Engineering Structures 32 (2010) 3817–3826

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Engineering Structures
journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/engstruct

Optimizing the design of rockfall embankments with a discrete element method

J.-P. Plassiard a , F.-V. Donzé b,c,∗
a
LTDS, Ecole Centrale de Lyon, Ecully, France
b
Laboratoire 3SR, Université Joseph Fourier, Grenoble, France
c
Earth Science and Resource Engineering, CSIRO, Pullenvale, Australia

article info abstract

Article history: This paper’s intent is to contribute to the design of massive rockfall protective structures, such as
Received 19 April 2010 embankments. The relationship between the block and the embankment characteristics remains a key
Received in revised form issue in evaluating the efficiency of the impacted structure. Because of the large deformation process
18 August 2010
occurring during an impact, the discrete element method (DEM) was chosen in this study to assess the
Accepted 20 August 2010
Available online 23 September 2010
respective influence of the geometrical and mechanical properties of the embankment. It has been seen
that the maximum impact force transmitted to the embankment is governed not only by the kinetic
Keywords:
energy of the block, but also by the stiffness and the upstream side inclination of the construction.
Rockfall Moreover, it has been observed that the dissipative capacity of the construction depends more on
Impact loading its geometrical properties than on its mechanical properties. The inclinations of both sides of the
Protective structure embankment are relevant, but the crest thickness, seldom considered in the design protocols, is one of the
Embankment foremost parameters to think about. The use of a large crest thickness, rather than an abutment, optimizes
Discrete element method the space required for the construction, while maintaining a comparable dissipative capacity.
© 2010 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

1. Introduction In this work, we focus on simple embankments which are de-

Rockfalls in mountainous areas can often be prevented with
natural protection such as trees for slopes less than 30° [1] or with
the use of man-made anchors or concrete buttresses. If this is not
possible, passive protective structures need to be implemented
along the slope to avoid damage of urban areas or major roads. To
determine where and how these structures need to be installed,
trajectory studies from the geological and geomorphologic surveys
of the slope are performed [2].
The type of protection is often based on two major character-
istics: the passing height of each block and its translational ki-
netic energy. Each type of protective structure has its own range of
dissipative capacity, depending on the impact energy that can be
contained by the structure without collapsing (Fig. 1(a)). Thus, the
adequate technology used for the protective structure is the one
for which the impact energy is within the range of its dissipative
capacity [3]. All structures are generally designed with a safety co-
efficient based on the maximum passing height. A typical value of
3/2 can be found in practice [4]. These various types of protection
structure have been studied experimentally [3,5–10] and numeri-
cally [4,7,11–17].
∗ Corresponding author at: Earth Science and Resource Engineering, CSIRO,
Pullenvale, Australia.
E-mail address: frederic.donze@csiro.au (F.-V. Donzé).
0141-0296/$ – see front matter © 2010 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
doi:10.1016/j.engstruct.2010.08.025
signed to stop blocks with an impact energy that could range from
1000 to 5000 kJ [5,18]. This range can be increased if reinforced
structures are considered. The components making up these struc-
tures are detailed in Fig. 1(b). The role of the upstream side is to
contain the rock block and to ensure its efficiency, even for several
impacts. Slopes of 60° or more are used which require reinforce-
ment to ensure long-lasting stability. The downstream side often
corresponds to an abutment of 35°, which favors the stability of
the construction during an impact. The thickness of the crest may
also be of importance. However, no specific recommendations are
given for this parameter, except that it should be large enough for
the construction engines to move upon [1].
Many different types of construction are classified as ‘‘rein-
forced embankment’’. Usually, their common feature is that they
are made of soil materials. To increase the mechanical capabili-
ties of these constructions, different kinds of reinforcement such as
riprap, wire nets or tires full of compacted soil [6], wood and steel
bars [5], geotextile nets [7,8] or Gabion© [11], are used. However,
the construction designs are not yet standardized, and the rein-
forcement technology chosen depends on many factors, including
the financial aspect. Furthermore, the slope inclination of both lat-
eral sides of the construction can change greatly (see Table 1), de-
pending on the topography, the soil nature, the country or even the
manufacturer. Naturally, all these construction alternatives should
influence the dissipative capacity of the structure, but this influ-
ence is still not quantified at the present time.
3818 J.-P. Plassiard, F.-V. Donzé / Engineering Structures 32 (2010) 3817–3826

a after impact [9]. As a consequence, the effective dissipative capac-

ity of the structure submitted to a real impact configuration may
be overestimated. Hence, numerical models can be useful in deter-
mining the dissipative capacity when designing these structures.
Following on from previous studies on the effects of block pa-
rameters on embankments, in this paper, we present a numerical
model which will run parametric studies on the properties of the
embankment itself. The objective is to determine the range of effi-
ciency for a given set of geometrical and mechanical properties. A
reference embankment was chosen to be non-reinforced to gain in-
sight into the fundamental properties of such protective structures.

