bchapter 16 TIE8-2078 Tromas C. BADGER AND JOHN D. DurFy DRAPERY SYSTEMS Sislemas de Covkwas 534 PDE Wiowoelt One te pede Caio re echonna 1. INTRODUCTION ince at least the 1950s, woven steel fabrics have been used along North American high- ways as a cost-effective measure to control rockfall oon actively eroding slopes. This protection mea- sure has been termed drapery, slope protection, or simply wire mesh; these systems are here referred t0 as drapery. In its basic form, drapery consists of a row of ground anchors along the top of the instal- lation, typically connected to a horizontal support cable from which a woven steel fabric, generically referred to as mesh, is suspended down onto the slope (Figure 16-1). This most basic form of drapery is referred to as unsecured drapery, after Muhunthan etal. (2005a). Two variations of drapery have since evolved: secured and hybrid drapery. Secured drap- ry, after Muhunthan et al. (2005a), includes a pat- tem of ground anchors incorporated within the field of the mesh for the purpose of containing rockfall within the mesh (Figure 16-2). An interior grid of Wire ropes secured to the patterned ground anchors may also be included (Figure 16-3). A second varia- tion of drapery involves elevating the upper part of an unsecured drapery by using posts or by suspend- ing the drapery across a chute to create an impact section intended to intercept rockfalls originating upslope ofthe installation (Figure 16-4). The latter variation is referred to here as hybrid drapery. Hybrid drapery is often also referred to as an attenuator, a Iybrid barrier, or hanging nes. AK derecho caper Nelle. 2, UNSECURED DRAPERY Drapery that is only anchored along the top is referred to as unsecured drapery. Unsecured drap- ery addresses rockfall that originates from the covered slope area and is exposed to rockfall tra- jectories and impacts that are primarily oriented in the plane of the mesh. Although unsecured drapery can provide some resistance to rockfalls where the mesh is in contact with the slope, the system allows for rockfall between the slope and the mesh, controlling its descent into a catchment area at the base of the slope or the mesh terminus. ‘One important objective of an unsecured system is toavoid external loading caused by accumulating debris behind the mesh. The North American trans- portation industry relies primarily on unsecured drapery, since its installation costs are significantly lower and it requires less maintenance than secured drapery. Unsecured drapery has been installed success- fully on moderately inclined to overhanging slopes and on very uniform to highly irregular slopes to ‘mitigate rockfall. Some installations exceed 120 m (400 ft) in height. Mubunthan et al. (2005a, 2005b) reviewed the performance of existing un- secured drapery in North America and completed engineering evaluations of their limit conditions for the purpose of developing design guidelines. Study ‘outcomes included a recommended design proto- col for evaluating the suitability ofthis protection‘measure for the limiting range of site conditions, accounting for external loading conditions to determine anchoring requirements, selecting the appropriate mesh, and detailing the final system (Figure 16-5) 2.1 Site Suitability and Characterization ‘Unsecured drapery is most appropriate for rockfalls consisting of a single block or small-volume fail- ures composed of relatively small block sizes, such as those originating from coarse surficial depos- its (eg, colluvium, alluvium, residual soils) and closely fractured rock masses. Draperies are well suited for these limiting conditions and have per- formed effectively with minimal damage for several decades, even when exposed to frequent rockfalls (Muhunthan et al. 2005a). Many draperies have been installed on slopes that are poorly suited or have beervover- or under- designed for the site and loading conditions (Fig- ure 16-6). Characterization of the rockfall source area and loading conditions is the first and most. important step in determining site suitability and in designing an appropriate system for the expected conditions. 2.1.1 Block and Event Size As with any structural system, there are limitations con both the magnitude and repeated sustainable loads for drapery. The size of individual blocks or small-scale instabilities is the most important fac~ tor in determining site suitability. Although there are many examples of installations that have sus- tained apparent extreme debris or impact loads, in practice draperies have well-demonstrated limita- tions in terms of block size, with a maximum block size capacity on the order of 1.5 m (5 ft). Analyses and case histories presented by Muhunthan et al (2005a) suggest that mesh secured only at the top cannot sustain dead loads caused by debris much. inexcess of approximately 10m? (13 yd), assuming that fall-load transfer of the debris weight occurs. More recent experience of scaling (removal of loose rock) beneath high-strength ring nets suggests that they may be able to support larger block sizes and volumes (D. Journeaux, personal communication, 2008). For general practice with more common meshes, if anticipated modes of slope instability Drapery Systems 555 FIGURE 16-1 Typical unsecured drapery, anchored only along top of installation, can provide effective control of rackfalls originating from steep slopes with little available catchment area at base of slope. (WhTOGRAM COURTESY OFTHE BRITISH COLUMBIA MNISTRY CF TRANSFORTATION) would result in single events larger than approxi- mately 5 to 10m (6.5 to 13 yd?) in volume or block sizes characteristically exceeding 1.5 m (5 ft), addi- tional or alternative mitigation measures should be considered (Figure 16-7). 