SlideShare una empresa de Scribd logo
1 de 44
ROCKFALL BARRIER
FALLING VELOCITY A=Broken barrier A = Sacrificial Barrier  B = Effective barrier Higher velocities (i.e. 35-40 m/s) are assumed to make one barrier collapse under the impact .  In such case multiple barrier lines shall be used: the first sacrificial line will break dissipating the block, the second barrier will stop it. Barriers are certified for velocities up to 30 m/s.
FALLING ENERGY E nergy of  a falling rock: E  =  E   +  E k E k  =  translational energy = ½ M v 2  M  = block mass v  = translational velocity E    = rotational energy = ½ I   2  I  = inertia moment    = angular rotational velocity  The most effective energy is the translational one  which is normally 80% (or higher) than the total kinetic energy. The rotational energy is around 10-20% of the total energy and is  related to the shape of the block.
FALLING ENERGY E = potential energy m = mass  g = gravity 9.81 m/s 2 h = falling height  h E    1/ 3 m g h
WHERE TO PLACE THE BARRIER  What to consider: ,[object Object],[object Object],[object Object],- The most favorable morphology should be chosen: Normally barriers are less efficient if they are built in ditches or at the slope bottom; - The deformation of flexible barriers can be several meters, sometimes also bigger than 10 m: the structure cannot be placed close to the road or the infrastructure to protect; - The maintenance procedure should be also considered: it is also important to consider the site accessibility.  A B C D
THE “VERTICAL” MORPHOLOGY OF THE POSITION WHERE TO INSTALL THE BARRIER: WHAT IS TO BE CONSIDERED ? ,[object Object],[object Object],[object Object],Normally the barrier should be further than 6 m (20 ft) from the road or infrastructures. The barrier doesn’t have to be placed at the bottom of the slope, it can be placed higher in order to catch the rocks. SOIL WALL WALL BOULDER SOIL ROAD D C B A
HOW TO ANALYSE THE FALLING OF THE ROCKS  - Site observations; - Numerical modeling ; THE SITE OBSERVATIONS NORMALLY GIVE THE POSSIBILITY TO APPRECCIATE THE EFFECTS OF THE FALLING OF THE ROCKS. NUMERICAL MODELLING CAN DESCRIBE THE FALLING TRACKS, SUGGESTING THE KNOWLEDGE OF THE PARAMETERS TO BE USED DURING THE FINAL DESIGN OF THE PROTECTION.
THE PARAMETERS USED FROM THE AVAILABLE DESIGN PARAMETERS  ,[object Object],[object Object],[object Object],[object Object],[object Object],[object Object],[object Object],[object Object],Good input data can approximate the falling rocks tracks, speed, energy and heights of impact with a realistic approximation. N = axis perpendicular to the slope T =axis tangent to the slope
NUMERICAL MODELLING RESULTS ( IN 2 DIMENSIONS )   The most relevant results obtained from the numerical model are: Topographic section with the rock trajectory
Topographic section with the end point of the trajectory
Topographic section with the trajectory related to the maximum falling heights
Topographic section showing the maximum falling energies
WHAT MUST BE INCLUDED IN A PROJECT   ,[object Object],[object Object],[object Object],[object Object],[object Object],TOGETHER WITH THE OTHER FACTORS ( FREQUENCY OF THE FAILURES, RISK FOR SURROUNDING ROADS AND INFRASTRUCTURES ) ALLOW TO PREPARE THE FINAL PROJECT AND THE  PRIORITIES FOR THE DIFFERENT PHASES OF THE INTERVENTION.
[object Object],[object Object],The limits of non deformable barriers
F   t  =  M   v The capacity of a “non deformable” barrier is related to the elastic deformability of its components. Because its components are stiff (cable, post), the “non deformable” barriers must slow down the velocity (  v) in a very short time (  t).  The force F of impact F  =  M   v /   t  is very high. Then the non deformable barrier break at very low energy level. The limits of non deformable barriers
Rockfall barriers   New barrier series according to ETAG 27  GUIDELINE FOR EUROPEAN TECHNICAL APPROVAL of FALLING ROCK PROTECTION KITS  - Draft  - Edition November 2006 OM CTR barriers satisfy a wide range of energy levels   ETAG 27 and performances Energy level  Velocity Boulder Volume Name of Barrier 500 kJ 25 m/s 0.6 m 3 CTR 05/07/B 1 000 kJ 25 m/s 1.2 m 3 CTR 10/04/B 2 000 kJ  25 m/s 2.4 m 3 CTR 20/04/A (ring panel) 2 000 kJ  25 m/s 2.4 m 3 CTR 20/04/B (cable panel) 3 000 kJ 25 m/s 3.5 m 3 CTR 30/04/B 5 000 kJ 25 m/s 5.8 m 3 OM CTR 50/07/A
ETAG 27  require 2 test: OM CTR barriers are certified both for MEL and SEL tests ETAG 27 and performances MEL = Maximum Energy Level  The barrier has to catch a boulder with the maximum energy level. The residual height of the panel after the impact indicates the quality level of the barrier. SEL = Service Energy Level The barrier has to catch two impacts of a boulder with 1/3 of the MEL energy without damage. The residual height after the first impact must be greater than 70%. The second impact needs only to catch the boulder.
ETAG 27 and performances Lateral view of a falling rock protection kit   OM CTR barriers do not need down slope cable
0°         90°  -20°            +20° Nominal height of the barrier Residual height (after impact) OM CTR barriers give the best residual height ETAG 27 and performances  
OM CTR barriers give the best residual height ETAG 27 and performances Producer of 3000 kJ ISOFER AG GEBRUGG AG CTR  Name of the barrier ISOSTOP 3000 kJ RXI 300 CTR 30/04/A Nominal Height 5.23 m  4.79 m  5.00 m Residual height after 100% Energy  49.14 % (5.23 m) 62.23 % (3.18 m) 66.00 % (3.30 m) Producer of 2000 kJ ISOFER AG GEBRUGG AG CTR  CTR  Name of the barrier ISOSTOP 2000 kJ RXI 2000 CTR 20/04/A CTR 20/04/B Nominal Height 4.80 m  5.11 m  4.00 m 5.00 m Residual height after 100% Energy  54.79 % (2.63 m) 62.23 % (3.18 m) 71.25 % (2.85 m) 73.00 % (3.65 m)
Falling rock protection kit classes A classification for residual height for MEL is also foreseen as   follows: Category A  : Residual Height ≥ 50 % nominal height Category B : 30% nominal height < Residual Height < 50 % nominal height Category C : Residual Height ≤ 30 % nominal height OM CTR barriers are classified in “A” category They are safer with respect to the height of impact. ETAG 27 and performances
ETAG 27 and performances OM CTR barriers gives the lowest elongation unload position Maximum elongation during the impact  More flexibility when installing close to infrastructure   Net before impact
ETAG 27 and performances OM CTR barriers give the lowest elongation More flexibility when installing close to infrastructure PRODUCER OF 2000 kJ  ISOFER AG GEBRUGG AG CTR  CTR  Name of the barrier ISOSTOP 2000 kJ RXI 2000 CTR 20/04/A CTR 20/04/B Max deformation with Max Energy Level (dynamic condition) no one indication no one indication 4.65 m 4.30 m Residual deformation after Max Energy Level (static condition) 6.80 m 6.70 m 4.20 m 4.05 m PRODUCER OF 3000 kJ  ISOFER AG GEBRUGG AG CTR  Name of the barrier ISOSTOP 3000 kJ RXI 300 CTR 30/04/A Max deformation with Max Energy Level (dynamic condition) no one indication no one indication 5.20 m Residual deformation after Max Energy Level (static condition) 7.40 m 6.60 m 4.60 m
