Technical Notes
Landslides (2021) 18:2621–2637
DOI 10.1007/s10346-021-01658-w Zhixiang Yu I Liru Luo I Chun Liu I Liping Guo I Xin Qi I Lei Zhao
Received: 10 June 2020
Accepted: 8 March 2021
Published online: 17 March 2021 Dynamic response of flexible rockfall barriers
© Springer-Verlag GmbH Germany
part of Springer Nature 2021
with different block shapes
Abstract Flexible rockfall barriers are commonly constructed on
steep hillsides to mitigate rockfall. The evaluation of the dynamic
response of proprietary flexible rockfall barriers is conventionally
performed using full-scale field tests by dropping a block onto the
barriers in accordance with the European test standard ETAG 027.
The block typically has a spherical or polyhedral shape and cannot
reproduce more complex rockfall scenarios encountered in the
field. Little attention has been paid to the effects of the block shape
on the impact force and structural response. This paper aims to
quantitatively reveal the influence of the block shape on the
dynamic response of flexible rockfall barriers. First, an ellipsoidal
model is established to approximately simulate the block, and the
sphericity is employed as the representative index of the block’s
shape. A full-scale test on a typical flexible barrier system is carried
out and then used to calibrate an advanced three-dimensional
finite element model. Finally, the dynamic responses of flexible
rockfall barriers are analyzed and discussed, focusing on the
effects of the block’s shape. The numerical results show that the
sphericity will obviously influence the maximum elongation of
flexible barriers, the peak impact force, the peak force of the
upslope anchor cable, the peak force of the lower main support
cable, the axial peak force of the post, and the peak shear force at
the post foundation. The assumption of spherical or polyhedral
blocks in the test standard could lead to the defensive failure of
flexible rockfall barriers in some impact scenarios.
Keywords Block shape . Sphericity . Flexible rockfall
barriers . Dynamic response . Numerical simulation
Introduction
The rockfall hazard is a natural disaster that occurs in mountain-
ous areas and poses a serious threat to engineering structures,
such as roads, railways, bridges, and buildings. The structures can
be destroyed by the great impact force of falling rocks (Bhatti et al.
2011; Ferrari et al. 2016; He et al. 2019; Vallero et al. 2020). There are
mainly two kinds of protection structures that are used to mini-
mize this hazard: active and passive. The objective of active pro-
tection structures is to prevent the fall of potentially unstable
rocks. For instance, draped meshes directly fixed on eroded cliffs
can be used. Alternatively, passive protection structures are dedi-
cated to stopping rock propagation after the cliff collapses (Liu
et al. 2020a). Compared to active protection that is mainly sub-
jected to static loads, in passive protection, the kinetic energy of
the block generates an impact loading when it hits a structure.
Flexible rockfall barriers are regarded as passive protection struc-
tures and are widely used to protect against rockfall. A typical
flexible rockfall barrier is shown in Fig. 1. The key components
include steel posts, foundations, wire rope cables spanning across
the posts, energy-dissipating devices, and highly tensile steel nets.
The net is attached to the wire rope cables by shackles so it can
slide freely along the cables when subject to an impact load. A key
feature is that these structures can absorb rather high energy levels
through the development of large elasto-plastic deformations of
the system (Buzzi et al. 2015). This is achieved by the deformation
of the net and the activation of energy-dissipating devices
(Volkwein 2004; Gottardi and Govoni 2010).
According to ETAG 027 (European Organisation for Technical
Approvals (EOTA) 2013), a falling polyhedral block is dropped
from a fixed height above the barrier during a full-scale test.
Moreover, for numerical simulations and theoretical analyses,
the rockfall shape is also defined as a regular polyhedral block
(Gentilini et al. 2012; Escallón et al. 2014; Yu et al. 2018). In fact, the
shape of a real rockfall can vary significantly from spherical,
conical, or cylindrical to disk-shaped forms (Fityus et al. 2013)
and can influence the rockfall dynamics significantly (Leine et al.
2014; Koo et al. 2017; Gao and Meguid 2018; Yan et al. 2018). In the
field, flexible rockfall barriers installed on natural hillsides are
usually impacted by rockfall with irregular geometries that are
different from those used for full-scale verification testing (Peila
et al. 1998). Additionally, field investigations also indicated that
flexible barriers were damaged by rockfall even when the impact
energy was less than the rated energy level (Yu et al. 2019a). The
failure of flexible barriers impacted by irregular rockfall (in terms
of the shape) in the field clearly shows that the polyhedral block
used with current test standards is not the worst-case scenario (Yu
et al. 2019a; Liu et al. 2020b). However, there is currently limited
understanding of the effect of the block shape on the performance
of flexible rockfall barriers. The reason is that it is difficult to
quantitatively study the irregularity of such block shapes. There-
fore, to accurately evaluate or predict the impact effects of rockfall
in a barrier design, it is urgently necessary to quantitatively iden-
tify the influence of the block shape on the dynamic response of
flexible rockfall barriers.
Researchers have assumed block shapes to be spherical
(Bertrand et al. 2012), polyhedral (Gentilini et al. 2012), conical
Support cable
High tensile steel net
Post
Irregular rock block in shape Energy-dissipating devices
Fig. 1 A typical flexible rockfall barrier
Landslides 18 & (2021) 2621
 Technical Notes
(Moon et al. 2014), a flat rock slab (Koo et al. 2017), or cylindrical
with a blunt shape (Dhakall et al. 2011) in theoretical, numerical,
and experimental studies. Over the past decade, significant prog-
ress has been made to predict the dynamic response of a barrier
using numerical analyses. Suitable numerical tools calibrated by
real-scale tests can provide a reliable and cost-effective solution
for analyzing the performance of flexible rockfall barriers. For
example, Nicot et al. (2001) implemented an explicit numerical
algorithm in a computer program to simulate flexible rockfall
barriers. In their analyses, the movement of the netting was limited
by the common joints, thus inhibiting free sliding among the wire
rings. Spadari et al. (2012) also adopted a numerical model to
study the bullet effect of a single rock punching through flexible
rockfall barriers and found that punching failure is controlled by
the diameter of the block. This process suggests that the contact
area of the impact load strongly influences the performance of the
flexible rockfall barriers. Moon et al. (2014) established a model of
flexible rockfall barriers, and the effects of the angle between the
steel post and the ground, the angle of entry of the rockfall, the
spacing of the steel post, and the capacity of the energy dissipator
on the performance of the barriers were studied. Koo et al. (2017)
also studied the effect of block load area onto barrier. The areal
load induced by a rigid slab leads to a smaller deformation of the
barrier net than a concentrated load due to a single-boulder
impact. In field tests and theoretical analyses, the influence of
the block shape on the dynamic response of flexible barriers is
seldom quantitatively studied due to its complex nonlinear me-
chanical properties.
From the above, it can be ascertained that these studies are
useful for understanding the performance of flexible rockfall bar-
riers impacted by blocks. However, it is still difficult to quantita-
tively determine the effect of the block shape on the dynamic
response of flexible rockfall barriers. Above all, the current re-
search shows that the block shape is significantly important, and
its complicated factors should be investigated more systematically
based on a robust numerical model.
To fill this gap, in this study, the performance of flexible rockfall
barriers was investigated using different block shapes. In the
“Representation of the block shape” section, Sp (the representative
index of the block shape) is defined to conduct a unified analysis
of the block shape. In the “Full-scale impact test” section, a full-
scale test of a typical flexible rockfall barrier according to ETAG
027 is reported. In the “Validation of numerical model” section, a
finite element (FE) model is developed. The model of the wire-ring
net is explicitly modeled. The interaction between the individual
barrier’s components, such as the sliding of the ring net along the
cables spanning between posts, is also explicitly modeled. The
numerical model of flexible rockfall barriers successfully repro-
duces the full-scale test. In the “Quantitative investigation of
different block shapes” section, the importance of the block shape
in the engineering design of flexible rockfall barriers is discussed.
Finally, the “Conclusion and discussion” section provides several
conclusions.
Representation of the block shape
There are three main types of the block shapes, namely, spherical,
cylindrical, and disk-shaped, in nature (Fityus et al. 2013). The
main forms are shown in Fig. 2 and are defined as:
2622 Landslides 18 & (2021)
Spherical forms These forms are generally defined by the geom-
etry where dmax≈dmid≈dmin. The maximum dimension, dmax, is
taken to be the longest dimension of the block. The minimum
dimension, dmin, is the smallest dimension measured in a direction
perpendicular to dmax. The intermediate dimension, dmid, is mea-
sured perpendicular to both dmax and dmin. The types of spherical
form blocks include spheres, cubes, etc.
Cylindrical forms These forms are generally defined by the ge-
ometry where dmax>(dmid≈dmin). Cylindrical forms generally have
a relatively uniform cross section along their length. The types of
cylindrical form blocks include ellipsoids, cylinders, prisms, etc.
Disk-shaped forms These forms are generally defined by the
geometry where (dmax≈dmid)>dmin. Disk-shaped forms are gener-
ally made up of two principal surfaces (parallel and separated by
d min ). The types of disk-shaped blocks include disks and
hemispheres.
As shown in Fig. 2, because it is not easy to assign a form to the
natural block used in our field research, it is necessary to approx-
imately assign a form to the block. The overall appearance of the
block can be represented by a sphere or a rotational ellipsoid,
neglecting its local appearance. Therefore, in the present study, a
rotational ellipsoid is used to represent the block, and the surface
equation of a rotational ellipsoid for the block is shown in Fig. 3.
The concept of sphericity was first proposed by Krumbein (1941)
and was used to describe the shape and roundness of large sedi-
mentary particles during the formation of a deposit. To quantita-
tively describe the overall shape characteristics of a block, in this
study, the concept of sphericity is employed as the representative
index of the overall shape. The sphericity of a block is defined as
follows.
First, the triaxial dimensions of a block are defined as D1, D2, and
D3. D1 is the longest secant between any two surface points of the
block in the z direction of the local axis (Fig. 3). D2 is the longest
secant among all the secant lines perpendicular to D1. D3 is the
longest secant line perpendicular to both D1 and D2 (Fig. 3).
According to the dimensions of a block, D1, D2, and D3, the
sphericity can be expressed as Eq. (1):
sffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffi
3 D2 D3
Sp ¼ ð1Þ
D21
in which Sp is the sphericity. When Sp is equal to 1.0, the rockfall is
shaped like a sphere. This measure generally reflects the overall
appearance of a block quantitatively. In fact, according to the
concept of sphericity, the sphericity ranges from 0 to 1
(Krumbein 1941). However, to conduct a unified analysis of these
three types of blocks, the study discussed in this paper extends its
concept, and the sphericity is considered to be greater than 0.
Thus, only the influence of the block shape on flexible barriers is
studied, so it is necessary to keep the block mass and density
unchanged; consequently, the volume of the block is also un-
changed, assuming that the volume of the block a is Va and the
volume of block b is Vb. Va and Vb can be calculated as Eq. (2a)
and Eq. (2b), respectively:
 Spherical forms Cylindrical forms Disc-shaped forms
d max d mid d min d max d mid d min d max d mid d min

