MACRO1 - Reference - Manual Macaferri

MACRO 1 - THEORY AND BACKGROUND – VERSION 2.
MACRO 1
THEORY AND BACKGROUND
1
MACRO 1 - THEORY AND BACKGROUND – VERSION 2.0
SUMMARY
1 INTRODUCTION ................................................................................................................ 9
2 BASIC DEFINITONS........................................................................................................ 10
3 GENERAL CONCEPTS .................................................................................................... 12
3.1 Cooperation between anchors and mesh .............................................................................. 12
3.2 Goals of the design .............................................................................................................. 12
3.3 Design approach .................................................................................................................. 12
3.4 Conceptual algorithm of the calculation .............................................................................. 13
4 RESISTANCE OF THE ANCHORS ................................................................................. 15
5 STABILIZING CONTRIBUTION OF THE ANCHOR ................................................... 19
5.1 General considerations......................................................................................................... 19
5.2 Analysis of the forces .......................................................................................................... 20
6 ANCHOR DIMENSIONING............................................................................................. 23
6.1 Raster of anchors ................................................................................................................. 23
6.2 Slope and anchor stability.................................................................................................... 23
6.3 Number of anchors .............................................................................................................. 24
7 EVALUATION OF NAIL LENGTH ................................................................................ 25
8 MESH DIMENSIONING .................................................................................................. 27
8.1 Preliminary remarks............................................................................................................. 27
8.2 Mesh deflection under punch load and scale effect ............................................................. 27
8.3 Actions and resistances on the meshes ................................................................................ 29
8.4 Weight of the unstable block ............................................................................................... 30
8.5 Analysis of the unstable block ............................................................................................. 31
8.6 Resistance of the mesh......................................................................................................... 32
8.7 Safety factors of the mesh.................................................................................................... 34
9 SAFETY FACTOR AND RESITANCE OF THE SYSTEM ............................................ 36
9.1 Preliminary remarks............................................................................................................. 36
9.1.1 Limit state analysis (FOSR) ........................................................................................... 36
9.1.2 Admissible stress analysis (FOS) .................................................................................. 37
9.1.3 Relations between FOS and FOSR ................................................................................ 37
9.2 Increasing and reduction coefficients .................................................................................. 37
9.2.1 Driving forces (set of factors applied on actions A) ..................................................... 37
9.2.2 Resistance forces (set of factors applied on soil parameters M) ................................... 38
9.3 Design resistance (set R) ..................................................................................................... 39
9.4 Design approach .................................................................................................................. 39
2
9.5 Factor of safety and resistance of the system ...................................................................... 40

9.5.1 Admissible stress analysis: factor of safety FOS .......................................................... 40
9.5.2 Limit state analysis: resistance of the system FOSR...................................................... 40
9.5.3 German standard DIN 1054: 2010-12 ........................................................................... 40
9.6 Practical evaluation of the coefficients ................................................................................ 41
9.6.1 Sub - coefficients for the resisting forces ...................................................................... 41
9.6.2 Sub - coefficients for the driving forces ........................................................................ 42
9.6.3 From FOS to FOSR........................................................................................................ 44
10 BIBLIOGRAPHY .............................................................................................................. 46
ANNEXE 1: QUICK DETERMINATION OF JRC AND JCS .............................................. 48
ANNEXE 2: BOND STRESS .................................................................................................. 50
ANNEXE 3: CORROSION OF THE ANCHOR ..................................................................... 52
ANNEXE 4: MEANING OF PASSIVE AND ACTIVE INTERVENTIONS ......................... 54
ANNEXE 5: HOW JCS AND JRC AFFECT THE ANCHOR EFFECTIVENSS .................. 57
LIST OF THE FIGURES

Figure 1 – Sketch of secured drapery ................................................................................................ 9
Figure 2 - Slope with the weathered unstable surface Nails (left) stabilize the superficial portion.
Mesh (right) keeps in place the unstable material between the nail. ........................................ 12
Figure 3 - Conceptual algorithm for the calculation of anchors and mesh ...................................... 13
Figure 4 – Anchor under shear stress ............................................................................................... 15
Figure 5 - Unstable block with anchor ............................................................................................. 16
Figure 6 - Typical graph Stabilizing contribution Fyk versus angle of incidence of the bar ............. 16
Figure 7 – Elemental block consolidated by 1 anchor. ..................................................................... 20
Figure 8 – Weight of the unstable block and related seismic components ....................................... 22
Figure 9 – External load and related seismic components................................................................ 22
Figure 10 – Typical pattern of anchors ............................................................................................. 23
Figure 11 - Anchor bar in the rock mass. Li = length crossing the unstable mass; Lp length in the
plasticized rock mass; Ls length in stable rock mass ................................................................ 25
Figure 12 – Deflection of the mesh under punching load................................................................. 27
Figure 13 - Plan view of the punch test frame in accordance with UNI 11437:2012. Legend: 1 =
tested mesh; 2 = punching device (1.0 m in diameter); 3 = edge constraint between the mesh
and the frame. ........................................................................................................................... 28
Figure 14 – Load VS deflection in the punch test of samples with different size. ........................... 28
Figure 15 - Deformed mesh with forces ........................................................................................... 29
3
Figure 16 – Shapes of the rock volumes that can move among the anchors: triangular (left) and
trapezium (right) ....................................................................................................................... 30
Figure 17 – Forces acting on the mesh with related seismic components ........................................ 32
Figure 18 – Design punch force Md in the mesh ............................................................................. 32
Figure 19 Design tensile stress Td on the deformed mesh. .............................................................. 32
Figure 20 - Example of a curve load-displacement used for estimation of the deflection ............... 33
Figure 21 – Deflection of the mesh under punching load................................................................. 33
Figure 22 - Thickness of the unstable slope "s" evaluated with geomechanical survey (left), or with
rough estimation of the detachment niches and size boulders (right) ....................................... 43
Figure 23 – Rock masses with different lithology; left: non homogeneous rock mass (for example
flysch); right: homogeneous rock mass (for example mudstone) ............................................. 43
Figure 24 – Left: the weathering quickly denudates the anchors. Right: despite of the heavy jointed
rock mass, the weathering is slow. If the weathering velocity is negligible, the anchor length
“Le1” and “Le2” into the sound rock is enough to hold the unstable surficial portion for a long
time. .......................................................................................................................................... 43
Figure 25 - Left: even slope morphology: the mesh lies in contact to the slope surface. Right:
uneven slope morphology: the mesh touches the slope surface in few points .......................... 44
Figure 26 - Left: even slope morphology: the mesh lies in contact to the slope surface. Right:
uneven slope morphology: the mesh touches the slope surface in few points .......................... 44
LISTS OF THE TABLES
Table 1 – Set of coefficients A1 (form table A.3 of EN1997-1) ...................................................... 38

Table 2 - Set of coefficients M1 (form table A.4 of EN1997-1) ...................................................... 38
Table 3 - Set of coefficients R2 (form table A.12 of EN1997-1) ..................................................... 39
Table 4 - Recap of the safety coefficients for the reduction of the destabilizing forces and of the
resistances ................................................................................................................................. 42
Table 5 - Safety factor and coefficients applied to the stabilizing end driving forces – Case with R =
1.10 and FosMIN = 1.50.............................................................................................................. 45
4
MAIN SYMBOLS
 Inclination of the most critical joints set [°]

B Coefficient for increasing the drilling diameter [-]
 Inclination of the slope surface [°]
 Dilatancy of the sliding surface [°]
 Angle between bar axis and the normal to the sliding plane. [°]
m Deformation of the mesh related to the deflection [-]
drill Diameter of the hole for the bar [mm]
e External diameter of the steel bar [mm]
i Inner diameter of the steel bar [mm]
 Unit weight of the rock [kN/m3]
B Partial coefficient referred to behaviour of the rock mass [-]
D Coefficient for the amplification of the driving force (actions) on the slope [-]
g Partial coefficient referred to the unitary weight of the rock mass [-]
M Partial coefficient referred to the slope morphology [-]
mesh Reduction coefficient of the tensile resistance of the mesh. [-]
O Partial coefficient referred to external loads [-]
Q Partial coefficient referred to the thickness of the instability [-]
R Coefficient for the reduction of the stabilizing forces (resistances) on the slope [-]
T Reduction coefficient of the adhesion grout – rock [-]
Z Reduction coefficient of the maximum theoretical deflection of the mesh under punch [-]
A Rate of working of the anchors [-]
MP Rate of working of the mesh for the deflection [-]
MT Rate of working of the mesh for the tensile resistance [-]
 Inclination of force E from the horizontal (positive downwards) [°]
 Efficiency of the geo mechanical system [-]
M Constant of correlation between M and M0 [-]
Z Constant of correlation between Z and Z0 [-]
o Angle between the bar axis and the horizontal [°]
fy,k Yield tensile stress of the steel bar, characteristic value [MPa]
n Stress perpendicular to the sliding plane [MPa]
LIM Grout-rock adhesion (bond stress) [MPa]
D,d Sum of the driving forces on sliding rock mass, design value [KN]
 S,d Sum of the stabilising forces on sliding rock mass, design value [kN]
 Angle of deflection of the mesh [°]
 Rate of working of the bar at yield limit [-]
γA Coefficient of reduction for the steel resistance [-]
φ Friction angle on the sliding surface [°]
  Working rate of the anchor [%]
T  Working rate of the mesh, tensile resistance [%]
d  Working rate of the mesh, deflection under punch stress [%]

 Set of coefficients of amplification applied to the driving forces according to EC 7 [-]
B Weight of the block moving among the anchor. [kN]
5
BD Sum of the driving forces acting against the mesh [kN]