2. Numerical modeling using a discrete element approach

Crest The phenomenon of impact on an embankment may involve

b Height large deformations including compaction, slipping surfaces and
REINFORCEMENT SOIL AS FILL even material ejection. Such phenomena can hardly be represented
by a continuous approach, so a discrete element model was
Upstream Downstream chosen. The software SDEC (Spherical Discrete Element Code) was
side side used [21]. Here, the problem is solved with an explicit scheme, so
the time increment should be chosen correctly to avoid numerical
instability. To reduce the computational cost while keeping a large
number of elements, each of them is spherical and corresponds to
a rigid and homogeneous body that interacts with its neighbors
at the contact points. The interaction forces acting between
Thickness elements depend on their overlap and their relative velocity
calculated at the previous time step. At each time step, the contact
Fig. 1. Different types of protective structure and their respective ranges of detection algorithm establishes the list of potential contacts for
dissipative capacities are given in the top figure, (after [18]). At the bottom, the
main components of an embankment are shown.
each element. Then the interaction forces are calculated solving
Newton’s second law of motion. A rolling resistance acting at
Table 1
contact points is also required to be representative of the shear
Inclinations of the upstream and downstream sides and the estimation of the impact behavior that occurs in granular soils. Thus, a moment law has been
energy for various reference embankments. inserted into the model [22]. Then, the model can reproduce the
Place, Country Upstream/downstream side Impact energy (kJ) quasi-static behavior of several soils adequately [13,23]. Moreover
orientation (°) for impact loadings, additional dissipative laws are required. Here,
Dorénaz, Switzerland >34/>34 6 500 a damage law and viscous damping have been chosen [24].
Meano, Italy 67/67 4 500
Gèdre, France 70/60 4 450 2.1. Formulation of the numerical model
Eiblschrofen, Austria 39/34 4 500
Aigueblanche, France 60/34 250 000
Let us consider two discrete elements A and B, which are in
contact. Their radii are rA and rB while their positions in the
Preliminary studies are required in order to design a protective global set of axes G are defined by the two vectors xA and xB . The
structure and to ensure its efficiency. These studies may involve a interaction between A and B is represented by the force vector F .
series of experimental [6,7,9], numerical [7,12] or even analytical This vector is composed of a normal and a shear vector, F n and F s ,
tests [5,19] that are performed at small scale or true scale. From respectively, which may be linked to the relative displacements,
these, general characteristics are deduced: it has been observed through the normal and tangential contact stiffnesses, kn and ks .
that a rotating motion of the impactor occurred after the impact,
which depended on the impact orientation. Fin = kn un ni , (1)
The efficiency of the construction depends highly on the crest 1Fis = −k s
1usi , (2)
thickness; when it is too small, the collapse of the structure is ob-
n
served [20]. Additional numerical simulations have shown that the where u is the relative normal displacement between two
orientation of the upstream side should be at least 50° in order to elements, 1usi is the incremental tangential displacement, and
prevent any jumping effect of the block. It was also shown that n is the normal contact vector. The shear force F s is solved
the soil properties directly affected the penetration depth of the incrementally by summing the 1F s increments calculated at each
boulder [7]. Tension cracks were observed along the crest surface, previous time step. The normal and tangential contact stiffnesses
which indicated that the wave propagation, due to the impact pro- kn and ks are deduced from the values of input stiffnesses K n and
cess, generated a high-deformation process in this area. Geotextile K s of each element (Fig. 2). The contact stiffness is calculated as if
layers commonly reinforce the structure; in this case, it has been the input stiffnesses of both elements acted in series:
observed that the maximal force exerted by the penetrator is in-
KAn · KBn
creased, while the penetration depth is decreased [9]. kn = r , (3)
It can be assumed that the characteristics of both the block and KAn + KBn
of the embankment are involved in the efficiency of the structure KAs · KBs
to contain the block. Hence to determine its dissipative capacity ks = r , (4)
KAs + KBs
would require a large number of costly experimental tests. For ex-
ample, in most experimental set-ups not all parameters can be where KAn , KAs , KBn , KBs represent respectively the input values of
tested, e.g. the impact orientation [7] or the kinematics of the block normal and tangential stiffnesses K n and K s for both elements A
 J.-P. Plassiard, F.-V. Donzé / Engineering Structures 32 (2010) 3817–3826 3819