Block size Energy FIELD TEST Vertical field test Inclined field test  Falling velocity   >=  25 m/s OM CTR barriers are tested on vertical field ETAG 27 and performances
ETAG 27 and performances The force shall be measured during the entire time of impact   The field tests done by OM CTR measure the force acting on the stream cable  and on the base plate.  No other manufacturer measures shear and pressure forces acting on the base plate
The field test is conducted on a barrier with 3 modules in a  straight line,  that is why 3 modulus is the suggested minimum length of a barrier Configuration of the Crash test barrier ETAG 27 and performances Plan view Front view Lateral post Intermediate post Lateral post Intermediate post
1000 KJ Barrier Test
ETAG 27 and performances
OM CTR barriers allow some tolerance when positioning the post: more flexibility when installing on rough slope. Easy to install R 15°  (*) Plan view Front view (*) the value can be increased using lateral anchors or downslope anchor. 10.0 m 0.50 m
Length Easy to install ,[object Object],[object Object],[object Object],[object Object],The best performances are developed by barriers 50 – 70 m long Yes Proposal L = 60 m + 50 m Yes Proposal L  = 110 m Exception Proposal  L < 30 m
Easy to install Note: The correct design and on site positioning of barriers is typically site specific. Up slope down slope Up slope down slope Plan view The barrier works in a good way but could require  some down slope anchors to stabilize the structure The barrier could work in a bad way but doesn’t require any devices to stabilize the structure
OM CTR barriers can be installed both on vertical and inclined slopes. Easy to install
Easy to install OM CTR barriers do not require downstream cables  This allows faster and cheaper installation. Down slope Up slope
Easy to install OM CTR barriers are simple to install  Taking into account the experiences on job sites, the assembling of the OM CTR barriers has been simplified by technical solutions. E.g. many connections are directly arranged in the factory.
OM CTR barriers are simple to install  A number of field crash tests   were performed which indicates the barrier has been designed and manufactured in the most economical and effective way (e.g. 15 for 500 kJ).  No one component of the barrier is oversized (e.g. diameter of the cables).  Many demanding jobs have been reduced (e.g. number of clamps) . Useless components have been removed (e.g. thimbles).  Easy to install
Easy to install OM CTR barriers are fast and economical to install  The standing up of the post is helped with a steel arm. The assembling of the posts by helicopter is faster. It requires one fifth of the time usually employed for other barriers.
Easy to install OM CTR barriers are more economical to install  The forces measured on the base post are low. OM CTR barriers don’t require big plinths. The plinths are  aimed to level and smooth the ground only.
Easy to install OM CTR barriers are easy to install  Basically it is enough to use steel bars or miropiles for the foundations. Different base plates will be adopted. The plinth levels the ground. When ordering the barrier don’t forget to specify the kind of soils
Easy to install OM CTR barriers are fast to install  OM CTR barriers has been created by people that assemble barriers in the field. The post can double up as ladder  (*) (*)  not for CTR 500 kJ where the posts are done by tubular elements
OM CTR barriers ensure high performances  The friction brake is rasped by the rope running inside two steel plates. So the brake changes its behavior during the impact. In OM CTR barriers the brake system works by deformation and not by friction. This ensures the effectiveness of the system during the impact and in the most varying environmental  situations (rust on cables, temperature, changes in the galvanization, etc.) Technology
Technology OM CTR barriers are easy to maintain  The pin at the base of the post is designed as a fuse.  It releases the post before the foundation can be destroyed. In this way the foundation is saved even if the boulder hardly hits the base of the post.
OM CTR barriers give high performances  Technology Barrier CTR 20/04/A -  2006 June – Amelia - Italy Height of fall 70 m - Volume 4 m 3
OM CTR 2000 kJ,  the best performances Technical comparison Producer  ISOFER AG GEBRUGG AG CTR  CTR OM Name of the barrier ISOSTOP 2000 kJ RXI 200 CTR 20/04/A CTR 20/04/B Certificated by UFAM/BAFU date 05/19/06 No. S 05 10 UFAM/BAFU date 05/19/06 No. S 04 7 DISTR University of  Bologna DISTR University of  Bologna Code for the test Swiss code Swiss code ETAG /Swiss ETAG  / Swiss Kind of test Vertical field test Vertical field test Vertical field test Vertical field test Test velocity 25.00 m/s 25.00 m/s 25.78 m/s 25.35 m/s Number of test 1 - Small energy for piercing 1 - Small energy for piercing 1 - Small energy for piercing 1 - Small energy for piercing 2 - 50% energy (1000 kJ) 2 - 50% energy (1000 kJ) 2 - 100% energy (2250 kJ) 2 - 100% energy (2250 kJ) 3 - 100% energy (2000 kJ) 3 - 100% energy (2000kJ) 3 - 50% energy (1134 kJ) 3 - 100% energy (2250 kJ)     4 -1/3 energy (742 kJ)       5 -1/3 energy (742 kJ)  
OM CTR 2000 kJ,  the best performances Technical comparison Producer  ISOFER AG GEBRUGG AG CTR  CTR  OM Name of the barrier ISOSTOP 2000 kJ RXI 2000 CTR 20/04/A CTR 20/04/B State of the structure after 100% energy   Bending of a post, rupture of a base of a post, folding of a base plate     Notes concerning the test Repairing works between 2nd and 3rd test  Repairing works between 2nd and 3rd test  No one repairing works  No one repairing works  Substitution of No. 14 brake systems Substitution of No. 13 brake systems   no one    no one Nominal Height 4.80 m  5.11 m  4.00 m 5.00 m Residual height after 100% Energy  54.79 % (2.63 m) 62.23 % (3.18 m) 71.25 % (2.85 m) 73.00 % (3.65 m) Maximum deformation with 100% energy no one indication no one indication 4.65 m 4.30 m Residual deformation after 100% energy 6.80 m 6.70 m 4.20 m 4.05 m Forces on foundation 117 kN max 235 kN max 260 kN lateral; 185 kN up slope 270 kN lateral; 220 kN up slope Notes on certificate RESERVATION:  Should deficiencies arise following certification of the safety net, FOEN may revoke product release and delete it from the type approval list. RESERVATION:  Should deficiencies arise following certification of the safety net, FOEN may revoke product release and delete it from the type approval list. No one reservation No one reservation

