Drapery mesh systems:

overview of the design methods

Antonio Pol
antonio.pol@unipd.it
Cortical/Drapery meshes

Drapery mesh systems can be divided in 2 categories:

Generally not
installed

Simple Secured
drapery drapery
systems systems
 Design methods: simple drapery

Simple drapery systems

(Muhuntan et al. 2005)
Hypothesis:
• “Global instability” (i.e. no local failures)
• Mesh failure is caused by the toe deposit
• The forces are only deriving from the mesh self-weight and
the deposit weight
• Consider mesh-soil friction angle (𝟐𝟓° ≤ 𝜹 ≤ 𝟔𝟎°)
• Consider soil-soil friction angle 𝝓
• Mesh anchored with n anchors

→ total force supported by the anchors

𝑭𝒂 = 𝒏𝒇𝒂
→ destabilizing component due to the mesh weight parallel to the slope
𝑯𝒔
𝑭𝒎,∥ = 𝜸𝒎 𝒔𝒆𝒏(𝜷)
𝒔𝒆𝒏 𝜷
→ stabilizing component due to the mesh-soil friction
𝑯
𝑭𝒎,𝒇 = 𝜸𝒎 𝒔𝒆𝒏 𝒔𝜷 𝒄𝒐𝒔 𝜷 𝒕𝒈 𝜹
𝜷 → destabilizing component due to deposit weight
𝟏
𝑯𝒔 𝑭𝒅,∥ = 𝜸 𝑯𝟐 𝒔𝒊𝒏(𝜷) 𝒄𝒐𝒕𝒈(𝝓𝒅,𝒓 ) − 𝒄𝒐𝒕𝒈(𝜷)
𝟐 𝒅 𝒔
→ stabilizing component due to the soil-soil friction
𝟏
𝑭𝒅,𝒇 = 𝜸𝒅 𝑯𝟐𝒔 𝒄𝒐𝒔(𝜷) 𝒄𝒐𝒕𝒈(𝝓𝒅,𝒓 ) − 𝒄𝒐𝒕𝒈(𝜷) 𝒕𝒈(𝜹)
𝑯𝒅 𝝓𝒅,𝒓 𝟐
𝑭𝒔𝒕𝒂𝒃 𝑭𝒂 + 𝑭𝒎,𝒇 + 𝑭𝒅,𝒇
Safety Factor → 𝑭𝑺 = =
𝑾𝒅 𝑭𝒊𝒏𝒔𝒕 𝑭𝒎,∥ + 𝑭𝒅,∥
Design methods: simple drapery

Simple drapery systems

(Muhuntan et al. 2005)

In areas subject to heavy snow and persistent snow accumulation it is fundamental to

evaluate the snow load. It has been shown as the snow load is frequently the cause of
failure of simple drapery systems. Two cases can be considered:

1) Snow load below freezing (T < 0°)

The snowpack, the mesh and the slope surface are frozen together

Assuming that the snowpack does not slip, the shear

force can be assumed as a function of the cohesion
c (Salm, 1977), the destabilizing force is as follows:

c 𝑭𝒔 = 𝜸𝒔 𝑯𝑳𝒔𝒆𝒏 𝜷 − 𝒄𝑳 ≥ 𝟎

The value of c is a function of the temperature and

the snowpack density.
𝜷
Design methods: simple drapery

2) Snow load above freezing (T > 0° )

The snowpack is uncoupled from the slope surface and the snow load is directly
transmitted to the mesh system. This represents a more severe condition than the
previous one.

2.a) No mesh-soil friction:

𝑭𝒔 = 𝜸𝒔 𝑯𝑳𝒔𝒆𝒏 𝜷

t? 2.b) mesh-soil friction:

𝑭𝒔 = 𝜸𝒔 𝑯𝑳𝒔𝒆𝒏 𝜷 − 𝜸𝒔 𝑯𝑳𝒄𝒐𝒔 𝜷 𝒕𝒈 𝜹
𝜷

Case 2.b is more conservative (….obviously….), but it makes sense to consider a frictional
contribution.
Very steep slope leads to very high snow load, however significant snow accumulation is
unlikely on steep slopes.
Design methods: secured drapery

1) Infinite slope (soil)

(da Costa et al. 2004, da Costa et al. 2010)