2.1.2 Slope Conditions Drapery placed on a steep slope (>65°) functions somewhat differently from that placed on a flat: terslope. Given the orientation and limited slope FIGURE 16-2 Newly constructed secured drapery, incorporating interior anchors and TECCO. mesh with jute matting, installed along visually sensitive highway in Columbia River Gorge to address raveling of oversteepened, bouldery colluvium,556 Rockfall: Characterization and Control FIGURE 16-3 Variation in design of secured drapery incorporating interior anchors and wire ropes Installation along 2 road in northern Italy with virtually no shoulder width ‘or catchment ditch provides containment of rockfall debris contact on near-vertical installations, the mesh. imparts little stabilization through its weight, and rocks can generally pass nearly unimpeded between the mesh and the slope. The weight, however, provides energy absorption because of its resistance to movement and plays a key role in controlling the rockfall and its exit from the bot- tom of the mesh. On moderately inclined slopes FIGURE 16-4 Hybrid drapery intercepts rockfall ‘originating upstope of installation and contains rockfalls initiating from rock slope beneath mesh tnewacenaren (35° to 65°), mesh contact is typically greater, and its weight can impart a significant resistance force on individual blocks. As a result, in many cases rockfall frequency is reduced, and the trajectories of dislodged blocks are slowed considerably Slope uniformity can also be an important design consideration (Figure 16-8). Mesh contact is typically greatest on uniform planar slopes and least on concave slopes. Slope uniformity also influences where and how rockfall affects the mesh and the likelihood that debris will accumulate or pass beneath the mesh ‘When the extent of slope coverage is determined for drapery, typically the available catchment area at the base of the slope and its effectiveness for containing debris as it clears the mesh are consid- ered in the selection of the bottom elevation. If limited catchment area is available, various treat ‘ments can be used along the bottom of the mesh to better control discharge. Adding a layer of mesh 2.m (6 ft) wide along the bottom adds weight and aids in dampening rock velocity. Another method to dampen the velocity of exiting rocks is to par- tially restrain the bottom of the mesh with an end-anchored cable fitted with a design to allow elongation under loading; friction brakes are often included to allow for some elongation of the cable. An end-anchored cable that does not allow for its elongation is not an appropriate design. The cable should always have a way to extend. In some cases springs have been used to provide for such extension; in other cases, two cables lightly clipped together have been used to allow sliding and extension under load. A single, fixed-length cable without some method of allowing extension is not ideal, because a restrained cable along the bottom can cause rocks to accumulate, which can lead to damage of the system. Aesthetic concems or snow accumulation at the base of the installation may also influence the lower terminus. Standard drapery design would typ- ically cover all the observed or anticipated rockfall source areas. Caution is warranted for oversteep- ened and actively eroding slope brows; the upper terminus should extend beyond the ultimate stable slope configuration. The top of the drapery can also be elevated or suspended to address rockfall source areas upslope of the installation. Although drapery is often a highly economical and effective ‘measure for mitigating rockfall, other containmentDrapery Systems Ts the site suitable for wie meshlcable not system’? FABRIC SELECTION FACTOR OF SAFETY FOR DDEBRIS AND IMPACT LOADS. ‘or avoidance alternatives may be more cost-effective ifthe coverage area becomes very extensive. Slope characteristics are also evaluated in the assessment of anchoring conditions. Difficult access generally necessitates small portable drills for anchor installation. This characteristic is not usually a problem for installations in bedrock, but loose deposits of cobble or boulders can be chal- lenging for small, hand-operated equipment. More suitable anchoring locations, such as bedrock out- crops, might be located upslope of the drapery. In such cases, cables can be extended down from the anchors to the top of the mesh. These cables are ‘commonly referred toas taglines or connecting