Más contenido relacionado

La actualidad más candente

Masonry Code Of Practice Amp
Masonry Code Of Practice   AmpMasonry Code Of Practice   Amp
Masonry Code Of Practice Amp
Teja Ande
 
Eurocode 2 design of composite concrete
Eurocode 2 design of composite concreteEurocode 2 design of composite concrete
Eurocode 2 design of composite concrete
Jo Gijbels
 
Lecture 4 s.s. iii Design of Steel Structures - Faculty of Civil Engineering ...
Lecture 4 s.s. iii Design of Steel Structures - Faculty of Civil Engineering ...Lecture 4 s.s. iii Design of Steel Structures - Faculty of Civil Engineering ...
Lecture 4 s.s. iii Design of Steel Structures - Faculty of Civil Engineering ...
Ursachi Răzvan
 
Lecture 6 s.s.iii Design of Steel Structures - Faculty of Civil Engineering Iaşi
Lecture 6 s.s.iii Design of Steel Structures - Faculty of Civil Engineering IaşiLecture 6 s.s.iii Design of Steel Structures - Faculty of Civil Engineering Iaşi
Lecture 6 s.s.iii Design of Steel Structures - Faculty of Civil Engineering Iaşi
Ursachi Răzvan
 
Lecture 2 s. s. iii Design of Steel Structures - Faculty of Civil Engineering...
Lecture 2 s. s. iii Design of Steel Structures - Faculty of Civil Engineering...Lecture 2 s. s. iii Design of Steel Structures - Faculty of Civil Engineering...
Lecture 2 s. s. iii Design of Steel Structures - Faculty of Civil Engineering...
Ursachi Răzvan
 