Based on infinite slope assumption (Lambe & Whitman 1969). Interaction force of the upper and
lower wedges can be neglected (they are equal!).
Limit equilibrium approach applying a Mohr-Coulomb failure criterion (𝝉 = 𝒄 + 𝝈′ 𝒕𝒈(𝝓)). The mesh
stabilizing action is considered as a normal p and tangential t, uniformly distributed pressures along
the slope surface. The tangential pressure is set equal to 𝒕 = 𝒑𝒕𝒈(𝜹), where 𝒕𝒈(𝜹) is the mesh-soil
friction coefficient.
Dry case stabilizing pressure p is
𝑐
𝑝 𝑠𝑒𝑛 𝛽 − cos 𝛽 𝑡𝑔 𝜙 − not a function of the
𝛾𝑑
=
𝛾𝑑 𝑡𝑔 𝜙 + 𝑡𝑔(𝛿) anchor spacing!
Submerged slope without seepage
A ‘trick’ could be to
𝑐
𝑝 𝑠𝑒𝑛 𝛽 − cos 𝛽 𝑡𝑔 𝜙 −
𝛾′𝑑
correlate a and d
=
𝛾′𝑑 𝑡𝑔 𝜙 + 𝑡𝑔(𝛿)
Submerged slope with seepage
𝑐 𝛾 cos 𝜆
𝑝 𝑠𝑒𝑛 𝛽 − ′ − cos 𝛽 𝑡𝑔 𝜙 + 𝑤 𝑡𝑔(𝜙)
′ 𝛾𝑑 𝛾 cos 𝛽 − 𝜆
𝜎 >0 ⇒ =
𝛾′𝑑 𝑡𝑔 𝜙 + 𝑡𝑔(𝛿)
𝑝 𝛾𝑤 cos 𝜆
𝜎′ < 0 ⇒ = − cos(𝛽) Uplift limit
𝛾′𝑑 𝛾 cos 𝛽 − 𝜆
Design methods: secured drapery

1) Infinite slope (soil)

(da Costa et al. 2004, da Costa et al. 2010)

Assuming an instable layer of thickness 𝑑 = 2 𝑚 on a slope with an inclination 𝛽 = 50°, a soil with a
cohesion of 𝑐 = 5 𝑘𝑃𝑎 and a friction angle 𝜙 = 35° and an interface friction coefficient 𝛿 = 30° the
pressure 𝑝 required to stabilize the slope can be computed as follows:

Hp: anchor spacing of 3m

𝑐
𝑠𝑒𝑛 𝛽 − cos 𝛽 𝑡𝑔 𝜙 −
𝛾𝑑
𝑝 = 𝛾𝑑 ≈ 5.0 𝑘𝑃𝑎 𝐹𝑚𝑒𝑠ℎ ≈ 45 𝑘𝑁
𝑡𝑔 𝜙 + 𝑡𝑔(𝛿)
c=0
𝑐
𝑠𝑒𝑛 𝛽 − cos 𝛽 𝑡𝑔 𝜙 −
𝛾𝑑
𝑝 = 𝛾𝑑 ≈ 8.9 𝑘𝑃𝑎 𝐹𝑚𝑒𝑠ℎ ≈ 80 𝑘𝑁
𝑡𝑔 𝜙 + 𝑡𝑔(𝛿)

𝑐
𝑠𝑒𝑛 𝛽 − cos 𝛽 𝑡𝑔 𝜙 −
𝛾𝑑
𝑝 = 𝛾𝑑 ≈ 9.1 𝑘𝑃𝑎 𝐹𝑚𝑒𝑠ℎ ≈ 82 𝑘𝑁
𝑡𝑔 𝜙 + 𝑡𝑔(𝛿)
𝛿=0
Design methods: secured drapery

2) Finite height slope (soil)

(da Costa et al. 2004, da Costa et al. 2010)

Based on a planar failure mechanism parallel to the slope. The slope is decomposed in several
unstable wedges accounting for its finite height. Same hypothesis on the method 1) are used.
The wedge are defined by the length d (thickness of the unstable layer) and s (anchor spacing).
Starting from the slope crest and iteratively moving downwards we compute the required stabilizing
pressure p imposing the equilibrium between block A and B. The maximum pressure 𝒑𝒎𝒂𝒙 required
to stabilize block 𝑩∗ (block at the slope toe) will be used in the design of the mesh system.

At each iteration a system of 4 equations in

the 4 unknowns 𝑁𝐴′ , 𝑁𝐴𝐵 ′
, 𝑁𝐵′ and 𝑝𝑖 is
solved.