cables Does the slope accumulate a snowpack> fot (0.3 m) dap? ‘SYSTEM DETAILNG YES, "ANCHOR LOADS FOR SNOW LOAD FACTOR OF SAFETY FOR ‘SNOW LOAD 2.1.3 Interface Friction Where the mesh is in contact with the slope, interface friction provides a resistance component to the stability of the system. The interface fric- tion is controlled by the macro- and microscopic roughness of the surface. Macroscopic roughness is defined by large-scale irregularities of the slope, and microscopic roughness is defined as the tex- ture of the surface. Where the slope is planar and the surface is smooth, minimal interface friction may exist, and the mobilized force on the system is carried largely by the anchors (Figure 16-94). Intermediate and high interface friction may exist 557 FIGURE 16-5 Design protocol summarizing major design issues and decision points for unsecured drapery (Muhunthan et al 20056),558 FIGURE 16-6 Large block detached from slope near top of drapery severely damaged low-strength chain-link fabric Large block sizes in bouldery deposit warrant more robust mesh, (@yorooear courrese "THANSTORTATION) FIGURE 16-7, Slope failure involving up to approximately 10 m? (13 ye?) is contained and. controlled under double-twisted wire mesh drapery (@0TOGRARH COURTESY OFTHE CALIFORNIA DEPARTMENT Ce TRANSPORTATION) Rockfall: Characterization and Control ‘mesh contact rocktal impacts a brs accumulation » FIGURE 16-8 Slope profiles illustrate typical zones of mesh contact, impacts, and debris accumulation: {a) concave profile and (b) convex profile (Muhunthan et al. 2005b). ‘on slopes that are irregular and have rough sur- faces or abrupt protrusions (Figure 16-9, b and c); in these cases, litte to no mobilized force may be imparted to the anchors ‘The effectiveness of unsecured drapery, particu- larly when installed on moderately inclined slopes, can be strongly influenced by how much contact the mesh has with the slope surface. Generally, ‘maximizing mesh contact provides substantial long- term benefit by inhibiting erosion and promotingDrapery Systems 559 » © FIGURE 16-9 Examples of interface friction: (a) low (typical values 25° to 35°) on planar and highly uniform slope; (6) intermediate (typical values 35° to 60°) on slope with some macro- and microscopic roughness; and (Q)high (typical values > 60°) on uniform slope with considerable microscopic roughness. (PHOTOORAMS COURTESY OF TE WASHINGTON STATE DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION)560 Rockfall: Characterization and Control slope revegetation and by imparting a resistive force to unstable blocks, thereby reducing rockfall frequency and trajectory velocities. Unfortunately, interface friction is a difficult parameter to quantify, partly because of the near absence of supporting data or documentation. Its inclusion as a resistance force for anchor design is further complicated because the amount of mesh. contact is strongly influenced by slope configura- tion, fabric flexibility, and installation methods. Because of weathering and erosion, interface fric- tion can also be a transient condition. For these reasons, it may be imprudent to include the resis- tance contribution of interface friction when anchor requirements are determined for mesh weight, debris load, and impact load. Applying a safety factor to the static or dynamic anchor load ‘may be a more appropriate method of addressing a range of potential slope configurations and load- ing conditions. An important exception exists where snow loads are anticipated; then interface friction should be assessed. In the absence of either backcalculated or field measurements, the interface friction angle can be estimated for the observed slope irregularity and surface roughness. (Muhunthan et al. 2005a).. 2.1.4 Debris Loads Debris loading has been a common source of both local and global failure of drapery systems. Commonly used fabries begin to yield with debris accumulations as small as 5 to 10 m’ (5 to 10 yd). Therefore, it is important to assess the expected type, size, volume, and frequency of slope instabili- ties. This assessment should also consider how and where debris might accumulate once the mesh has been installed. Common accumulation locations include areas immediately above slope convexities (Figure 16-86), at changes of slope orientation or inclination, along the base of the mesh where the mesh overlaps, and above any restraints or anchors along the perimeter or interior field of the mesh. ‘One often-overlooked restraint is snow and debris covering the base of the mesh, which accumulates either as snow slides off the mesh or from snow- plowing. Ice accumulation can also induce load during spring thaw, when large blocks or sheets. of ice, sometimes still frozen to the drapery, are released from a slope face. Instability of under- lying surficial deposits where rooted vegetation has ‘grown through the mesh has also been observed to impart damaging loads to drapery. 