a b c

Fig. 2. Constitutive model and its parameters: in (a), the normal stiffness kn , the
coefficient of damaging law ξ , and the parameter of the viscous law αv , acting along
the normal direction; in (b), the tangential stiffness ks , local friction angle µ, and
local cohesion c, acting along the contact plane; and in (c), the coefficient of rolling
stiffness β r and the elastic limit ηr of the moment.
Fig. 3. Interaction law acting in release mode along the normal direction of a
contact.
and B. The value r corresponds to the mean value of the two radii.
Using the factor r in Eqs. (3) and (4) is commonly adopted to make
Table 2
the elasticity of the particle fabric independent from the element Chosen properties of the generic soil, representing the soil as fill of an embankment.
size. Moreover, Eqs. (3) and (4) are simplified when the values of
Mechanical property Value
K n and K s are the same for both elements (e.g. for particles defining
Elastic modulus, E0 (MPa) 100
the same material).
Poisson’s ratio, ν (−) 0.3
The frictional and cohesive behavior of geomaterials at a macro Internal friction angle, φpeak (°) 43
scale is controlled by a Mohr–Coulomb rupture criterion at the Cohesion,C (kPa) 10
contact scale: Dilatancy angle at peak, ψpeak (°) 15
Residual friction angle, φres (°) 35
‖F s ‖ ≤ ‖F n ‖ · tan µ + c , (5)
Table 3
where µ is the local friction angle and c is the local cohesion (Fig. 2). Input parameters representing the impact loading of the generic soil.
A moment transfer law (MTL) is introduced. This corresponds Input parameter Value
to an extension in three dimensions of the original formulation
Normal stiffness, K n (MN m−2 ) 170
proposed by Iwashita and Oda [25] for two-dimensional models of
Tangential stiffness, K s (MN m−2 ) 35
disks. Let the scalar kr be the rolling stiffness. The elastic moment Local friction angle, µ (°) 17
MLelast created by the rolling part in a local set of axes L is written as Local cohesion, C (kPa) 20
Coefficient of rolling stiffness, β r (−) 1.8
Coefficient of rolling elastic limit, ηr (−) 1.8
MLelast = kr θLr , (6)
Coefficient of damaging law in release mode, ξ (−) 8.0
Coefficient of nonlinear viscous law, αv (−) 1.0
where θLr is the angular vector of the rolling part in the set of axes L.
The rolling stiffness kr defines the level of rolling control. Let
us introduce a coefficient of rolling stiffness β r which expresses a 3. Calibration method
relationship between kr and ks , such that
To build a reliable numerical model, the mechanical properties
kr = β r ks r 2 . (7) of the embankment need to be known. In the proposed model,
because there is no reinforcement, we focus on the soil properties.
Let us also consider ηr , the coefficient of rolling elastic limit, Note that some authors have suggested replacing the effect of
plast
which controls the elastic limit of the moment ML (Fig. 2): reinforcement in their numerical models by considering a hybrid
soil with a higher value of cohesion [12].
plast
ML = ηr r ‖F n ‖, (8) A wide range of values of soil properties can be found in the
literature [26,27,7]. From these, a generic soil is considered to be
where ‖F n ‖ represents the norm of the normal force (see Eq. (1)). used in the numerical model of embankment. Average values of
Thus, the rolling moment M r is given by 100 MPa for Young’s modulus E, 43° for the peak friction angle
φpeak and 10 kPa for the cohesion C were selected. In addition, a
plast MLelast Poisson’s ratio ν of 0.3, a residual friction angle φres of 35°, and a
M r = mL−G min(‖MLelast ‖; ‖ML ‖) , (9)
‖MLelast ‖ dilatancy angle ψpeak of 15° are used. The corresponding properties
of the model of the generic soil are summarized in Table 2.
where mL−G defines the transition matrix from the local set of axes The calibration and validation of the model were undertaken for
L to the global set of axes G. quasi-static conditions as well as for impact loadings. Three steps
Two additional dissipative laws act along the normal direction were required [14]. First, the quasi-static behavior was set up using
of the contact. (i) The damaging law, which acts in release mode triaxial test simulations of the filling material. During this step, the
only, and is influenced by the dimensionless parameter ξ (Fig. 3). parameters presented in Eqs. (1)–(10) were calibrated until the
The nonlinear viscous law (Eq. (10)), which is derived from Zhang model could reproduce the mechanical properties of the generic
and Whiten [24]: soil (Table 2). Then, the experimental impact tests performed by
Montani [10] were modeled. These tests correspond to the drop of a
1/4
un

concrete boulder onto a granular soil layer. The impact energies did
Fv = −αv (mkn )1/2 u̇n , (10) not exceed 100 kJ, so these impact tests were qualified as ‘‘impacts
r
at moderate energies’’. For these simulations, the parameters of the
where Fv is the viscous force acting on both spheres at the contact, interaction law in release mode and of the nonlinear viscous law
αv is a dimensionless parameter, and m is the mean mass of both were calibrated, so that the whole set of numerical parameters was
elements. thus completed (see Table 3).
3820 J.-P. Plassiard, F.-V. Donzé / Engineering Structures 32 (2010) 3817–3826

a a

λ
b
m
V

D
H
b
h

β γ

Fig. 4. Side view of the reference model for the simulation of impacts on an
embankment (top), and main characteristics of the boulder and of the embankment
geometries (bottom).

The predictive capabilities of the model have been verified

by modeling experimental tests of high-energy impacts of rock
blocks dropped on granular soil [28]. The impact energies reached
10 000 kJ during these tests, which corresponds to the range
of impact energies for which embankments may be solicited.
Because the simulation results were in good agreement with
the experimental results, the model was considered sufficiently
representative of an impact event on an embankment (see [14] for
Fig. 5. Impact simulation of the reference case: boulder trajectory in the x–z
more details).
plane (top) and intensity of the force transmission between the boulder and the
embankment (bottom).

4. Impact on a reference configuration

Recent investigations have shown that the velocity after re-
bound of a block falling on a slope can be almost horizontal [29].
A reference configuration was set up, and the corresponding
This configuration has already been used by Brandl and Adam [19]
numerical model is presented as well as its main characteristics
for their analytical model. Hence, for comparison purposes, we
(Fig. 4). The embankment height H is 5.0 m. Its upstream side
have also chosen a horizontal impact direction. A translational ve-
is inclined at β = 60°, which corresponds to the minimal
locity of V of 19.4 m/s was established by considering that the
slope inclination encountered in embankment construction (see
translational kinetic energy KEt of the block is equal to 2000 kJ.
Table 1). The same inclination was considered for the downstream
There is no initial rotation velocity of the block, and its initial ro-
side orientation γ . This is motivated by the lack of construction
tational kinetic energy KEr is null. The embankment and the block
space that is often noticed in practical cases of embankment
are made of 145 000 and 4000 discrete elements, respectively.
constructions. A typical crest thickness λ of 2.0 m was used. The
area of the cross section S of the construction can be deduced from
4.1. Impact on the reference configuration

H2 tan β + tan γ In Fig. 5, the boulder trajectory is expressed in the x–z plane,
 