Sphere Ellipsoid Disc

Cube Prism Hemisphere

Fig. 2 Typical shapes of blocks in nature. The photographs of the cube and prism blocks come from Fityus et al. (2013)

πD1a D2a D3a πD1a Spa

3 3
Va ¼ ¼ ð2aÞ
πD1b D2b D3b πD1b Spb
3 3
6 6
Vb ¼ ¼ ð2bÞ
6 6

Surface equation z
4z2 4x2 4 y2 4z2 4 x2 4 y2 4z2 4 x2 4 y2
1 1 1
D12 D22 D32 D12 D22 D32 D12 D22 D32
( D1 D2 D3 ) ( D1 D2 D3 ) ( D1 D2 D3 )

D1 y
z z
D2
D3 x D1
D1 y y
D2 D3 D2
D3 x x

Spherical forms Cylindrical forms Disc-shaped forms

Fig. 3 Surface equation of a rotational ellipsoid for the block

Landslides 18 & (2021) 2623

 Technical Notes
where D1a, D2a, and D3a are the lengths of the axis of block an in the
z, x, and y directions of the local axis, respectively; Spa is the
sphericity of block a; D1b, D2b, and D3b are the lengths of axis b
in the z, x, and y directions of the local axis, respectively; and Spb is
the sphericity of block b.
Va should be equal to Vb, so Eq. (3) can be obtained:
D1a Spa ¼ D1b Spb ð3Þ
Full-scale impact test
Layout of the flexible barrier
A full-scale test of a flexible barrier with a design energy of 750 kJ is
carried out at the National Engineering Laboratory for Technology of
Geological Disaster Prevention in Land Transportation of Southwest
Jiaotong University. The prototype of the test barrier is shown in Fig.
4. Note that the minor support cable is attached to the main support
cable, but it does not pass through the end of the post. The purpose
of this layout is to avoid the so-called pulsing effect and improve the
sliding performance of the support cable (Yu et al. 2018).
Specimen details
The wire-ring net is manufactured by winding high-strength
steel wires with a diameter of 3 mm. The specification of the
steel wire cables is 6×19 W+FC with a nominal tensile strength
of 1770 MPa. The type of 6×19 W+FC means that the cable is
made of 6 strands and 19 wires per strand. The height of the
steel posts is 5.25 m with a spacing of 9.0 m, and the steel grade
is Q345. The characteristics of Q345 grade steel are given as
follows: the yield stress is 345 MPa. The posts are inclined
upwards by 10° in the vertical plane. A brake ring made of steel
and an aluminum sleeve is adopted as the energy dissipator. The
specification of the brake ring is GS8002, and the maximum
elongation of the GS8002 brake ring is 1.0 m. The activation
force of a single GS8002 brake ring is 50 kN (Yu et al. 2019b).
Both ends of the upper/lower main support cables are connect-
ed in parallel with two energy dissipators, so the activation force
of the upper or lower main support cable is 100 kN. The upslope
anchor cable is connected with one energy dissipator, so the
activation force of the upslope anchor cable is 50 kN (Fig. 4b).
The main components of the rockfall protection barrier are
shown in Table 1.
Test procedure
After the installation of the flexible barrier specimen on the
reaction wall, an artificial concrete block (Fig. 4b) is lifted by
the traveling portal crane with an automatic release device. The
block has a polyhedron shape in accordance with ETAG 027.
After aiming at the central point of the middle functional module
(Fig. 4b), the block is lifted to the specified height. When trig-
gering the automatic release device, the block is dropped from
the chosen release height. ETAG 027 makes a suggestion
concerning two different energy levels that the barrier should
resist in order to be certified:
-SEL: the kinetic energy (at least 1/3*MEL) that the barrier is
able to dissipate while stopping a block for two consequent im-
pacts without undergoing to any maintenance or part substitution
2624 Landslides 18 & (2021)
-MEL: the maximum kinetic energy retained by a homogeneous
block with regular geometry that impacts at a speed above 25 m/s
and is stopped by the barrier
Three impact tests, two service energy level (SEL-250 kJ) tests,
and one maximum energy level (MEL-750 kJ) test are carried out
in this study. The specifications of the blocks and their lifting
heights are shown in Table 2.
High-speed cameras with a frequency of 500 fps are used to
record the entire impact process. The recorded high-speed videos
are analyzed by ProAnalyst software, which is a software package
widely used for automatically measuring moving objects with
video, to determine the motion variables of the block (Xcitex
n.d.). By tracking the path of the specified pixels of the block, the
displacement time-history is obtained.
Each of the support cables and the upslope anchor cables is
equipped with a load cell to measure the internal forces. The data
acquisition system is used to record the measured internal forces,
and the sampling frequency is 1 kHz.
Test results
Overall intercept deformation
The overall intercept state is shown in Fig. 5. After the 1st SEL
test, the block is stopped by the barrier, and no ruptures occur in
the connection components. The energy dissipators on the main
support cables start to work. In the case of no repair of the
flexible barrier, after the 2nd SEL test, the block is also stopped
by the barrier, and no ruptures occur in the connection compo-
nents. The energy dissipators on the main support cables con-
tinue to be stretched. In the case of a new flexible barrier, after
the MEL test, the block is stopped by the barrier, and no ruptures
occur in the connection components. The energy dissipators on
the main support cables have reached their maximum
elongation.
The maximum elongation and residual height of the flexible
barrier are shown in Table 3. The maximum elongation of the 2nd
SEL test (2.99 m) is much smaller than that of the 1st SEL test
(4.74 m). This occurs because after the first impact, the net
undergoes greater plastic deformation, and the stiffness of the
whole structure increases, resulting in a smaller elongation dur-
ing the 2nd SEL test. The residual height of the barriers after the
1st SEL test (without removing the block) is 77% of the nominal
height and is greater than 70% of the nominal height. The
residual height of the barriers after the MEL test (without remov-
ing the block) is 61% of the nominal height and is greater than
50% of the nominal height. By a classification for the residual
height (EOTA 2013), the product tested in this study can be
defined as category A.
Response of the internal force of cables
