piled embankment

1 INTRODUCTION

Most design methods assume a basal geosynthetic reinforcement (GR) consisting of one biaxial GR layer.However, there are several reasons why this is in practice often not the case. One reason is the width limi-tation of the GR. Two uniaxial reinforcement layers are therefore used to enable the efficient transfer ofloads in each direction. These two uniaxial layers are placed perpendicular to, and directly on top of eachother. Furthermore, the required strength and stiffness is frequently divided into two GR layers with a layerof granular material in between, because this is economically or practically more convenient.

1L1G =1 Layer

1 Geogrid

1L2G =1 Layer

2 Geogrids

2L2G =2 Layers

2 Geogrids

Figure 1. This paper compares three reinforcement systems: 1L1G, 1L2G and 2L2G

This paper compares three systems, all with orthogonal pile patterns; see Figure 1: (1) 1L1G: a mainlytheoretical system: one GR layer consisting of one geogrid and a (2) 1L2G: one GR layer consisting oftwo uniaxial geogrids installed directly upon each other and (3) 2L2G, two GR layers each consisting of

Is 1+1=2?Results of 3D model experiments on piled embankments

S.J.M. van EekelenDeltares and Delft University of Technology, Delft, Netherlands

A. BezuijenGhent University, Ghent, Belgium and Deltares, Delft, Netherlands

ABSTRACT:

Most design models for basal reinforced piled embankments design the geosynthetic reinforcement (GR) asa single biaxial layer. In practice, however, the required strength and stiffness is frequently divided into twoor more GR layers with or without a layer of granular material in between. This paper compares three ge-ogrid-systems: (1) one GR layer consisting of one biaxial geogrid and a (2) one GR layer consisting of twouniaxial geogrids installed directly upon each other and (3) two geogrids with a fill layer in between.

Five model tests have been carried out to study the differences between these three systems. This test se-ries has been presented earlier by Van Eekelen et al., 2012a. The present paper presents part of the results.It was shown that the behaviour of the first two systems is the same: the GR stiffness of the biaxial geogridis apparently the same as the summed stiffness in each direction of the two uniaxial grids.

It was also shown that the application of a fill layer between the two GR layers results in a slightly morelinear dependency of the net load on the fill and in the end of the tests, in slightly more arching. However,the differences are very small. The GR stiffness, for example, has much more influence than whether or nota fill layer has been applied between the two GR layers. It is therefore concluded that the stiffness andstrength of two or more GR layers can be summed, thus 1+1=2 indeed.

Keywords: piled embankments, reinforcement, model experiments, geogrid

one geogrid with a fill layer in between. The three tests K1, K2 and K3 have a comparable total strengthand stiffness and tests S3 and S4 have the same total strength and stiffness.

Part of this work has been published before in Van Eekelen et al., (2012a, 2013). However, for this pa-per, two more tests have been carried out to be able to finalize this study.

In this paper, the load distribution is considered as follows: the vertical load (traffic weight, road and fillweight) is distributed into three load parts A, B and C (shown in Figure 2). These are defined as follows:part A (arching) is transferred directly to the piles, part B goes through the GR to the piles and part C(subsoil) is carried by the soft subsoil. This paper gives load parts A, B and C in kN/pile. Note that A, Band C are vertical loads.

C C

B B

C C

B B A

A+BAbl

Btl BtlAtl

Atl+Btl

Abl+Bbl

C C

Bbl Bbl

a b

Figure 2. Load distribution. a: no fill between layers: 1L1G or 1L2G, b: fill between layers: 2L2G

pile

Abl

Abl +Bbl

Atl+BtlAtl

d. detail: 2L2G: fill between GR layers

z1z2

pile 4pile 2

pile 1C3

C2

pile 3 C1

C4

b. top view 1L1G, 1L2G or bottom layer

A

A +Bpile

c. detail: 1L1G or 1L2G

strain transducer Hsettlement transducer ztotal pressure cell

a. cross-section

z1,2

z1,2

foamcushion

Cx Cy

fill

pile

x

pile

y

top cushion

Figure 3. Test set up: a. cross section, b. top view c. detail of 1L1G or 1L2G test, d. detail of 2L2G test