S = Hλ + . (11) as the motion in the transversal direction y is negligible. When
2 tan β tan γ
hitting the structure, the motion of the boulder, initially horizontal,
A width of 12.0 m is required to prevent any influence of the is partly converted into an upward motion. Nevertheless, the
lateral boundary conditions. The impacting block is represented by boulder drops back along the upstream side, so the efficiency of
a spherical boulder with a diameter size D of 1.97 m and a volume the structure is verified. The intensity of the impact force on the
of 4 m3 . It is supposed rigid and unbreakable. Its density ρb is equal embankment reaches its maximum value of almost 4 MN at time
to 2650 kg/m3 , so the block mass m is equal to 10 600 kg. The block t = 0.025 s (Fig. 5). The impact duration (i.e. when the impact force
impacts the structure at a height of 3.33 m, so the ratio of impact is significant) is equal to 0.1 s.
height h∗ is defined by The boulder is contained, but the embankment is partly
damaged during impact. The displacement field within the
h embankment in the vertical and horizontal planes is plotted for
h∗ = = 2/3. (12)
t = 0.63 s (Fig. 6), which corresponds to the time when the boulder
H
 J.-P. Plassiard, F.-V. Donzé / Engineering Structures 32 (2010) 3817–3826
a b
Fig. 6. Impact simulation of the reference case: displacement field side view in the
main vertical section (left) and top view of the main horizontal section (right).
Table 4
Application of a dichotomous method to access the value of dissipative capacity
DCref of the reference structure. The structure is efficient if a value of 1 is obtained.
Test number 1 2 3 4 5 6
KEt (kJ) 4000 2000 3000 3500 3250 3375
Efficiency test 0 1 1 0 1 1
starts to drop back. Fig. 6(a) shows a significant displacement for
the elements positioned above a spherical limit that differs from
the hypothesis of a flat slipping surface as proposed by Subrin [12].
The upper part of the structure moves upward, as already noticed
in experimental tests by Peila et al. [7].
The displacement field in the horizontal cross section propa-
gates from the impact area to the downstream side, as seen in
Fig. 6(b). Thus the impact affects the entire structure. A diffusion
angle comparable to the one found by Montani [10] is observed on
the horizontal cross section of the displacement field (see Fig. 6(b)).
4.2. Determination of the dissipative capacity
The translational kinetic energy KEt is the single block parame-
ter for which a variation has been allowed. The dissipative capacity,
DC, of a given structure corresponds to the value KEt for which the
transition from efficiency (the block is stopped) to inefficiency (the
block continues on its course) is noticed. The exact value of DC is
difficult to determine, but a range can be defined by using a di-
chotomous method: an initial KEt is given and tested in terms of
efficiency. If it fails the efficiency test, then the value is halved and
retested. This decrease by a factor of 2 is repeated until the block
is stopped. From that point on, a dichotomous method is used and
stopped when the difference in KEt between the inefficient and ef-
ficient tests is sufficiently small. Then, DC corresponds to the high-
est value of KEt among the set of values tested and for which the
structure has been efficient, to which a half interval is added.
The values tested for KEt are given in Table 4. The initial value is
4000 kJ and the ‘‘sufficiently small’’ difference is 125 kJ. The value of
DCref is included in the range [3375 kJ; 3500 kJ], so it is considered
equal to 3437 kJ. The safety interval of DCref corresponds to 3437 ±
62 kJ, so the relative error is smaller than 2%.
4.3. Impact force–energy relationship
The trajectories of the block were considered for the different
values of KEt tested (Fig. 7(a)). The block rebound also becomes
more significant for higher values of KEt . As a consequence, it
seems difficult to establish the nature of the inefficiency of the
embankment: is the block jumping over the embankment or is the
structure destroyed by perforation, or is it a combination of both?
The displacement field for the simulation corresponding to DCref is
3821
a b
Fig. 7. Trajectories of the block for various values of KEt (left), displacement field
for KEt = 3375 kJ at the time t = 0.75 s (right).
Table 5
Variations of the geometrical parameters of the embankment from the reference
configuration.
Parameter Reference Tested values
Upstream side orientation, β (°) 60 45, 50, 55
Downstream side orientation, γ (°) 60 33, 40, 50
Crest thickness, λ (m) 2.0 1.0, 3.0, 4.4
Ratio of impact height, h∗ (m) 2/3 1/2, 3/4, 4/5
presented (Fig. 7(b)). The slipping surface is almost the same as for
KEt = 2000 kJ (Fig. 6(a)).
The impact force corresponds to the reaction of the embank-
ment on the block during impact. Its maximum value Fmax depends
on the value of KEt . For vertical impacts onto granular layers, the
maximum impact force varies as a power law of KEt with an expo-
nent of 0.6 [10]. An analogous relationship has been found for the
embankment, but with a slightly higher exponent value [14]. This
results in an empirical formula (Eq. (13)), where the units of the
constant value ζ correspond to (ML−1 T−1 )2/3 .
Fmax
2/3
= ζ. (13)
KEt
5. Parametrical study on the embankment
A parametrical study of the geometrical and mechanical prop-
erties of the embankment is now performed. Previous analyses
[13,14] have already shown the influence of the block properties
on the structure’s efficiency.
5.1. Influence of the geometrical features: embankment profile
The embankment profile is defined by four parameters: its
upstream and downstream side orientations β and γ , its crest
thickness λ, and its height H (Fig. 4). These parameters are allowed
to vary within the range of practical values (see Section 1). Recall
that the embankment is not reinforced and its slope cannot exceed
60°. The parameters tested are given in Table 5.
5.1.1. Influence of the upstream side orientation
The simulations have shown that the dissipative capacity DC of
the structure is enhanced by the increase of the side inclination β
(Fig. 8). For β = 45°, the block has a tendency to roll over and
jump off the embankment so that the dissipation is minimum. As
a consequence, the displacement field shows less damage caused
to the structure with β = 45° (Fig. 9) than in the reference case
(Fig. 6(a)). The variation of the maximum impact force with β
seems to be quadratic-like (Fig. 8(b)). From β = 45° to β = 60° the
dissipative capacity is increased by a third while the impact force
increases by a half.
5.1.2. Influence of the downstream side orientation
The dependence of the dissipative capacity DC was investigated
for various values of γ . In general, the dissipative capacity DC of
3822 J.-P. Plassiard, F.-V. Donzé / Engineering Structures 32 (2010) 3817–3826

a 3500 a 7000

6000
3000
DC (KJ)

