Diseño de estructuras de protección pasivas contra

rocas : de las prácticas actuales a las cuestiones de

investigación pendientes

Design of passive rockfall protection structures:

structures: from
current practices to research issues

Dr. Stéphane Lambert,

Irstea, France
S. Lambert, Irstea

Talca, Chile. 2017/08/22

 Scope and aims
• Passive structures : Embankments and flexible barriers

• Design with respect to block trajectory control and impact strength

(other facets not treated here)

• Limitations and reseach issues

S. Lambert, Irstea
 Embankments
S. Lambert, Irstea

S. Lambert, Irstea
 Embankments
• Massive earthworks, in elevation, aiming at ① ②
intercepting single rock blocks or small rock
avalanches, intended for block kinetic energies up
to 50 MJ

• Variety in cross-sectional shapes and constitutive

materials

• Most often :
• Associated to a ditch
• Natural slope reprofiled
• Steepened uphill face
• Reinforced structure (geosynthetic)
S. Lambert, Irstea

• Typical dimensions :
• Height: 2 -10 m,
• Lenght: 50-800 m, ③ ④
• Crest width : 1-6 m (photos : 1 : Simmons et al., 2009; 2: S. Lambert; 3: Ronco et al., 2010; 4 : S. Lambert)

Lambert, S., Bourrier, F. (2013). Doi: 10.1016/j.enggeo.2012.12.012

 A French specificity
Embankments made of end-
end-of-
of-life tyres

Purposes:
- Reinforcing component
- Impact strength
- Recycling purpose

- Pneutex: facing, geotetxile core

- Pneusol : tyre for both facing and core
- First employed in 1988

- No real environmental issue*

S. Lambert, Irstea

*Hennebert, P., Lambert, S., Fouillen, F., Charrasse, B. (2014). Doi: 10.1139/cgj-2013-0194.
 Design of embankments with respect to
block trajectory control
S. Lambert, Irstea
 General principle
Aim : define the embankment
cross-
cross-section geometry

• Height: 1. Initial design 2. Design assessment and optimisation

• Reference block passing height, Block trajectory simulations, Block trajectory simulations,
(based on the 95%-quantile of the block on natural site on reprofiled slope
passing height distribution) including ditch+embankment

• Plus a free-board Block kinetic energy and

passing height / natural slope Nok Ratio of
(>1 block radius)
intercepted
blocks ?
Embankment location
• Face inclination: ok
S. Lambert, Irstea

(depends on the context, typically >65°) Design ok!

Embankment geometry : height
+ face inclination

Lambert, S., Bourrier, F., Toe, D. (2013). Doi:10.1016/j.irmms.2012.12.09

 Consequences of a bad design
• Free-board • Face inclination
(Courtesy of B. Kister U. of Lucerne, CH)

(Courtesy of B. Kister U. of Lucerne, CH)

S. Lambert, Irstea

Insufficient impact strength in case of an impact Insufficient face inclination leading to block jumping
over after an impact at mid-height by a a block with a
close to the crest,
crest leading to high face high rotational velocity
deformation and block rolling over
Kister, B., Horat, P., Berger, T., (2014). Proc. of Rocexs 2014
 Limitations of trajectory simulations
Rebound models
• Calibrated on slopes
• Can’t predict the block trajectory after impact
on the embankment face

Spatial resolution (3D DTM, raster)

• At the slope scale 2m resolution is ok
• Unable to represent the geometry in the
embankment vicinity
S. Lambert, Irstea

In general : don’t trust the silmulated trajectories

after impact on the embankment face!

Lambert, S., Bourrier, F., Toe, D. (2013). Doi:10.1016/j.irmms.2012.12.09

 Design of embankments with respect to
block impact strength
S. Lambert, Irstea
S. Lambert, Irstea

Recent experiments, with block

kinetic energies > 1000 kJ

2010, Couretsyf o f K. Maegawa, U. of

Kanazawa, Japan
1999, Courtesy of D. peila, U. of
Torino , Italy

2015, Courtesy of T. Frenez, The

incline and of Tenax Spa

2009, U. of Grenoble, France

Real-scale impact experiments
 Real-scale impact experiments (>1MJ)
S. Lambert, Irstea

Lambert, S. and Kister, F. (2018). Engineering Geology

 Numerical models (examples)
Ronco, Oggeri and Peila, 2009 Plassiard and Donzé, 2010 Breugnot, Lambert and Villard, 2015

FD-DE modelling
FE modelling

DE modelling

Example of conducted parametric studies

:
S. Lambert, Irstea
 Existing design methods
• Numerical simulations: seldom used

• Analytical methods: easy to handle

• penetration criterion: the penetration of the block in the embankment limited to a given limit
• pseudo-
pseudo-static: structure stability checked considering a static force deemed equivalent to the
dynamic force
• energy balance : embankment energy dissipation capacities compared to the block kinetic energy