2.1.5 Impact Loads Rockall impactsapply transientand short-duration Toads on drapery. The actual load imparted is a function of the mass and velocity of the block and the manner and orientation in which the block strikes the system. On near-vertical slopes where the mesh is subparallel to the slope and in lim- ited contact, the rockfall trajectory is generally also subparallel to the slope. Unless the falling rock snags the mesh or is deflected horizontally on. striking some asperity, there is litle opportunity to transfer a large portion of the kinetic energy to the system. (On moderately inclined slopes, the velocities of rolling and bouncing blocks are significantly reduced by the greater mesh contact. Thus, the kinetic energy should be much less for a rolling ‘or bouncing rock beneath the mesh than that ‘expected on an undraped slope. High-impact loads can be imparted to the system when blocks strike subperpendicular to the mesh; such is the case for hybrid drapery. Another common configura- tion prone to subnormal impact loading occurs on slopes with abrupt convexities, such as a moder- ately steep slope in surficial deposits overlying a near-vertical cutslope in rock (Figure 16-8b), mid- slope benches, and transitions between excavated lifes. In these cases, rockfall initiating near the top of the installation strikes the mesh just above the slope inflection; this isa frequent location of pune- ture failures. The kinetic energy of scenario rockfalls can be estimated by using widely available rockfall- ‘modeling software. How kinetic energy is trans- ferred as a load to the system remains poorly understood, however. Some guidance on resis- tance capacity for commonly used fabrics in North America has been provided by Muhunthan et al. (2005a, 2005b), 2.1.6 Snow and Ice Loads ignificant loads can be imparted to drapery that accumulates snow and ice. Snow loading, which should be considered separately from that for ice, is only relevant for slopes between 35° and 60°that are able to accumulate snow. Slopes flatter than 30° to 35° generally do not produce rockfall. ‘Snow loads have been noted to vary temporally and wich temperature changes. On an instru- mented cable net drapery of moderate incl nation, Muhunthan et al. (2005a) noted that anchor loads increased when temperatures rose above freezing, presumably because of decoupling of the snowpack from the slope or accelerated creep. In general, the prediction of actual load- ing from snow is poorly understood and highly influenced by site conditions and the installation. ‘When snow loads are a design factor, caution is especially warranted on + Allsmooth planarslopes (low interface friction), + Slopes oriented between 45° and 60° (high load transfer to the system), ‘+ Concave slopes where surface contact would be limited, and ‘© Slopes with an unstable snowpack situated upslope, where forces could be transferred onto the system, Ice loading can occur on drapery with any slope inclination given requisite temperature and seep- age conditions. No information that characterizes this potential loading condition has been pub- lished. Despite the potential for extreme loads, the authors are unaware of any drapery failures attrib- tuted solely to ice loading. Potential loads might be considered for observed icing conditions through increased anchoring and more robust mesh. 2.2 Design Considerations After the site conditions are evaluated and the suitability of an unsecured drapery for mitigating rockfall effectively is determined, typically the fabric selection and anchor and support design are considered. 2.2.1 Mesh North American practice for standard unsecured drapery evolved from lightweight chain-link and welded wire mesh in the 1950s to double-twisted hexagonal mesh in the 1970s and 1980s. Cable nets were added asa more robust alternative begin- ning in the late 1980s. Widespread application of doublé-twisted hexagonal mesh for drapery has Drapery Systems demonstrated an upper range of effectiveness for block sizes up to about 0.6 m (2 fe), and cable nets have proved effective for block sizes approaching 1.5 m (5 ft). These and other meshes are discussed in more detail in Chapter 15. Since the late 1990s, alternative drapery meshes have been introduced to the North American market. These include high-tensile single-twist fabrics, ring nets, and composite meshes with both cables and double-twisted hexagonal mesh. Although some of these newer meshes have replaced cable nets for some proprietary flexible fence systems, they generally have not yet seen ‘widespread use in North American drapery. Mesh performance is influenced by both extrin- sic and intrinsic factors. Extrinsic factors include system anchoring, slope conformance, and instal- lation dimensions, which control fabric tautness; tautness in turn affects deformability and energy dissipation. Important intrinsic factors include stiffness (flexibility), weight (inertia), puncture strength, and corrosion resistance. More flex- ible meshes provide better slope conformance than do stiff meshes and, on moderately inclined slopes, better distribute stabilizing force to the slope (Figure 16-10), reduce erosion and facili tate revegetation, and improve visual subordi nance. Tangential and normal