Advertisement

Rock Mechanics and Rock Engineering

, Volume 46, Issue 3, pp 515–526 | Cite as

Perforation of Flexible Rockfall Barriers by Normal Block Impact

  • J. P. HambletonEmail author
  • O. Buzzi
  • A. Giacomini
  • M. Spadari
  • S. W. Sloan
Original Paper

Abstract

Flexible rockfall barriers are a common form of protection against falling blocks of rock and rock fragments (rockfall). These barriers consist of a system of cables, posts, and a mesh, and their capacity is typically quantified in terms of the threshold of impact (kinetic) energy at which the barrier fails. This threshold, referred to here as the “critical energy,” is often regarded as a constant. However, several studies have pointed out that there is no single representative value of critical energy for a given barrier. Instead, the critical energy decreases as the block size decreases, a phenomenon referred to as the “bullet effect.” In this paper, we present a simple analytical model for determining the critical energy of a flexible barrier. The model considers a block that impacts normally and centrally on the wire mesh, and rather than incorporate the structural details of the cables and posts explicitly, the supporting elements are replaced by springs of representative stiffness. The analysis reveals the dependence of the critical energy on the block size, as well as other relevant variables, and it provides physical insight into the impact problem. For example, it is shown that bending of the wire mesh during impact reduces the axial force that can be sustained within the wires, thus reducing the energy that can be absorbed. The formulas derived in the paper are straightforward to use, and the analytical predictions compare favorably with data available in the literature.

Keywords

Rockfall barrier Impact Kinetic energy Bullet effect Finite element Analytical 

Notes

Acknowledgments

Financial support provided by the ARC Centre of Excellence for Geotechnical Science and Engineering (grant number CE110001009) is gratefully acknowledged. The first and last authors would also like to acknowledge support provided by the ARC Laureate Fellowship entitled “Failure Analysis of Geotechnical Infrastructure” (grant number FL0992039).

References

  1. Anderheggen E, Volkwein A, Grassl H (2002) Numerical simulation of highly flexible rockfall protection systems. In: Proceedings of the fifth world congress on computational mechanics (WCCM V), Vienna, AustriaGoogle Scholar
  2. Arndt B, Ortiz T, Turner AK (2009) Colorado’s full-scale field testing of rockfall attenuator systems. Transp Res Circular, E-C141. Transportation Research Board, WashingtonGoogle Scholar
  3. Bertolo P, Oggeri C, Peila D (2009) Full-scale testing of draped nets for rock fall protection. Can Geotech J 46:306–317. doi: 10.1139/t08-126 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Buzzi O, Giacomini A, Spadari M, Fityus S (2011) Numerical modeling of a rock fall mesh perforation upon impact. In: Proceedings of the 13th international conference of the international association for computer methods and advances in geomechanics, Sydney, AustraliaGoogle Scholar
  5. Buzzi O, Spadari M, Giacomini A, Fityus S, Sloan SW (2012) Experimental testing of rockfall barriers designed for the low range of impact energy. Rock Mech Rock Eng. doi: 10.1007/s00603-012-0295-1
  6. Cantarelli G, Giani GP, Gottardi G, Govoni L (2008) Modelling rockfall protection fences In: Proceedings of the first world landslide forum, Tokyo, JapanGoogle Scholar
  7. Cazzani A, Mongiovì L, Frenez T (2002) Dynamic finite element analysis of interceptive devices for falling rocks. Int J Rock Mech Min Sci 39:303–321CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. De Col R, Cocco S (1996) Motivazioni tecniche ed economiche per la standardizzazione di prove sulle opere paramassi nella Provincia Autonoma di Trento. In: Giornata di studio su ‘‘La protezione contro la caduta di massi dai versanti rocciosi’’. GEAM, Torino, pp 65–72Google Scholar
  9. EOTA (2008) Guideline for European technical approval of falling rock protection kits (ETAG 027), Feb 2008, Brussels. http://www.eota.be/en-gb/content/endorsed-etag-s/9/
  10. Giani GP (1992) Rock slope stability analysis. Balkema, RotterdamGoogle Scholar
  11. Grassl H, Volkwein A, Anderheggen E, Ammann WJ (2002) Steel-net rockfall protection—experimental and numerical simulation. In: Proceedings of the seventh international conference on structures under shock and impact, Montreal, CanadaGoogle Scholar
  12. Hearn G, Barrett RK, McMullen ML (1992) CDOT flexpost rockfall fence development, testing, and analysis. Transp Res Rec 1343:23–29Google Scholar
  13. Hearn G, Barrett RK, Henson HH (1995) Testing and modeling of two rockfall barriers. Transp Res Rec 1504:1–11Google Scholar
  14. Jirásek M, Bazant ZP (2002) Inelastic analysis of structures. Wiley, HobokenGoogle Scholar
  15. Peila D, Oggeri C (2003) The use of rockfall protection systems in surface mining activity. Int J Surf Min Reclam Environ 17:51–64. doi: 10.1076/ijsm.17.1.51.8625 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Peila D, Ronco C (2009) Design of rockfall net fences and the new ETAG 027 European guideline. Nat Hazards Earth Syst Sci 9:1291–1298CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Peila D, Pelizza S, Sassudelli F (1998) Evaluation of behaviour of rockfall restraining nets by full scale tests. Rock Mech Rock Eng 31:1–24. doi: 10.1007/s006030050006 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Smith DD, Duffy JD (1990) Field tests and evaluation of rockfall restraining nets, final report. California Department of Transportation, SacramentoGoogle Scholar
  19. Spadari M, Giacomini A, Buzzi O, Hambleton JP (2012) Prediction of the bullet effect for rockfall barriers: a scaling approach. Rock Mech Rock Eng 45:131–144. doi: 10.1007/s00603-011-0203-0 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Volkwein A (2005) Numerical simulation of flexible rockfall protection systems. In: Proceedings of the 2005 ASCE international conference on computing in civil engineering. Cancun, MexicoGoogle Scholar
  21. Volkwein A, Melis L, Haller B, Pfeifer R (2005) Protection from landslides and high speed rockfall events: reconstruction of Chapman’s peak drive. In: Proceedings of the 2005 IABSE symposium. Lisbon, PortugalGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Wien 2012

Authors and Affiliations

  • J. P. Hambleton
    • 1
    • 2
    Email author
  • O. Buzzi
    • 2
  • A. Giacomini
    • 2
  • M. Spadari
    • 2
  • S. W. Sloan
    • 1
    • 2
  1. 1.ARC Centre of Excellence for Geotechnical Science and EngineeringThe University of NewcastleCallaghanAustralia
  2. 2.Priority Research Centre for Geotechnical and Materials ModellingThe University of NewcastleCallaghanAustralia

Personalised recommendations