slope Stability: Risk
assessment for Cliff Street, GNS Sci. Consult. Rep., (2014/73), 1–190,
2014a.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib41"><label>41</label><mixed-citation>Massey, C., McSaveney, M., Taig, T., Richards, L., Litchfield, N., Rhoades,
D., McVerry, G., Lukovic, B., Heron, D., Ries, W., and Van Dissen, R.:
Determining rockfall risk in Christchurch using rockfalls triggered by the
2010/2011 Canterbury earthquake sequence, New Zealand, Earthq. Spectra, 30,
155–181, <ext-link xlink:href="https://doi.org/10.1193/021413EQS026M" ext-link-type="DOI">10.1193/021413EQS026M</ext-link>, 2014b.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib42"><label>42</label><mixed-citation>Mcdowell, B. J.: Site investigations for residential development on the Port
Hills, Christchurch, University of Canterbury, available at:
<uri>http://hdl.handle.net/10092/5436</uri> (last access: 11 January 2019), 1989.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib43"><label>43</label><mixed-citation>Mukhtar, J.-A. S.: Engineering Geological and Geotechnical Characterisation
of Selected Port Hills Lavas, University of Canterbury, available at:
<uri>https://ir.canterbury.ac.nz/handle/10092/9971</uri> (last access:
11 January 2019), 2014.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib44"><label>44</label><mixed-citation>Peng, B.: Rockfall Trajectory Analysis – Parameter Determination and
Application, University of Canterbury, available at:
<uri>http://hdl.handle.net/10092/5802</uri> (last access: 11 January 2019), 2000.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib45"><label>45</label><mixed-citation>Tehrani, B. H.: Chemical Stabilisation of Whaka Terrace Loess,<?pagebreak page1117?> Christchurch,
University of Canterbury, available at:
<uri>http://hdl.handle.net/10092/6705</uri> (last access: 11 January 2019), 1988.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib46"><label>46</label><mixed-citation>Vick, L. M.: Evaluation of field data and 3D modelling for rockfall hazard
assessment, University of Canterbury, available at:
<uri>http://hdl.handle.net/10092/10845</uri> (last access: 11 January 2019), 2015.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib47"><label>47</label><mixed-citation>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, <ext-link xlink:href="https://doi.org/10.5194/nhess-11-2617-2011" ext-link-type="DOI">10.5194/nhess-11-2617-2011</ext-link>, 2011.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib48"><label>48</label><mixed-citation>Volkwein, A., Brügger, L., Gees, F., Gerber, W., Krummenacher, B.,
Kummer, P., Lardon, J., and Sutter, T.: Repetitive Rockfall Trajectory
Testing, Geosciences, 8, 1–27, <ext-link xlink:href="https://doi.org/10.3390/geosciences8030088" ext-link-type="DOI">10.3390/geosciences8030088</ext-link>, 2018.
</mixed-citation></ref><?xmltex \hack{\newpage}?>
      <ref id="bib1.bib49"><label>49</label><mixed-citation>White, C. S.: Earthqauke induced fissuring in Banks Peninsula loessial soils:
A geotechnical investigation of the Ramahana Road Fissure trace, University
of Canterbury, available at: <uri>http://hdl.handle.net/10092/11997</uri> (last
access: 11 January 2019), 2016.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib50"><label>50</label><mixed-citation>
Wood, P., Robins, P., and Hare, J.: Preliminary observations of the 2010
darfield (Canterbury) Earthquakes: An introduction, Bull. New Zeal. Soc.