The response of the internal force of cables is shown in Fig. 6.
During the 1st SEL test, only the energy dissipators on the support
cable and the energy dissipator L3 on the anchor cable of the
middle span are activated. During the 2nd SEL test, only the
energy dissipators on the support cable and the energy dissipator
L3 on the anchor cable of the middle span are also activated and
worked. In addition, due to the plastic deformation of the net in
the 1st SEL test, the overall stiffness of the structure becomes
larger, so the force on the cables grows faster than that in the 1st
 L1
L2
L3 Side support cable
Upslope anchor cable L4

Lower main support cable

L5
L6
Upper main support cable
Energy dissipator
Net
Lateral anchor cable Load cell
Steel post Minor support cable
a
Automatic release device

L4
L2 L1 L5
L3

L6
Impact block
Brake ring
Oblique view Side view
b
Fig. 4 Prototype of the barrier: a three-dimensional sketch configuration and b photo before impact testing

SEL test. During the MEL test, all the energy dissipators on the
cables worked.
Validation of the numerical model
In this section, a full-scale impact test is performed on a barrier
prototype. A systematic impact dynamic model is constructed
based on the numerical model proposed in this paper. Then, the
impact test results are compared with numerical results to verify
the applicability of the numerical model.
Numerical model
Compared with the high cost of a full-scale impact test, a numer-
ical simulation is an effective and inexpensive method to inves-
tigate the behavior of a flexible barrier. In this section, the details
of the numerical modeling of the main components and connec-
tions of the flexible barrier are described. The FE model is
calibrated using the full-scale test results from Sect. 3. The com-
mercial program LS-DYNA, whose core competency lies in its
highly nonlinear transient dynamic FE analysis using explicit
time integration, is used for the simulation works. The dynamic
explicit method adopts some difference schemes of the dynamic
equation, such as the central difference method, linear accelera-
tion method, Newmark’s method, and Wilson’s method. Howev-
er, this method does not directly solve the tangent stiffness
equations and does not need to carry out the equilibrium itera-
tion technique. The calculation speed is fast, the time step size is
small enough, and generally there is no convergence problem
(LS-DYNA Theory Manual 2017). The numerical model flexible
barriers are shown in Fig. 7.

Table 1 Main component specifications

Component name Specifications Materials
Net R9/3/300 Steel wire
Upper/lower major support cable 1 ø 24 6×19 W+FC
Upslope anchor cable 1 ø 18 6×19 W+FC
Minor support cable 1 ø 18 6×19 W+FC
Lateral anchor cable 1 ø 18 6×19 W+FC
Side support cable 1 ø 18 6×19 W+FC
Steel post HW150×150×7×10 Q345
Energy dissipator GS-8002

Landslides 18 & (2021) 2625

 Technical Notes
Table 2 Requirements of the energy level tests
Energy level Mass of the block Lift height of the block
SEL1 (250 kJ) 0.756 t
SEL2 (250 kJ) 0.756 t
MEL (750 kJ) 2.2 t
Modeling of the components
Table 4 shows the material properties of the steel post, cable, and
impact block. The cable-discrete element is a unique element used
to simulate cables in LS-DYNA, which can simulate the withstand
tension, bending, and friction processes on cables. Therefore, the
cable-discrete element is used to model the cable in this study (Yu
et al. 2019b). Because the pretension of the cables in the test model
is small, the pretension of the cables is not applied in the numer-
ical model. Meanwhile, the steel post components are simulated
via the user-defined integration beam element with an I-shaped
cross section, on which nine integration points are defined. The
impactor is modeled using a solid element.
All the energy dissipators adopted in this study are the so-called
brake rings. The tensile force-displacement curve is shown in Fig.
8, which has obvious phases. The three characteristic points of the
curve are 100 mm, 51 kN; 1000 mm, 80 kN; and 1020 mm, 210 kN
(Yu et al. 2019b). To improve the computational efficiency, the
elastoplastic spring is employed to model the energy dissipator,
and the force-displacement of the spring is defined as the curve of
the energy dissipator.
The wire-ring net exhibits complex nonlinear mechanical prop-
erties due to the underloading geometry of the ring, the nonlinear
ring-to-ring contact, and the nonlinear material law of the steel
wire. Upon impact, these nonlinear mechanical properties are
reflected through mechanical phenomena, including the bending
and tensile stages of a wire ring, ring-to-ring contact with sliding
friction, the flattening effect of steel wire bundles, and the rupture
behavior of the steel wire. These nonlinear processes result in
highly complex analyses and wire-ring net designs (Yu et al.
Energy dissipators
on support cables
SEL1
Fig. 5 Overall intercept state in the tests
2626 Landslides 18 & (2021)
Impact velocity of the block Whether to repair
33.8 m 25.7 m/s
33.8 m 25.7 m/s No repair
34.8 m 26.1 m/s A new barrier
2019b). The wire rings are modeled via an equivalent structure
with a single winding and a circular cross section. The equivalence
between the numerical and real wire rings, in terms of the bending
and tensile strength, total mass, contact with sliding friction, and
rupture behavior, is also derived and presented.
In particular, emphasis is placed on simulating the flattening
effect, a phenomenon rarely accounted for in conventional nu-
merical models. As shown in Fig. 9, due to the constraint patterns
of wire bundles, the flattening of a transverse steel wire bundle is
obvious in the contact zone, where the rings contact with and
apply normal forces on each other. Therefore, the cross-sectional
moment of inertia does not remain constant, resulting in de-
creased bending stiffness, affecting the transmission of contact
force (Yu et al. 2019b). The flattening effect must be considered.
The bending regime basically completed the flattening of steel wire
bundles at the contact zones (Fig. 9), and the flattened steel wires
are arranged parallelly. Thus, the bending stiffness kIA of the steel
wire bundles is assumed to be equal to the sum of the bending
stiffness per steel wire of the wire ring:
 