La actualidad más candente (19)

04-LRFD Concept (Steel Structural Design & Prof. Shehab Mourad)
04-LRFD Concept (Steel Structural Design & Prof. Shehab Mourad)04-LRFD Concept (Steel Structural Design & Prof. Shehab Mourad)
04-LRFD Concept (Steel Structural Design & Prof. Shehab Mourad)
 
Isolated footing design
Isolated footing designIsolated footing design
Isolated footing design
 
Masonry Code Of Practice Amp
Masonry Code Of Practice   AmpMasonry Code Of Practice   Amp
Masonry Code Of Practice Amp
 
seismic ubc -97
seismic ubc -97seismic ubc -97
seismic ubc -97
 
Earthquake load as per UBC97
Earthquake load as per UBC97Earthquake load as per UBC97
Earthquake load as per UBC97
 
base plate in bending and anchor bolts in tension
base plate in bending and anchor bolts in tensionbase plate in bending and anchor bolts in tension
base plate in bending and anchor bolts in tension
 
Eurocode 2 design of composite concrete
Eurocode 2 design of composite concreteEurocode 2 design of composite concrete
Eurocode 2 design of composite concrete
 
Cee 312(2)
Cee 312(2)Cee 312(2)
Cee 312(2)
 
10 columns
10 columns10 columns
10 columns
 
Column Interaction Diagram construction
Column Interaction Diagram constructionColumn Interaction Diagram construction
Column Interaction Diagram construction
 
Lecture 4 s.s. iii Design of Steel Structures - Faculty of Civil Engineering ...
Lecture 4 s.s. iii Design of Steel Structures - Faculty of Civil Engineering ...Lecture 4 s.s. iii Design of Steel Structures - Faculty of Civil Engineering ...
Lecture 4 s.s. iii Design of Steel Structures - Faculty of Civil Engineering ...
 
Lecture 6 s.s.iii Design of Steel Structures - Faculty of Civil Engineering Iaşi
Lecture 6 s.s.iii Design of Steel Structures - Faculty of Civil Engineering IaşiLecture 6 s.s.iii Design of Steel Structures - Faculty of Civil Engineering Iaşi
Lecture 6 s.s.iii Design of Steel Structures - Faculty of Civil Engineering Iaşi
 
Lecture 2 s. s. iii Design of Steel Structures - Faculty of Civil Engineering...
Lecture 2 s. s. iii Design of Steel Structures - Faculty of Civil Engineering...Lecture 2 s. s. iii Design of Steel Structures - Faculty of Civil Engineering...
Lecture 2 s. s. iii Design of Steel Structures - Faculty of Civil Engineering...
 
Column design: as per bs code
Column design: as per bs codeColumn design: as per bs code
Column design: as per bs code
 
Ch 7 design of rcc footing
Ch 7 design of rcc footingCh 7 design of rcc footing
Ch 7 design of rcc footing
 
Testing of bored_pile_inclination
Testing of bored_pile_inclinationTesting of bored_pile_inclination
Testing of bored_pile_inclination
 
Design of industrial roof truss
Design of industrial roof truss Design of industrial roof truss
Design of industrial roof truss
 
Singly R.C. beam
Singly R.C. beam  Singly R.C. beam
Singly R.C. beam
 
Evaluation of punching shear in flat slabs
Evaluation of punching shear in flat slabsEvaluation of punching shear in flat slabs
Evaluation of punching shear in flat slabs
 

Destacado

Slope stability ii 2
Slope stability ii 2Slope stability ii 2
Slope stability ii 2
Tanveer Wani
 
Slope stability
Slope stabilitySlope stability
Slope stability
yoohannis
 
8 slope stability
8 slope stability8 slope stability
8 slope stability
Ketan Bajaj
 

Destacado (18)

1 Macro Intro 2008
1  Macro Intro 20081  Macro Intro 2008
1 Macro Intro 2008
 
Slope Stability by GeoMads
Slope Stability by GeoMadsSlope Stability by GeoMads
Slope Stability by GeoMads
 
slope stability and computers
 slope stability and computers slope stability and computers
slope stability and computers
 
New design approach on rockfall Embankment
New design approach on rockfall Embankment New design approach on rockfall Embankment
New design approach on rockfall Embankment
 
Slope stability ii 2
Slope stability ii 2Slope stability ii 2
Slope stability ii 2
 
Slope stability
Slope stabilitySlope stability
Slope stability
 
Rockyfor3D - Rockfall simulation program
Rockyfor3D - Rockfall simulation programRockyfor3D - Rockfall simulation program
Rockyfor3D - Rockfall simulation program
 
Injury prevention and control
Injury prevention and controlInjury prevention and control
Injury prevention and control
 
Rockyfor3 software
Rockyfor3 softwareRockyfor3 software
Rockyfor3 software
 
Slope stability
Slope stabilitySlope stability
Slope stability
 
Slope stabilty
Slope stabiltySlope stabilty
Slope stabilty
 
Barriere Paramassi Etag027 e Norme Tecniche delle Cstruzioni
Barriere Paramassi Etag027 e Norme Tecniche delle CstruzioniBarriere Paramassi Etag027 e Norme Tecniche delle Cstruzioni
Barriere Paramassi Etag027 e Norme Tecniche delle Cstruzioni
 