BH Horizontal component of the instable block [kN]
BHN Slope Normal component of BN [kN]
BHT Slope parallel component of BH [kN]
BN Slope Normal comp. of the instable block [kN]
BR Sum of the stabilizing forces acting with the mesh [kN]
BT Slope parallel comp. of the instable block [kN]
BV Vertical component of the instable block [kN]
BVN Slope Normal component of Bv [kN]
BVT Slope parallel component of BV [kN]
CH Seismic coefficient, horizontal [-]
CV Seismic coefficient, vertical [-]
dx Horizontal distance between nails in diamond configuration [m]
dy Vertical distance between nails in diamond configuration measured on the slope face [m]
E External force [kN]
EH Horizontal component of the external force [kN]
EHN Slope Normal component of EN [kN]
EHT Slope parallel component of EH [kN]
EN Slope Normal comp. of the external force [kN]
ET Slope parallel comp. of the external force [kN]
EV Vertical component of the external force [kN]
EVN Slope Normal component of Ev [kN]
EVT Slope parallel component of EV [kN]
F force of the blocks sliding between the nails upon the plane inclined [kN]
Fy Resisting force of the steel bar onto the sliding direction [kN]
FOS Factor of safety calculated in accordance with Limit stress approach [-]
FOSMIN Minimum required factor of safety calculated in accordance with Limit stress approach [-]
ix Horizontal distance between nails in square configuration [m]
iy Vertical distance between nails in square configuration - measured on the slope face [m]
Iy Vertical distance between the anchors upon on the slope face [m]
JCS Compressive strength of the most critical joint set [MPa]
JCS0 Compressive strength of the most critical joint set referred to the scale joint sample [MPa]
JRC Roughness of the most critical joint set [-]
JRC0 Roughness of the most critical joint set referred to the scale joint sample [-]
Lg Length of the sliding joint [m]
Li Length of the anchor in the instable rock mass [m]

Lo Length of the sliding joint referred to the scale joint sample [m]
Lp Length of the anchor in the plasticized zone of the sliding joint [m]
Ls Length of the anchor in the stable rock mass [m]
Lt Length of the anchor [m]
M Load of the mesh applied on the slope [kN]
 Punch force developer by unstable block among the nails [kN]
M0 Load of the mesh in the test [kN]
 Set of coefficients of reduction applied to the soil resistances according to EC 7 [-]
Punch resistance of the mesh according to the lab test modified in accordance with the
MMesh [kN]
anchor spacing
6
Ne Working tensile resistance of the bar in elastic condition [KPa]

P Pullout force on the anchor [kN]
Factor of resistance (factor of safety safety) calculated according to Limit state approach
FOSR [-]
(Eurocode)
RStab,d Force acting on the anchor, design value [-]
RStab,k Force acting on the anchor, characteristic value [-]
s Thickness of instability [m]
T Tensile strength on the mesh [kN]
tc Thickness of corrosion of the steel bar [mm]
TMesh Tensile resistance of the mesh according to the lab test [kN/m]
W Weight of the elemental block [kN]
WH Horizontal component of the instable mass [kN]
WHN Slope Normal component of WN [kN]
WHT Slope parallel component of WH [kN]
WN Slope Normal comp. of the instable mass [kN]
WT Slope parallel comp. of the instable mass [kN]
WV Vertical component of the instable mass [kN]
WVN Slope Normal component of Wv [kN]
WVT Slope parallel component of WV [kN]
Zd Maximum deflection without maintenance of the mesh under punch stress, design value [m]
7
BACKGROUND
8
1 INTRODUCTION
Macro 1 is the software of Officine Maccaferri aimed at calculating the pin drapery systems for
rockfall protection. Pin drapery (called also secured drapery, or cortical strengthening, or
superficial stabilization) is composed of anchors and steel mesh (rockfall net). The goal of this
system is improving the surficial rock face stability and maintaining the debris/rock on place
(Figure 1).
Figure 1 – Sketch of secured drapery
From the geomechanical point of view pin draperies are passive interventions since they generate
forces as the rockfall displacement takes places1.
The design of secured drapery is not at all easy because of numerous variables, including
topography, rock mass properties, joint geometry and properties, mesh type and related restraint
conditions. Because of that, at the present the limit equilibrium models represent the cost effective
design approach. Officine Maccaferri has developed MacRo1, the limit equilibrium approach for
the design of secured drapery that summarizes lab and field experiences into a pragmatic approach
with limit equilibrium method. The procedure is quite rough, but it is sufficient when considering
the low accuracy level of the input data, the reliability of the results and the speed of the
calculations. Always designer judgment is required.
1
See pag. 570 of Turner A.K, Schuster R.L. Editors (2012) Rockfall Characterization and control – Transportation
Research Board, Washington D.C.
9
2 BASIC DEFINITONS
Mesh: steel meshes produced by Officine Maccaferri. The software contains a library with the
behaviour of the mesh under punch and tensile load. The knowledge of these behaviours
derives from a series of laboratory test carried out in accordance with standards UNI
11437:2012, ISO 17745:2016 and ISO 17746:2016. The software does not allow to insert
any other mesh type.
Anchors: the terms “anchors”, and “nail” are here intended as interchangeable. The steel bars used
for pin drapery applications are preferably full threaded. They are installed in a drilled hole,
previously realized with specific drilling machines. They have to be centred into the hole
and then grouted along their entire length. Normally the grout has a compression resistance
of 20 to 50 MPa in order to guarantee an efficient bond stress between the steel bar and the
rock.. The grout has also the function to protect the steel against corrosion. The diameter of
these bars is generally 20 to 50 mm. Frequently the drilling diameter is approx. 2.0-2.5
times the diameter of the bar. The length of the nails (L) in most of the cases is between 2.5
to 4.0 m, and the spacing (ix and iy – see Figure 7) ranges between 2.0 and 3.0 m. On the
rock slopes, nails mainly works in shear condition, because often they are installed
perpendicular to the sliding surface. Thus, the nail design requires the definition of the type
of steel and diameter. The software admits any steel anchor type.
Pin drapery: pin drapery, secured drapery, cortical strengthening, are interchangeable. In the pin
drapery anchors and mesh should cooperate, but only the anchors should really stabilize the
slope face. Very frequently the effective anchor spacing ranges between 2 and 3 m:
designers should remember that the larger the spacing is, the lower the interlocking
between the instable block. Large anchor spacing means frequent rockfall and heavy loads
on the mesh facing. It is always possible choose spacing larger than 3.0 m, but the
intervention progressively looses effectiveness and smokes to something else.
Safety factor: the factor of safety (FOS) is commonly intended as the ratio between the stabilizing
forces (resistances) and the driving forces (actions). By using the characteristic values of
resistances and actions, it lets us know how much the stabilizing forces exceed the driving
ones. In the common geotechnical experience, 30% of surplus is acceptable. Macro 1 uses
the design approach of Eurocode EN 1997-1 that controls the incertitude of problem by
applying suitable coefficients on the variables before calculating the ratio between
stabilizing and driving forces. Then such ratio assumes different meaning since it basically
should be intended as indicator of resistance in the geotechnical system rather surplus of
10
force. That is why here have been distinguished FOS (for the limit stress approach) and
FOSR (for the Eurocode approach).
11
3 GENERAL CONCEPTS
3.1 Cooperation between anchors and mesh
The calculation approach considers that on the slope there is a surficial weathered (or heavy
jointed, blasted, or disturbed) rock mass that frequently generates shallow instabilities and
rockfalls. It has thickness “s” and inclination “” parallel to the slope. Several sets of joints cross
the surficial body; the most unfavourable has inclination “”. The reaction of mesh and nails are
triggered when
- the whole weathered body slides down on the plane inclined . This is the problem
of the global stability of the weathered surface; it is solved by the raster of anchors
(Figure 2 on the left).
- one or more block move out from the weathered body. The software considers the planar
sliding on the plane , which is the most unfavourable case. Because this instability
happens only among the nails, it is defined local instability; (Figure 2 on the right).
Figure 2 - Slope with the weathered unstable surface Nails (left) stabilize the superficial portion.
Mesh (right) keeps in place the unstable material between the nail.
3.2 Goals of the design
Macro 1 is aimed at calculating following performances of the secured drapery:

1) Resistance of the system: it lets the designer understand if system resists to the maximum
design load or if there are weak points in the anchors raster or in the mesh revetment.
2) Deformation of the system it foresees the maximum deformation allowed by the mesh
applied within a certain pattern of anchors. The knowledge of deformation is very useful
because it allows to foreseen the maintenance before of the mesh rupture.
3.3 Design approach

Macro 1 implements allows to apply the design approach of the limit state that applies coefficients
for the amplification of the actions and the reductions of the resistances, as well as the design
approach of the limit stress that verifies if the remedial measures is effective looking at the final
12
safety factor. The user can adapt the approach to the national standard accordingly. An example of
limit state approach is represented by the Eurocodes (UNI ENV 1997-1:2005), whereas an example
of limit stress approach is the Brazilian standard. Since unfortunately sometime the national
standards do not suggest the suitable coefficients, Macro 1 can orientate the evaluation of such
coefficients taking into account of parameters like the slope morphology and the mesh behaviour.
3.4 Conceptual algorithm of the calculation

Macro 1 separately analyses the behaviour of anchors and mesh with the following iterative process
(Figure 3):
Figure 3 - Conceptual algorithm for the calculation of anchors and mesh
In Figure 3 two loops each other related can be recognized: the first is aimed at determining the
correct raster of nails that is related to the “global” stability, the second one at determining the type
of mesh that is related to the “local” stability .
13
THEORY
14
4 RESISTANCE OF THE ANCHORS
The reinforcing anchor works in proximity to the sliding joint, where it is subjected to both shear
and tensile stresses (Figure 4).
Figure 4 – Anchor under shear stress
The resisting force of the steel bar onto the sliding direction (Fy) derives from the maximum work
principal2:
2 0.5
1+𝑚
16
𝐹𝑦,𝑘 = [ 2] 𝑁𝑒 [4.1]
1+𝑚4
where:
Ne = working tensile resistance of the bar in elastic condition
Ne =  / 4 ((e - 2 tc)2- i2) y,k [4.2]
y,k = yield tensile stress of the steel bar
e = external diameter of the steel bar
tc = thickness of corrosion on the external crown (see Annexe 3)
i = inner diameter of the steel bar
m = cotan (o + ) [4.3]
2
Panet, M. 1995. Le Calcul des Tunnels par la Méthode Convergence Confinement. Paris: Presses de l'École Nationale
des Ponts et Chaussées. (in French) 
15
= dilatancy of the sliding surface

o =angle between bar axis and the normal to the sliding plane.
 = 90° –  – o [4.4a]
or
o = 90° –  –  [4.4b]
 = angle between the bar axis and the horizontal (Figure 5).
Figure 5 - Unstable block with anchor
Figure 6 - Typical graph Stabilizing contribution Fyk versus angle of incidence of the bar
In accordance with the Barton – Bandis resistance criteria, the  value is approximated as3
 ≈ 1/3 JRC log (JCS/n) [4.5]
3
Singh B., Goel R.K. (1999) Rock mass Classification A practical approach in civil engineering -
Elsevier ; Bell F.G. (2007). Engineering Geology – Elsevier BH, pag 69
16
where:
n = s  cos  [4.6]
= inclination of the most unfavourable sliding plane
 L g    0 .02  JRC 0 
JRC = joint roughness coefficient 4
= JRC 0    [4.7]
 L0 
 Lg   0.03 JRC 0 
JCS = joint uniaxial compression resistance = JCS 0    [4.8]
 L0 
JCS0 = joint compression strength referred to the scale joint sample