2 DESCRIPTION OF THE TESTS

2.1 Test set-up and test procedureA series of nineteen piled embankment model experiments was carried out in the Deltares laboratory. Thetest set up has been described in Van Eekelen et al., 2012a and 2012c and summarized here for clarity rea-sons. The nineteen tests were conducted by using the test set-up given in Figure 3. The test set-up is a 1-g

scale model test. The scale is 1:3 to 1:5. The strength of the geotextile used in the tests was adjusted, tohave the same relative deformation as in prototype. The maximum surcharge load was high enough to pro-duce realistic stresses in the fill so that stress-dependent fill behaviour is the same as in the prototype. Afoam cushion modelled the soft soil around the 4 piles. This cushion was a watertight wrapped soakedfoam rubber cushion. A tap allowed drainage of the cushion during the test, which modelled the consolida-tion process of the soft soil.

A 1.5 to 2 cm layer of sand was applied on top of the foam cushion and the piles. On top of this, one ortwo stiff steel frames were placed on which one or two GR layers were attached. A fill of 0.42 m wasplaced. The top load was applied with a water cushion that applied stresses comparable with field stresses.

After the installation of the fill, each test was carried out as follows: (1) 6 litres drainage foam cushion(modelling subsoil consolidation), (2) installation of the water cushion on top of the fill followed by a firsttop load increase, (3) one or more drainage steps of 6 litres until subsoil support approaches 0 kN/m2, (4)second top load increase, (5) one or more drainage steps and top load increases, up to the maximal topload (varying between 50 and 100 kPa) and the subsequent drainage steps (6) sucking vacuum the foamcushion to create a situation without subsoil support.

The test set-up is similar to the test set-up of Zaeske (2001). In the series reported here, however, thefill consisted of granular material instead of sand, the subsoil support was controlled with the foam cushionand the load distribution was measured differently.

The following features were measured: pressures on the piles, both on top of and below the GR. Thepressure in the foam cushion and the water cushion, the total load on the foam cushion, strains of the GRand settlements of the GR at 3 to 5 locations.

The results of the first twelve tests are described, analysed and compared with the Dutch CUR 226(2010) and the German EBGEO (2010) extensively in Van Eekelen et al. (2012a, b).

2.2 Fill and GR typeThis paper presents the results of five tests: K1, K2, K3, S3 and S4. Table 1 specifies these tests. In allthese tests, the fill was a well-graded granular fill (crushed recycled construction material 1-16 mm). DenBoogert et al. (2012) carried out displacement-controlled (2 mm/min) triaxial tests on three 300 mm x 600mm samples (diameter x height) of granular fill. She found a peak friction angle Mpeak of 49.0o and a dilata-tion angle of 9o. The GR consisted of geogrid as specified in Table 1.

Table 1. Specification of the five tests considered in this papertest GR Height fill

between2 GR layers

MaterialGR

Summed stiffnessof GR layers J2%(direction 1 / di-rection 2)a,b

Fill unitweight

top loads applied during test(kPa)c.

m kN/m kN/m3 kPa and kN/pile1L1G: one layer consisting of one geogridK1e 1 woven grid

biaxialPVA 2399/2904 16.70 0-25-50-75-100 kPa

(0-7.6-15.1-22.7-30.2 kN/pile)1L2G: one layer consisting of two geogrids without fill between the geogridsK2e 2 woven grids

uniaxial d0.000 PVA 2269/2269 16.59 0-25-50-75-100 kPa

(0-7.6-15.1-22.7-30.2 kN/pile)S4 2 extruded grids

isotropic d,f0.000 PP 757/757 16.15 0-25-50-75-100 kPa

(0-7.6-15.1-22.7-30.2 kN/pile)2L2G: two layers with a fill layer between these layersK3e 2 woven grids

uniaxial0.050 PVA 2269/2269 16.60 0-25-50-75-100 kPa

(0-7.6-15.1-22.7-30.2 kN/pile)S3 2 extruded grids

isotropic f0.105 PP 757/757 16.75 0-25-50-75-100 kPa

(0-7.6-15.1-22.7-30.2 kN/pile)a The total stiffness of the reinforcement is given. If more layers of reinforcement are applied, the stiffness values aresummed.b The stiffness of geosynthetic reinforcement is dependent on the GR strain and the duration of loading, as well as other fac-tors. The J2% given in this table is for a GR strain of 2%, and is determined in accordance with CEN ISO 10319.c After each top load increase, drainage of the foam cushion follows in 1 or more steps of usually 6 litres. Figures 5 to 9 givethe results after each top load increase and after each drainage step of 6 litres.d Two uniaxial geogrids are placed directly upon each other on one frame. The strength direction of one geogrid is perpen-dicular to the other.e Tests presented partly in Van Eekelen et al. 2012a.f Stiffness is in all directions more or less the same