Soil slope stability
Soil slope stabilitySoil slope stability
Soil slope stability
 
8 slope stability
8 slope stability8 slope stability
8 slope stability
 
Slopestability
SlopestabilitySlopestability
Slopestability
 
GEOTECHNICAL SLOPE STABILITY
GEOTECHNICAL SLOPE STABILITYGEOTECHNICAL SLOPE STABILITY
GEOTECHNICAL SLOPE STABILITY
 
AI for IA's: Machine Learning Demystified at IA Summit 2017 - IAS17
AI for IA's: Machine Learning Demystified at IA Summit 2017 - IAS17AI for IA's: Machine Learning Demystified at IA Summit 2017 - IAS17
AI for IA's: Machine Learning Demystified at IA Summit 2017 - IAS17
 
AI and Machine Learning Demystified by Carol Smith at Midwest UX 2017
AI and Machine Learning Demystified by Carol Smith at Midwest UX 2017AI and Machine Learning Demystified by Carol Smith at Midwest UX 2017
AI and Machine Learning Demystified by Carol Smith at Midwest UX 2017
 

Similar a 4 Barrier Design 2008

Fire Resistance of Materials & Structures - Analysing the Steel Structure
Fire Resistance of Materials & Structures - Analysing the Steel StructureFire Resistance of Materials & Structures - Analysing the Steel Structure
Fire Resistance of Materials & Structures - Analysing the Steel Structure
Arshia Mousavi
 

Similar a 4 Barrier Design 2008 (20)

Bridge loading
Bridge loadingBridge loading
Bridge loading
 
Transmission Line presentation______.ppt
Transmission Line presentation______.pptTransmission Line presentation______.ppt
Transmission Line presentation______.ppt
 
transmission line
transmission line transmission line
transmission line
 
ANALYTICAL STUDY OF STEEL ARCH BRIDGE
ANALYTICAL STUDY OF STEEL ARCH BRIDGEANALYTICAL STUDY OF STEEL ARCH BRIDGE
ANALYTICAL STUDY OF STEEL ARCH BRIDGE
 
2581
25812581
2581
 
Cast resin dry type transformer
Cast resin dry type transformerCast resin dry type transformer
Cast resin dry type transformer
 
Cast resin dry type transformer/dry transformer
Cast resin dry type transformer/dry transformerCast resin dry type transformer/dry transformer
Cast resin dry type transformer/dry transformer
 
Roof bar design- a case study
Roof bar design- a case studyRoof bar design- a case study
Roof bar design- a case study
 
IRJET- Static and Dynamic Behaviour of Post Tensioned Skew Bridges by usi...
IRJET-  	  Static and Dynamic Behaviour of Post Tensioned Skew Bridges by usi...IRJET-  	  Static and Dynamic Behaviour of Post Tensioned Skew Bridges by usi...
IRJET- Static and Dynamic Behaviour of Post Tensioned Skew Bridges by usi...
 
Analysis & design of T-Beam bridge
Analysis & design of T-Beam bridgeAnalysis & design of T-Beam bridge
Analysis & design of T-Beam bridge
 
Le.h insulation coordination - Digsilent
Le.h insulation coordination - DigsilentLe.h insulation coordination - Digsilent
Le.h insulation coordination - Digsilent
 
IRJET- Seismic Evaluation of Reinforced Concrete Structure with Friction ...
IRJET-  	  Seismic Evaluation of Reinforced Concrete Structure with Friction ...IRJET-  	  Seismic Evaluation of Reinforced Concrete Structure with Friction ...
IRJET- Seismic Evaluation of Reinforced Concrete Structure with Friction ...
 
IRJET- Finite Element Analysis of Slabs, Cross Girders and Main Girders in RC...
IRJET- Finite Element Analysis of Slabs, Cross Girders and Main Girders in RC...IRJET- Finite Element Analysis of Slabs, Cross Girders and Main Girders in RC...
IRJET- Finite Element Analysis of Slabs, Cross Girders and Main Girders in RC...
 
IRJET - Experimental Investigation of flexural member of Beam Opening in ...
IRJET -  	  Experimental Investigation of flexural member of Beam Opening in ...IRJET -  	  Experimental Investigation of flexural member of Beam Opening in ...
IRJET - Experimental Investigation of flexural member of Beam Opening in ...
 
Chap-5-T-Girder Example-1.pdf
Chap-5-T-Girder Example-1.pdfChap-5-T-Girder Example-1.pdf
Chap-5-T-Girder Example-1.pdf
 
IRJET- Parametric Study on Behaviour of RCC Box Culvert for Dynamic Loading
IRJET- Parametric Study on Behaviour of RCC Box Culvert for Dynamic LoadingIRJET- Parametric Study on Behaviour of RCC Box Culvert for Dynamic Loading
IRJET- Parametric Study on Behaviour of RCC Box Culvert for Dynamic Loading
 
Cable stay bridge 05.01.16-IPWE seminar NewDelhi
Cable stay bridge  05.01.16-IPWE seminar NewDelhiCable stay bridge  05.01.16-IPWE seminar NewDelhi
Cable stay bridge 05.01.16-IPWE seminar NewDelhi
 