JRC0 = roughness referred to scale joint sample
L0 = joint length (assumed to be 0.1 m for lack of available data)
Lg = sliding joint length (assumed to be equal to vertical nail spacing.
The equations [4.3] though [4.8] are exclusively aimed at determining the dilatancy that increases
the stabilizing contribution Fya of the anchor especially when it is perpendicular to a very rough
plane (see annexe 1). Macro 1 adopts a conservative approach because on surficial rock masses the
joints are often opened, or with filling of clay, sometime with advanced weathering process, the
uniaxial compressive strength is very low; other times the rock mass is disturbed by the
excavation1. In these conditions the anchors mostly works with the shear resistance of the anchor
bar. In lack of input data, the user should remember the followings:
- the roughness JRC and the uniaxial compression resistance JCS should be estimated on the
most unfavourable joints inclined Figure 16 sliding plane inclined
 is not investigable. Macro 1 assumes that the joint (parallel to the slope face) has such
most unfavourable resistance, and the anchors are calculated accordingly.
- If JRC is unknown it can be set at 0 (see Annexe 1).
- If JCS is unknown, it can be set at 5 MPa (see Annexe 1).
- If the joint inclination  is unknown, it can be assumed between 40 and 50° in order to get al
large volume sliding on a very steep plane.
Finally the design resistance of the anchor bar becomes:

𝐹𝑦,𝑘
𝐹𝑦,𝑑 = 𝛾𝐴
[4.9]
A = coefficient of reduction for the steel resistance.
4
Barton N. (1992): Scale effects or sampling bias? Proc. Int. Workshop Scale Effects in Rock
Masses, Balkema Publ., Rotterdam, See pag 37 – 38
17
18
5 STABILIZING CONTRIBUTION OF THE ANCHOR
5.1 General considerations
Considering passive behaviour, the nail calculation must assume the unstable portion of the slope
lies in condition proximal to the collapse, with the safety factor equal to 1.0. This is the most
unfavourable hypothesis that cam be assumed to describe an existing slope; in such condition the
resisting forces have the same value of the driving forces and the following equations are true
(Figure 3):
Resisting forces = W sin 

Driving forces = W cos  tan φ
Factor of safety = Resisting forces / Driving Forces = 1.0
Resisting forces = W sin  = driving forces = W cos  tan φ  [5.1]
where
 = inclination of the slope surface, where the sliding of the unstable rock mass can occur.
φ = Friction angle on the sliding surface in accordance with the resistance criteria of Barton-
Bandis5 for the joints.
W = weight of the unstable rock mass to be consolidated; W is defined as:
W = iX iY s  [5.2]
iX , iY = center to center distance between the anchors in the horizontal and vertical direction
s = thickness of the unstable mass
 = unitary weight of the rock
The equation [5.1] needs some basic remarks (see also Annexe 4):
• The equation allows to substitute the term (W cos  tan φwith the other (W sen
 the knowledge of the friction  becomes useless. Such consideration is
very useful on the surficial rock slopes where the knowledge of the joint property is
basically unrealistic.
5
The Barton-Bandis criteria does not consider the cohesion on the joints, but a peak friction angle,
which depends on a base friction angle (related to the rock type) and an increment angle (related to
JRC and JCS).
Main references:
 Barton, N.R. and Choubey, V. (1977). The shear strength of rock joints in theory and practice.
Rock Mech. 10(1-2), 1-54.
 Barton, N.R. and Bandis, S.C. (1982). Effects of block size on the shear behaviour of jointed
rock. 23rd U.S. symp. on rock mechanics, Berkeley, 739-760
19
• The safety factor equals to 1.0 represent the worst condition that the mass suffered in static
condition without collapsing. The static condition includes the thrust of the water (if any),
but not the seismic one.
• The knowledge of the friction φ is needed just for the evaluation of external forces
applied on the mass rock mass that lies in critical equilibrium. But setting friction angle =
45°, the calculation of the forces is simplified. It must be considered that according to the
Barton-Bandis failure criteria, the friction angle commonly ranges between 28° and 70°
and most frequently the value of 45° is conservative.
Figure 7 – Elemental block consolidated by 1 anchor.
5.2 Analysis of the forces

On the base of the previous consideration, with reference to the figure below, and introducing both
the seismicity and the generic external force applied on the rock mass, the forces can be calculated
as (
Figure 8 and Figure 9):
The horizontal and vertical seismic components of Weight and External force (actions)
are the followings :
EH = E CH Horizontal component of the external [5.3]
EV = E CV Vertical component of the external [5.4]
WH = W CH Horizontal component of the instable mass [5.5]
20
WV = W CV Vertical component of the instable mass [5.6]
Hereby are listed the forces acting on the direction parallel to the sliding plane (driving
forces). The seismic components having a stabilizing effect (negative) must be neglected
in the sum [5.13].
WT = W sin  D Slope parallel comp. of the instable mass [5.7]
ET = E cos  D Slope parallel comp. of the external force [5.8]

WHT = W CH cos  Slope parallel component of WH [5.9]
WVT = W CV sin   Slope parallel component of WV [5.10]
EHT = E CH cos   Slope parallel component of EH [5.11]
EVT = E CV sin   Slope parallel component of EV [5.12]
D,d DRIVING FORCES = WT + ET + WHT + WVT + EHT + EVT  [5.13]
The forces acting on the normal of the sliding plane (stabilizing forces) are the
followings. The seismic components having a stabilizing effect (positive) are neglected in
the sum [5.20]
WN = W sin   / R Slope Normal comp. of the instable mass [5.14]
EN = - E sin  / R (tan φ) Slope Normal comp. of the external force [5.15]

WHN = W CH sin  (tan φ) Slope Normal component of WN [5.16]
WVN = W CV cos  (tan φ) Slope Normal component of Wv [5.17]
EHN = E CH sin  (tan φ) Slope Normal component of EN [5.18]
EVN = E Cv cos  (tan φ) Slope Normal component of Ev [5.19]
 S,d  STABILIZING FORCES = WN + EN + WHN + WVN + EHN + EVN [5.20]

Where the symbols are the followings:
W = weight of the unstable rock mass to be consolidated
E = external force
CH , CV = Horizontal, Vertical seismic coefficient
= inclination of the external force
D, R = coefficients for the driving / resisting forces
 = inclination of the slope surface
φ= Friction angle; note that since  = 45, then tan φ = 1.0
The stabilizing force required for the equilibrium becomes:
21
stab,d  DESIGN DRIVING -  DESIGN STABILIZING =  D,d -  S,d [5.21]
Equation [5.21] allows to determine the force onto the sliding direction required to the anchor.

Figure 8 – Weight of the unstable block and Figure 9 – External load and related seismic
related seismic components components




22
6 ANCHOR DIMENSIONING
6.1 Raster of anchors
Figure 10 – Typical pattern of anchors
The anchors have to cooperate each other and interfere with the rock mass and their areal
distribution should be as homogeneous as possible on each slope surface with homogeneous
features. That is why it is strongly recommended to avoid irregular pattern (i.e. diamond 3.0 m x
8.0 m or squared 2.5 m x 4.8 m). The best theoretical pattern should be the diamond (quincunx) one
accordingly, with anchor axis spaced in order to form an equilateral triangle, but for practical
reasons the square raster is successfully utilized all the same (Figure 10).
Macro 1 is set only to accept squared pattern of anchors. When a diamond raster is adopted, the
user has to input the anchor spacing
ix = iy = (dy dx / 2)0.5 [6.1]
For instance, if the diamond pattern to be calculated is dy = 5.5 m and dx = 2.9 m, the equivalent
square pattern to input in Macro 1 becomes
ix = iy = (dy dx / 2)0.5 = (5.5 2.9 / 2)0.5 = 2.8 m
6.2 Slope and anchor stability
Obviously the safety factor FOSR (included seismicity and external load if any) of the slope is
FOSR slope = ( stab,d + S,d ) / D,d = (  D,d -  S,d + S,d ) / D,d = 1.0 [6.2]
The resistance of the anchors is proofed if
Fy,d - Rstab,d > 0 [6.3a]
Or
FOSR anchor = Fy,d / Rstab,d > 1.0 [6.3b]
23
where Fy,d is the design resistance of the anchor onto the sliding direction [5.1], and Rstab,d is the
design stabilizing contribution required to re equilibrate the geomechanical system [5.21]. In order
to understand how much the steel bar is utilized, the rate of working is introduced:
𝑅stab,d
𝜂A = 𝐹y,d
100 [6.4]
Obviously the work of the anchor is referred to the elemental area as per Figure 7.
6.3 Number of anchors