DC (KJ)
5000

2500
4000

2000
45 50 55 60 3000
β (°) 30 40 50 60
γ ( °)
b 6
b 9

8
5

Fmax (MN)
Fmax (MN)

4
6

3 5
45 50 55 60 30 40 50 60
β (°) γ ( °)

Fig. 8. On the top, the dissipative capacity of the structure depending on the Fig. 10. Dissipative capacity of the structure depending on the downstream side
upstream side orientation. On the bottom, the intensity of the impact force orientation (on the top), intensity of the impact force depending on the dissipative
depending on the dissipative capacity. capacity (on the bottom).

a b a

Fig. 9. On the left, trajectories of the block at the corresponding dissipative capacity
DC ; on the right, displacement fields for β = 45° at the corresponding dissipative
b
capacity DC .

the structure decreases when the slope of the downstream side

is increased, except for the case that corresponds to γ = 33°
(Fig. 10(a)). The dissipative capacity is almost doubled for an
inclination of γ = 33° as compared to the reference one. The
maximum impact forces exhibits similar trends (Fig. 10(b)). These
values are within the range [6 MN; 9 MN]. The rebound of the block
is higher for structures with a large abutment (Fig. 11(a)). As can Fig. 11. Trajectories of the block at the corresponding dissipative capacity (on the
be seen in Fig. 11(b), for γ = 33°, the displacement field is more top), displacement field for γ = 33° (a) at the corresponding dissipative capacity
localized than in the reference case (Fig. 6(a)). (on the bottom).

A comparison of the resulting displacement field for two crest

5.1.3. Influence of the crest thickness
Few recommendations exist for this parameter. In the current
study, a wide range of values was tested, including very low val-
ues. The value of DC grows roughly logarithmically with the crest
thickness (Fig. 12(a)). Its value is almost four times higher for
λ = 4.4 m than for λ = 1 m. The maximum value of the
impact force Fmax also depends logarithmically on the dissipative
capacity (Fig. 12(b)). The next empirical relationship can be de-
duced between the value Fmax and the crest thickness λ (Eq. (14)).
Fmax = −20.39 + 3.24ln(1490 + 2914lnλ).
thicknesses is shown in Fig. 13. The stable zone increases with the
crest thickness.
5.1.4. Influence of the impact height
The impact height h was varied in accordance with the values
of h∗ presented in Table 5. The dissipative capacity DC is four
times higher for h∗ = 1/2 than for h∗ = 4/5 (Fig. 14(a)), for a
maximum impact force almost two times higher (Fig. 14(b)). The
rebound of the block increases when h∗ is reduced (Fig. 15(a)).
(14) The impact at mid-height (for h∗ = 1/2) shows a downward
 J.-P. Plassiard, F.-V. Donzé / Engineering Structures 32 (2010) 3817–3826 3823

a 6000 a 7000
DC = 25408 - 50620 h* + 26110h*2
r2 = 1
5000 DC = 2914 Inλ + 1490
r2 = 0.996
DC (KJ)

5000
4000

DC (KJ)
3000
3000
2000

1000 1000
1 2 3 4 0.5 0.6 0.7 0.8
λ (m) h* (-)
9
b 8 b
Fmax = 3.24 In DC - 20.39
7
r2 = 0.997
7

Fmax (MN)
Fmax (MN)

5
5

4 Fmax = 11.55 - 0.657 h* - 11.75 h*2

r2 = 0.998
3 3
1000 2000 3000 4000 5000 6000 0.5 0.6 0.7 0.8
h* (-)
DC (KJ)

Fig. 12. Dissipative capacity of the structure depending on the crest thickness (on Fig. 14. Dissipative capacity of the structure depending on the ratio of impact
the top), intensity of the impact force depending on the dissipative capacity (on the height (top), intensity of the impact force depending on the dissipative capacity
bottom). (bottom).

a a b

b
Fig. 15. Trajectories of the block at the corresponding dissipative capacity (a),
displacement field for h∗ = 1/2 at the corresponding dissipative capacity (b).