Total precase concrete structure for multi storey
Total precase concrete structure for multi storeyTotal precase concrete structure for multi storey
Total precase concrete structure for multi storey
 
Fire Resistance of Materials & Structures - Analysing the Steel Structure
Fire Resistance of Materials & Structures - Analysing the Steel StructureFire Resistance of Materials & Structures - Analysing the Steel Structure
Fire Resistance of Materials & Structures - Analysing the Steel Structure
 
Development_of_3rd_Generation_400kV_Chainette_Towers.pdf
Development_of_3rd_Generation_400kV_Chainette_Towers.pdfDevelopment_of_3rd_Generation_400kV_Chainette_Towers.pdf
Development_of_3rd_Generation_400kV_Chainette_Towers.pdf
 

4 Barrier Design 2008

  • 2. FALLING VELOCITY A=Broken barrier A = Sacrificial Barrier B = Effective barrier Higher velocities (i.e. 35-40 m/s) are assumed to make one barrier collapse under the impact . In such case multiple barrier lines shall be used: the first sacrificial line will break dissipating the block, the second barrier will stop it. Barriers are certified for velocities up to 30 m/s.
  • 3. FALLING ENERGY E nergy of a falling rock: E = E  + E k E k = translational energy = ½ M v 2 M = block mass v = translational velocity E  = rotational energy = ½ I  2 I = inertia moment  = angular rotational velocity The most effective energy is the translational one which is normally 80% (or higher) than the total kinetic energy. The rotational energy is around 10-20% of the total energy and is related to the shape of the block.
  • 4. FALLING ENERGY E = potential energy m = mass g = gravity 9.81 m/s 2 h = falling height h E  1/ 3 m g h
  • 5.
  • 6.
  • 7. HOW TO ANALYSE THE FALLING OF THE ROCKS - Site observations; - Numerical modeling ; THE SITE OBSERVATIONS NORMALLY GIVE THE POSSIBILITY TO APPRECCIATE THE EFFECTS OF THE FALLING OF THE ROCKS. NUMERICAL MODELLING CAN DESCRIBE THE FALLING TRACKS, SUGGESTING THE KNOWLEDGE OF THE PARAMETERS TO BE USED DURING THE FINAL DESIGN OF THE PROTECTION.
  • 8.
  • 9. NUMERICAL MODELLING RESULTS ( IN 2 DIMENSIONS ) The most relevant results obtained from the numerical model are: Topographic section with the rock trajectory
  • 10. Topographic section with the end point of the trajectory
  • 11. Topographic section with the trajectory related to the maximum falling heights
  • 12. Topographic section showing the maximum falling energies
  • 13.
  • 14.
  • 15. F  t = M  v The capacity of a “non deformable” barrier is related to the elastic deformability of its components. Because its components are stiff (cable, post), the “non deformable” barriers must slow down the velocity (  v) in a very short time (  t). The force F of impact F = M  v /  t is very high. Then the non deformable barrier break at very low energy level. The limits of non deformable barriers
  • 16. Rockfall barriers New barrier series according to ETAG 27 GUIDELINE FOR EUROPEAN TECHNICAL APPROVAL of FALLING ROCK PROTECTION KITS - Draft - Edition November 2006 OM CTR barriers satisfy a wide range of energy levels ETAG 27 and performances Energy level Velocity Boulder Volume Name of Barrier 500 kJ 25 m/s 0.6 m 3 CTR 05/07/B 1 000 kJ 25 m/s 1.2 m 3 CTR 10/04/B 2 000 kJ 25 m/s 2.4 m 3 CTR 20/04/A (ring panel) 2 000 kJ 25 m/s 2.4 m 3 CTR 20/04/B (cable panel) 3 000 kJ 25 m/s 3.5 m 3 CTR 30/04/B 5 000 kJ 25 m/s 5.8 m 3 OM CTR 50/07/A
  • 17. ETAG 27 require 2 test: OM CTR barriers are certified both for MEL and SEL tests ETAG 27 and performances MEL = Maximum Energy Level The barrier has to catch a boulder with the maximum energy level. The residual height of the panel after the impact indicates the quality level of the barrier. SEL = Service Energy Level The barrier has to catch two impacts of a boulder with 1/3 of the MEL energy without damage. The residual height after the first impact must be greater than 70%. The second impact needs only to catch the boulder.
  • 18. ETAG 27 and performances Lateral view of a falling rock protection kit OM CTR barriers do not need down slope cable
  • 19. 0°    90°  -20°     +20° Nominal height of the barrier Residual height (after impact) OM CTR barriers give the best residual height ETAG 27 and performances  
  • 20. OM CTR barriers give the best residual height ETAG 27 and performances Producer of 3000 kJ ISOFER AG GEBRUGG AG CTR Name of the barrier ISOSTOP 3000 kJ RXI 300 CTR 30/04/A Nominal Height 5.23 m 4.79 m 5.00 m Residual height after 100% Energy 49.14 % (5.23 m) 62.23 % (3.18 m) 66.00 % (3.30 m) Producer of 2000 kJ ISOFER AG GEBRUGG AG CTR CTR Name of the barrier ISOSTOP 2000 kJ RXI 2000 CTR 20/04/A CTR 20/04/B Nominal Height 4.80 m 5.11 m 4.00 m 5.00 m Residual height after 100% Energy 54.79 % (2.63 m) 62.23 % (3.18 m) 71.25 % (2.85 m) 73.00 % (3.65 m)
  • 21. Falling rock protection kit classes A classification for residual height for MEL is also foreseen as follows: Category A : Residual Height ≥ 50 % nominal height Category B : 30% nominal height < Residual Height < 50 % nominal height Category C : Residual Height ≤ 30 % nominal height OM CTR barriers are classified in “A” category They are safer with respect to the height of impact. ETAG 27 and performances
  • 22. ETAG 27 and performances OM CTR barriers gives the lowest elongation unload position Maximum elongation during the impact More flexibility when installing close to infrastructure   Net before impact
  • 23. ETAG 27 and performances OM CTR barriers give the lowest elongation More flexibility when installing close to infrastructure PRODUCER OF 2000 kJ ISOFER AG GEBRUGG AG CTR CTR Name of the barrier ISOSTOP 2000 kJ RXI 2000 CTR 20/04/A CTR 20/04/B Max deformation with Max Energy Level (dynamic condition) no one indication no one indication 4.65 m 4.30 m Residual deformation after Max Energy Level (static condition) 6.80 m 6.70 m 4.20 m 4.05 m PRODUCER OF 3000 kJ ISOFER AG GEBRUGG AG CTR Name of the barrier ISOSTOP 3000 kJ RXI 300 CTR 30/04/A Max deformation with Max Energy Level (dynamic condition) no one indication no one indication 5.20 m Residual deformation after Max Energy Level (static condition) 7.40 m 6.60 m 4.60 m
  • 24. Block size Energy FIELD TEST Vertical field test Inclined field test Falling velocity >= 25 m/s OM CTR barriers are tested on vertical field ETAG 27 and performances