• Standard : ONR 24810, 2013 (pseudo-static)

S. Lambert, Irstea

Lambert, S., Bourrier, F. (2013). Doi: 10.1016/j.enggeo.2012.12.012

 Limitations in existing design methods
Kister and Fontana. (2011). Rocexs 2011
• Analytical methods
• Ratio > 4 in terms of impact force
for a same case
• Reasons : Derived from works in
different contexts + various
assumptions

• Standard
• Inconsistencies

• Numerical models
S. Lambert, Irstea

• Require skills
• Calibration and validation
More details in the Swiss federal report (FOEN) on the AERES project (on line)
S. Lambert, Irstea

Flexible barriers
 Typology
• Flexible barriers consist of: a net, posts, cables, brakes and foundations
• Various types of brakes (ex.) :

• Various mesh shapes and sizes (ex.) :

• And also, various post shapes, post-soil connections, brakes positions, cable arrangements,
S. Lambert, Irstea

cable-posts connections, net position with respect to the posts…

The response to impact is complex and highly technology dependent!

dependent!
 Design of flexible barriers
S. Lambert, Irstea
 Guideline ETAG 027
• Real scale impact experiments, 2 kinetic energy levels (service and
maximum energy levels, SEL and MEL)
• Test conditions:
- Block dim. <1/3 structure height
- Block velocity > 25 m/s
- Centered impact on a 3 panel-barrier
- 2 successive SEL tests, without maintenance
- 1 MEL test
S. Lambert, Irstea
 Guideline ETAG 027
• Passed if (main criteria):
• SEL : Block stopped after 2 impacts + No damage after first impact +
Residual height after 1st impact > 70% initial value

• MEL: block stopped

• Structures classified according to their capacity (SEL+MEL)

S. Lambert, Irstea
 Numerical models (ex.)
FEM DEM
Escallon, Wendeler, Chatzi, Bartelt, Gentilini, Govoni, de Miranda, Mentani, Giacomini, Buzzi, Govoni, Coulibaly, Chanut, C. Galandrin, Bertrand, Trad, Limam,
2014 Gottardi, Ubertini, 2013 Gottardi, Fityus, 2016 Olmedo, Lambert, Nicot, 2017 Silvani, 2012
S. Lambert, Irstea

• Increasing complexity and realism

More and more reliable!
reliable!
• Validation based on real-scale impact tests results
 Design based on ETAG 027 tests results
• Based on trajectory simuations : block passing height + kinetic energy

• Structure interception height: reference block passing height + freeboard

• No block contact with upper cable
• Reduction of interception height considered in case of successive impacts

• Maximum elongation in the valley direction

• Class choice (impact strenght):

• Considers MEL or SEL impact test results depending on the context ETAG 027
S. Lambert, Irstea
 Why ETAG 027 is not sufficient
• Design (optimum structure choice) also includes :
• Structure weight, Ease of installation, Anchoring specification

• Geometry of the tested structure ≠as installed

• Real boundary conditions
• Topographic differences
Choose a structure that can be adapted to the terrain

• Normal and centered impact, without rotation : Not reality !

• Impact on post
• Upward trajectory
S. Lambert, Irstea

M. Bost, Ifsttar
• …
 Response of a barrier in real conditions
• Case of a semi-rigid barrier intended for low kinetic energies, frequent in the Alpine arc.
• Complex FE model (U. of Bologna)

• Numerical barrier capacity according to ETAG 027: 200 kJ (MEL)

• What happens if we vary the impact conditions ? ( rotational and translational velocities, impact
point location)
S. Lambert, Irstea

Toe, Mentani, Lambert, Govoni, Gottardi, Bourrier. Rock Mechanics and Rock Engineering. DOI 10.1007/s00603-017-1394-9
 Response of a barrier in real conditions
Response of the barrier varying 6 impact parameters

30% of the blocks with a
Block stopped kinetic energy less than
200 kJ leads to the barrier
Failure cases : failure in stopping the block
Mesh break
Post+mesh break
Rolling over

Normal centered impact
overstimates the barrier
ability in stopping the block
200 kJ Iso-kinetic energy line
Block size limit

Influence of other
S. Lambert, Irstea

parameters is not
accounted for!

Toe, Mentani, Lambert, Govoni, Gottardi, Bourrier. Rock Mechanics and Rock Engineering. DOI 10.1007/s00603-017-1394-9
 Conclusions
• Various types of embankments and flexible barriers

• Globally proved efficient when properly designed

• Design of embankments:
• Proper use of trajectory simulation tools and results!
• No perfect design method for the impact strenght

• Design of flexible barriers:

• Etag 027 is a formidable guideline
• But not sufficient : does not account for all real impact conditions + on-site installation issues
S. Lambert, Irstea
 Muchas gracias por su
atención!
S. Lambert, Irstea