kIA ¼ ∑EI i ¼ nw ∑EI ¼ nw E πd 40 =64 ð4Þ
where E is the elastic modulus of steel wire and I is the cross-
sectional moment of inertia of steel wire. d0 is the diameter of steel
wire and equal to 3 mm.
The bending stiffness kIE of the contact zones of the equivalent
wire ring can be expressed as follows:
Energy dissipators Energy dissipators
on support cables on support cables
SEL2 MEL
Table 3 Maximum elongation and residual height
Energy level Maximum elongation Nominal height Residual height
SEL1 4.74 m 4.7 m 3.62 m (77%≥70%)
SEL2 2.99 m 4.7 m 3.36 m (71%)
MEL 6.31 m 4.7 m 2.89 m (61%≥50%)

  As shown in Fig. 10 and Table 5, all dominant factors are

kIE ¼ Ee I e ¼ Ee πd 4e =64
where Ee is the equivalent elastic modulus of contact zones and
Ie is the equivalent cross-sectional moment of inertia. de is equiv-
pffiffiffiffiffiffi
alent diameter and equal to 3 nw d 0 (Yu et al. 2019b).
When kIA = kIE, Eq. (6) can be obtained (Yu et al. 2019b):
pffiffiffiffiffiffi
Ee ¼ E= 3 nw ð6Þ
And the elastic modulus E of the equivalent wire ring at non-
contact zone needs be unchanged (Yu et al. 2019b).
ð5Þ reflected in a model with the material law by the input of the
material parameters (Yu et al. 2019b). To create a numerical model,
the contact length at each contact zone is hypothetically defined as
lz. Each contact length lz of the two adjoining rings is 1/8 of the
circumference l of the wire ring. For the inner rings, the total
contact length is 4lz. Figure 7 shows the schematic of the contact
zones in the net (Yu et al. 2019b).
Boundary conditions and calculation method
All cable anchor points are fixed where the six degree of freedoms
(DOFs) are fixed, while the other end of the upslope anchor cable

70 50
Activation force of an energy dissipator Activation force of an energy dissipator
60
40
50 SEL1-L2
Force (kN)

Force (kN)

40 SEL1-L1 30 SEL2-L2
30 SEL2-L1 MEL-L2
20
MEL-L1
20
10
10
0 0
0.0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5
t (s) t (s)

60 Activation force of an energy dissipator 120 Activation force of an energy dissipator SEL1-L4
50 100 SEL2-L4
SEL1-L3 MEL-L4
40 SEL2-L3 80
Force (kN)
Force (kN)

MEL-L3 60
30
20 40
10 20
0 0
0.0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5
t (s) t (s)

150 Activation force of two energy dissipators 180 Activation force of two energy dissipators
SEL1-L6
150 SEL2-L6
120
MEL-L6
120
Force (kN)

Force (kN)

90 SEL1-L5
90
SEL2-L5
60
MEL-L5 60
30 30
0 0
0.0 0.1 0.2 t (s) 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.0 0.1 0.2 t (s) 0.3 0.4 0.5

Fig. 6 Response of the internal force of cables in the tests: L1–L4 load cell on the upslope anchor cables, L5 load cell on the upper main support cable, and L6 load cell on
the lower main support cable

