Rev 00 del 17/07/2013

TN-DT-013

Technical Note

PRE DESIGN OF GABIONS &

TERRAMESH STRUCTURES
for H 9 m

Officine Maccaferri S.p.A.

Via Kennedy, 10 - 40069 Zola Predosa (BO) - Italy
Tel. (+39) 051-6436000 - Fax (+39) 051-6436201
E-mail: comit@maccaferri.com - Web site: www.officinemaccaferri.com

Bureau Veritas Certified Quality System Company with

Accredias and Ukass accreditation.

SUMMARY
SUMMARY.................................................................................................................................................................... 2
Technical Note ................................................................................................................................................................ 3
1. Foreword ................................................................................................................................................................. 3
2. Normative references .............................................................................................................................................. 3
3. Design method ........................................................................................................................................................ 4
3.1 Slope Stability applied to Earth Retaining Structures General Criteria ............................................................. 4
3.2 Design tools: the MacStars W software ................................................................................................................ 6
4. Load Combinations ................................................................................................................................................. 9
5. Partial factors ........................................................................................................................................................ 10
6. Descriptions of the Reinforcements : Terramesh System and Green Terramesh .................................................. 11
7. Input data .............................................................................................................................................................. 12
Surcharge Load ......................................................................................................................................................... 12
Seismic action ........................................................................................................................................................... 12
8. Attachment list ...................................................................................................................................................... 13

Pag. 2/13

Technical Note
1. Foreword
The present technical note refers to the preliminary design of low-medium height ( 9 m) retaining
structures that dont need to be reinforced with geogrids.
In particular will be analysed three different kinds of structures: gabions walls and retaining wall
realized by Green Terramesh (GTM) an Terramesh System (TMS).

The technical note is divided into two sections:

The first illustrates the design input data and the design tools, explaining how the software
(MacStars W) works.

The second illustrates the output results of the calculation: global stability, internal stability and
wall checks (sliding at the base, overturning and bearing pressure).

2. Normative references
1) UNI EN 1997-1 - Eurocode 7 Geotechnical design - Part:1 General Rules.

Pag. 3/13

3. Design method
3.1 Slope Stability applied to Earth Retaining Structures General Criteria

Slope stability problems in engineering works are usually analysed using limit
equilibrium methods. Many such methods are available in practice and the most
common ones call on the principle of slices. In this method the failure mass is broken
up into a series of vertical slices and the equilibrium of each of these slices is
considered. This procedure allows both complex geometry and the variable soil and
pore-pressure conditions of a given problem to be considered. The methods used in
this analysis are the simplified Bishops method (1955), and the Janbu generalized
method of slices (1954), both well documented in geotechnical literature.
Extensive research studies show that these methods satisfy all the conditions of
equilibrium, and Bishops modified method give accurate results which do not differ by
more than 5% from the correct answer, obtained by the log spiral method.
These methods are particularly preferable due to their simplicity of computer
programming. It is common to carry out routine slope-stability analyses using a
circular failure surface. In relatively homogeneous soil conditions this assumption will
be justified, since experience shows that the analysis can make good estimates of the
factor of safety when failure is imminent. Non-circular analyses are used when

a. a pre-existing shear surface has been found in the ground, and it is known to be
non-circular;
b. circular failure is prevented, perhaps by the presence of a stronger layer of soil at
shallow depth.

Under either of these conditions the use of a circular shear surface will overestimate
the factor of safety against failure.
In order to cater for both complex soil conditions and variable geometry it is common
to divide the slipping mass of soil into slices.

Pag. 4/13

slice

X
E+E

trial failure surface

X+X

Treinf.

Fig.1 Forces acting on the single slice

The factor of safety is normally defined in terms of the ratio between the average shear
strength mobilized for stability, i.e.
F = Tavailable / Tmobilized
And F = 1 at failure (Limit equilibrium method)
To obtain a solution to the problem, slope stability analyses examine the equilibrium of
the soil mass which is being considered. Methods used to derive the basic equations
are the force equilibrium of a single slice and moment equilibrium of the total soil
mass above the slip surface for Bishop, and the force equilibrium of a single slice and
force equilibrium of the total soil mass above the slip surface for Janbu. Three static
equations are applied to each slice (vertical, horizontal displacements and moment
equilibrium), making a total of 3n linearly independent equations. The reinforcement
strength will be considered in the calculation only if intercepting the sliding surfaces.
The reinforcements tensile strength is developed by its interaction with the
surrounding soil. This resisting force is assumed horizontal, oriented towards the soil
stable zone, and applied at the intersection between the sliding surface and the
reinforcement. Its value is the lowest between the pullout capacity achievable with that
embedment length and elevation, and the maximum available reinforcement strength.
If the embedment length is shorter than a minimum value, the pullout force of the
reinforcement will not be considered.