Since a value of 𝑁𝑖′ < 0 is not physically

meaningful, if such a condition is
encountered it will be imposed 𝑁𝑖′ = 0 and
the system solution will be recalculated.
Design methods: secured drapery

2) Finite height slope (soil) 2 1

(da Costa et al. 2004, da Costa et al. 2010)
block A
NAB pj 3
pj WA TA 4
WB TAB
NA …
block B TB NAB …
NB TAB
2j-1
• i=1 → block A is formed by block 1, block B is formed by 2 and p1=0 2j
• Solving the equilibrium eqs. of block A → NAB
• Solving the equilibrium eqs. of block B → p2

• i=2 → block A is formed by block 1+2+3 block B is formed by 4 and p2 is known

• Solving the equilibrium eqs. of block A → NAB
• Solving the equilibrium eqs. of block B → p4

• i=j → block A is formed by block 1+2+3+4+…2j-1, block B is formed by 2j and p2j-2 is known
• Solving the equilibrium eqs. of block A → NAB
• Solving the equilibrium eqs. of block B → p2j

The required pressure to stabilize each part of the slope (block of type B) is iteratively calculated
proceeding downwards. The maximum pressure pj* is related to the to slope toe (obviously). This
value is used for the design of the retaining system.
Design methods: secured drapery

3) Finite height slope (soil)

(IberoTalud & Universidad de Cantabria 2011)

Based on a planar failure mechanism parallel to the slope expect of a wedge at the slope toe, so the
mechanism is kinematically possible.
Mohr-Coulomb failure criterion is applied so the interface shear interactions between the blocks are
given by 𝑻𝒊 = 𝑵′𝒊 𝒕𝒈 𝝓 + 𝒄𝑳𝒊 where 𝑳𝒊 represents the interface wedge side length. From the
equilibrium analysis a system of 4 equation in 5 unknowns 𝑵′𝟏 , 𝑵′𝟐 , 𝑵′𝟏𝟐 , 𝒑, 𝜶 can be written. The fifth
equation is obtained maximizing the pressure 𝒑 as a function of 𝜶.
For H>>d this method provides approximatively the same results of the infinite slope model
Design methods: secured drapery

4) Block and wedge limited between two bolts (soil) → mesh design
(Guasti 2003, Flum et al. 2004)

Based on the assumption of a local failure mechanism liable to break out locally, between two
individual bolts. Two possible failure mechanisms are considered.
A Mohr-Coulomb failure criterion is used in a limit equilibrium analysis.

Failure mechanism A Failure mechanism B

Design methods: secured drapery

4) Block and wedge limited between two bolts (soil) → mesh design
(Guasti 2003, Flum et al. 2004)

Failure mechanism A
A wedge-shaped soil volume sliding on a planar surface inclined by the angle 𝜷 is considered.
The mesh stabilizing action is assumed as a concentrated force PA inclined as the anchor bolts (angle
𝝍). Moreover, a stabilizing contribution Z, which derives from the system pre-tensioning (may not be
applied), is considered. Imposing the equilibrium we obtain the equation of PA.

𝐺 sin(𝛽) − cos(𝛽)tan(𝜙) − 𝑍 𝑐𝑜𝑠 𝛼 − 𝛽 − 𝑠𝑖𝑛 𝛼 − 𝛽 tan(𝜙) − 𝑐𝐴

𝑃𝐴 =
cos 𝛽 + 𝜓 + 𝑠𝑖𝑛 𝛽 + 𝜓 tan(𝜙)

𝑑𝑃𝐴 (𝛽)
= 0 → 𝑃𝐴 = 𝑃𝐴 , 𝑚𝑎𝑥
𝑑𝛽

The most critical failure mechanism has to be determined by

variation of the inclination of the sliding plane 𝜷
Design methods: secured drapery

4) Block and wedge limited between two bolts (soil) → mesh design
(Guasti 2003, Flum et al. 2004)

Failure mechanism B
Two sliding volumes are considered: an upper trapezoidal and a wedge-shaped one. The upper
volume exerts a force X onto the lower volume. Also in this case an in-plane component Z is
considered, this force is considered acting on the lower volume.
In a first step, imposing the equilibrium of the upper volume, the force X is computed. Then, the
equilibrium of the lower volume is considered obtaining the force PB.