Landslides 18 & (2021) 2627

 Technical Notes
Seatbelt Post
Z
X Wire-ring net
Y
Fig. 7 Finite element model of the flexible rockfall barrier
is connected to the head of the post with the coincident node. The
post bottom node is completely fixed except for releasing the
rotational DOF around the vertical and horizontal axes, while a
constrained spring element is set to simulate the actual horizontal
rotation limited by the base plate within a small region (Zhao et al.
2013). Under the impact load, the steel wire-ring net slips along the
support cable, while the upper support cable and lower support
cable slip through the head and bottom of the post, respectively.
Instead of weaving through the wire rings, the support cables are
attached to the interception net via shackles that are treated as
rigid bodies (Escallón et al. 2014). The slipping feature between the
cable and post is implemented by using the seatbelt element (Zhao
et al. 2013), which makes the cables slip through a point acting like
a pulley system. The contact force between the impactor and the
net is calculated by an automatic beam-to-surface contact algo-
rithm. An automatic general contact algorithm is employed to
ensure that the wire rings, cables, and shackle are mutually con-
fined. The frictional interactions (ring-to-ring, ring-to-shackle,
and ring-to-cable) induced energy dissipation, and the assumed
general dynamic friction coefficient is μd = 0.1. However, different
dynamic friction coefficients are assumed for the three contact
interactions, that is, (1) a dynamic friction coefficient of μd = 0.4 is
used to model the concrete block-ring net interaction, (2) a dy-
namic friction coefficient of μd = 0.2 is used to model the slip of
the cables along the posts, and (3) a dynamic friction coefficient of
μd = 0.2 is used to model the interaction between the shackles and
cables (Escallón et al. 2014). To simulate the damping of air on the
structure, a viscous damping coefficient is considered. The coeffi-
cient is related to many factors and is generally set at 0.05 (Zhao
et al. 2013; Yu et al. 2019b).
Prior to impact, a form-finding analysis is conducted to ascer-
tain the initial deflection of the wire-ring net under a gravity load.
Table 4 Material properties of the components
Component Density Poisson’s ratio Elastic modulus
3
Steel wire rope 7900 kg/m 0.3
3
Steel post 7900 kg/m 0.3
3
Impact block 2500 kg/m 0.2
2628 Landslides 18 & (2021)
l
lz
8
Contact zone Non-contact zone
0.75 m
Impact block
The specific algorithm is described in detail by LS-DYNA (LS-
DYNA Theory Manual 2017). The duration of the impact simula-
tion was set to 6 s, which approximately represented the impact
process. During the simulation, the automatic time step was used.
This means that the program automatically calculates the value of
the time step, and the value of the time step is calculated as
6.1×10−6 s.
Model assessment: simulation versus 1st SEL test results
After presenting the modeling procedure, the simulation results
can be compared with the experimental data to assess the reliabil-
ity of the proposed approach in capturing the barrier response to
an impactor. The 1st SEL test is selected for comparison with the
simulation. The accuracy of the numerical model directly affects
the impact dynamic response of the system, protective structure
elongation, and internal forces of the cables. In particular, the
main parameters, such as the overall intercept deformation, elon-
gation process, and internal force of cables, are discussed.
Overall intercept deformation
The overall intercept deformation of the 1st SEL test and the
numerical simulation is shown in Fig. 11. The residual height of
the barriers during the 1st SEL test is 3.62 m (see Table 3), while the
calculated residual height is 3.665 m (a difference of 1.2%). The
residual net elongation (without removing the block) during the
1st SEL test is 3.98 m, while the calculated residual net elongation is
3.85 m (a difference of 3.3%).
Elongation process
The impact process of the test (column 1) and the numerical
simulation (column 2) as well as the time-elongation curve of the
net (column 3) are shown in Fig. 12. The deformation pattern,
Yield stress Material type Ultimate strain
1.5e5 MPa 1770 MPa Ideal elastic-plastic 0.03
2.0e5 MPa 345 MPa Ideal elastic-plastic 0.3
3.0e4 MPa - Rigid -
 F eff
(kN)
F3
(1020, 210)
(1000, 80)
F2
(100, 51)
F1
O s1 s2 s3 s (mm)
Fig. 8 The model of tensile force-displacement curve of energy dissipator
including the shape of the net surrounding the block, is in good
agreement with the experiments. The overall response of the
barriers is satisfactorily reproduced in the numerical simulations.
The deformed shape of the prototype from the video cameras
and that of the model are essentially similar, thereby showing the
model’s ability to successfully replicate the barrier’s fundamental
behavior under dynamic conditions. The experimental time-
elongation trend is evaluated by counting the number of frames
taken at a constant time interval by means of a high-speed camera,
and the numerical predictions satisfactorily agree with the exper-
imental results. The maximum net elongation during the test is
4.77 m, while the calculated elongation is 4.62 m (a difference of
3%). Braking time refers to the moment when the net reaches the
maximum elongation minus the moment when the block just
starts to contact the net. It can be seen from Fig. 12 that the braking
time of test and simulation are 0.266 s and 0.26 s, respectively, and
the error between the two is only 2%.
Internal force of the cables
The measured internal force of the cables is compared with the
simulation value. Figure 13 shows that the complete process from
loading to unloading is recorded by the loading cells. The numer-
ical simulation successfully replicates the trend of the force time-
history response. The test and simulation curves of load cell L5 are
quite different. This difference may be caused by a manufacturing
error of the brake ring, which leads to poor quality. For example,
Squeeze each other
Initial state
Fig. 9 The flattening phenomenon of contact zone of wire-ring net
3 4
u
2
2 3
1
1 2y 3y u eff
Non-contact zones: 0-1-2-3 -4
Ee E
Contact zones: 0 1-2-3 -4
0 0
Fig. 10 Effective stress-plastic strain curve of the equivalent wire-ring net
one type of error is the insufficient pre-pressure between the steel
tube and aluminum sleeve, which causes it to become loose during
the pulling process, resulting in instability. The force time-history
curves are in good agreement with the simulation in this study.
These comparisons show the reliability of the numerical simula-
tion results and the accuracy of the numerical model of a wire-ring
net for the actual barrier structure in this study.
Quantitative investigation of different block shapes
Computational cases
As shown in Fig. 14, the block impact energy is 750 kJ. The block
impact velocity is 25 m/s, and its direction is always the negative
z-axis of the global coordinate system. The block volume is 1.15
m3. The center of the middle functional module is still impacted
by the mass center of the block. To reveal the effects of the
block shape on the response of flexible barriers under block
impact, the sphericity indexes of the block are varied from 0.25
to 4.0. Taking into account the random impact poses of the
blocks, three representative impact angles are selected. As
shown in Fig. 14, the value of the impact angle is the angle
between the z-axis of the local coordinate system of the block
and the yz-plane of the global coordinate system. The following
computational cases are designed in Table 6.
Flattening of transverse Actual situation
Landslides 18 & (2021) 2629
 Technical Notes
Table 5 Basic material parameters of the wire-ring net
de(mm) ρe(kg/m3) ν σ1(MPa)
p ffiffiffi p ffiffiffi
3
93 3
9  7900 0.3
ε2y ε3y σu(MPa)
p ffiffiffi
0.018 0.038 3
9  1826
Results of the different block shapes
Overall deformations
Figure 15 shows the side and top views of the simulation results at
an impact angle of 0°. The maximum elongation of each simula-
tion is marked on the side view (Fig. 15a) with the time reaching
the maximum elongation. Overall, the maximum elongation de-
creases with increasing sphericity. When the sphericity is 1, the
maximum elongation is 6.75 m. When the sphericity is 0.5, the
maximum elongation reaches 7.35 m, which is 9% higher than
when the sphericity is 1. Moreover, when the sphericity is 4, the
maximum elongation reaches 5.8 m, which is 14% less than when
the sphericity is 1. When the sphericity gradually increases, the
contact area between the block and the net gradually increases,
which leads to the insufficient deformation development of the net
in the contact area, thus reducing the maximum elongation. Note
in particular that the bullet effect occurs when the sphericity is
0.25. When the impact direction dimension is too small, due to the
small contact area between the net and block, the bearing capacity
of the net is too large in the local area. Additionally, before energy
dissipators can fully perform their function, the net has reached
the ultimate strength, resulting in the block puncturing the net.
The bullet effect is very adverse to the design of flexible barriers,
which is recommended for consideration (Buzzi et al. 2015). This
design includes laying a second net to strengthen the net resis-
tance of the local area.
The residual height, which is the minimum distance between
the lower and upper main support cables when the block stops
moving, is also marked on the top view (Fig. 15b). Two observa-
tions can be made from this plot. First, in the case of the successful
Residual net elongation: 3.98 m
Fig. 11 Comparison of the overall intercept state
2630 Landslides 18 & (2021)
σ2(MPa)
1371 1826
Ee(MPa) εu
Non-contact zones Contact zones 0.1
5 pffiffiffi
2 × 10 2  105 = 3 9
interception of the block, the residual height increases with in-
creasing sphericity, which is conducive to the subsequent inter-
ception of the block. Second, for the case where the sphericity is
less than 1, when the sphericity is 0.5, the residual height is 2.97 m,
which is only 3% less than when the sphericity is 1.
Figure 16 shows the deformation of the simulation results.
Figure 16a shows the maximum elongation ratio of the net
(S/S0), in which S0 (6.75 m) represents the maximum elongation
of the net impacted by the spherical block with an impact angle of
0°. The maximum elongation is 1.16S0, and its corresponding
impact case is that the impact angle is 0° and the sphericity is
0.25. The minimum elongation is 0.77S0, and its corresponding
impact condition is that the impact angle is 45° and the sphericity
is 0.25. These results show that the impact poses have an obvious
effect on the maximum elongation. In the design process, the
maximum of the S/S0 of these impact cases is the focus. An
amplification factor of 1.2 is recommended for the maximum
elongation from the full-scale test with a block sphericity of 1.
Figure 16b shows the residual height ratio of the net (h/h0), in
which h0 (3.06 m) represents the residual height impacted by the
spherical block with an impact angle of 0°. The maximum residual
height is 1.1h0, and the minimum residual height is 0.97h0. In the
design, the minimum of the h/h0 of these impact cases is the focus.
Therefore, it is feasible to take the residual height with a sphericity
of 1 as the reference value.
Impact force
Figure 17 plots the impact force time-histories for these simula-
tions, which are directly derived from the contact forces between
the block and the barrier. It can be seen from the plot that the
Residual height: 3.665 m
Vectors of Residual net elongation
 t (s)
0.0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5
0

-1

Elongation (m)
-2

-3

-4
t=0 s
-5 Test
FEM
-6
t (s)
0.0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5
0

-1

Elongation (m)
-2

-3

-4
t=0 .15 s
-5 Test
FEM
-6
t (s)
0.0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5
0