In case of square raster of anchor, the total number of anchors can be estimated with
𝑎𝑟𝑒𝑎 𝑜𝑓 𝑖𝑛𝑡𝑒𝑟𝑣𝑒𝑛𝑡𝑖𝑜𝑛 𝑎𝑟𝑒𝑎 𝑜𝑓 𝑖𝑛𝑡𝑒𝑟𝑣𝑒𝑛𝑡𝑖𝑜𝑛
𝑁𝑜. 𝑜𝑓 𝑎𝑛𝑐ℎ𝑜𝑟𝑠 = 𝑒𝑙𝑒𝑚𝑒𝑛𝑡𝑎𝑙 𝑎𝑟𝑒𝑎
= 𝑖X 𝑖Y
[6.5]
In case of diamond (quincunx) raster of anchor, the total number of anchors can be estimated with
2 𝑎𝑟𝑒𝑎 𝑜𝑓 𝑖𝑛𝑡𝑒𝑟𝑣𝑒𝑛𝑡𝑖𝑜𝑛
𝑁𝑜. 𝑜𝑓 𝑎𝑛𝑐ℎ𝑜𝑟𝑠 = 𝑑X 𝑑Y
[6.6]
24
7 EVALUATION OF NAIL LENGTH
Since rock and grouting are weaker than the steel, generally the rock and grouting plasticizes close
the sliding plane2. The plasticized volume depends on the rock type.
Figure 11 - Anchor bar in the rock mass. Li = length crossing the unstable mass; Lp length in the
plasticized rock mass; Ls length in stable rock mass
Then minimum theoretical length of the anchor is

Lt = Ls + Li + Lp [7.1]
Ls = length of segment in the stable rock mass
Li = length in the weathered mass
LP = length of hole with plasticity phenomena in firm part of the rock mass
The length of segment in the stable rock mass (Ls) is calculated with Bustamante Duoix6:
Ls = length in the stable part of the mass = P / ( drill B lim / T) [7.2]
where
drill diameter of the hole for the bar
B = coefficient for increasing the drilling diameter in accordance with Bustamante Duoix
lim = bond stress (adherence tension) between grout – rock3
6 Bustamante M., and Doix B., 1985. Une méthode pour le calcul des tirants et des micropieux injectés. Bulletin
Laboratoire Central des Ponts et des Chaussées, n. 140, nov-dec, ref. 3047.
25
T = reduction coefficient of the adhesion grout – rock In lack of test,

a Eurocode 7, it should not be lower than 1.8.
P is the maximum between the force developed sliding slope (case 1) and the one developed
because of the stripping by the mesh (case 2):
Case 1:
P = sin  Driving forces - cos   Stabilizing forces  [7.3a]
= sin WN+EN+WHN+WVN+EHN+EVN) - cos  (WT -ET -WHT -WVT - EHT - EVT )
Case 2:
= M sin - T cos  + ) [7.3b]
And the length in the weathered mass is

Li = s cos  [7.4]
angle between bar axis and the normal to the sliding plane  90° –  – o
s = thickness of the unstable part.
LP = length of hole with plasticity phenomena in firm part of the rock mass. The values
ranges between 0.05 m for hard rock (e.g. granite or basalt) up to 0.30 m for weak rock (e.g.
marl), and exceptionally up to 0.45 m for very weak rock (e.g. claystone or tuff).
26
8 MESH DIMENSIONING
8.1 Preliminary remarks
At the present the proofing of the mesh can conveniently developed with a hybrid approach that
considers both the limit equilibrium conditions and the displacements via a graphic procedure. The
bias introduced by rough procedure are negligible in comparisons to the ones related to the
geotechnical model (topography, feature of the rock mass, type of load against the mesh, accuracy
in the installation of the secured drapery, properties of the mesh). The calculation of Macro 1
allows to quickly determine the followings:
- Capacity of the mesh under tensile and punch load;
- Maximum deformation of mesh in work conditions.
8.2 Mesh deflection under punch load and scale effect

The laboratory tests in accordance with UNI 11437:2012 and ISO 17745:2016 – ISO 17746:2016
show how much meshes deform after a load perpendicularly applied on the mesh surface.
Likewise any deformable membrane, stresses on the meshes area measured in terms of
- punch force perpendicular to the facing plane (force M - [kN]).
- deflection (displacement) related to the punch load (distance Z - [m])
- tensile stresses onto the mesh plane (stress T - [kN/m])
Figure 12 – Deflection of the mesh under punching load
27
Figure 13 - Plan view of the punch test frame in accordance with UNI 11437:2012. Legend: 1 = tested
mesh; 2 = punching device (1.0 m in diameter); 3 = edge constraint between the mesh and the frame.
The punch deflection Z is related to the sample size7: at the same punch load, the larger the sample
size, the larger the deflection is. The general relationship is assumed in the simplified form
Z = Z0 Z [8.1]
M = M0 M [8.2]
where
Z = deflection of the mesh applied on the slope
Z0 = deflection of the mesh in the test
M = load on the mesh applied on the slope
M0 = load on the mesh in the test
M, Z = function of correlation
Figure 14 – Load VS deflection in the punch test of samples with different size.
7
Majoral R., Giacchetti G., Bertolo P., 2008 – Las mallas en la estabilizaciòn de taludes – II Curso sobre
protecciòn contra caida de rocas – Madrid, 26 – 27 de Febrero. Organiza STMR Servicios técnicos de mecànica
de rocas.
Grimod A., Giacchetti G. , 2013, New design software for rockfall simple drapery systems. Proceedings 23nd
World Mining Congress & Expo, Montreal. Paper No. 255.
28
Such constants of correlation depend on the properties of the meshes and on the Scale factor = i / i0,
where i0 is the size of the tested sample in accordance with the standard UNI 11437 (sample size
3.0 x 3.0 m - Figure 13). By using the library of the tests, Macro 1 automatically finds out the
graphic that fits the mesh behaviour when the raster of anchors is spaced at the generic distance ix,
iy.
8.3 Actions and resistances on the meshes
The force pushing on the facing is represented by the following simplified scheme (Figure 15):
Figure 15 - Deformed mesh with forces


where
F is the force developed by the blocks sliding between the nails on a plane inclined at .
T is the force tensile resistance developed by the mesh onto the facing plane; it arises as reaction
to the sliding of blocks. The facing, which is considered to be nailed on the upper part only,
reacts to T with the tensile resistance of the mesh because there is a large friction between
mesh and blocks.
M is the punch resistance developed by the mesh as reaction to the blocks; M is perpendicular to
the facing plane. The force is developed since there are the lateral restraints, like the nailing
(strong restraint) and the next meshes (weak restraint). The magnitude of M largely depends
on the stiffness of the mesh: the higher the membrane stiffness of the mesh is, the more
effectiveness the facing is.
29
8.4 Weight of the unstable block

The force F pushing on the mesh depends on the maximum volume moving outward from the raster
of anchors (Figure 15). The volume is defined by the raster of anchors (for simplicity the anchors
are always considered perpendicular to the sliding plane), by the sliding surface inclined and by
the sliding surface inclined 
Figure 16 – Shapes of the rock volumes that can move among the anchors: triangular (left) and
trapezium (right)
The shape of the block is a trapezium (Figure 16 right) that becomes a triangle (Figure 16 left) if
iy 2 tan(β-α)–s
(
+ s tan 90-β+α ) < 0 [8.3]
iy tan(β-α)
The weight of the block is
iy + b
Bk= ix γ h [ 2
] [8.4]
Where
Case trapezium
iy 2 tan(β-α)–s
𝑏=
iy tan(β-α)
+ s tan(90-β+α) [8.5a]
h=s [8.5b]
Case triangle
30
b=0 [8.6a]
iy tan(β-α) [cos (90-β-θ0) + sin (90-β-θ0)]

ℎ= tan (90-β-θ0) cos (90-β-θ0)
[8.6b]
8.5 Analysis of the unstable block

The design Horizontal and Vertical seismic components of the Block sliding are the
followings:
BH = Bk CH Horizontal seismic component of the instable block [8.7]
BV = Bk CV Vertical seismic component of the instable block [8.8]
The design driving forces acting onto the sliding plane are the following:
BT,d = Bk sin  D Slope parallel comp. of the instable block [8.9]
BHT = Bk CH cos  Slope parallel seismic component of BH,k [8.10]

BVT = Bk CV sin   Slope parallel seismic component of BV,k [8.11]
 BD,d DRIVING FORCES = BT,d + BHT + BVT  [8.12]
The seismic components having a stabilizing effect (negative) are neglected in

the sum [8.12].
The design stabilizing forces acting onto the sliding plane are the following:
BN,d = Bk sin   / R Slope Normal comp. of the instable mass [8.13]
BHN = Bk CH sin  (tan φ) Slope Normal component of BN,k [8.14]

BVN = Bk CV cos  (tan φ) Slope Normal component of Bv,k [8.15]
BR,d STABILIZING FORCES = BN,d + BHN + BVN [8.16]
In analogy to the analysis of the anchor, the friction angle is assumed 45°.
The seismic components having a stabilizing effect (positive) are neglected in the
sum [8.19]

The design force developed by the block moving among the anchor is calculated as:
Fd  DESIGN DRIVING -  DESIGN STABILIZING = BD,d - BR,d [8.17]
31
Figure 17 – Forces acting on the mesh with related seismic components
8.6 Resistance of the mesh
Figure 18 – Design punch force Md in the Figure 19 Design tensile stress Td on the
mesh deformed mesh.
32
The force developed by the mesh can be determined by considering components of the driving
force Fd perpendicular to the initial mesh plane Fn,d:
Md = Fd sin (- ) [8.18]
The deflection is got by entering the punching force (Md) into the characteristic curve of the mesh
(Figure 20) arranged for the anchor spacing (ix iy) in accordance with the procedure of the
relationships [9.3] [9.4] (see also figure Figure 14).
Figure 20 - Example of a curve load-displacement used for estimation of the deflection
The deflection value [Z] is multiplied by a correction coefficient that compensates the difference of
constrain existing between the sample perfectly constrained in accordance with the test procedure
ISO and UNI, and the mesh constrained by a raster of anchors on the rock face. Such correction
coefficient according to numerical models and experimental correlations is worth 2.5.
Zd = Z z [8.19]
The displacement allows appreciating the deflection angle () (Figure 19 and Figure 21), and then
the tensile force of design developed by the mesh.
Figure 21 – Deflection of the mesh under punching load
33
The deformation of the mesh related to the deflection is:
2 √Zd2+ i ⁄4
2
εm = -1 [8.20]
i
and finally
Td =  E [8.21]
Where E is the apparent elastic modulus of the mesh got from tensile test.
8.7 Safety factors of the mesh

The tensile resistance of the mesh satisfies the design if
Tmesh / tens – Td > = 0 [8.22]
or
FOSR tensile = (TMesh / tens) / Td > 1.0 [8.23]
In order to understand how much the work tensile resistance of the mesh is utilized, the rate of
working is introduced:
𝑇𝑑
η tens = 100 (tensile resistance) [8.24]
(𝑇Mesh / γtens)
The punch resistance of the mesh satisfies the design if