  • 25. ETAG 27 and performances The force shall be measured during the entire time of impact The field tests done by OM CTR measure the force acting on the stream cable and on the base plate. No other manufacturer measures shear and pressure forces acting on the base plate
  • 26. The field test is conducted on a barrier with 3 modules in a straight line, that is why 3 modulus is the suggested minimum length of a barrier Configuration of the Crash test barrier ETAG 27 and performances Plan view Front view Lateral post Intermediate post Lateral post Intermediate post
  • 28. ETAG 27 and performances
  • 29. OM CTR barriers allow some tolerance when positioning the post: more flexibility when installing on rough slope. Easy to install R 15° (*) Plan view Front view (*) the value can be increased using lateral anchors or downslope anchor. 10.0 m 0.50 m
  • 30.
  • 31. Easy to install Note: The correct design and on site positioning of barriers is typically site specific. Up slope down slope Up slope down slope Plan view The barrier works in a good way but could require some down slope anchors to stabilize the structure The barrier could work in a bad way but doesn’t require any devices to stabilize the structure
  • 32. OM CTR barriers can be installed both on vertical and inclined slopes. Easy to install
  • 33. Easy to install OM CTR barriers do not require downstream cables This allows faster and cheaper installation. Down slope Up slope
  • 34. Easy to install OM CTR barriers are simple to install Taking into account the experiences on job sites, the assembling of the OM CTR barriers has been simplified by technical solutions. E.g. many connections are directly arranged in the factory.
  • 35. OM CTR barriers are simple to install A number of field crash tests were performed which indicates the barrier has been designed and manufactured in the most economical and effective way (e.g. 15 for 500 kJ). No one component of the barrier is oversized (e.g. diameter of the cables). Many demanding jobs have been reduced (e.g. number of clamps) . Useless components have been removed (e.g. thimbles). Easy to install
  • 36. Easy to install OM CTR barriers are fast and economical to install The standing up of the post is helped with a steel arm. The assembling of the posts by helicopter is faster. It requires one fifth of the time usually employed for other barriers.
  • 37. Easy to install OM CTR barriers are more economical to install The forces measured on the base post are low. OM CTR barriers don’t require big plinths. The plinths are aimed to level and smooth the ground only.
  • 38. Easy to install OM CTR barriers are easy to install Basically it is enough to use steel bars or miropiles for the foundations. Different base plates will be adopted. The plinth levels the ground. When ordering the barrier don’t forget to specify the kind of soils
  • 39. Easy to install OM CTR barriers are fast to install OM CTR barriers has been created by people that assemble barriers in the field. The post can double up as ladder (*) (*) not for CTR 500 kJ where the posts are done by tubular elements
  • 40. OM CTR barriers ensure high performances The friction brake is rasped by the rope running inside two steel plates. So the brake changes its behavior during the impact. In OM CTR barriers the brake system works by deformation and not by friction. This ensures the effectiveness of the system during the impact and in the most varying environmental situations (rust on cables, temperature, changes in the galvanization, etc.) Technology
  • 41. Technology OM CTR barriers are easy to maintain The pin at the base of the post is designed as a fuse. It releases the post before the foundation can be destroyed. In this way the foundation is saved even if the boulder hardly hits the base of the post.
  • 42. OM CTR barriers give high performances Technology Barrier CTR 20/04/A - 2006 June – Amelia - Italy Height of fall 70 m - Volume 4 m 3
  • 43. OM CTR 2000 kJ, the best performances Technical comparison Producer ISOFER AG GEBRUGG AG CTR CTR OM Name of the barrier ISOSTOP 2000 kJ RXI 200 CTR 20/04/A CTR 20/04/B Certificated by UFAM/BAFU date 05/19/06 No. S 05 10 UFAM/BAFU date 05/19/06 No. S 04 7 DISTR University of Bologna DISTR University of Bologna Code for the test Swiss code Swiss code ETAG /Swiss ETAG / Swiss Kind of test Vertical field test Vertical field test Vertical field test Vertical field test Test velocity 25.00 m/s 25.00 m/s 25.78 m/s 25.35 m/s Number of test 1 - Small energy for piercing 1 - Small energy for piercing 1 - Small energy for piercing 1 - Small energy for piercing 2 - 50% energy (1000 kJ) 2 - 50% energy (1000 kJ) 2 - 100% energy (2250 kJ) 2 - 100% energy (2250 kJ) 3 - 100% energy (2000 kJ) 3 - 100% energy (2000kJ) 3 - 50% energy (1134 kJ) 3 - 100% energy (2250 kJ)     4 -1/3 energy (742 kJ)       5 -1/3 energy (742 kJ)  
  • 44. OM CTR 2000 kJ, the best performances Technical comparison Producer ISOFER AG GEBRUGG AG CTR CTR OM Name of the barrier ISOSTOP 2000 kJ RXI 2000 CTR 20/04/A CTR 20/04/B State of the structure after 100% energy   Bending of a post, rupture of a base of a post, folding of a base plate     Notes concerning the test Repairing works between 2nd and 3rd test Repairing works between 2nd and 3rd test No one repairing works No one repairing works Substitution of No. 14 brake systems Substitution of No. 13 brake systems   no one   no one Nominal Height 4.80 m 5.11 m 4.00 m 5.00 m Residual height after 100% Energy 54.79 % (2.63 m) 62.23 % (3.18 m) 71.25 % (2.85 m) 73.00 % (3.65 m) Maximum deformation with 100% energy no one indication no one indication 4.65 m 4.30 m Residual deformation after 100% energy 6.80 m 6.70 m 4.20 m 4.05 m Forces on foundation 117 kN max 235 kN max 260 kN lateral; 185 kN up slope 270 kN lateral; 220 kN up slope Notes on certificate RESERVATION: Should deficiencies arise following certification of the safety net, FOEN may revoke product release and delete it from the type approval list. RESERVATION: Should deficiencies arise following certification of the safety net, FOEN may revoke product release and delete it from the type approval list. No one reservation No one reservation