forces from rockfall impacts can cause localized tearing or punctures; the selected mesh must have adequate strength to resist these localized and potentially damaging 561 FIGURE 16-10 Design intent of mesh is to cover slope and control rockfal trajectory by restricting rock ‘movement. Mesh weight provides important stabiiz- ing factor. Double- ‘twisted wire mesh is562 Rockfall: Characterization and Control stresses. Corrosion resistance can also be a criti- cally important design consideration in marine environments, in areas where deicing sands and agents are used on roadways, and when mesh is placed in contact with acid-produeing rocks. Seaming of double-twisted hexagonal mesh is generally done with high-tensile-stee! hog rings. Lacing wire can also be used, although it is typi- cally more time-consuming to install than hog rings placed with pneumatic guns. When high- tensile-steel fasteners are used, a single cell over- lap with one hog ring per cell is all that is required (Muhunthan et al. 20052, 2005b). This seam detail, however, is less strong than the mesh itself lacing wire provides seam strength that exceeds the mesh strength (Agostini et al. 1988). A vertical seam that is weaker than the mesh is not neces- sarily a deficiency. For example, under extreme debris loads it would be better for a seam to fail than for mesh to tear or, worse, for the entire system to fail. Cable nets, ring nets, and other more robust meshes are typically seamed with lacing cable or shackles that match or exceed the strength of the mesh elements. It is important that lacing wire or shackles connect each cell adjacent to the seam. With large openings [>200 mm (8 in.)] com- mon to more robust meshes, 50-mm (2-in.) chain- link or double-twisted hexagonal mesh is generally included to retain small rocks that might other- ‘wise pass through the larger openings. Current practice includes proponents for placing this lighter-weight backing mesh on the inside of che robust mesh and proponents for placing it on the ‘outside. The favored reason for inside placement is to reduce the potential for debris accumulation by having smaller effective openings against the slope. Favored reasons for placement on the out- side are the expectations for less rockfall damage to the backing mesh and the subdued appearance ‘of noncolorized robust mesh with backing mesh, which is typically less expensive to colorize. There are also arguments both for and against fastening the backing mesh to the robust mesh. Fastening the two meshes together has been observed to reduce the potential for debris to get trapped and accumulate between the meshes. This ‘common practice of attaching the backing mesh hhas proved effective and efficient for cable nets. Fastening the backing mesh to highly deformable mesh (ie, ring nets), however, may increase the stiffness of the system and potentially reduce opti- mal performance for attenuating rockfall impacts For these reasons, the contrast in stiffness between the nets and the backing mesh should be con- sidered. Attaching the backing mesh on highly deformable ring nets before installation can con- centrate stresses in the backing and ultimately cause the fasteners to fail when the ring net panels. are lifted and panels are added. ‘The quantity of mesh required is influenced by * The area to be covered, considering that slope irregularity and orientation can dramatically increase surface area; * Incidental overlap between adjacent panels, which can vary because of topography; + The effort made to optimize mesh contact with the slope; and ‘+ Mesh stifness and the deformability of mesh during placement. Greater mesh conformance, and thus more mesh quantity, can be expected for moderately inclined slopes than for steep slopes. Highly irreg- ular slopes require more mesh overlap and greater plan quantities than more uniform slopes. When ‘more deformable meshes are applied to irregular or high slopes, it can be difficult to stretch the nets fully during seaming, which can reduce the expected coverage area of the mesh. A contin: gency of 10% to 20% may be reasonable for uni- form near-vertical slopes, but a contingency of 30% or more may be needed for highly irregular slopes of moderate inclination. If large quanti- ties are involved, consideration might be given to developing a digital terrain model or using stereo- photogrammetric methods to estimate quantities ‘more accurately (Figure 16-11), 2.2.2 Anchors Anchors provide the primary support for drapery. Ichas been recognized, in part from installations exposed to snow loads, that interface friction can also provide significant support. Observed drap- ery failures show that anchor failures from debris or impact loads are rare; the mesh yields before the anchors. Snow loads, however, have been responsible for numerous system failures, in all of which anchor yielding occurred either because the strength or passive resistance of the groundFIGURE 16-11 Quantities for ring net drapery (light shaded area) for siope 100 m (300 ft) high were estimated from digital terrain model developed from terrestrial laser