3 ONE GR LAYER CONSISTING OF ONE BIAXIAL OR TWO UNIAXIAL GRIDS

Model tests K1 and K2 were carried out to validate whether the behaviour of 1L1G and 1L2G is the same.It was expected that 1L1G (test K1) would behave according to mechanism 1 in Figure 4a. It was uncer-tain whether 1L2G (test K2) would behave in the same way, or whether the load would travel in the longi-tudinal direction in the top GR layer until it met the second layer of reinforcement at the strips in betweenadjacent pile caps (mechanism 2 in Figure 4b).

a. mechanism 1 b. mechanism 2Figure 4. Mechanism 1 and 2: two possible load transport mechanisms through the GR

3.1 Load distributionFigure 5 to Figure 9 show test results. In most cases the net load Wn is given at the horizontal axes, whichis the top load minus the subsoil support and minus the friction between test box wall and fill. Figure 5shows that the measured load distribution and settlements are virtually the same for both tests. Differencesbetween the two tests (a higher load part B in the final phase of test K1) must be due to differences in fric-tion between the box and fill, as the top load, load parts A and C (and vertical deflection of the GR) arenearly the same. From this Figure 5 it is concluded that no difference has been found for the case of onebiaxial or two uni-axial GR layers installed directly upon each other. Thus apparently, the stiffness of bothGR layers can be summed in each direction. Thus 1+1 = 2 for this case.

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

0 5 10 15 20 25 30

GR

defle

ctio

n(m

m)

net load Wn (kN/pile)

1L1G test K1 z21L1G test K1 z11L2G test K2 z21L2G test K2 z1

z1: centre of4 piles

z2: centre of2 adjacent piles

0

2

4

6

8

10

12

14

16

0 5 10 15 20 25 30

load

(kN

/pile

)


1L1G test K1 A1L1G test K1 B1L2G test K2 A1L2G test K2 B

AB

Figure 5. Comparison of a 1L1G (test K1) and 1L2G (test K2). Left: measured load distribution, right: measured vertical GRdeflection (locations z1 and z2 in Figure 3). The figure has also been published in Van Eekelen et al. (2012a).

3.2 Deformation patternFigure 5b shows that 1L1G and 1L2G give nearly the same GR deflections. However, the GR stiffness hasa clear influence: the stiffer K1 and K2 reinforcement shows less deflection.

Figure 9a shows measured strains. Each measured strain is the strain in the direction along the long sideof the strain gauge, as indicated in the figure. The figure shows that the strain concentrates mainly in theGR strips. This measured strain pattern is similar throughout all 19 tests of the test series. The higheststrains have been measured on top of the piles. Several researchers found the same in model tests or nu-merical calculations (for example Jones et al. (2010), Halvordson et al (2010) and Zaeske (2001)). How-ever, measurements in field cases show smaller GR strains above the pile caps than in the surrounding GRstrips. One difference is that smooth piles with a relatively small diameter were used in the different modeltests, while large precast concrete or cast-in-place concrete pile caps were used in the field (for example

Haring et al. 2008 or and Weihrauch et al, 2010). Furthermore, arching result in a relatively high verticalpressure on the pile cap, so that it is likely that relatively much friction occurs between pile cap and geo-textile which may prevent elongation of the geotextile on top of the pile cap in field conditions. In all casesthe strains found in the GR strips between adjacent piles were found to be much larger than in the GR areain between. Also for test K2 in Figure 9a. This agrees with mechanism 1 of Figure 4a. The load travels inboth directions, mainly along the strips between adjacent pile caps, as shown by Figure 4a.

4 THE INFLUENCE OF THE APPLICATION OF A FILL LAYER BETWEEN TWO GR LAYERS

As described before, the required GR strength and stiffness is frequently divided into two or more GR lay-ers with one or more fill layers in between. This section compares the situation with and without the filllayer between two GR layers, thus 1L2G and 2L2G.