Table 6
Variations of the mechanical properties of the embankment from the reference
configuration.
Parameter Reference Tested values

Young’s modulus, E (MPa) 100 10, 30, 50

Internal friction angle, φpeak (°) 43.5 38, 40, 42
Fig. 13. Side views of the displacement field for λ = 4.4 m (top) and λ = 1.0 m
Cohesion, C (kPa) 10 5, 20, 40
(bottom) at the corresponding dissipative capacity.

extension of the slipping surface (Fig. 15(b)), compared to the

reference configuration.
5.2. Influence of the mechanical properties
The following study focuses on Young’s modulus, the internal
friction angle, and the cohesion of the soil. These parameters
have been previously considered as the main parameters that
characterize the embankment soil. The values used are given in
Table 6.
5.2.1. Influence of Young’s modulus
Different Young’s modulus values were tested, which resulted
in a dissipative capacity DC in the range of 3812–2937 kJ, as seen
in Fig. 16(a), with a minimum value at E ≈ 50 MPa. The force
transmission is minimum for E ≈ 30 MPa (Fig. 16(b)). As shown in
Fig. 17, the trajectory of the block varies slightly for these values.
The resulting displacement field has been plotted for the minimum
dissipative capacity.
5.2.2. Influence of the internal friction angle
The internal friction angle φpeak is considered by many authors
as the most important dissipative characteristic. The statement
is confirmed by the current simulations: the dissipative capacity
increases with the value of φpeak as a quadratic law, as seen in
Fig. 18(a). This variation is of almost 25% between the lowest and
the highest value of φpeak . The maximum impact force also incre-
3824 J.-P. Plassiard, F.-V. Donzé / Engineering Structures 32 (2010) 3817–3826

a 4000 a 3500

CD = 37095 - 1813φ + 23.88φ 2

r2 = 0.997
3250
3500
DC (KJ)

DC (KJ)
3000

3000

2750

2500
0 20 40 60 80 100 2500
E (MPa) 38 40 42 44
φ peak (°)
b 6
b 6

5
Fmax (MN)

5.5

Fmax (MN)
4
5

3
0 20 40 60 80 100
E (MPa) 4.5
38 40 42 44
φ peak (°)
Fig. 16. Dissipative capacity of the structure depending on Young’s modulus (top),
intensity of the impact force depending on the dissipative capacity (bottom).
Fig. 18. Dissipative capacity of the structure depending on the friction angle (top),
intensity of the impact force depending on the dissipative capacity (bottom).
a b
a b

Fig. 17. Trajectories of the block at the corresponding dissipative capacity (a),
displacement field for E = 50 MPa at the corresponding dissipative capacity (b).

ases with the internal friction angle, from 4.64 MN for φpeak = 38° Fig. 19. Trajectories of the block at the corresponding dissipative capacity (a), side
view of the displacement field for φpeak = 38° at the corresponding dissipative
to 5.94 MN for φpeak = 43.5° (Fig. 18(b)). The failure profile given
capacity (b).
in Fig. 19(b) is circular for all cases and is similar to the one noticed
for the reference case.
Table 7
Range of variation of the dissipative capacity DC with each parameter.
5.2.3. Influence of the cohesion
The dissipative capacity DC of the structure increases with β γ λ h∗ E φpeak C
the soil cohesion as a logarithmic law (Fig. 20(a)). The maximum DCmin 2187 3437 1562 1687 2937 2687 3062
impact force Fmax grows steadily, almost linearly (Fig. 20(b)). The DCmax 3427 6437 5937 6687 3812 3427 3927
increase of the cohesion value strengthens the structure on which DCmin /DCmax 0.64 0.53 0.26 0.25 0.77 0.78 0.78
the rebound of the block becomes more and more significant
(Fig. 21(a)). On the other hand, the displacement field exhibits
With respect to the geometrical parameters, the upstream side
almost the same shape as in the reference case (Fig. 21(b)).
orientation β leads to the smallest variation. However, the tested
values were restricted to β ≤ 60°, so a higher value of DCmax
6. Discussion
could be expected for upstream faces with greater slopes. The
Empirical relations have been identified between several pa- ratio DCmin /DCmax is much more relevant when it comes to the
rameters and the dissipative capacity DC , as shown in Table 7. The downstream side orientation, as this parameter was varied in the
ratios DCmin /DCmax were calculated, with DCmin and DCmax corre- range of practical values. The dissipative capacity is two times
sponding to the minimum and maximum dissipative capacity en- higher with an abutment oriented at 40° than it is in the reference
countered during the variation of the parameter concerned. The case (γ = 60°). Finally, the crest thickness λ and the ratio of
dissipative capacity is much more sensitive to the geometrical pa- impact height h∗ seem to be the main parameters that influence
rameters than to the mechanical ones. the dissipative capacity of the structure.
 J.-P. Plassiard, F.-V. Donzé / Engineering Structures 32 (2010) 3817–3826 3825

a 4000 where f (β, E ) and Fmax

DC
correspond to a function of the upstream
side orientation β and Young’s modulus E, and to the maximum
impact force encountered at the dissipative capacity DC . The re-
3750 lationship between DC and these two parameters is not straight-
forward (Figs. 8(b) and 16(b)), so further investigation may be
required to identify the function f (β, E ) in Eq. (15). Taking into
DC (KJ)

3500 account the results of [9] and those of Table 8, it can be assumed
that the last relationship can be generalized for any value of ki-
netic energy KEt , as long as the condition KEt ≤ DC is verified as in
KEt
3250 Eq. (16). Here, Fmax denotes the maximum impact force encoun-
tered for the kinetic energy KEt .
2/3
3000 KEt
Fmax ≈ KEt f (E ; β). (16)
0 10 20 30 40
C (KPa) Eqs. (15) and (16) could be very useful in order to design the
embankment profile. The design methods used for mechanically
b 7 stabilized earth walls are compared in [30,31], where no effect
of the Young’s modulus E has been considered. The last results
6.5
have shown that these methods may not be sufficient when impact
loadings are considered.
The use of a higher value for the soil cohesion has been proposed
Fmax (MN)