Pag. 5/13

3.2 Design tools: the MacStars W software

The stability checks have been executed by means of the Macstars W software, which
has been developed by Maccaferri to check the stability of reinforced soils and allows
the user to conduct the stability checks using the Limit Equilibrium Method. Macstars
W allows for the checks of different possible failure mechanisms:

Overall stability check

The overall stability check (also called global stability or basic stability) is the stability
analysis of a reinforced or un-reinforced slope carried out by using the limit equilibrium
method. It can be conducted to check the stability of a non-reinforced slope, prior to
considering the reinforcements. For design purposes this stability analysis is required
to evaluate the retaining work stability against potential deep-seated sliding
mechanisms as well as sliding mechanism external to the reinforcing units.

GLOBAL STABILITY
Stability analysis with slip surfaces predominantly
external to the reinforced structure

Pag. 6/13

Internal stability check

The internal stability check (or slope stability) allows the user to determine the design
of the retaining structure, that is the reinforcing units required (type, spacing between
reinforcing unit, length, etc). According to this type of stability analysis the surfaces
of potential sliding originate from the toe of the reinforcing structure and, passing
through the reinforcement, terminates uphill.

INTERNAL STABILITY
Stability analysis with slip surfaces predominantly
inside the reinforced block

Wall check

In conducting this type of stability analysis the entire retaining structure, or part of it, is
considered as a monolithic wall consisting of blocks, which form the retaining
structure, itself. During the stability analysis the wall may be considered as being
formed by all structural blocks (considered as structural embankments) forming the
retaining structure or by all blocks above the specified block.
In order to consider the sequence of selected blocks as a monolithic wall, a
geometrical condition of mean slope (inclination) of the reinforcing block must be
satisfied (figure 4): it must be higher than or equal to 70. The program determines the
mean slope considering the straight line connecting the right lower corner of the first
block (next figure, point A) with the upper right corner of the last block of the structure
to check (next figure, point B).

Pag. 7/13

The stability check of the structure (whether it is reinforced soil or a gabion wall) as a
retaining wall consists of the three classical stability analyses conducted on retaining
walls (next figure): check against overturning (A), check against sliding (B), check
against the foundation bearing capacity (C). For this last stability check, the value of
the ultimate soil pressure at the base of the wall can be provided by the user or can
be automatically calculated by the program as described in detail herein after.

Pag. 8/13

4. Load Combinations
Ultimate Limit State principles are applied to the design of retaining structures (ULS).
According to Eurocode 7 - UNI EN 1997-1 partial factors are applied; nominal loads
are increased by multiplying by prescribed load factors G and Q, greater than unity
for loads with a disturbing effect to obtain design load; material properties such as
reinforcement capability or soil properties are reduced by dividing by prescribed
material factors m(greater that units) to produce design material properties;
Resistances such as earth resistance or bearing capacity are divided by prescribed
resistance factories R (greater that units).
STATIC DESIGN
For the Overall Stability, the limit state has been applied using the combination of set
of partial safety factors:
Combination: A2+M2+R3 (see paragraph 5).
For evaluating the External Stability (Sliding, Overturning and for the evaluation of the
bearing capacity) Geotechnical (GEO) limit state has been applied using the
combination of set of partial safety factors:
Combination: A1+M1+R2 (see paragraph 5).
For the Internal stability (rupture and adherence of the reinforcements) Structural