Two sets of tests are particularly suitable for this purpose. These are tests K2 and K3 and tests S3 andS4. In K2 the same GR was applied as in K3. In S3 the same GR was applied as in in S4. K2 and S4 are1L2G; no fill between the GR layers, whilst the two GR layers in tests K3 and S3 are separated by respec-tively 0.05 m and 0.10 m granular fill as indicated in Table 1. Thus K3 and S3 are of the 2L2G-type.

15%

25%

35%

45%

55%

65%

75%

0

4

8

12

16

20

24

-5 0 5 10 15 20 25

K2:

Aan

dK

3:A

bl-B

tl(%

)

K2:

Aan

dK

3:A

bl-B

tl(k

N/p

ile)


1L2G test K2 (kN/pile)2L2G test K3 (kN/pile)1L2G test K2 (%)2L2G test K3 (%)

15%

20%

25%

30%

35%

40%

45%

0

4

8

12

16

20

24

-5 0 5 10 15 20 25

K2:

Ban

dK

3:B

bl+B

tl(%

)

K2:

Ban

dK

3:B

bl+B

tl(k

N/p

ile)


15%

25%

35%

45%

55%

65%

75%

0

4

8

12

16

20

24

-5 0 5 10 15 20 25

S3:A

bl-B

tlan

dS4

:A(%

)

S4:

Aan

dS3

:A

bl-B

tl(k

N/p

ile)


1L2G test S4 (kN/pile)2L2G test S3 (kN/pile)1L2G test S4 (%)2L2G test S3 (%)

15%

20%

25%

30%

35%

40%

45%

0

4

8

12

16

20

24

-5 0 5 10 15 20 25

S3:B

bl+B

tlan

dS4

:B(%

)

S4:

Ban

dS3

:B

bl+B

tl(k

N/p

ile)


Figure 6. Measured load distribution (kN/pile). Comparison with fill between GR layers (2L2G: tests K3 and S3) and withoutfill between layers (1L2G: tests K2 and S4). Left axes: load in kN/pile, right axes: load in % of total measured load

4.1 How to compare 1L2G and 2L2G tests.Figure 2b shows that the Abl in a 2L2G test cannot be compared with arching A in a 1L2G test, because Ablwill be increased as load Btl is transferred through the top grid layer. Another limitation is that, due toarching, the top grid layer will experience a pile that is virtually wider. The total pressure cells are intendedto measure the total load on the pile, and therefore have exactly the same diameter as the pile. The diame-

ter of Atl is therefore smaller than the virtual diameter below the top grid layer, as indicated in Figure 2b.Both Atl and Btl may be larger than the measured Atl and Btl. The results in the present paper have not beencorrected for this: thus the measured values are presented.

While being aware of these limitations, the measured load part B in a 1L2G test can be compared ap-proximately with Btl+Bbl in a 2L2G test, and load part A in a 1L2G test can be compared approximatelywith Abl-Btl in a 2L2G test.

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%

load

parts

A(A

bl-B

tl)an

dB

(Bbl

+Btl)

(%)

Load part C (%)

1L2G test K2 A2L2G test K3 Abl-Btl1L2G test K2 B2L2G test K3 Bbl+Btl

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%

load

parts

A(o

rAbl

-Btl)

and

B(B

bl+B

tl)(%

)

Load part C (%)

1L2G test S4 A2L2G test S3 Abl-Btl1L2G test S4 B2L2G test S3 Bbl+Btl

Figure 7. Measured load distribution, development of arching. Comparison with fill between GR layers (2L2G: tests K3 andS3) and without fill between layers (1L2G: tests K2 and S4). The total GR stiffness of K2 and K3 is J2% = 2269 kN/m, the to-tal GR stiffness of S3 and S4 is J2% = 757 kN/m. A, B and C are given in percentage of total measured load A+B+C.

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

-5 0 5 10 15 20 25settl

emen

tsbe

twee

n2

pile

s:z2

(mm

)


2L2G test S3 top layer1L2G test S42L2G test S3 bottom layer1L2G test K22L2G test K3 bottom layer2L2G test K3 top layer

S3 and S4

K2 and K3

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

-5 0 5 10 15 20 25set

tlem

ents

betw

een

4pi

les:

z1(m

m)


1L2G test S41L2G test K22L2G test S3 bottom layer

S3 and S4

K2

Figure 8. Measured GR deflection (mm). Left: z2 between 2 piles; right: z1 between 4 piles. Comparison with fill betweenGR layers (2L2G: tests K3 and S3) and without fill between layers (1L2G: tests K2 and S4). See Figure 2 for positions z1 andz2. K2 and K3: GR stiffness J2% = 2269 kN/m, S3 and S4: GR stiffness J2% = 757 kN/m.