6 to represent the reinforcements when reinforced embankments

are modeled as homogeneous-like materials [12]. To test this
assumption, a high cohesion value of C = 30 kPa was used in
5.5 the parametric study. However, it was seen that the cohesion has
a negligible effect on the value of Fmax . With an identical impact
5
energy (KEt = 3000 kJ), Fmax drops only by 3% when the cohesion
0 10 20 30 40 varies from 5 to 20 kPa (Fig. 22(a)). In the experimental results [9],
C (KPa) it was seen that introducing reinforcement greatly increased the
maximum impact force. Hence, modeling reinforcements strictly
Fig. 20. Dissipative capacity of the structure depending on the cohesion (top), by increasing solely the cohesion up to 30 kPa may not be sufficient.
intensity of the impact force depending on the dissipative capacity (bottom). Reinforcements may not just enhance the strength of a struc-
ture, but also its rigidity, so both the cohesion and Young’s modulus
a b need to be considered. In fact, it was seen in Fig. 22 that increas-
ing the Young’s modulus considerably increased the maximum im-
pact force. This gain is of the same order of magnitude as the one
noted by Blovsky [9] between unreinforced and reinforced small-
scale experiments. Further investigation may be needed to estab-
lish to influence of each of these parameters on the strength of the
structure.

7. Conclusion

Fig. 21. Trajectories of the block at the corresponding dissipative capacity (a),
displacement field for c = 40 kPa at the corresponding dissipative capacity (b).
From the various geometrical configurations tested, it is seen
that the two structures with γ = 33° and λ = 4.4 m respectively
lead to comparable dissipative capacities of approximately 6000 kJ.
The same volume of soil is needed to build each of them; however,
one of them (λ = 4.4 m) requires a smaller base width than the
other (10.6 m versus 13.2 m). This could be useful when space
is limited in one direction. Further investigations are needed to
optimize the crest size, but the numerical tests have shown that
this geometrical parameter is worth considering in the design of
embankments.
The evolution of the ratio Fmax /DC 2/3 was followed (Table 8).
For the range of tested values, this ratio is included in the interval
[17 500; 27 800], so Eq. (13) is not verified. The highest variation
is caused by Young’s modulus E. The upstream side inclination
β corresponds to the second relevant parameter, while other
parameters seem to have only a secondary influence. Hence, the
maximum impact force and the dissipative capacity may be linked
as follows:
DC
Fmax ≈ DC 2/3 f (E ; β),
A literature overview concerning rockfall impacts on a rein-
forced embankment has highlighted the lack of knowledge con-
cerning the influence of some characteristics of both the impacting
block and the embankment. Here, a discrete element approach has
been chosen to investigate the influence of some of the mechanical
or geometrical aspects of the protective structure. The dissipative
capacity of the numerical configurations tested is included in the
range [1500 kJ; 6700 kJ].
The results obtained here highlight the contribution of key
parameters.
The dissipative capacity DC of the embankment is mainly influ-
enced by the geometrical aspects, while the mechanical properties
of the filling soil play a second role. The inclinations of both sides of
the embankment are relevant, but the crest thickness, hardly con-
sidered in the literature, is the foremost parameter to think about.
The use of a large crest thickness, rather than an abutment, op-
timizes the space required for construction while maintaining a
comparable dissipative capacity.
It was seen that the maximum impact force Fmax is mainly gov-
erned by the impact energy, Young’s modulus of the constitutive
soil, and the upstream side orientation. An equation describing the
relationship between Fmax and these three parameters has been
(15) given.
3826 J.-P. Plassiard, F.-V. Donzé / Engineering Structures 32 (2010) 3817–3826

Table 8
Range of variation of the ratio Fmax /DC 2/3 with each parameter.
β γ λ h∗ E φpeak C
2/3
minFmax /DC 21 000 23 900 23 600 23 800 17 500 24 500 26 000
max Fmax /DC 2/3 27 000 26 600 26 200 27 800 26 500 27 500 27 200
min / max 0.78 0.90 0.90 0.86 0.66 0.89 0.96

a 5.7 [3] Vogel T, Labiouse V, Masuya H. Rockfall protection as an integral task. Struct
Eng Int: J Int Assoc Bridge Struct Eng (IABSE) 2009;19(3):304–12.
[4] Lorentz J, Plassiard J-P, Muquet L. An innovative design process for rockfall
embankments: application in the protection of a building at Val d’Isere.
In: Third euro-Mediterranean symposium on advances in geomaterials and
structures. 2010.
5.6 [5] Tissières P. Dichtes and reinforced dichtes against falling rocks, joint
Japan–Swiss scientific seminar on impact. Kanazawa (Japan); 1999.
Fmax (MN)

[6] Lepert P, Corté J-F. Analysis of the problems of impact in soil masses using
centrifugeuse tests. In: International symposium on computer and physical
modelling in geotechnical engineering. 1989.
[7] Peila D, Oggeri C, Castiglia C, Recalcati P, Rimoldi P. Testing and modelling
5.5 geogrid reinforced soil embankments subject to high energy rock impacts. In:
Delmas, Gourc & Girard, editors. Geosynthetics 7th ICG; 2002.
[8] Burroughs DK, Henson HH, Jiang SS. Full scale geotextile rock barrier wall
testing, analysis and prediction. In: Geosynthetics’93. Vancouver (Canada):
IGS; 1993. p. 959–70.
5.4 [9] Blovsky S. Bewehrungsmöglichkeiten mit Geokunststoffen. Ph.D. thesis. T.U.
0 10 20 Wien (Austria); 2003.
[10] Montani S. Sollicitation dynamique de la couverture des galeries de protection
C (KPa)
lors de chutes de blocs. Ph.D. thesis. Switzerland: EPFL Lausanne; 1998.
b 6 [11] Bertrand D, Nicot F, Lambert S, Gotteland P. DEM modelling of a cellular
structure for rockfall protection based on a multiscale approach. In: 10th
international symposium on numerical models in geomechanics. 2007. p. 707-
13.
[12] Subrin D. Modélisation analytique et numérique pseudo-statique des merlons
de protection contre les chutes de blocs rocheux. In: JNGG 2006. Lyon (France);
5 2006.
Fmax (MN)