𝑋 = 𝐺𝐼 sin(𝛼) − cos 𝛼 tan(𝜙) − 𝑐𝐴𝐼

𝐺𝐼𝐼 sin(𝛽) − cos 𝛽 tan(𝜙) + (𝑋 − 𝑍) 𝑐𝑜𝑠 𝛼 − 𝛽 − 𝑠𝑖𝑛 𝛼 − 𝛽 tan(𝜙) − 𝑐𝐴2

𝑃𝐵 =
cos 𝛽 + 𝜓 + 𝑠𝑖 𝑛 𝛽 + 𝜓 tan(𝜙)
𝜕𝑃𝐵 (𝛽, 𝑡) 𝜕𝑃𝐵 (𝛽, 𝑡)
, = 0 → 𝑃𝐵 = 𝑃𝐵,𝑚𝑎𝑥
𝜕𝛽 𝜕𝑡

The most critical failure mechanism has to be determined by

variation of the thickness of the instable layer t and of the
inclination of the sliding plane 𝜷
Design methods: secured drapery

4) Block and wedge limited between two bolts (soil) → mesh design
(Guasti 2003, Flum et al. 2004)

The design force 𝑷𝒅 is given by the maximum between the force obtained from the failure
mechanism A and B:

𝑃𝑑 = max(𝑃𝐴 , 𝑃𝐵 )

The method consider a reduction of the instable soil volume between the anchors due to the
stabilizing pressure cone deriving from the pretension V of the anchor plate.
The cross-section of the instable soil body is
therefore trapezoidal. For simplification, it
can be assumed as an equivalent rectangular
section of area equal to:

𝑡
𝑎𝑟𝑒𝑑 =𝑎− − 2𝜁
tan 𝛿

Typical value are 𝛿 = 𝜋/4 and 𝜁 = 𝐷𝑝𝑙𝑎𝑡𝑒 /2

Design methods: secured drapery

4) Block and wedge limited between two bolts (soil) → bolt design
(Guasti 2003, Flum et al. 2004)

A planar failure mechanism parallel to the slope is considered for the bolts design.
The bolt stabilizing contribution is considered as a tangential force S given by the shear resistance of
the bolt and a normal force V which represents the bolt pre-tension (a typical value is 50kN).
Imposing the equilibrium of the soil volume the shear force S is obtained.

𝑆 = 𝐺𝑠𝑒𝑛 𝛼 − 𝑉𝑐𝑜𝑠 𝛼 + 𝜓 − 𝐺𝑐𝑜𝑠 𝛼 + 𝑉𝑠𝑒𝑛 𝛼 + 𝜓 𝑡𝑔 𝜙 − 𝑐𝐴

Design methods: some considerations

i. All the design approach are based on the limit equilibrium method. This implies that
the mesh stabilizing action (with its maximum value!) is considered acting from the
activation of the failure mechanism (very small displacements) → the mesh system is
schematized as an active element!
• Extremely stiff (not realistic) or pre-stressed mesh → almost active element
• Flexible mesh → passive element

ii. Classical design methods (LEM) cannot provide information on the displacements in
serviceability conditions
• Often particular limitations on system deformations are required (interventions
along highways or railways)

iii. Does the mesh exert a uniform and distributed pressure on the slope surface?
• Regular/planar slope surface → strong localization of stress (i.e. stabilizing
pressure) near the anchor plates
• irregular slope surface → strong localization of stress near angular/sharper
points
• The stabilizing action is not normally oriented to the slope surface
Design methods: some considerations

iv. Is the mesh mechanical response isotropic?

• The mechanical behavior is not isotropic and depends on several factors as mesh
geometry, boundary and loading conditions, etc..

v. Is the bolt’s pre-tensioning able to stabilize the instable layer?

• Required pre-tensioning values are not possible with manual installation (𝑇 ≤
50kN)
• If a pre-tensioning is applied it should be considered in the design

vi. Does a precise failure mechanisms (infinite slope, wedge and block, ect..) exist?

• Assumption neither theoretically nor empirically demonstrated

• The influence of the soil-mesh interaction is completely ignored
• Mesh geometry, presence of external elements, anchors pattern are only some
aspects which influence the soil failure mechanism

iv. For inhomogeneous meshes it is important to keep in mind that the system resistance
is proportional to the number of elements intercepted by the anchor plates
Any questions?
(antonio.pol@unipd.it)