scanning. Geographic information system methods ‘were then used to model drapery surface from which surface area could be calculated. Because of expected deformation of ring nets and modeling uncertainties, 20% contingency was included in contract. {MADE COURTESY OFTHE WASHENGTON STATE DPARTMENTOF ‘was exceeded or because the yield strength of the ‘anchor was surpassed. Thus, the design approach ‘considered for debris and impact loading should be different from that for snow loading. Muhunthan et al. (2005a) developed a series of design charts for determining anchor load and spacing requirements for common meshes (double-twisted wire mesh, TECCO, and cable nets) applied to a range of slope heights, inclina- tions, and interface friction values (Figure 16-12). Drapery Systems To account for potential variability in debris and impact loads fora given site, as well as the current lack ofunderstandingofhow impact loadsare trans- ferred to the system, they recommended applying a large factor of safety (5 to 10) to the anchor-load requirements for the system weight alone, with no resistance contribution from interface friction (Table 16-1), Because snowpack develops on moderately inclined slopes and a significant resistance contri- bution can be mobilized from interface friction on these slopes, the anchor design for snow loading can benefit from consideration of its contribution. The anchor force assuming full load transfer of the snowpack onto the mesh per unit width, F, can be estimated as follows: E = pgHLsin@ ~ pgtiL-cos Orang where ‘overall density of snowpack, gravity constant (for metric units), ickness of snowpack oriented normally toslope, lope length of installation, slope angle, and interface friction angle. ‘The design challenge liesin characterizing the inter- face friction of the entire installation. Muhunthan et al. (2005a) suggested application of a safety fac- tor of 2 to 3 to account for larger-than-anticipated ee if es to 00 ai E 2800 L A g ia} J 00 || F iso + ee ; eee “0 Skeet LL BE ‘Anchor Spacing (8) 563 FIGURE 16-12 Example of graph of anchor load versus spacing for double- twisted hexagonal wire mesh for planar (low interface friction), 60° slope with heights of 15, 30, 60, and 90 m (60, 100, 200, and 300 ft). No safety factor for debris, impact, or snow loading was applied to these values (Muhunthan et al 20083).564 FIGURE 16-13 Additional passive resistance and anchor capacity are achieved by orienting anchor perpendicular to slope. (GUAGRAMBYT.C RADOER) Rockfall: Characterization and Control Table 16-1 Recommended Maximum Anchor Spacing ‘as a Function of Slope Height “ANCHOR SPACINGS? ‘Store HeiGur {m (fe)} Im (fo) 30 (100) 15 (50) 30-60 (100-200) 1035) 660-90 (200-300) 5 (20) ‘Maximum spacings suitable for double-twisted hexagonal meth, TECOO G65 mesh, and 300-mm (12-in.) square rid ‘able nets backed with either double-twisted hexagonal or chain-link mesh. "Anchor spacing i based on a minimum anchor capacity of 90KN (20,00 I. SOURCE: Muhunthan eal. 2005b. snowpack and the potential for overestimating interface friction. Current North American practice generally uses anchor elements that exceed an ultimate tensile strength of 90 KN (20,000 Ib). Common anchors are 25-mm (1-in.) continuously threaded deformed steel bar and 19-mm (%-in.) wire rope. ‘An obvious advantage of wire rope tendons over steel bars is their ability to bend and optimally orient the load into tension. For most drapery applications, steel bars are generally oriented so that they are loaded in shear, which provides only about 75% of a bar's ultimate tensile strength. Wire rope tendons have increased in favor and use because of their flexibility, greater capacity, and durability. Passive resistance is an important consider- ation in the design of anchors founded in loose unconsolidated surficial deposits, particularly for systems that might experience extreme loads. To optimize the passive resistance, anchors are ori- ented perpendicular to the slope, not vertically (Figure 16-13). Additional passive (and pullout) resistance can also be gained by increasing the diameter of the grout bulb. ‘A minimum anchor setback of 2 to 5 m (6 to 15 fr from the active brow iscommonly prescribed, However, anchor locations need to consider the potential for ongoing erosion and retrogression of the active brow of the slope over the expected life of the system. For many bedrock slopes, little to no retrogression might be expected, while in some bouldery surficial deposits, rapid erosion might occur (Figure 16-14). 