Earthq. Eng., 43, 3–6, 2010.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib51"><label>51</label><mixed-citation>
Wyllie, D.: Rock Fall Engineering, 1st Edn., Taylor &amp; Francis Group, Boca
Raton, 270 pp., 2014.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib52"><label>52</label><mixed-citation>
Wyllie, D. and Mah, C.: Rock Slope Engineering, 4th Edn., Spon Press, New
York, USA, 456 pp., 2004.</mixed-citation></ref>

  </ref-list></back>
    <!--<article-title-html>Significance of substrate soil moisture content for rockfall hazard assessment</article-title-html>
<abstract-html><p>Rockfall modelling is an important tool for hazard analysis in
steep terrain. Calibrating terrain parameters ensures that the model results
more accurately represent the site-specific hazard. Parameterizing rockfall
models is challenging because rockfall runout is highly sensitive to initial
conditions, rock shape, size and material properties, terrain morphology, and
terrain material properties. This contribution examines the mechanics of
terrain impact scarring due to rockfall on the Port Hills of Christchurch,
New Zealand. We use field-scale testing and laboratory direct shear testing
to quantify how the changing moisture content of the loessial soils can
influence its strength from soft to hard, and vice versa.</p><p>We calibrate the three-dimensional rockfall model RAMMS by back-analysing
several well-documented rockfall events that occurred at a site with dry
loessial soil conditions. We then test the calibrated <q>dry</q> model at a
site where the loessial soil conditions were assessed to be wet. The
calibrated dry model over-predicts the runout distance when wet loessial
soil conditions are assumed. We hypothesize that this is because both the
shear strength and stiffness of wet loess are reduced relative to the dry
loess, resulting in a higher damping effect on boulder dynamics. For both
realistic and conservative rockfall modelling, the maximum credible hazard
is usually assumed; for rockfall on loess slopes, the maximum credible
hazard occurs during dry soil conditions.</p></abstract-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib1"><label>1</label><mixed-citation>
Azzoni, A. and de Freitas, M. H.: Experimentally gained parameters, decisive
for rock fall analysis, Rock Mech. Rock Eng., 28, 111–124,
<a href="https://doi.org/10.1007/BF01020064" target="_blank">https://doi.org/10.1007/BF01020064</a>, 1995.
</mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib2"><label>2</label><mixed-citation>
Bannister, S. and Gledhill, K.: Evolution of the 2010–2012 Canterbury
earthquake sequence, New Zeal. J. Geol. Geop., 55, 295–304,
<a href="https://doi.org/10.1080/00288306.2012.680475" target="_blank">https://doi.org/10.1080/00288306.2012.680475</a>, 2012.
</mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib3"><label>3</label><mixed-citation>
Bartelt, P., Bieler, C., Bühler, Y., Christen, M., Christen, M., Dreier,
L., Gerber, W., Glover, J., Schneider, M., Glocker, C., Leine, R., and
Schweizer, A.: RAMMS::ROCKFALL User Manual v1.6., available at:
<a href="http://ramms.slf.ch/ramms/downloads/RAMMS_ROCK_Manual.pdf" target="_blank">http://ramms.slf.ch/ramms/downloads/RAMMS_ROCK_Manual.pdf</a> (last access:
11 January 2019), 2016.
</mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib4"><label>4</label><mixed-citation>
Beavan, J., Fielding, E., Motagh, M., Samsonov, S., and Donnelly, N.: Fault
Location and Slip Distribution of the 22 February 2011 <i>M</i><sub>w</sub> 6.2
Christchurch, New Zealand, Earthquake from Geodetic Data, Seismol. Res.
Lett., 82, 789–799, <a href="https://doi.org/10.1785/gssrl.82.6.789" target="_blank">https://doi.org/10.1785/gssrl.82.6.789</a>, 2011.
</mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib5"><label>5</label><mixed-citation>
Bell, D. H. and Crampton, N. A.: Panel report: Engineering geological
evaluation of tunnelling conditions, Lyttelton-Woolston LPG Project,
Christchurch, New Zealand, in 5th International Congress of the International
Association of Engineering Geology, AA Balkema, Buenos Aires, 2485–2502,
1986.
</mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib6"><label>6</label><mixed-citation>
Bell, D. H. and Trangmar, B. B.: Regolith materials and erosion processes on
the Port Hills, Christchurch, New Zealand, in 5th International Conference
&amp; Field Workshop on Landslides, 93–105, 1987.
</mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib7"><label>7</label><mixed-citation>
Borella, J. W., Quigley, M., and Vick, L.: Anthropocene rockfalls travel
farther than prehistoric predecessors, Sci. Adv., 2, 1–11,
<a href="https://doi.org/10.1126/sciadv.1600969" target="_blank">https://doi.org/10.1126/sciadv.1600969</a>, 2016.
</mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib8"><label>8</label><mixed-citation>
Bozzolo, D. and Pamini, R.: Simulation of Rock Falls down a Valley Side, Acta
Mech., 63, 113–130, 1986.
</mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib9"><label>9</label><mixed-citation>
Brideau, M., Massey, C., Archibald, G., and Jaboyedoff, M.: Photogrammetry
and LiDAR investigation of the cliffs associated with the seismically
triggered rockfalls during the February and June 2011 Christchurch,
Landslides Eng. Sloped Prot. Soc. through Improv. Underst., 1179–1185,
2012.
</mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib10"><label>10</label><mixed-citation>
Brown, L. J. and Weeber, J. H.: Geology of the Christchurch urban area,
Intitute of Geological and Nuclear Sciences, Lower Hutt, New Zealand, 1992.
</mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib11"><label>11</label><mixed-citation>
Carey, J. M., Misra, S., Bruce, Z. R., and Barker, P.: Canterbury Earthquakes
2010/11 Port Hills Slope Stability: Laboratory Testing Factual Report, GNS
Sci. Consult. Rep. 2014/53, 2014.
</mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib12"><label>12</label><mixed-citation>
Carey, J. M., McSaveney, M. J., and Petley, D. N.: Dynamic liquefaction of
shear zones in intact loess during simulated earthquake loading, Landslides,
14, 789–804, <a href="https://doi.org/10.1007/s10346-016-0746-y" target="_blank">https://doi.org/10.1007/s10346-016-0746-y</a>, 2017.
</mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib13"><label>13</label><mixed-citation>
Chau, K. T., Wong, R. H. C., and Lee, C. F.: Rockfall problems in Hong Kong
and some new experimental results for coefficients of restitution, Int. J.
Rock Mech. Min. Sci., 35, 662–663, <a href="https://doi.org/10.1016/S0148-9062(98)00023-0" target="_blank">https://doi.org/10.1016/S0148-9062(98)00023-0</a>, 1998.
</mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib14"><label>14</label><mixed-citation>
Claridge, G. and Campbell, I.: Loess sources and eolian deposits in
Antarctica, in: Loess: Its distribution, Geology and Soils, edited by: Eden,
D. N. and Furkert, R. J., Rotterdam, Balkema, Palmerston North, New Zealand,
33–45, 1987.
</mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib15"><label>15</label><mixed-citation>
Cousins, J. and McVerry, G.: Overview of strong motion data from the Darfield
earthquake, Bull. New Zeal. Soc. Earthq. Eng., 43, 222–227, 2010.
</mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib16"><label>16</label><mixed-citation>
Davies, T. R.: Fluvial Processes in Proglacial Environments, in: Treatise on
Geomorphology, edited by: Shroder, J., Academic Press, p. 6386, 2013.
</mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib17"><label>17</label><mixed-citation>
Della Pasqua, F., Massey, C., Lukovic, B., Ries, W., Archibald, G., and
Heron, D.: Canterbury Earthquakes 2010/11 Port Hills Slope Stability: Risk
assessment for Maffeys Road, 112 pp., 2014.
</mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib18"><label>18</label><mixed-citation>
Derbyshire, E. and Mellors, T. W.: Geological and geotechnical
characteristics of some loess and loessic soils from China and Britain: A
comparison, Eng. Geol., 25, 135–175, <a href="https://doi.org/10.1016/0013-7952(88)90024-5" target="_blank">https://doi.org/10.1016/0013-7952(88)90024-5</a>, 1988.
</mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib19"><label>19</label><mixed-citation>
Dorren, L. K. A.: A review of rockfall mechanics and modelling approaches,
Prog. Phys. Geogr., 27, 69–87, <a href="https://doi.org/10.1191/0309133303pp359ra" target="_blank">https://doi.org/10.1191/0309133303pp359ra</a>, 2003.
</mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib20"><label>20</label><mixed-citation>
Dorren, L. K. A., Berger, F., le Hir, C., Mermin, E., and Tardif, P.:
Mechanisms, effects and management implications of rockfall in forests,
Forest Ecol. Manag., 215, 183–195, <a href="https://doi.org/10.1016/j.foreco.2005.05.012" target="_blank">https://doi.org/10.1016/j.foreco.2005.05.012</a>, 2005.
</mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib21"><label>21</label><mixed-citation>
Evans, S. G. and Hungr, O.: The assessment of rockfall hazard at the base of
talus slopes, Can. Geotech. J., 30, 620–636, <a href="https://doi.org/10.1139/t93-054" target="_blank">https://doi.org/10.1139/t93-054</a>, 1993.
</mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib22"><label>22</label><mixed-citation>
Ferrari, F., Giani, G. P., and Apuani, T.: Towards the comprehension of
rockfall motion, with the aid of in situ tests, in International Conference
on Vajont – 1963–2013 – Thoughts and analyses after 50 years since the
catastrophic landslide, Vol. 6, Italian Journal of Engineering Geology and
Environment, Padua, 163–171, 2013.
</mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib23"><label>23</label><mixed-citation>
Fry, B., Benites, R., Reyners, M., Holden, C., Kaiser, A., Bannister, S.,
Gerstenberger, M., Williams, C., Ristau, J., and Beavan, J.: Strong shaking
in recent New Zealand earthquakes, Eos (Washington DC), 92, 349–351,
<a href="https://doi.org/10.1029/2011EO410001" target="_blank">https://doi.org/10.1029/2011EO410001</a>, 2011a.
</mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib24"><label>24</label><mixed-citation>
Fry, B., Benites, R., and Kaiser, A.: The Character of Accelerations in the
<i>M</i><sub>w</sub> 6.2 Christchurch Earthquake, Seismol. Res. Lett., 82,
846–852, <a href="https://doi.org/10.1785/gssrl.82.6.846" target="_blank">https://doi.org/10.1785/gssrl.82.6.846</a>, 2011b.
</mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib25"><label>25</label><mixed-citation>
Gao, G.: Formation and development of the structure of collapsing loess in
China, Eng. Geol., 25, 235–245, <a href="https://doi.org/10.1016/0013-7952(88)90029-4" target="_blank">https://doi.org/10.1016/0013-7952(88)90029-4</a>, 1988.
</mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib26"><label>26</label><mixed-citation>
Giani, G. P., Giacomini, A., Migliazza, M., and Segalini, A.: Experimental
and theoretical studies to improve rock fall analysis and protection work
design, Rock Mech. Rock Eng., 37, 369–389, <a href="https://doi.org/10.1007/s00603-004-0027-2" target="_blank">https://doi.org/10.1007/s00603-004-0027-2</a>,
2004.
</mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib27"><label>27</label><mixed-citation>
Glover, J.: Rock-shape and its role in rockfall dynamics, Durham University,
available at: <a href="http://etheses.dur.ac.uk/10968/" target="_blank">http://etheses.dur.ac.uk/10968/</a> (last access:
11 January 2019), 2015.
</mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib28"><label>28</label><mixed-citation>
Goldwater, S.: Slope failure in loess: a detailed investigation, Allandale,
Banks Peninsula, University of Cantebury, available at:
<a href="http://hdl.handle.net/10092/9378" target="_blank">http://hdl.handle.net/10092/9378</a> (last access: 11 January 2019), 1990.
</mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib29"><label>29</label><mixed-citation>
Griffiths, E.: Loess of Banks Peninsula, New Zeal. J. Geol. Geop., 16,
657–675, <a href="https://doi.org/10.1080/00288306.1973.10431388" target="_blank">https://doi.org/10.1080/00288306.1973.10431388</a>, 1973.
</mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib30"><label>30</label><mixed-citation>
Hampton, S. J. and Cole, J. W.: Lyttelton Volcano, Banks Peninsula, New
Zealand: Primary volcanic landforms and eruptive centre identification,
Geomorphology, 104, 284–298, <a href="https://doi.org/10.1016/j.geomorph.2008.09.005" target="_blank">https://doi.org/10.1016/j.geomorph.2008.09.005</a>, 2009.
</mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib31"><label>31</label><mixed-citation>
Hampton, S. J., Cole, J. W., and Bell, D. H.: Syn-eruptive alluvial and
fluvial volcanogenic systems within an eroding Miocene volcanic complex,
Lyttelton Volcano, Bank Peninsula, New Zealand, New Zeal. J. Geol. Geop., 55,
53–66, <a href="https://doi.org/10.1080/00288306.2011.632424" target="_blank">https://doi.org/10.1080/00288306.2011.632424</a>, 2012.
</mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib32"><label>32</label><mixed-citation>
Holden, C.: Kinematic Source Model of the 22 February 2011 <i>M</i><sub>w</sub> 6.2
Christchurch Earthquake Using Strong Motion Data, Seismol. Res. Lett., 82,
783–788, <a href="https://doi.org/10.1785/gssrl.82.6.783" target="_blank">https://doi.org/10.1785/gssrl.82.6.783</a>, 2011.
</mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib33"><label>33</label><mixed-citation>
Hughes, T. J.: A Detailed Study of Banks Peninsula Loess Shear Strength,
University of Canterbury, available at:
<a href="http://hdl.handle.net/10092/10021" target="_blank">http://hdl.handle.net/10092/10021</a> (last access: 11 January 2019), 2002.
</mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib34"><label>34</label><mixed-citation>
Jowett, T. W. D.: An Investigation of the Geotechnical Properties of Loess
from Canterbury and Marlborough, University of Canterbury, available at:
<a href="http://hdl.handle.net/10092/7580" target="_blank">http://hdl.handle.net/10092/7580</a> (last access: 11 January 2019), 1995.
</mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib35"><label>35</label><mixed-citation>
Kaiser, A., Holden, C., Beavan, J., Beetham, D., Benites, R., Celentano, A.,
Collett, D., Cousins, J., Cubrinovski, M., Dellow, G., Denys, P., Ficlding,
E., Fry, B., Gerstenberger, M., Langridge, R., Massey, C., Motagh, M.,
Pondard, N., McVerry, G., Ristau, J., Stirling, M., Thomas, J., Uma, S. R.,
and Zhao, J.: The Mw6.2 Christchurch earthquake of February 2011: Preliminary
report, New Zeal. J. Geol. Geop., 55, 67–90,
<a href="https://doi.org/10.1080/00288306.2011.641182" target="_blank">https://doi.org/10.1080/00288306.2011.641182</a>, 2012.
</mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib36"><label>36</label><mixed-citation>
Keefer, D. K.: Landslide caused by earthquakes, GSA Bull., 95, 406–421,
1984.
</mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib37"><label>37</label><mixed-citation>
Kie, T. T.: Fundamental properties of loess from Northwestern China, Eng.
Geol., 25, 103–122, <a href="https://doi.org/10.1016/0013-7952(88)90022-1" target="_blank">https://doi.org/10.1016/0013-7952(88)90022-1</a>, 1988.
</mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib38"><label>38</label><mixed-citation>
Leine, R., Schweizer, A., Christen, M., Glover, J., Bartelt, P., and Gerber,
W.: Simulation of rockfall trajectories with consideration of rock shape,
Multibody Syst. Dyn., 32, 1–31, 2013.
</mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib39"><label>39</label><mixed-citation>
Lutenegger, A. J. and Hallberg, G. R.: Stability of loess, Eng. Geol., 25,
247–261, <a href="https://doi.org/10.1016/0013-7952(88)90030-0" target="_blank">https://doi.org/10.1016/0013-7952(88)90030-0</a>, 1988.
</mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib40"><label>40</label><mixed-citation>
Massey, C., Della-Pasqua, F., Lukovic, B., Yetton, M., Archibald, G., and
Ries, W.: Canterbury earthquakes 2010/11 Port Hills Slope Stability: Risk
assessment for Cliff Street, GNS Sci. Consult. Rep., (2014/73), 1–190,
2014a.
</mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib41"><label>41</label><mixed-citation>
Massey, C., McSaveney, M., Taig, T., Richards, L., Litchfield, N., Rhoades,
D., McVerry, G., Lukovic, B., Heron, D., Ries, W., and Van Dissen, R.:
Determining rockfall risk in Christchurch using rockfalls triggered by the
2010/2011 Canterbury earthquake sequence, New Zealand, Earthq. Spectra, 30,
155–181, <a href="https://doi.org/10.1193/021413EQS026M" target="_blank">https://doi.org/10.1193/021413EQS026M</a>, 2014b.
</mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib42"><label>42</label><mixed-citation>
Mcdowell, B. J.: Site investigations for residential development on the Port
Hills, Christchurch, University of Canterbury, available at:
<a href="http://hdl.handle.net/10092/5436" target="_blank">http://hdl.handle.net/10092/5436</a> (last access: 11 January 2019), 1989.
</mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib43"><label>43</label><mixed-citation>
Mukhtar, J.-A. S.: Engineering Geological and Geotechnical Characterisation
of Selected Port Hills Lavas, University of Canterbury, available at:
<a href="https://ir.canterbury.ac.nz/handle/10092/9971" target="_blank">https://ir.canterbury.ac.nz/handle/10092/9971</a> (last access:
11 January 2019), 2014.
</mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib44"><label>44</label><mixed-citation>
Peng, B.: Rockfall Trajectory Analysis – Parameter Determination and
Application, University of Canterbury, available at:
<a href="http://hdl.handle.net/10092/5802" target="_blank">http://hdl.handle.net/10092/5802</a> (last access: 11 January 2019), 2000.
</mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib45"><label>45</label><mixed-citation>
Tehrani, B. H.: Chemical Stabilisation of Whaka Terrace Loess, Christchurch,
University of Canterbury, available at:
<a href="http://hdl.handle.net/10092/6705" target="_blank">http://hdl.handle.net/10092/6705</a> (last access: 11 January 2019), 1988.
</mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib46"><label>46</label><mixed-citation>
Vick, L. M.: Evaluation of field data and 3D modelling for rockfall hazard
assessment, University of Canterbury, available at:
<a href="http://hdl.handle.net/10092/10845" target="_blank">http://hdl.handle.net/10092/10845</a> (last access: 11 January 2019), 2015.
</mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib47"><label>47</label><mixed-citation>
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, <a href="https://doi.org/10.5194/nhess-11-2617-2011" target="_blank">https://doi.org/10.5194/nhess-11-2617-2011</a>, 2011.
</mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib48"><label>48</label><mixed-citation>
Volkwein, A., Brügger, L., Gees, F., Gerber, W., Krummenacher, B.,
Kummer, P., Lardon, J., and Sutter, T.: Repetitive Rockfall Trajectory
Testing, Geosciences, 8, 1–27, <a href="https://doi.org/10.3390/geosciences8030088" target="_blank">https://doi.org/10.3390/geosciences8030088</a>, 2018.

</mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib49"><label>49</label><mixed-citation>
White, C. S.: Earthqauke induced fissuring in Banks Peninsula loessial soils:
A geotechnical investigation of the Ramahana Road Fissure trace, University
of Canterbury, available at: <a href="http://hdl.handle.net/10092/11997" target="_blank">http://hdl.handle.net/10092/11997</a> (last
access: 11 January 2019), 2016.
</mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib50"><label>50</label><mixed-citation>
Wood, P., Robins, P., and Hare, J.: Preliminary observations of the 2010
darfield (Canterbury) Earthquakes: An introduction, Bull. New Zeal. Soc.
Earthq. Eng., 43, 3–6, 2010.
</mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib51"><label>51</label><mixed-citation>
Wyllie, D.: Rock Fall Engineering, 1st Edn., Taylor &amp; Francis Group, Boca
Raton, 270 pp., 2014.
</mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib52"><label>52</label><mixed-citation>
Wyllie, D. and Mah, C.: Rock Slope Engineering, 4th Edn., Spon Press, New
York, USA, 456 pp., 2004.
</mixed-citation></ref-html>--></article>