4 embankments using the discrete element method. Struct Eng Int: J Int Assoc
3 resisting structure for volcanic shelters. Eng Struct 2006;28(12):1634–49.
0 20 40 60 80 100
E (MPa)
Fig. 22. Influence of the soil cohesion on the maximal impact force for KEt =
3000 kJ (top), influence of the Young’s modulus on the maximal impact force for
KEt = 3250 kJ (bottom).
Reinforced structures could be modeled by homogeneous
media by increasing both the cohesion and Young’s modulus.
However, it would be preferable to include directly in the present
numerical model the different reinforcement components that can
be found in the numerous real cases.
Further investigation is needed to complete the proposed rela-
tionships between the maximum impact force and the properties
of the embankment.
Acknowledgements
The authors would like to thank the French company ‘‘In-
génierie des Mouvements de Sol et des Risques Naturels’’ (IMSRN),
the ‘‘Laboratoire de tribologie et de Dynamique des Systèmes’’ and
the ‘‘Risques Naturels & Vulnérabilité des Ouvrages’’ (RNVO) re-
search network, for their financial contribution to this work.
References
[1] Calvino A, Dumont P, Durville J-L, Dussauge C, Effendiantz L, Evrard H. et al.
Parades contre les instabilités rocheuses. In: Collection environnement — les
risques naturels. France: Laboratoire Central des Ponts et Chaussées; 2001.
[2] Bourrier F, Nicot F, Darve F. Physical processes within a 2D granular layer
during an impact. Granular Matter 2008;10(6):415–37.
[13] Plassiard J-P. Modélisation par la méthode des éléments discrets d’impacts de
blocs rocheux sur structure de protection type merlons. Ph.D. thesis. Grenoble
(France); 2007.
[14] Plassiard J-P, Donzé F-V. Simulation of rockfall impacts on reinforced
Bridge Struct Eng (IABSE) 2009;19(3):333–431.
[15] Rousseau J, Frangin E, Marin P, Daudeville L. Multidomain finite and discrete
elements method for impact analysis of a concrete structure. Eng Struct 2009;
31(11):2735–43.
[16] Dolce M, Cardone D, Marnetto R. Struct design and analysis of an impact
[17] Delhomme F, Mommessin M, Mougin J-P, Perrotin P. Simulation of a block
impacting et reinforced concrete slab with a finite element model and a
mass–spring system. Eng Struct 2007;29(11):2844–52.
[18] Descoeudres F, editor. In: Steinschlag [Rockfall]. Mitteilungen der scheiwz-
erischen gesellschaft für boden und felsmechanik, vol. 35. Swiss Association
for Soil and Rock Mechanics; 1997.
[19] Brandl H, Adam D. Special applications of geosynthetics in geotechnical
engineering. In: Second European geosynthetics conference. 2000.
[20] Lepert P, Corté JF. Modélisation en centrifugeuse de l’impact de gros blocs
rocheux sur un merlon de protection. In: Corté, editor. Centrifuge 88. Balkema
(Rotterdam); 1988. p. 457–63.
[21] Donzé F, Magnier SA. Formulation of a three-dimensional numerical model of
brittle behavior. Geophys J Int 1995;122:790–802.
[22] Plassiard J-P, Belheine N, Donzé F-V. Numerical modelling of the granular
soils with DEM incorporating rolling resistance: calibration procedure and
incremental response. Granular Matter 2009;11(5):293–306.
[23] Belheine N, Plassiard J-P, Donzé F-V. Calibration procedure for spherical
discrete elements using a local moment law. Comput Geotech 2009.
[24] Zhang D, Whiten WJ. Contact modelling for discrete element modelling of ball
mills. Mineral Eng 1998;11(8):689–98.
[25] Iwashita K, Oda M. Rolling resistance at contacts in simulation of shear band
development by DEM. J Eng Mech 1998;124:285–92.
[26] Lapierre J-Y, Mathieu Y, Raffour J-P, Cabanis M. Déviation d’Aigueblanche.
Revue générale des routes et aérodromes 1990;671:20–8.
[27] Ploner A, Soenser T, Tropper W. Naturgefahren im alpinen Raum–Erkennen
von Risiken, Planung und Ausführung von Schutzmassnahmen. Felsbau 2000;
1:7–11.
[28] Pichler B, Hellmich C, Mang HA. Impact of rocks onto gravel design and
evaluation of experiments. Int J Impact Eng 2005;31(5):559–78.
[29] Bourrier F, Dorren L, Nicot F, Berger F, Darve F. Toward objective rockfall
trajectory simulation using a stochastic impact model. Geomorphology 2009;
110:68–79.
[30] Chen Y. Practical analysis and design methods of mechanically-stabilized
earth-wall — design philosophies and procedures. Eng Struct 2000;22(7):
793–808.
[31] Chen Y. Practical analysis and design methods of mechanically-stabilized
earth-wall — design comparisons and impact of LRFD method. Eng Struct
2000;22(7):809–30.