(STR) limit state has been applied using the combinations of set of partial safety
factors:
Combination: A1+M1+R2 (see paragraph 5).
SEISMIC DESIGN
The seismic design conditions are analysed using the same Design Approach and
considering equal to the unit the partial factor on actions.
For the Overall stability in seismic condition, the limit state has been applied using the
combination of set of partial safety factors:
Combination: M2+R3+kh+kv (see paragraph 5).
For evaluating the External Stability (Sliding, Overturning and for the evaluation of the
bearing capacity) Geotechnical (GEO) limit state has been applied using the
combination of set of partial safety factors:
Combination: M1+R2+kh+kv (see paragraph 5).
For the Internal stability (rupture and adherence of the reinforcements) Structural

(STR) limit state has been applied using the combinations of set of partial safety
factors:
Combination: M1+R2+kh+kv
Where kh and kv represent the seismic action (see paragraph 7).
Pag. 9/13

5. Partial factors
According to EN 1997-1 (annex A tables A.3; A.4 ; A.13 and A.14) the partial factors
for the ultimate limit states are reported in the tables below

RESISTANCES partial factors R

Rd = R k / R

R1

R2

R3

1,1

Sliding

1,0

1,1

1,0

Overturning

1,0

1,0

1,0

Bearing capacity

1,0

1,4

1,0

Overall Stability

SOIL partial factors M

M1

M2

Weight density

1,0

1,00

Angle of shearing resistance - tank ()

1,0

1,25

Effective cohesion ck (c)

1,0

1,25

Undrained shear resistance cuk (cu)

1,0

1,40

(STR) and (GEO)

ACTIONS partial factors F

PERMANENT:
(G)

VARIABLE:
(Q)

A1

A2

Unfavourable

1,35

1,0

Favourable

1,0

1,0

Unfavourable

1,5

1,3

Favourable

Pag. 10/13

6. Descriptions of the Reinforcements : Terramesh System and Green

Terramesh

Terramesh System - Reinforcements planar structures units in double twist wire mesh with
Gabion facing section
Double twist wire mesh type: 8x10

according to UNI EN 10223-3

Steel Wire diameter

2.7 mm

Coating ZnAl5% alloy

according to UNI EN 10244-2

Polymeric coating

PVC

Polymeric coating thickness

0.5 mm

Length

as per calculations

Green Terramesh Light Preassembled reinforcements planar structures units in double

twist wire mesh with vegetated facing section
Double twist wire mesh type: 8x10

according to UNI EN 10223-3

Steel Wire diameters

2.2 mm

Coating ZnAl5% alloy

according to UNI EN 10244-2

Polymeric coating

PVC

Polymeric coating thickness

0.5 mm

Length

as per calculations

Green Terramesh Preassembled reinforcements planar structures units in double twist

wire mesh with vegetated facing section
Double twist wire mesh type: 8x10

according to UNI EN 10223-3

Steel Wire diameters

2.7 mm

Coating ZnAl5% alloy

according to UNI EN 10244-2

Polymeric coating

PVC

Polymeric coating thickness

0.5 mm

Length

as per calculations

Pag. 11/13

7. Input data
Design soil parameters chosen are reported below:

Foundation Soil
Weight density :

19 kN/m3

Friction angle :

30

Cohesion:

0 kPa

Weight density :

19 kN/m3

Friction angle :

25 30 35

Cohesion:

0 kPa

Backfill

Structural Soil
Weight density :

19 kN/m3

Friction angle :

25 30 35

Cohesion:

0 KPa

Stone Facing Filling

Weight density :

17,5 kN/m3

Friction angle :

40

Cohesion:

12,5 kPa

Surcharge Load
The variable live load of 20 kPa related to normal traffic on the structural embankment is taken into
account in calculations.
In Seismic conditions the variable live load related to traffic is reduced using the coefficient 2j=0.2.
Seismic action
According to UNI EN 1998-5 the Seismic analysis are make using simplified method (pseudostatic
analysis). The horizontal and vertical seismic coefficients affecting all the masses are taken as:
kh = *S/r = I * (agR /g)* S/r = 0,1
kv = 1/3 kh = 0,033

Pag. 12/13

8. Attachment list

In order to control the output results, see the attached drawings:

Gabions
-

Stepped inside ( 3 drawings)

Stepped outside (3 drawings)

Green Terramesh
Wire 2,2/3,2 ( 3 drawings)
Wire 2,7/3,7 ( 3 drawings)

Terramesh System ( 3 drawings)

Pag. 13/13