-1
Elongation (m) -2

-3

-4
t=0.26 s Test
-5
FEM
-6
t (s)
0.0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5
0

-1
Elongation (m)

-2

-3

-4
Test
t=0.35 s -5 FEM
-6

Fig. 12 Experimental video frames (first column), simulation video frames (second column), and the net time-elongation curve

impact force first increases and then decreases with time. As
shown in Fig. 17a, when the impact angle is 0°, the arrival time of
the maximum impact force decreases with increasing sphericity.
As shown in Fig. 17b and c, for other impact angles, the arrival time
of the maximum impact force is relatively discrete, and there is no
obvious law. This behavior is due to the complexity of the impact
poses of the block.
Figure 18 shows the maximum impact force ratio (Fmax/F0max),
in which F0max (317 kN) represents the maximum impact force
impacted by the spherical block with an impact angle of 0°. When

Landslides 18 & (2021) 2631

 Technical Notes
25 6

20 5 Test-L2
Test-L1
FEM-L2
FEM-L1 4

Force (kN)

Force (kN)
15
3
10
2
5
1
0 0
0.0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5
t (s) t (s)

50 60
Test-L3 50 Test-L4
40 FEM-L4
FEM-L3 40

Force (kN)
Force (kN)

30
30
20 20
10 10

0 0
0.0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5
t (s) t (s)

140 140
120 120
Test-L5
100 FEM-L5 100 Test-L6
Force (kN)

Force (kN)

80 80 FEM-L6
60 60
40 40
20 20
0 0
0.0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5
t (s) t (s)

Fig. 13 Comparison of the force response between the simulation and test results: L1–L4 load cell on the upslope anchor cables, L5 load cell on the upper main support
cable, and L6 load cell on the lower main support cable

the impact angle is 0°, excluding the condition for which the
sphericity is 0.25, the maximum impact force decreases with in-
creasing sphericity. This change is because the increase in the
sphericity leads to an increase in the contact area between the
rockfall and the net, which reduces the overall deformation of the
flexible barriers and reduces the overall stiffness of the flexible
barriers; thus, the corresponding maximum impact force is
reduced. When the impact angle is 0°, the maximum impact force
is 1.12F0max, and the minimum impact force is only 0.93F0max.
When the impact angle is 45°, the maximum impact force is
1.05F0max. When the impact angle is 90°, the maximum impact
force is only 1.03F0max.
In the design, the maximum Fmax/F0max of these impact cases is
the focus. Therefore, a sphericity less than 1 with a block impact

Impact energy: 750 kJ D1

Z D2 Mass centre
X
Global coordinate system
v=25m/s Center of the middle functional module

Fig. 14 Schematic illustration of the impact cases

2632 Landslides 18 & (2021)

Table 6 Computational cases

angle of 0° should be urgently considered. When determining the Maximum forces of the cables
specification of nets, an amplification factor of 1.15 is recommend- Figure 19 shows the maximum forces of the upper main support
ed to multiply the maximum impact force of a sphericity of 1 for a cable (L5 in Fig. 4), lower main support cable (L6 in Fig. 4), and
conservative design in the European test standard ETAG 027. upslope anchor cable (L4 in Fig. 4). As shown in Fig. 19a, for an

Landslides 18 & (2021) 2633

 Technical Notes

Initial sag Initial sag Initial sag Initial sag Initial sag Initial sag

Bullet
effect 7.78 m 7.35 m 7.03 m 6.75 m 6.36 m 5.8 m
(+15%) (+9%) (+4%) (0%) (-6%) (-14%)

Sp 0.25 Sp 0.5 Sp 0.75 Sp 1.0 Sp 2.0 Sp 4.0

(t=0.405 s) (t=0.405 s) (t=0.39 s) (t=0.385 s) (t=0.365 s) (t=0.34 s)
a

3.09 m 2.97 m 3.01 m 3.06 m 3.19 m 3.37 m

(+1%) (-3%) (-1.6%) (0%) (+4%) (+10%)

Failure

Sp 0.25 (t=6 s) Sp 0.5 (t=6 s) Sp 0.75 (t=6 s) Sp 1.0 (t=6 s) Sp 2.0 (t=6 s) Sp 4.0 (t=6 s)
b
Fig. 15 Deformations from the numerical simulation with an impact angle of 0°: a side views of the maximum elongation and b top views of the residual height

impact angle of 0°, the maximum forces of the upslope anchor
cable increase with increasing sphericity. When the sphericity is 1,
the maximum internal force is 124 kN. When the sphericity is 4, the
maximum internal force reaches 132 kN, which is 6% higher than
that when the sphericity is 1. For an impact angle of 45°, the
maximum forces of the upslope anchor cable decrease first and
then increase with increasing sphericity. When the sphericity is 4,
the maximum internal force reaches 141 kN, which is 13.7% higher
than that when the sphericity is 1. For an impact angle of 90°, the
maximum forces of the upslope anchor cable also decrease first
and then increase with increasing sphericity. When the sphericity
Maximum elongation S/S0 (m)
is 4, the maximum internal force reaches 130 kN, which is only 6%
higher than that when the sphericity is 1. In the design, the
maximum forces of the upslope anchor cable of these impact cases
are the focus. Therefore, a block of sphericity higher than 1 with an
oblique impact angle should be considered. An amplification fac-
tor of 1.15 is recommended for the maximum forces of the upslope
anchor cable from the full-scale test with a block sphericity of 1.
As shown in Fig. 19b, the internal force of the upper main
support cable (L5) is almost maintained at approximately 150 kN,
which does not change with increasing sphericity and impact
angle. This effect is because the energy dissipators still perform

1.2 1.15

1.1
× 0°
45°
0°
45°
Residual height h/h0

1.10
90° 90°
1.0
1.05
0.9

0.8
1.00 ×
0.7 0.95
0.5 1.0 1.5 2.0 2.5 3.0 3.5 4.0 0.5 1.0 1.5 2.0 2.5 3.0 3.5 4.0
Sp Sp
a b
Fig. 16 Deformations from numerical simulation: a maximum elongation and b residual height

2634 Landslides 18 & (2021)

 400 400 400
Sp=0.25 Sp=0.25 350 Sp=0.25
350 350

Impact force (kN)

Impact force (kN)

Sp=0.50

Impact force (kN)

300 Sp=0.50 300 Sp=0.50 300
250 Sp=0.75 250 Sp=0.75 250 Sp=0.75
200 Sp=1.0 200 Sp=1.0 200 Sp=1.0
150 Sp=2.0 150 Sp=2.0 150 Sp=2.0
100 Sp=4.0 100 100 Sp=4.0
Sp=4.0
50 50 50
0 0 0
0.0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1.0 0.0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1.0 0.0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1.0
Time (s) Time (s) Time (s)

a b c
Fig. 17 Impact force time-histories for these cases: a 0°, b 45°, and c 90°