2.2.3 Support Ropes ‘The mesh is suspended from a top horizontal sup- portrope, which is connected either directly to the anchors or by longitudinal taglines or connecting cables downslope from the anchors. The maximum uninterrupted length of the top support rope is @ function of the strength of the rope, the sag pro- vided, and the dead load being suspended from it and typically includes a safety factor to account for additional loads from debris, impact, snow, or all three. Muhunthan et al. (2005b) provided guid- ance for determining these lengths with appropriate FIGURE 16-14 ‘After 20 years, ongoing erosion threatens anchors and entire installation (@HOTOORAR COURTESY OFTHE WASHINGTON STATE DEPARTMENT SPruasroer ATION)Table 16-2 Drapery Systems Recommended Maximum Length for Top Horizontal Support Rope Versus Slope Height for Double-Twisted Hexagonal Mesh ‘MAXIMUM LENGTH For 13-mm (1/2-in.) MAXIMUM LENGTH For 19-mm (3/4-in.) Store HeicHr (CABLE Fanric WeicHT CABLE Fasric WeicuT {im (fe) Onty fm (f)] Onty fm (fo) 15 (50) 70 (230) 120 (400) 30 (100) 35 (120) 60 (200) 60 (200) 18 (60) 30 (100) 90 (300) 12(40) 2275) Source: Muhunthan eal 2005 safety factors (Table 16-2). For different loading conditions and materials, a project-specific design. could be developed by using a formula for catenary The only requited support rope for an unse cured system is the top horizontal rope. Interior vertical and horizontal or other perimeter ropes provide no mechanical benefit to improve sys: tem capacity unless the mesh can be clamped to these ropes at close intervals. Interior horizontal support ropes, particularly when located on the inside of the mesh, trap debris, which has led to many system failures (Figure 16-15). If horizon- tal rope is used at the bottom, as is often done to aid in lifting the mesh to clear accumulated debris, it should be located on the outside and the mesh folded outward, 2.2.4 Aesthetic Concerns Increasingly, the selection of the rockfall mitiga- tion measure is judged not only on its engineer- ing and economic merits but also on aesthetic concerns (Andrew et al. 2011), particularly in areas of considerable scenic of recreational value, where a design objective to visually sub- ordinate engineered facilities may be required or legislated. In some cases, managers and design professionals responsible for aesthetic steward- ship have found the use of drapery objectionable. The principal concerns have stemmed from the typically large coverage area, the visual contrast. between the mesh and the slope, and the poten- tial for poor mesh contact with the slope. Design. efforts to mitigate these aesthetic concerns have included ‘Limiting the coverage area, ‘* Achieving greater mesh contact with the slope, and + Colorizing system components or promoting vegetation to visually merge the system with the slope. Forsome slopes, it may be possible to reduce or limit the coverage area ofa drapery and still provide ade- quate rockfall containment. Rather than covering the entire rockfall source area on a slope, a hybrid drapery might be considered to address upslope source areas. Such an approach is commonly used for chutes and along abrupt convexities; in these ‘cases, impact loading becomes an important design consideration. Alternatively, opportunities may exist to raise the bottom of the mesh to keep it above the immediate view of passing motorists. 565 FIGURE 16-15 Debris accumulation is common problem where interior horizontal support ropes have been placed between mesh and slope. Sfnewasmeron ‘State bebaxnan oF TRANSPORTATION566 FIGURE 16-16 New 1V:0.25H, 60-m (200-f) high rock cut on highway between Dubois and Moran, Wyoming, incorporates partial drapery of polyvinyl chioride-coated, double-twisted wire ‘mesh to address rockfall initiating in Upper colluvium and. weathered bedrock, Drapery terminates 5to10m(15t0 30 ft) above ditch (white dashed line) to lessen aesthetic impact for passing motorists, Rockfall ditch included in cut template was designed to contain rock debris exiting drapery and rockfall ‘generated from lower uncovered portion of cut Rockfall: Characterization and Control Incorporating design criteria for rockfall catch- ment ditches or rockfall modeling can aid in determining the height of the bottom terminus of the mesh on the basis of the available catch- ment area (Figure 16-16). The mesh terminus is located so that debris passing from beneath the mesh is contained in the ditch. Provisions may also be included to increase or improve the avail- able catchment area, For many moderately inclined slopes (35° to 65°) and some steeply inclined slopes (>65°), efforts to maximize mesh contact with the slope yield both functional and aesthetic benefits. Functional benefits can include greater interface friction and overall system capacity as well as decreased slope erosion and rockfall. Slope con: tact also reduces or eliminates the gap between the mesh and the slope, which can be discernible when the installation is viewed from the side, as by passing motorist. On steep slopes, it soften more difficult to achieve slope contact, and because of the reduced component of normal force, itis dif- ficult to maintain contact as the system is loaded. Reduced erosion promotes revegetation of the underlying slope. Vegetation can significantly reduce visual contrast and aid in visually blending the mesh with the slope as well as increasing the stability of the surface materials (Figure 16-17). More proactive revegetation efforts have been undertaken, such as placing erosion-control fabrics beneath the mesh, hydro-seeding, and installing plantings. Although vegetation most often is ben- eficial, tree