MMesh / defl – Md > = 0 [8.25]
or
FOSR Defl = (MMesh / def) / Md > 1.0 [8.26]
In order to understand how much the work punch resistance of the mesh is utilized, the rate of
working is introduced:
𝑀𝑑
η def = (𝑀 / γ ) 100 (tensile resistance) [8.27]
Mesh defl
where
TMesh = Tensile resistance of the mesh according to the lab test UNI 11437:2012, ISO
17745:2016, ISO 17746:2016.
MMesh = Punch resistance in site condition got from analysis of lab tests UNI 11437:2012, ISO
17745:2016, ISO 17746:2016 modified in accordance with [9.3] and [9.4].
tens reduction coefficient of the tensile resistance of the mesh. Taking into account the
inhomogeneous stress acting on the loaded mesh, in agreement with DIN 1054: 1010-12 the
minimum reduction coefficient should be not smaller than 2.50.
34
defl reduction coefficient of the punch resistance of the mesh. Taking into account the
inhomogeneous stress acting on the loaded mesh, in agreement with DIN 1054: 1010-12 the
minimum reduction coefficient should be not smaller than 2.50.
35
9 SAFETY FACTOR AND RESITANCE OF THE SYSTEM
9.1 Preliminary remarks
The calculation procedure of Macro 1 uses partial coefficients in order to reduce the resisting
forces and increase the driving forces in accordance with the principles of standard EN 1997-1, that
is the most advanced worldwide reference for the verification of structural and geotechnical limit
states. Such design approach permits to assign a specific coefficient to each variable of the
problem: the larger the uncertainty of the characteristic value of the variable, the greater is the
associated coefficient. Finally EN 1997-1 judges the calculation result by mean of the balance
between driving and resisting forces.
Who is used to approach the stability analysis with the global safety factor (limit stress analysis)
could face some difficulty with MaCro 1 as it does not match the local standard. The next
paragraphs drive designers into the appropriate use of the coefficients and use MaCro 1 in
accordance with the national regulations.
9.1.1 Limit state analysis (FOSR)

The safety factor of the system (or better resistance of the system) FOSR is expressed by the
conceptual formula:
FOSR = ( / R) / (D,K D) [9.1a]
FOSR = ( d) / (D,d) [9.1b]
beeing
τR,k characteristic value of the stabilizing forces (or resistances)
τD,k characteristic value of the driving forces (or actions)
R coefficient reduces the stabilizing forces
D coefficient increases the driving forces
τR,d design value of the stabilizing forces (or resistances)
τD,d design value of the driving forces (or actions)

More precisely, by considering the contribution of the anchors, the resistance becomes:
FOSR = ( d + Fy,d ) / (D,d) = [ / R + Fy,k / A ] / (D,k D) [9.1c]
36
9.1.2 Admissible stress analysis (FOS)

In the limit state analysis the Factor of Safety (FOS) is the ratio between resisting and driving
forces. The conceptual formula is:
FOS = ( K) / (D,K) [9.2a]
More precisely, by separately considering the contribution of the anchors, the formula becomes
FOS = ( d R + Fy,d A) / (D,d / D) [9.2b]
9.1.3 Relations between FOS and FOSR

FOSR [eq. 9.1a] coincide to FOS [eq. 9.2a] only when
seismicity = 0
external forces = 0
R = 1.0
D = 1.0
In such particular condition, by combining [9.1a] and [9.2a], the general relation between FOS and
FOSR becomes:
FOS = FOSR R D [9.3a]
FOSR = FOS / R D [9.3b]
With a more general approach, by combining [9.1c] and [9.2b], we can write
τR,d γR + Fy,d γA
τD,d
FOS γD
=
FOSR τR,d + Fy,d
τR,d
τR,d γR + Fy,d γA
FOS = FOSR γD τR,d +F y,d
[9.3c]
The equation [9.3c] drives to the accurate result, whereas the [9.3a] slightly overvalues the FOS (1-
5%). That is why for fact of simplicity the formula [9.3a] is enough to estimate the FOS value in
the practice.
9.2 Increasing and reduction coefficients
9.2.1 Driving forces (set of factors applied on actions A)

EN 1997-1 recommends increasing the driving forces (actions) by applying an increasing
coefficient (EN 1997 – 1 Eurocode 7 – table A.3 )
37
Table 1 – Set of coefficients A1 (form table A.3 of EN1997-1)
Macro 1 gives the chance to apply such increasing coefficients to the effect of the components of
driving forces
9.2.2 Resistance forces (set of factors applied on soil parameters M)
The characteristic geotechnical resistance (un-drained cohesion and un-drained shear resistance)
are reduced with the following coefficients (EN 1997-1 – Eurocode 7 - table A.4).
Table 2 - Set of coefficients M1 (form table A.4 of EN1997-1)
Macro 1 applies the reduction coefficients on the resisting force and not on the factors of the
resistance (cohesion and shear resistance). The resistance of the system (FOSR or R in accordance
with table 3) against slope failure is simply calculated as per [9.1].
The shear strength of the slope is appreciated through the general resistance criteria (Mohr-
Coulomb):
τ = C + σn tan φ [9.4]
where C is the generic cohesion and φ the generic shearing resistance.
38
When Macro 1 applies the reduction coefficient (R) to the resisting force, the ratio between
stabilizing and driving forces (FOSR) becomes
FOSR ≈ ( / R) / (D D) = [C / R + σn tan φ / R ] / (D D) [9.5]
Such result shows that the application of reduction coefficient (R) to the resisting force is
equivalent and compatible with the Eurocode 7 approach that applies the coefficients to the
components of the driving forces.
The calculation approach of Macro 1 implicitly considers as characteristic resistances the ones that
give safety factor equal to 1.0, which is the worst realistic safety factor of the slope. By applying
coefficients of reduction as per Eurocode 7, the result is still more conservative.
9.3 Design resistance (set R)

The design resistance represents the value of the ratio between stabilizing and driving forces (see
also equation 9.2a where R is FOSR). It must be equal or greater than the value R suggested by EN
1997-1 (Eurocode 7, table A.12 and others).
Table 3 - Set of coefficients R2 (FOSR) (form table A.12 of EN1997-1)
9.4 Design approach

The driving and stabilizing forces can change depending upon the combination of the coefficients
of reduction and increasing. In order to avoid too much conservative as well as hazardous
approach, Eurocode 7 suggests the combinations of partial coefficients. For the present problem,
the most frequently adopted combination is the Design Approach 1, Combination 2 that prescribes
the following combination of sets of coefficients:
A2 ; M2 ; R1
On one hand the goal of such approach is to supply a suitable safety margin as regards of
unfavourable variance from the characteristic shear resistance, and as regards of uncertainties
inherent the calculation model. On the other one, the approach assumes reduced safety margin in
case of permanent driving forces, and large safety margin in case of variable driving forces.
39
9.5 Factor of safety and resistance of the system
9.5.1 Admissible stress analysis: factor of safety FOS

The safety factors FOS describes how much the stabilizing forces exceeds the driving forces. The
experiences show that the safety factor of the slope reinforced with anchors should not be lower
than 1.58 in case of intervention above infrastructures, and 1.2 for interventions in mining areas.
Also Terzaghi & Peck9 and the Canadian Geotechnical Society10 that for shearing failure suggests
safety factors of 1.5-2.0 in case of Earth retaining structures and excavations.
The FOS should be conservative since the consolidation system is very sensitive to both slope
morphology and anchor inclination: unfortunately the interventions are often applied on uneven
rock surfaces and the steel bars are not installed parallel each other, so that the efficiency of the
consolidation system is severely reduced.
9.5.2 Limit state analysis: resistance of the system FOSR
Considering the typical coefficients of reduction (EN 1997-1 - table A.4, set M2), the minimum
recommended FOSR (1.1 EN 1997-1 table A.12, set R1) - seems to be inappropriate for a
geomechanical problem11. The [9.1] can be completed with
FOSR ≈ ( / R) / (D/D) ≥ R1 = 1.1 [9.6]
or substituting into the [9.3a] for the most unfavourable case:
FOS ≈ FOSR D R = (R1) (A2) (M2) = 1.10 ·1.00 ·1.25 = 1.375 [9.7]
This means that the equivalent safety factor got by strictly applying the EN 1997-1 is lower than
what the practice suggests for this kind of applications. In order to get FOS = 1.5 by applying EN
1997-1, the value of R must be at least:
FOSR ≈ FOS / (R D ) = 1.5 / (1.00 ·1.25) = 1.2 [9.8]
9.5.3 German standard DIN 1054: 2010-12

In case of geotechnical problems non defined by EN 1997-1, the German standard DIN 1054:2010-
1212, suggests that the stabilizing forces are 1.30 times the driving forces without taking into
8
Hoek E. Bray J.W. (1981) Rock slope engineering – Institution of Mining and Metallurgy, London.
9
Terzaghi, K. and Peck, R.P. (1967) Soil Mechanics in Engineering Practice (2nd edn), Wiley, New York, pp. 660–73. 
10
Canadian Geotechnical Society (1992) Canadian Foundation Engineering Manual. BiTech Publishers Ltd, Vancouver,
Canada.
11
At the present the EN 1997-1 is under revision in order to improve some aspect inherent the rock mechanic.
12
Subsoil –  Verification of the safety of earthworks and foundations – Supplementary rules to DIN EN 1997-1 - table
A 2.1 for the approach B-SP, GEO-2
40
account of the seismic ones. The relationship between stabilizing and driving is analysed by mean
of the efficiency  of the geotechnical system:
WT+ET WT+ET
𝜇= = WN+EN ≥ 0.77 [9.9]
Rstab + (WN+EN ) (WT+ET)γD − + (WN+EN)
𝛾R
 must be is equals or greater than 0.77.
9.6 Practical evaluation of the coefficients

The common geotecnical criterion are not enough to understand if the coefficients of reduction and
increasing are suitable or if they must be larger than the ones suggested by Eurocode 7. According
to the field experiences, such coefficients can be evaluated by considering the sub-factors that
affect the efficiency of the secured drapery.
9.6.1 Sub - coefficients for the resisting forces