their function and do not reach their maximum elongation. There- approximately 155 kN, which does not change with the change in
fore, it is feasible to take the internal force of the upper main the impact angle. When the sphericity is 1, the maximum axial
support cable with a sphericity of 1 as the reference value. force is 155 kN. Meanwhile, when the sphericity is 0.5 and the
As shown in Fig. 19c, for an impact angle of 0°, excluding the impact angle is 90°, the maximum axial force reaches 173 kN,
condition in which the sphericity is 0.25, the maximum forces of which is 11.6% higher than when the sphericity is 1. An amplifica-
the lower main support cable (L6) decrease with increasing sphe- tion factor of 1.15 is recommended for maximum axial forces of the
ricity. When the sphericity is 1, the maximum internal force is 177 posts from the full-scale test with a block sphericity of 1.
kN. Meanwhile, when the sphericity is 0.5, the maximum force As shown in Fig. 20b, when the sphericity is 1, the maximum
reaches 199 kN, which is 12% higher than when the sphericity is 1. vertical reaction at the post foundation is 108 kN. Meanwhile,
Additionally, when the sphericity is 4, the maximum internal force when the sphericity is 0.25 and the impact angle is 0°, the maxi-
reaches 158 kN, which is 11% less than when the sphericity is 1. For mum vertical reaction reaches 118 kN, which is 9% higher than
an impact angle of 45°, when the sphericity is 0.5, the maximum when the sphericity is 1. An amplification factor of 1.1 is recom-
internal force reaches 183 kN, which is 3% higher than that when mended for the maximum vertical reaction of the foundation from
the sphericity is 1. For an impact angle of 90°, when the sphericity the full-scale test with a block sphericity of 1.
is 4, the maximum internal force reaches 179 kN, which is only The calculation formula of the shear force at the post founda-
0.6% higher than that when the sphericity is 1. In the design, the tion can be expressed as:
maximum forces of these impact cases are the focus. Therefore, a pffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffi
sphericity less than 1 with a block impact angle of 0° should be F s ¼ F 2X þ F 2Z ð7Þ
considered. An amplification factor of 1.15 is recommended for the
maximum forces of the lower main support cable from the full-
scale test with a block sphericity of 1. where Fs is the shear force at the post foundation and FX and FZ
are the reactions of the post foundation in the x and z directions in
Maximum forces of the posts and foundations the global coordinate system, respectively.
Figure 20 shows the axial forces of the post, the vertical reaction at As shown in Fig. 20c, for an impact angle of 0°, excluding the
the post foundation (reaction of the y direction in Fig. 7), and the condition in which the sphericity is 0.25, the shear force at the
shear force at the post foundation (reaction of the x and z post foundation decreases with increasing sphericity. The rate of
directions in Fig. 7). As shown in Fig. 20a, when the sphericity is decrement about the maximum force declines as the sphericity
greater than 1, the axial force of the post is almost maintained at ascends. When the sphericity is 1, the shear force is 102 kN.
Meanwhile, when the sphericity is 0.5, the shear force reaches
124 kN, which is 22% higher than when the sphericity is 1. For
Maximum impact force Fmax/F0max

1.15 an impact angle of 45°, when the sphericity is 0.5, the maximum
0° shear force reaches 102 kN, which is the same as that when the
1.10 45° sphericity is 1. For an impact angle of 90°, when the sphericity is
90° 0.25, the maximum shear force reaches 113 kN, which is 10.8%
1.05 higher than that when the sphericity is 1. In the design, the
1.00 × maximum shear force is the focus. Therefore, an amplification
factor of 1.25 is recommended for the maximum shear force at
0.95 the post foundation from the full-scale test with a block sphe-
ricity of 1.
0.90 Together, these results indicate that if shallow footings are
0.5 1.0 1.5 2.0 2.5 3.0 3.5 4.0 used to form the foundations of the steel posts, then they are
Sp more likely to fail in sliding if the barrier is impacted by a block
with a sphericity less than 1. Therefore, in the design of the
Fig. 18 Maximum impact force for these cases foundations of the steel posts, a sphericity less than 1 should be
considered.

Landslides 18 & (2021) 2635

 Technical Notes

Maximum internal force (kN)

Maximum internal force (kN) 150 160 210

Maximum internal force (kN)

0° 0°
140 200
45° 45°
155
×
130 90° 90°
190
120 0°
×
150 180
110 45°
90° 170
100 145
90 160
80 × 0.5 1.0 1.5 2.0 2.5 3.0 3.5 4.0
140
0.5 1.0 1.5 2.0 2.5 3.0 3.5 4.0
150
0.5 1.0 1.5 2.0 2.5 3.0 3.5 4.0
Sp Sp Sp

a b c
Fig. 19 Maximum forces of the cables: a upslope anchor cable L4, b upper main support cable L5, and c lower main support cable L6

Conclusions to multiply the maximum impact force of a sphericity of 1 for

Flexible rockfall barriers have been extensively used to mitigate the conservative design in the European test standard ETAG
natural hazards, such as rockfall and debris avalanches. The design 027.
of this kind of system mainly relies on full-scale impact tests 4. The force of the upper main support cable is almost un-
complying with the European guideline ETAG 027, in which the changed with increasing sphericity and impact angle. This
block shape is specified as spherical or polyhedral. There has been behavior is because the energy dissipators still perform their
limited research on the influence of different block shapes on the function and do not travel to their maximum elongation. For
dynamic response of rockfall barriers. In this paper, a full-scale maximum forces of the upslope anchor cable, a block of
test on a typical flexible barrier system with a designed energy sphericity higher than 1 with an oblique impact angle should
level of 750 kJ was carried out, and an advanced three-dimensional be considered. An amplification factor of 1.15 is recommended
FE model is proposed for quantitative study. The key findings from the full-scale test with a block sphericity of 1. For max-
from this study are summarized as follows: imum forces of the lower main support cable, a sphericity less
than 1 with a block impact angle of 0° should be considered.
1. There are three main types of the rockfall shape families in the An amplification factor of 1.15 is recommended from the full-
field: spherical, cylindrical, and disk-shaped. To quantitatively scale test with a block sphericity of 1.
describe the overall shape characteristics of a natural block, 5. Sphericity has a significant effect on the axial force of the post,
this paper employed the concept of sphericity as a representa- the vertical reaction at the post foundation, and the shear force
tive index of the overall block shape. at the post foundation. Together, the results indicate that if
2. The impact of the spherical block is not the worst-case scenar- shallow footings are used to form the foundations of the steel
io in terms of maximal elongation. Overall, for an impact angle posts, then they are more likely to fail if the barrier is impacted
of 0°, the maximum elongation increases with decreasing by a block with a sphericity less than 1. Therefore, in the design
sphericity. An amplification factor of 1.2 is recommended to of the posts and their foundations, a sphericity less than 1
achieve the maximum elongation on a full-scale test with a should be considered.>
rockfall sphericity of 1. Moreover, a bullet effect could occur
under a small sphericity rockfall impact, which is recommend-
ed to consider strengthening the net resistance of the local In summary, although the test requirement stipulated in ETAG
area. 027 is appropriate for assessing the performance of flexible rockfall
3. In the design, the maximum impact force is the focus. There- barriers, considering the spherical or polyhedral block shape alone
fore, a sphericity less than 1 with a block impact angle of 0° does not yield the greatest internal force or largest deformation.
should be urgently considered. When determining the specifi- Consequently, to consider the most adverse impacts likely to occur
cation of nets, an amplification factor of 1.15 is recommended with different block shapes in practice, it is necessary to multiply
Maximum vertical reaction (kN)

×
180 120 130
Maximum axial force (kN)

Maximum shear force (kN)

0° 0°
170 115
45° 45°
110 120
160 90°
105 × 90°
150 0° 110
100
140 45°
95 90° 100
130 90
120
× 85 90
0.5 1.0 1.5 2.0 2.5 3.0 3.5 4.0 0.5 1.0 1.5 2.0 2.5 3.0 3.5 4.0 0.5 1.0 1.5 2.0 2.5 3.0 3.5 4.0
Sp Sp Sp

a b c
Fig. 20 Maximum forces of the posts and foundations: a axial forces of the posts, b vertical reaction of the post foundations, and c shear force of the post foundations