Notas del editor

  1. 2
  2. Barriers are certified for a velocity of up to 30 m/s. Usually the range of velocity for the crash test is between 25 and 30 m/s. This means that the highest free fall is nearly 50 m. In case of higher speed ( i.e. 35 m/s for a free fall of 60 m/s) the impact doesn’t deform, but pierces the barrier. Then multiple lines of barriers could be used: the first line so called “sacrificial” can be broken slowing down the block, the second barrier can stop it. Depending on the morphology of the slope, an embankment could be the best solution. Roughly speaking, we can say that the deepest penetration into the embankment is twice the diameter of the boulder.
  3. Falling energy is the sum of the rotational energy and the translational energy. The most important energy is the translational one that is normally at least 80% of the total kinetic energy. The rotational energy is around 10-20% of the total and is related to the shape of the block. Normally square blocks have a low rotational energy. The diagram shows the energy level in the Y axis versus the height of free fall for boulders with different volumes (with unit weight 26.5 kN/m3). The red arrows show the energy range for commonly used rockfall barriers. Note that a barrier with 2000 kJ stops only one boulder with that energy level, because after the impact it is destroyed. The highest energy level is guaranteed by embankments which can resist several impacts with energy of 5000 kJ.
  4. The energy of a boulder is proportional to the square of its velocity, and is directly proportional to its mass. A doubling of the mass gives a doubling of the energy. But a little change in the velocity produces a big change in the energy level. The falling velocity is reduced by impacts of the boulder during its path. For this reason in the case of a short slope as in the picture, we can roughly estimate the energy level to be equal to one third of the potential energy.
  5. 2
  6. 2
  7. 2
  8. 2
  9. 2
  10. 2
  11. 2
  12. 2
  13. 2
  14. Based on the most frequent questions by designers and contractors
  15. Based on the most frequent questions by designers and contractors
  16. El panel se deforma pero no cede de forma brusca ni presenta roturas. Velocidad de video acelerada. Toma lateral. The panel is deformed but is not deformed sharply, does not even present breaks. Speed of video accelerated. Lateral capture. el pannello si deforma, ma non dà cedimenti improvvisi o rotture. Filmato accelerato
  17. Based on the most frequent questions by designers and contractors
  18. Based on the most frequent questions by designers and contractors
  19. Based on the most frequent questions by designers and contractors
  20. Based on the most frequent questions by designers and contractors
  21. Based on the most frequent questions by designers and contractors
  22. Based on the most frequent questions by designers and contractors
  23. Based on the most frequent questions by designers and contractors