The coefficient of the resisting forces can be evaluated with (Table 4)
R = Q g B [9.10]
where the sub coefficients are respectively related to the geomechanical survey, the density and the
material and behaviour of the rock.
Q describes the uncertainties in determining t ckness S 0f the unstable weathered
zone. Its value ranges between 1.20, when the estimation is based on a geomechanical survey,
and 1.30, when it is based on rough estimation (Figure 22). It must be considered that the
thickness of the unstable layer is not homogeneous, locally its thickness could be thicker.
g describes the uncertainties in the unitary weight determination of the rock mass. Usually it is
assumed to equal 1.00, but if there are severe uncertainties it can be assumed to equal 1.05.
For instance it can be noticed that for non homogenous rocks (e.g. flysch rock masses where
there are thin layered clay stone alternated to hard mudstone), the mesh and the nails can
locally be heavy loaded, whereas in other places the load is lower being the same volume of
instability (Figure 23).
B describes the uncertainties related to the rock mass behaviour. High erodibility of the rock
surface can cause stripping of the nails and weakness of the whole system (Figure 24). One
consequence is that the unstable portion held by the nails (or by the mesh) could become
quickly deeper. Usually the value is assumed equal to 1.00, but if there are severe
environmental conditions or the rock mass is easily weathered (it is the case of several rock
types containing clay), it can be assumed to equal 1.05.
41
9.6.2 Sub - coefficients for the driving forces

The coefficient of the driving force can be evaluated with
D = M O [9.11]
where sub coefficients are respectively related to the slope morphology and the presence of
external loads difficult to be evaluated.
In details, the meaning of the coefficient is the following:
Table 4 - Recap of the safety coefficients for the reduction of the destabilizing forces and of the
resistances
SUB DESCRIPTION VAL.

FACT.
If the superficial instability thickness is defined by:
- geomechanical survey:
T
- rough/visual estimation: 1.20
Stbilizing forces
1.30
If the rock unit weight is:
g - homogeneous: 1.00
- not-homogeneous (i.e. flysch): 1.05
If the rock:
- does not present any anomalous behavior (i.e. compact rock): 1.00
B
- is subjected to erosion and/or environmental condition that can create
weakness of the rock mass (i.e. weathering rock): 1.05
If the morphology of the rock is:
- regular (the mesh lies in better contact with the slope, thus the rock 1.10
Driving forces
M movement are limited):

- rough (the mesh cannot be in adherence with the slope, thus the unstable
block can easily move): 1.30
If there are/are not external loads acting on the system:
O - not significant loads are applied: 1.00
- additional external loads are applied (i.e. snow, ice, vegetation, etc.) 1.20
M describes the uncertainties related to slope morphology. If the slope is very rough, then the
mesh facing is not in continuous contact with the surface, and the unstable blocks can freely
move; in that case a safety coefficient of 1.30 should be applied. If the slope surface is even,
the mesh facing lies in better contact with the ground; in the case, the unstable block
movement is limited, and a safety coefficient of 1.10 is used (Figure 26 and Figure 26).
O describes the uncertainties related to additional loads applied on the facing system. The
additional loads could be related to the presence of ice or snow, or to vegetation growing on
the slope. Usually it is assumed to equal 1.00, but if severe conditions are foreseen, it can be
assumed to equal 1.20.
42
Figure 22 - Thickness of the unstable slope "s" evaluated with geomechanical survey (left), or with
rough estimation of the detachment niches and size boulders (right)
Figure 23 – Rock masses with different lithology; left: non homogeneous rock mass (for example
flysch); right: homogeneous rock mass (for example mudstone)
Figure 24 – Left: the weathering quickly denudates the anchors. Right: despite of the heavy jointed
rock mass, the weathering is slow. If the weathering velocity is negligible, the anchor length “Le1” and
“Le2” into the sound rock is enough to hold the unstable surficial portion for a long time.
43
Figure 25 - Left: even slope morphology: the mesh lies in contact to the slope surface. Right: uneven
slope morphology: the mesh touches the slope surface in few points
Figure 26 - Left: even slope morphology: the mesh lies in contact to the slope surface. Right: uneven
slope morphology: the mesh touches the slope surface in few points
9.6.3 From FOS to FOSR

The coefficients for the resisting and the driving forces (formula [9.10] and [9.11]) can be
combined into the formula [9.3]
FOS ≈ FOSR Q g B M O [9.12]
We define FOSMIN the minimum required factor of safety that the designer has to reach (for
instance, in accordance with a certain national standard, the minimum safety factor - FOS - must be
1.50). It must be
FOSMIN ≈ FOSR R D = FOSR Q g B M O [9.13a]
Then, in order to satisfy the goal of the designer, it must be
FOSR ≥ FOSMIN / ( Q g B M O ) ≈ FOSMIN / R D [9.13b]
The eq. 9.13b allows appreciating the effectiveness of the interventions from point of view both the
ultimate limit state (FOSR) and admissible stress analysis (FOS).
44
The designer can appreciate how much the FOS is larger than the FOSMIN
 = 100 (FOS – FOSMIN) / FOSMIN = [%] [9.14a]
 = 100 (FOSR Q g B M O – FOSMIN) / FOSMIN = [%] [9.14b]
 = 100 (FOSR R D – FOSMIN) / FOSMIN = [%] [9.14c]
For instance by posing FOSMIN = 1.50 (see also formula [9.8]) and FOSR = 1.10, the following
combinations are possible (Table 5):
Table 5 - Safety factor and coefficients applied to the stabilizing and driving forces – Case with FOSR =
1.10 and FosMIN = 1.50
Suggested
Variable Formula Min Max Average
minimum
Geomech survey T 1.20 1.30 1.25 1.25

Rock weight g 1.00 1.05 1.03 1.00
Weathering B 1.00 1.05 1.03 1.00
Coeff. Stab. Forces R = T g B 1.20 1.43 1.31 1.25
Slope morphology M 1.10 1.30 1.20 1.20
External load O 1.00 1.20 1.10 1.00
Coeff. Driving Forces D = M O 1.10 1.56 1.32 1.20
FOSMIN 1.50 1.50 1.50 1.50
FOSR 1.10 1.10 1.10 1.10

FOS = FOSRD R 1.45 2.46 1.91 1.65
= 100 (FOS- FOSMIN) / FOSMIN -3% 64% 27% 10%
Table 5 shows the followings:

- The suggested Q , g , B , M and O (Table 4) almost always gives reach the recommended
safety factor FOSMIN = 1.5 and satisfy Eurocode 7 that requires R1 = 1.10. The lowest values
of the suggested range of Q , g , B , M gives value R1 = 1.10, but FOS = 1.45, 3% lower than
the minimum recommended;
- In the case of large uncertainties Q , g , B , M and O largely increase the strength of the
system ( = 64%);
- In order to reach FOSMIN = 1.50 according to the suggested good practice (see paragraph
9.5.1), it is enough setting the two basic sub coefficients to the average value of the suggested
range:
✓ Q (it is referred to the Geomechanical survey) to 1.25, so that R = 1.25.
✓ M (it is referred to Slop5e morphology to 1.2, so that D = 1.20.
45
10 BIBLIOGRAPHY
Concerning the meaning of “passive” and “active” interventions, and the consequences in the
calculation approach, the basic info can be found on:
• Hoek E. Bray J.W. (1981) Rock slope engineering – Institution of Mining and
Metallurgy, London (specially appendix 3)
• Turner A.K, Schuster R.L. Editors (2012) Rockfall Characterization and control –
Transportation Research Board, Washington D.C. (specially pag. 570)
• Giani G. P. (1992), Rock slope stability analysis – Balkema, Rotterdam (specially page
337-339).
• Wyllie D.C., e Mah C.W., (2004): Rock slope engineering civil and mining - 4th edition
– Spon Press London and New York.
• Turner A.K, Schuster R.L. Editors (2012) Rockfall Characterization and control –
Transportation Research Board, Washington D.C., pag. 570).
Concerning the back analysis concept, some info can be found in:
• Abramson L. W., T.S. Lee, S. Sharma. G.M. Boice, (2002) Slope stability and
stabilization methods. Wiley, New York (specially pag. 51-53)
• Turner A.K., Shuster R.L. (editors) (1996), Landslides investigation and mitigation.
TRB special report 247(pag. 363-365)
General references about the design standard Eurocode:
• EN 1997-1 Eurocode 7, geotechnical design, general rules.
Extended info about the meaning of JRC and JCS can be downloaded from the following
bibliography and web sites:
• https://www.rocscience.com/documents/hoek/corner/Practical-Rock-Engineering-Full-
Text.pdf
• Chapter 5.5 of R. Goodman – Introduction to Rock mechanics, second edition, 1989,
Wiley.
• Scale effect or sampling bias, Barton Nick, 1990 –
(http://www.nickbarton.com/downloads_01.asp)
46
Concerning the properties of meshes and anchor, the basic info can be found on:
• Bertolo P. , Giacchetti G., 2008 - An approach to the design of nets and nails for
surficial rock slope revetment – in Interdisciplinary Workshop on Rockfall Protection,
June 23-25 2008, Morshach, Switzerland.
• Bertolo P., Ferraiolo F., Giacchetti G., Oggeri C., Peila D., e Rossi B., (2007):
Metodologia per prove in vera grandezza su sistemi di protezione corticale dei versanti
– GEAM Geoingegneria Ambientale e mineraria, Anno XLIV, N. 2, Maggio-Agosto
2007.
• Bonati A., e Galimberti V., (2004): Valutazione sperimentale di sistemi di difesa attiva
dalla caduta massi – in atti “Bonifica dei versanti rocciosi per la difesa del territorio” -
Trento 2004, Peila D. Editor.
• Brunet G., Giacchetti G., (2012) - Design Software for Secured Drapery- Proceedings
of the 63rd Highway Geology Symposium, May 7-10, 2012, Redding, California.
• Ferrero A.M., Giani G.P., Migliazza M., (1997): Interazione tra elementi di rinforzo di
discontinuità in roccia - atti “Il modello geotecnico del sottosuolo nella progettazione
delle opere di sostegno e degli scavi” – IV Conv. Naz. Ricercatori universitari –
Hevelius pp. 259 – 275.
• LCPC, (2001) : Parades contre les instabilités rocheuses - Guide technique - Paris.
• Phear A., Dew C., Ozsoy B., Wharmby N.J., Judge J., e Barley A.D., (2005): Soil
nailing – Best practice guidance - CIRIA C637, London, 2005.
• Ribacchi R., Graziani A. e Lembo Fazio A. (1995). Analisi del comportamento dei
sistemi di rinforzo passivi in roccia, XIX Convegno Nazionale di Geotecnica: Il
Miglioramento e il Rinforzo dei Terreni e delle Rocce, Pavia, pp. 239-268
• Goodman, R.(1989) - Rock Mechanics – Second edition. John Wiley.
• Hoek E. (2000). Course Notes for Rock Engineering (CIV 529S) in

