Professional Documents
Culture Documents
2
G. Giacchetti, A. Grimod, D. Cheer – Flexible structural facing
− The tensile stress stretching the meshes are almost After the nailing has been calculated, the structural
always 3 times lower than the nominal tensile re- flexible facing can be calculated. Nevertheless such
sistance of the facing. Then the tensile resistance verification is not at all simple, since it requires the
has marginal importance in the mesh choice. utilization of complicated numerical models, with effort
− The membrane stiffness plays a primary role into and consumed time not reasonable in the design
the facing choice: the higher the stiffness is, the praxis, overall if the design is aimed to interventions of
more effectiveness the facing is. modest size. Because of that, at the present, the Limit
− The overlapping of a cable net on the mesh facing equilibrium methods are preferable which are neces-
is always recommendable. The cable netting, which sarily very simplifying even if they consider in a certain
is much more stiffer than the mesh, reduces the way the displacement. In the approach “Best Impro-
membrane deformability and really helps to distrib- vement of Slopes” (BIOS) the loads transmitted by the
ute the stress of the meshes by the nails. That is ground to the facing have been calculated with the
why a mesh with cables woven in the fabric surely “two wedges method”, while the displacements are ex-
performs the best. trapolated via the experimental results of the punch
− With the structural flexible facing, the nails could tests. The solution would require a finite element
have a certain difficulty to cooperate each others in analysis, but a realistic solution can be find maximizing
the consolidation. That is why the nail spacing the forces acting on the geotechnical system. Obvi-
should be reduced to no more than 1.0 - 1.5 m ously the procedure quite rough, but it is more than
(Joshi, 2003). With larger spacing, each anchor enough considering the low accuracy level of the input
does its work as single, lonely reinforcement and data, the reliability of the results and the velocity of
the flexible structural facing shades to soft facing calculation.
(Phear A., 2005). The spacing should not anyhow BIOS develops the analysis of the facing in 4
exceeds 3.0 m. In order to control the excessive stages (in appendix there is the calculation procedure):
deformability of the facing, intermediate auxiliary 1) Verification of the input data: this first stage
anchors could be always introduced among the analyses the slope behaviour in the short term in order
deep ones (Phear A., 2005) to verify that the safety factor of the slope between two
nails is greater than 1.0 (Fs > 1.0). The procedure al-
Simplified approach: BIOS lows to control the quality of the geotechnical input
data and, in case, to correct them, adjusting the geo-
The design of the nails for the soil nailing can easily technical parameters or changing the nail spacing.
developed with several calculation procedures. 2) Verification of the instable volume: the software
simulates the soil softening which happens in the long
term. For that, the progressive reduction of the resis-
tance parameters c’ e ϕ' is carried out up to the resist-
ing forces are equals to the driving forces (FS = 1).
The procedure allows to determine the maximum in-
stable volume of soil which can move down between
the nails (figure 3).
3) Ultimate limit state: the maximum volume of soil
that can move between the nails (see previous point 2)
is compared to the minimum one needed to break
down the mesh. If the volume between the nails is
smaller than the one that breaks down the mesh, then
the mesh fulfil the problem; on contrary, the facing
does not satisfy the problem.
4) Serviceability limit state: this stage analyzes the
mesh displacement by means of the curves load- dis-
placement. The graphics allows to determine the vol-
ume of soil related to the maximum admissible dis-
placement. If that volume is larger than the one waited
on the long term, the facing satisfy the requirements of
Figure 4 Graphics of puncturing tests (a) on sample 1x1 m in design. The maximum design displacement is as-
laboratory, (b) on samples sized 3x3 m in laboratory, and (c) sumed upon one or more geotechnical criterion (ef-
on samples 3 x 3 in field facility, in the case of the double fects of the mesh displacement on the stripping, trig-
twist hexagonal mesh DT (upper graph) and of the single gering erosion processes, effects of settlements in-
twist one, higher tensile wire (lower graph). The displace-
duced in the neighbour), functional (maximum encum-
ment depends both on the sample size and the restrain kind
type. It is noticeable the dramatic deformability of the single brance of debris pockets) and aesthetic.
twist mesh on site that makes it almost useless as facing.
3
G. Giacchetti, A. Grimod, D. Cheer – Flexible structural facing
5
G. Giacchetti, A. Grimod, D. Cheer – Flexible structural facing
with:
X [12]
A= ⋅ sen( β − α )
sen (180 − β )
X [13]
B= ⋅ senα
sen(180 − β )
C= X [14]
where:
L (m) length of the mesh;
3
γ (kN/m ) unit weight of soil;
Figure 7 Geotechnical model with instable soil divided in
β (°) angle of inclination of the slope;
elemental areas
ϕ’a (°) friction angle of the soil;
δ (°) friction angle of the soil-slope
interface;
- The area of the section corresponding to the sack is EA (kN) axial stiffness of the mesh;
equal to that of the circular sector with an angle at Tmax (kN/m) maximum tensile strength of the
the centre equal to (π+α) and radius r (fig. 7); mesh;
The area 1 is obtained by resolving the following Fsmesh factor of safety of the mesh;
system of equations: Tamm (kN/m) permissible tensile strength of the
mesh;
L + ε ⋅ L = X + ( Π + α ) ⋅ r + ( X − L) [6] ε maximum percentage defor-
α mation of the mesh.
r = X ⋅ tg [7]
2
Area 2 is determined by:
P = Tamm ⋅
(1+ cosα ) [8] A2 ⋅ sen(θ 1 − β )⋅ sen(β − φ ')
senβ − cos β ⋅ tan δ AREA2 = [15]
2 ⋅ sen(180 − θ 1 + φ ')
P = γ ⋅V [9] Area 3 is the difference between the volume of
long-term unstable soil and area 2. The total volume
AREA1 =
(Π + α ) ⋅ r 2 + X ⋅ r − per ⋅ ( per − A) ⋅ ( per − B) ⋅ ( per − C)
thereby obtained must be compared with the unstable
2 volume under the long-term conditions; if the unstable
[10] volume is greater than that necessary for failure of the
mesh, the flexible facing will be put at risk.