2636 Landslides 18 & (2021)

Table 7 Partial factors summary
Elongation Impact force Internal force of the upslope anchor cable
1.2 1.15 1.15
Vertical reaction of the foundation Axial force of the post
1.1 1.15
the measured test data by the appropriate partial factors for the
conservative design of flexible barriers. These partial factors are
summarized in Table 7.
In addition, it should be clarified that the findings from this
paper are based on a specific type of flexible barrier. Further
studies on a greater number of factors that could influence the
barrier performance are recommended. For example, the behavior
of energy-dissipating devices and off-center impact of the block
could be taken into account. Additionally, the disintegration of the
block during impact could occur in real cases and should be
considered in the design.
Supplementary Information The online version contains
supplementary material available at https://doi.org/10.1007/s10346-
021-01658-w.
FundingThe work in this study was supported by the National Key
R&D Program of China under Grant No. 2018YFC1505405, the
Natural Science Foundation of China under Grant No. 51678504,
the National Key Research and Development Program of China
under Grant No. 2016YFC0802205, the Department of Science and
Technology of Sichuan Province under Grant No. 2018JY0029, the
Science and Technology Research and Development Program of
China Railway Corporation under Grant No. 2018KY10, the Shock
and Vibration of Engineering Material and Structure Key Labora-
tory of Sichuan Province under Grant No. 18kfgk07, and the
Fundamental Research Funds for the Central Universities under
Grant No. 2682019ZT04.
References
Bertrand D, Trad A, Limam A et al (2012) Full-scale dynamic analysis of an innovative
rockfall fence under impact using the discrete element method: from the local scale
to the structure scale. Rock Mech Rock Eng 45(5):885–900
Bhatti AQ, Khatoon S, Mehmood A et al (2011) Numerical study for impact resistant
design of full scale arch type reinforced concrete structures under falling weight
impact test. J Vib Control 18(9):1275–1283
Buzzi O, Leonarduzzi E, Krummenacher B, Volkwein A, Giacomini A (2015) Performance
of high strength rock fall meshes: effect of block size and mesh geometry. Rock Mech
Rock Eng 48(3):1221–1231
Dhakall S, Bhandary NP, Yatabe R et al (2011) Experimental, numerical and analytical
modelling of a newly developed rockfall protective cable-net structure. Nat Hazards
Earth Syst Sci 11:3197–3212
EOTA, ETAG 027 (2013) Guideline for European technical approval of falling rock
protection kits, European Organisation for Technical Approvals
Escallón J, Wendeler C, Chatzi E, Bartelt P (2014) Parameter identification of rockfall
protection barrier components through an inverse formulation. Eng Struct 77(15):1–
16
Ferrari F, Giacomini A, Thoeni K (2016) Qualitative rockfall hazard assessment: a
comprehensive review of current practices. Rock Mech Rock Eng 49(7):2865–2922
Internal force of the lower main support cable
1.15
Shear force of the foundation
1.25
Fityus SG, Giacomini A, Buzzi O (2013) The significance of geology for the morphology of
potentially unstable rocks. Eng Geol 162:43–52
Gao G, Meguid MA (2018) On the role of sphericity of falling rock clusters-insights from
experimental and numerical investigations. Landslides 15(2):219–232
Gentilini C, Govoni L, Miranda SD et al (2012) Three-dimensional numerical modelling of
falling rock protection barriers. Comput Geotech 44:58–72
Gottardi G, Govoni L (2010) Full-scale modelling of falling rock protection barriers. Rock
Mech Rock Eng 43(3):261–274
He S, Yan S, Deng Y, Liu W (2019) Impact protection of bridge piers against rockfall. Bull
Eng Geol Environ 78(4):2671–2680
Koo RCH, Kwan JSH, Lam C, Ng CWW, Yiu J, Choi CE, Ng AKL, Ho KKS, Pun WK (2017)
Dynamic response of flexible barriers under different loading geometries. Landslides
14:905–916
Krumbein WC (1941) Measurement and geological significance of shape and roundness
of sedimentary particles. SEPM J Sediment Res 11(2):64–72
Leine RI, Schweizer A, Christen M et al (2014) Simulation of rockfall trajectories with
consideration of rock shape. Multibody Syst Dyn 3(2):241–271
Liu C, Yu ZX, Zhao SC (2020a) Consideration of maximum impact force design for a rock
shed against dry granular flow. Eur J Environ Civ Eng 2020:1–22
Liu C, Yu ZX, Zhao SC (2020b) Quantifying the impact of a debris avalanche against a
flexible barrier by coupled DEM-FEM analyses. Landslides 17(1):33–47
LS-DYNA Theroy Manual (2017) 07/22/17 (r:8697): LS-DYNA Dev.
Moon T, Oh J, Mun B (2014) Practical design of rockfall catchfence at urban area from a
numerical analysis approach. Eng Geol 172:41–56
Nicot F, Cambou B, Mazzoleni G (2001) From a constitutive modeling of metallic rings to
the design of rockfall restraining nets. Int J Numer Anal Methods Geomech 25(1):49–
70
Peila D, Pelizza S, Sassudelli F (1998) Evaluation of behaviour of rockfall restraining nets
by full scale tests. Rock Mech Rock Eng 31(1):1–24
Spadari M, Giacomini A, Buzzi O (2012) Prediction of the bullet effect for rockfall barriers:
a scaling approach. Rock Mech Rock Eng 45(2):131–144
Vallero G, De Biagi V, Barbero M et al (2020) A method to quantitatively assess the
vulnerability of masonry structures subjected to rockfalls. Nat Hazards 103:1307–1325
Volkwein A (2004) Numerische Simulation von flexiblen Stein-schlagschutzsystemen,
Ph.D. thesis, Eidgenossische Technische Hochschule Zürich
Xcitex (n.d.) https://www.xcitex.com/proanalyst-motion-analysis-software.php
Yan P, Zhang JH, Fang Q, Zhang Y (2018) Numerical simulation of the effects of falling
rock’s shape and impact pose on impact force and response of RC slabs. Constr Build
Mater 160:497–504
Yu ZX, Qiao YK, Zhao L et al (2018) A simple analytical method for evaluation of flexible
rockfall barrier part 1: working mechanism and analytical solution. Adv Steel Constr
14(2):115–141
Yu ZX, Zhao L, Liu YP (2019a) Studies on flexible rockfall barriers for failure modes,
mechanisms and design strategies: a case study of Western China. Landslides
16(2):347–362
Yu ZX, Liu C, Guo LP et al (2019b) Nonlinear numerical modeling of the wire-ring net for
flexible barriers. Shock Vib 2019:1–23
Zhao SC, Yu ZX, Wei T et al (2013) Test study of force mechanism and numerical
calculation of safety netting system. China Civ Eng J 46(5):122–128 (in Chinese)
Supplementary Information The online version contains supplementary material
available at https://doi.org/10.1007/s10346-021-01658-w.
Z. Yu : L. Luo : C. Liu ()) : L. Guo : X. Qi : L. Zhao
Department of Civil Engineering,
Southwest Jiaotong University,
Chengdu, 610031, Sichuan, China
Email: lc1510596295@163.com
Landslides 18 & (2021) 2637