www.rocscience.com
47
ANNEXE 1: QUICK DETERMINATION OF JRC AND JCS
The value of JRC (Joint Roughness Coefficient) can be measured by the Barton comb and
comparing the roughness profile to the typical of the table (from Barton, N.R. and Choubey, V. ,
1977 ).
The value of JCS (Joint Compressive Strength) can be measured with the Schmidt hammer, or in
lack o information, deduced from the uniaxial compressive strength (UCS = c) of the rock.
The following table gives the compressive frame of the most common values (from Appendix 3 of
Palmstrom A., (1995) – RMi - a system for characterization of rock masses for rock engineering
purposes. Ph. Thesis, University of Oslo, Norway. In www.rockmass.net).
48
49
ANNEXE 2: BOND STRESS
The bond stress should always be appreciated on site by mean of pull out tests. In lack of
information, designers refer to typical values in technical literalture.
The following table shows the approximate relationship between rock type and working bond shear
strength for cement grout anchorages (from pag 331 of Wyllie D.C. (1999) – Foundations on Rock
– Second edition – E & FN SPON, London and New York.)
Obviously the bond stress depends on the quality of the grouting that should be not weaker than 25
MPa (poor quality grouting). Typically the ratio water / cement (quantity in weight) for cement 32
MPy is 0.5; in the practice of work yard 1 m3 of mix is prepared with 600 kg of cement 32 MPa
powder. The cement should be improved with anti shrinkage additive.
The following graph shows the effect of water content on the compressive strength, bleed and flow
resistance of grout mixes (Littlejohn and Bruce, 1975, from pag 322 of Wyllie D.C. (1999) –
Foundations on Rock – Second edition – E & FN SPON, London and New York).
See also:
50
 Littlejohn, G.S. and Bruce, D.A. (1975a) Rock anchors — state of the art. Part 1: Design.
Ground Eng., 8(4), 41–8. 
 Littlejohn, G.S. and Bruce, D.A. (1975b) Rock anchors - state of the art. Part 2:
Construction. Ground Eng., 8(4), 36–45.
   Littlejohn, G.S. and Bruce, D.A. (1976) Rock anchors — state of the art. Part 3: Stressing
and testing. Ground Eng., 9(5), 331–41.
51
ANNEXE 3: CORROSION OF THE ANCHOR
The crown of corrosion of the anchor should be estimated in accordance with the national standard.
In lack of information can be estimated by mean of the French standard NF 94-270 – Annexe F,
points F.2.1.1., F.2.2.2 and F. 2.3.2.
The standard allows foreseeing both the average and maximum crown of corrosion of the non
coated bars; the average corrosion is applied for estimating the tensile resistance at the yield limit,
whereas the maximum one for the ultimate tensile strength.
Resistance of the steel bar at the yield limit:

Rtdy = (1 – ynf S/S0) S0 fy / M0 [A3.1]
Resistance of the steel bar at the ultimate tensile limit:
Rtdr = (1 – rnf K S/S0) S0 fr / M2 [A3.1]
With:
S0 Area of the steel bar at the initial time
S Average area of the corroded section for yield stress
 = 2  ext CR Slifen
ext External diameter of the steel bar [mm]
CR Corrosion ratio for the first year [mm/y]
Level of
Environment Corrosion
aggression [m/y]
low 25.00
medium 37.50
high 50.00
Slife Design span life of the steel bar [y]

n Reduction coefficient for the corrosion velocity after the first year equal to 0.65 [-]
M2 Reduction coefficient for the ultimate tensile limit, equal to 1.25 [-]
M0 Reduction coefficient for the yield tensile equal to 1.00 limit [-]
rnf Reduction coefficient for the ultimate tensile limit, equal to 1.8 [-]
ynf Reduction coefficient for the yield tensile limit, equal to 1.50 [-]
fy Tensile stress at yield [MPa]
fr Tensile stress at rupture [MPa]
52
K Increasing coefficient related to the non uniformity of the surface of the bar [-]
In accordance with the standard NF 94-270, the resistance of the bar is the minimum between Rtdr
and Rtdy.
The thickness of the crown of corrosion is determined as:
= 2 k S0 / (4 (2  ext + (ext2  /4 ) k S0)0.5).
53
ANNEXE 4: MEANING OF PASSIVE AND ACTIVE INTERVENTIONS
In the pin drapery the anchors and the mesh cooperate in order to minimize the falling of debris and
improve the slope stability. Since the secured drapery is made of passive components, it is passive
itself. Despite the strong marketing of pseudo scientific papers (they imposed the idea that “high
tensile steel mesh” means “capacity to develop stabilizing forces”), now the technicians start to
face the reality: the meshes are not active.
About this aspect, in the middle of the polemic “active” versus “passive” J. Duffy (Californian
Department of Transportations) did not toke sides, but simply watched the reality: “Where the
mesh covers slope concavities, it can be difficult to achieve mesh contact with the slope and even
more difficult to tension the mesh. On uniform slopes, anchors are often countersunk in an attempt
to tension the mesh. Active forces is most easily imparted over slope convexities. Recent
inspections of secured draperies in California and Washington State fond, despite concerted
construction efforts, that the mesh commonly was not in contact with the slope or could be easily
lifted from the slope. These findings demonstrated that large portions of the installations were
providing only passive restraint for rockfall and were not actively stabilizing the slope face as
intended” (from Turner A.K, Schuster R.L. Editors (2012) Rockfall Characterization and control –
Transportation Research Board, Washington D.C., pag. 570).
Since we are operating with passive interventions, the designer is facing with the first basic
question: is there any difference between the formula used for the calculation of active and passive
interventions? Why should I not use my spreadsheet for tie back anchors in order to calculate nails?
Both of them are steel bars in the rock!
If we consider that the tie back anchors are pre stressed in order to develop the stabilizing force
before the instability happens, the difference between these and the anchors (nails) became clear:
the active interventions develops force before the displacement of the rock mass takes places,
whereas the passive one after. The difference between active and passive intervention is clearly
recapped by the next diagram.
54
Diagrams showing stress-strain behavior of active and passive supports
Concerning the difference between the formula used for the calculation of active and passive
interventions, we directly quote the fundamental Hoek E. Bray J.W. (1981):
“(…) The factor of safety of a reinforced rock slope has been defined as
𝑅𝑒𝑠𝑖𝑠𝑡𝑖𝑛𝑔 𝐹𝑜𝑟𝑐𝑒𝑠
𝐹𝑂𝑆 = [1]
𝐷𝑖𝑠𝑡𝑢𝑟𝑏𝑖𝑛𝑔 𝑓𝑜𝑟𝑐𝑒𝑠 − 𝑇 sin 𝜃
In other words, the force T is assumed to act in such a manner as to decrease the disturbing forces.
(…) A second definition is equally applicable:
𝑅𝑒𝑠𝑖𝑠𝑡𝑖𝑛𝑔 𝐹𝑜𝑟𝑐𝑒𝑠 + 𝑇
𝐹𝑂𝑆 = [2]
𝐷𝑖𝑠𝑡𝑢𝑟𝑏𝑖𝑛𝑔 𝑓𝑜𝑟𝑐𝑒𝑠
In this definition the force T increases the resisting forces.

Which definition should be used? (…) There is some justification for using equation 1 when T is
an active force, ie the cable is tensioned before any movement of the rock block or wedge has taken
place. On the other hand, if T is a passive force, applied by untensioned bars or cables, the resisting
force can only be developed after some movement has taken place. In this case (…) equation 2 is
more appropriate.” (italic characters are of the Authors).
The reader can note that taking the same input, formula 2 is more conservative than formula 1.
Macro 1 uses exactly the approach of equation 2. The equation 2 is written in a different way since
Macro 1 uses the coefficient for the reduction of the resisting forces and the increasing of the
disturbing forces (Eurocode 7 approach), and not the global safety factor FOS.
55
56
ANNEXE 5: HOW JCS AND JRC AFFECT THE ANCHOR
EFFECTIVENSS
MACRO 1 uses JCS and JRC only in the calculation of the stabilizing contribute of the anchor.
No other is implemented use in the calculation process.
Meaning and determination of JRC

The Joint Roughness Coefficient JRC is a pure value that can be estimated by comparing the
appearance of a discontinuity surface with standard profiles published by Barton and others. One of
the most useful of these profile sets was published by Barton and Choubey (1977) and is
reproduced in Figure 1 and 2.
The appearance of a discontinuity surface is “measured” by mean of the Barton comb (Figure 3).
The appearance of the discontinuity surface is compared visually with the profiles shown and the
JRC value corresponding to the profile which most closely matches that of the discontinuity surface
is chosen. In the case of small scale laboratory specimens, the scale of the surface roughness will
be approximately the same as that of the profiles illustrated. However, on the field the length of the
surface of interest may be several metres or even tens of metres and the JRC value must be
estimated for the full scale surface.
Figure 1 – Roughness profiles and corresponding Figure 2 – Alternative method for estimating JRC
JRC values (After Barton and Choubey 1977) from measurements of surface roughness
amplitude from a straight edge (Barton 1982)
57
Figure 3 – Barton comb