growth through the mesh has to be carefully evaluated because it can cause significant damage and system failures. The damage occurs ‘when trees fall (a common occurrence on steep slopes) or when the substrate in which they have their roots creeps or experiences other shallow instability. Tree growth has also been observed to life the mesh from the slope, which can lead to downslope accumulation of debris. Mesh is usually specified to include a galva- nized or other corrosion-protection coating. When installed, these coatings havea metalic, often shiny ‘or light-colored appearance that may strongly contrast with the slope. Over time, the shini- ness of galvanizing typically fades to a dull gray color. Colored mesh, typically with either poly- vinyl chloride (PVC) or powder coating, which can greatly reduce the visual contrast between the ‘mesh and the slope, has become commonplace in recent years. Neither coating, however, is without problems. Powder coating reportedly experiences sgreater damage during handling and is more costly than PVC. High ultraviolet exposure has caused whitening and embrittlement of PVC coatings. 2.2.5 Construction How a drapery system is installed and inspected during construction determines how well the de sign objectives of function, aesthetics, and cost- effectiveness are met. Usually, if scaling and rock anchoring are also required, they are performed before mesh installation. Scaling through ring nets before placement of the backing mesh has been done successfully and has reduced traffic-related impacts, Scaling-related damage may require re- pair before placement of the backing mesh and final acceptance. Damage assessment procedures and the definition of what constitutes damage should be thoroughly considered if this approach is pursued. A significant safety concer with scal- ing through the mesh is the increased risk that a large block will cause the mesh to fail while scal- ers are on the meshed slope. Drapery is commonly applied to closely fractured rock masses, which are ‘more hazardous to scalers than slopes with large blocky fractures. Scaling before hanging the mesh ‘typically focuses on the slope preparation nec- essary for mesh installation and the removal of occasional, potentially damaging oversized blocksorother discrete, more unstable ones. Long-boom. mechanical scaling for closely fractured rock masses rather than hand scaling reduces the risk ‘exposure for scaling before mesh placement. As a final point, the slope angle is an obvious lis tation for the efficient scaling of debris through mesh, since mesh imparts a significant load to a slope with any orientation less than near-vertical. Drapery anchor capacities should be verified with load testing; commonly at least 25% are specified for testing. Vertical pullout tests are ‘most often performed. However, since anchors are typically loaded parallel to the slope, anchor testing may be performed laterally to verify not only the anchor pullout resistance but also the passive resistance provided by the ground (Figure 16-18). Lateral load tests might be more appropriate and easier to perform than vertical pullout tests when anchors are located in loose surficial deposits. : A staging area near the slope is generally required for layout and seaming and to stage the lifting and placement of the mesh. For robust fabrics requiring mesh backing, a staging area is essential because it allows the mesh backing to be attached while on the ground. The selection of the staging area is influenced by the method of placement (boom truck, crane, or helicopter) and the size of the installation. For large installations, using a helicopter to lift and place the mesh is usu- ally the fastest and most cost-effective method. However, helicopter placement requires an emer- gency landing area as part ofthe staging operations; traffic control and proximity to aerial utility lines are also factors requiring consideration. To miti- gate for the potential stretching of the mesh panel ‘when lifted and to improve placement and seaming. cfficiency, the bottom of the lifted panel is typically placed atthe top ofthe slope and secured to the top horizontal support cable. The mesh panel is then carefully draped down onto the slope. Efforts to maximize mesh conformance with the slope surface are rewarded with increased resistance to dislodgment and fall of blocks and improved visual blending of the mesh with the slope (Figure 16-19). Walking down the mesh and pushing it into concavities and provid- ing additional mesh for incidental overlapping are the primary means of achieving close slope conformance. Drapery Systems FIGURE 16-17 ‘Comparison of vegetation cover of double-twisted wire mesh drapery (a) immediately after installation and (b) 3 years later (photographs taken from slightly different locations but of same slope). (BHTOGRAPHS COURTESY OF THE CALIFORNIA DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION) FIGURE 16-18 Lateral load test might better represent actual loading conditions and be simpler ‘to perform than vertical pullout test (Muhunthan et al 20052).