Meaning and determination of JCS
JCS is the hardness of rock measured on the joint surface. It equivalent to the UCS (c) (uniaxial
compressive strength), but the UCS is measured on a rock sample. Because of the weathering of the
sliding surfaces, it is convenient to assume JCS = 1/3 UCS
Suggested methods for estimating the joint wall compressive strength were published by the ISRM
(1978). The use of the Schmidt rebound hammer for estimating joint wall compressive strength was
proposed by Deere and Miller (1966) (Figure 4).
Figure 4 - Schmidt hardness (hammer) for measuring the joint wall compressive strength
Further notes about JRC and JCS

a) The determination of JRC and JCS can be carried out with visual estimation (JRC) and
technical literature (JCS). Obviously designer judgment is always requested since these
parameters are highly site-sensitive.
b) The values of JRC and JCS (determined as per aforesaid procedure) must be corrected to
consider the ratio between the size of the measured samples and the size of the joints (scale
effect, Barton and Bandis – 1982):
58
𝐿𝑛 −0.02∙𝐽𝑅𝐶0
𝐽𝑅𝐶𝑛 = 𝐽𝑅𝐶0 ∙ ( )
𝐿0
where JRCo, and Lo (length) refer to 100 mm laboratory scale samples and JRCn, and Ln refer
to in situ block sizes.
Because of the greater possibility of weaknesses in a large surface, it is likely that the average
joint wall compressive strength (JCS) decreases with the increase of the dimensions of the
joint. The scale corrections for JCS is defined by the following relationship:
𝐿𝑛 −0.03∙𝐽𝑅𝐶0
𝐽𝐶𝑆𝑛 = 𝐽𝐶𝑆0 ∙ ( )
𝐿0
where JCSo and Lo (length) refer to 100 mm laboratory scale samples and JCSn and Ln refer to
in situ block sizes.
JCS and JRC in Macro 1

The stabilizing contribution of the anchors depends on the incidence angle between the bar axis and
the sliding plane, and on the dilatancy of the sliding joint (figure 5)
Figure 5 – Relationship between the incidence of the bar on the sliding plane bar axis and dilatancy of
the joint
The dilatancy of the joint depends on the roughness JRC and the resistance JCS of the joint itself.
In the graph shown above (Figure 6) the blue line is referred to a smooth joint, whereas the red one
to a very rough plane. The graph makes evident that:
a) A rough joint improves the stabilizing capacity of anchors (Fy) and
59
b) The dilatancy gives the largest improvement of the stabilizing contribution when the
incidence angle of the bars (0) is close 0° (pure shear condition).
Macro 1 uses JRC and JCS for calculating the dilatancy on the sliding joint. Knowing the values of
JRC and JCS the user can operate with any curve in the range between the blue and red lines graph
(figure 6). The user who doesn’t know JRC and JCS should use only the worst case scenario, so
the blue line, that is the most conservative hypothesis.
The Barton Bandis rupture criteria

A natural discontinuity surface in hard rock is never as smooth as a sawn or ground surface of the
type used for determining the basic friction angle. The undulations and asperities on a natural joint
surface have a significant influence on its shear behaviour. Generally, this surface roughness
increases the shear strength of the surface, and this strength increase is extremely important in
terms of the stability of excavations in rock.
Shear displacement in a joint occurs as a result of the surfaces moving up the inclined faces,
causing dilation (an increase in volume) of the specimen (Figure 6).
Figure 6 - Shear strength of saw-tooth specimens.
At high normal stresses, the strength of the intact material will be exceeded and the teeth will tend
to break off, resulting in a shear strength behaviour which is more closely related to the intact
material strength than to the frictional characteristics of the surfaces (see Figure 7).
60
Figure 7 – Rupture of the asperity and dilation of the joint with the dispecement.
Barton (1973, 1976) studied the behaviour of natural rock joints and proposed that equation (4)
could be re-written as:
𝐽𝐶𝑆
𝜏 = 𝜎𝑛 ∙ 𝑡𝑎𝑛 (𝜑𝑟 + 𝐽𝑅𝐶𝑙𝑜𝑔10 ( ))
𝜎𝑛
where JRC is the joint roughness coefficient, JCS is the joint wall compressive strength, r is the
residual friction angle.
The cohesion is not considered in the Barton Bandis Approach. The formula can be re written as :
𝜏 = 𝜎𝑛 ∙ 𝑡𝑎𝑛(𝜑𝑟 + 𝛿)
Where the dilatancy angle  is defined as
𝐽𝐶𝑆
𝛿 = 𝐽𝑅𝐶 ∙ 𝑙𝑜𝑔10 ( )
𝜎𝑛
In the practice and acting in favour of simplicity, Macro 1 assumes that the dilatancy is:
𝐽𝑅𝐶 𝐽𝐶𝑆
𝛿= ∙ 𝑙𝑜𝑔10 ( )
3 𝜎𝑛
61
Sensitivity of FOSR to JRC and JCS

In Macro 1 the resisting force of the steel bar onto the sliding direction (Fy) is determined with the
general formula:
0.5
𝑚2
1+
𝐹𝑦 = [ 16 ] 𝑁𝑒
𝑚2
1+
4
where:
Ne = working tensile resistance of the bar in elastic condition
m = cotan (o + )
= dilatancy of the sliding surface
o =incidence angle (measured between of the bar axis and the normal to the sliding
plane).
Considering the previous relationships between dilatancy, JRC and JRC, Fy depends on the
following factors (figure 8):
Figure 8 – Factors affecting the stabilizing resistance of the anchor.
Fy basically depends on dilatancy, tensile resistance of the bar and incidence angle (measured
between the bar axis and normal to the sliding plane). Posing Fy equals to 100 kN (such value
allows to appreciate the percentile variance). The typical relationship between incidence angle and
dilatancy are represented in figure 10 (see also figure 5). If the incidence angle is 0°, and the sliding
surface is smooth (JRC = 0 - 5) then Fy is next to 50% of the tensile resistance, whereas if the
sliding surface is very rough (JRC 15 – 20) Fy becomes close to 55% of the tensile resistance.
When the angle is close to 70° (bar almost parallel to the sliding plane) the value of Fy is close to
the maximum tensile resistance of the bar and the roughness JRC becomes irrelevant.
From figure 10, we can roughly conclude that when the incidence angle is smaller than 20°, each
grade of dilatancy improves 1% the value of Fy.
62
Figure 9 – Resistance of the bar Fy versus incidence angle of the bar (angle between axis of the
bar and normal to the sliding plane) for different levels of dilatancy. The smaller the incidence
angle is, the larger the sensitivity of the bar contribution
Figure 10 – Resistance of del bar Fy versus thickness of the unstable zone for different levels of
roughness. When the roughness is close to 0.0 the thickness of the unstable zone does not affect
the resistance contribution of the bar. When the thickness is smaller than 0.8 m, the smaller the
thickness the higher the bar contribution Fy.
63
Figure 11 – Resistance of del bar Fy versus thickness of the unstable zone for different levels of
compressive strength of the rock . When the thickness is close to 0.8 m the anchor reaches the
maximum contribution Fy.
Figure 12 – Resistance of del bar Fy versus roughness of the joint for different thickness of the
unstable zone. When the roughness is larger than 5, the the anchor contribution Fy decreases.
64
Figure 13 – Resistance of del bar Fy versus inclination of the bar to the horizontal. When
inclination is larger than 5°, the anchor contribution Fy decreases. The anchors are more
effective when they are placed close to the horizontal.
65

MACRO1 - Reference - Manual Macaferri

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

MACRO1 - Reference - Manual Macaferri

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

MACRO1 - Reference - Manual Macaferri

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

MACRO 1 - THEORY AND BACKGROUND – VERSION 2.

9.5 Factor of safety and resistance of the system ...................................................................... 40

LIST OF THE FIGURES

LISTS OF THE TABLES

Table 1 – Set of coefficients A1 (form table A.3 of EN1997-1) ...................................................... 38

 Inclination of the most critical joints set [°]

  Working rate of the anchor [%]

T  Working rate of the mesh, tensile resistance [%]

d  Working rate of the mesh, deflection under punch stress [%]

BD Sum of the driving forces acting against the mesh [kN]

Li Length of the anchor in the instable rock mass [m]

Ne Working tensile resistance of the bar in elastic condition [KPa]

Figure 1 – Sketch of secured drapery

3.1 Cooperation between anchors and mesh

3.2 Goals of the design

Macro 1 is aimed at calculating following performances of the secured drapery:

3.3 Design approach

3.4 Conceptual algorithm of the calculation

Figure 3 - Conceptual algorithm for the calculation of anchors and mesh

4 RESISTANCE OF THE ANCHORS

Figure 4 – Anchor under shear stress

m = cotan (o + ) [4.3]

= dilatancy of the sliding surface

Figure 5 - Unstable block with anchor

JCS0 = joint compression strength referred to the scale joint sample

Finally the design resistance of the anchor bar becomes:

A = coefficient of reduction for the steel resistance.

5 STABILIZING CONTRIBUTION OF THE ANCHOR

5.1 General considerations

Resisting forces = W sin 

Figure 7 – Elemental block consolidated by 1 anchor.

5.2 Analysis of the forces

EV = E CV Vertical component of the external [5.4]

WH = W CH Horizontal component of the instable mass [5.5]

WV = W CV Vertical component of the instable mass [5.6]

ET = E cos  D Slope parallel comp. of the external force [5.8]

EN = - E sin  / R (tan φ) Slope Normal comp. of the external force [5.15]

The stabilizing force required for the equilibrium becomes:

stab,d  DESIGN DRIVING -  DESIGN STABILIZING =  D,d -  S,d [5.21]

related seismic components components

6.1 Raster of anchors

Figure 10 – Typical pattern of anchors

6.2 Slope and anchor stability

6.3 Number of anchors

7 EVALUATION OF NAIL LENGTH

Then minimum theoretical length of the anchor is

T = reduction coefficient of the adhesion grout – rock In lack of test,

And the length in the weathered mass is

8.1 Preliminary remarks

8.2 Mesh deflection under punch load and scale effect

Figure 12 – Deflection of the mesh under punching load

8.3 Actions and resistances on the meshes

Figure 15 - Deformed mesh with forces

8.4 Weight of the unstable block

The weight of the block is

iy tan(β-α) [cos (90-β-θ0) + sin (90-β-θ0)]

8.5 Analysis of the unstable block

BV = Bk CV Vertical seismic component of the instable block [8.8]

BHT = Bk CH cos  Slope parallel seismic component of BH,k [8.10]