4.2 Load distribution, development of arching in 1L2G and 2L2G testsFigure 5 and Figure 6 compare the load distribution for the 1L2G and 2L2G tests. It can be concluded thatarching is virtually comparable for both reinforcement systems. In the 2L2G tests, however, the archingdevelops a bit more slowly and ends up a bit higher than in the 1L2G tests. The final value for arching A(thus Abl-Btl) of the 2L2G tests is thus slightly higher than the value for arching A in the 1L2G test. Corre-sponding with this, Bbl+Btl ends up slightly smaller than load B in the 1L2G tests.

Figure 7 shows the development of the arching A and load part B as a function of the subsoil support C.The tests start at the right hand side of each figure, with C=100%. The alternation in the model tests be-tween consolidation of the subsoil (C% decreases) and top load increase (C% increases) is shown clearly,specifically for the 1L2G tests. Tests K2 and K3 end up with sucking vacuum the foam cushion that mod-els the subsoil, leading to C=0%. Tests S3 and S4 have not been carried out this far.

The figure shows that the arching A% and load part B% are more strongly linearly dependent on C% inthe 2L2G tests than in the single layered tests. This is also shown by the 2L2G tests in Figure 5. In thatfigure, the curves of Abl-Btl and Btl+Bbl in kN/pile are straighter than A and B in the 1L2G tests. The be-haviour in the 2L2G tests is thus stronger linearly dependent on the net load Wn than those of the 1L2Gtests.

-2

0

2

4

6

8

10

12

14

-5 0 5 10 15 20 25

mea

sure

dst

rain

inte

stK

2(%

)tre

ndco

nsite

ntbu

tval

uest

oohi

gh


eps 4 across stripeps 5 diagonaleps 6 between 4 pileseps 1 on pileeps 2 between 2 pileseps 3 between 2 piles

1L2G;test K2

-2

0

2

4

6

8

10

12

14

-5 0 5 10 15 20 25m

easu

red

stra

inin

test

K3

(%)

trend

cons

itent

but

valu

esto

ohi

ghnet load Wn (kN/pile)

eps 4 bl on pileeps 5 tl on pileeps 6 tl between 2 pileseps 1 bl on pileeps 2 bl across stripeps 3 bl between 2 piles

2L2G; test K3

-2

0

2

4

6

8

10

12

14

-5 0 5 10 15 20 25

mea

sure

dst

rain

inte

stS4

(%)

trend

cons

iste

ntbu

tval

uest

oohi

gh


eps 4 on pileeps 5 across GR stripeps 6 between 2 pileseps 1 on pileeps 2 between 2 pileseps 3 across GR strip

1L2G; test S4

-2

0

2

4

6

8

10

12

14

-5 0 5 10 15 20 25

mea

sure

dst

rain

botto

mG

Rla

yerS

3(%

)tre

ndco

nsis

tent

butv

alue

stoo

high


eps 4 bl on pileeps 5 bl across GR stripeps 6 bl between 2 pileseps 1 bl on pileeps 2 bl between 2 pileseps 3 bl across GR strip

2L2G; test S3

S3 bottomlayer & S4

H1 H3

H2

H6 H4H5

K3 bottom layerH1

H2

H3

H4

K3 top layer

H6 H5

H1

H4H5

H3 H2

H6

K2

Figure 9. Measured GR strains. Comparison of double-layered tests (K3 and S3) and single-layered tests (K2 and S4).The total GR stiffness of K2 and K3 J2% = 2269 kN/m, the total GR stiffness of S3 and S4 J2% = 757 kN/m. The measure-ments are consistent in comparison to each other, showing a consistent deformation picture, but the given values are too high,due to limitation in the measurement system.

4.3 Deformations; GR deflection and GR strains in 1L2G and 2L2G testsA 2L2G system gives comparable or a bit less GR deflections than a 1L2G system (Figure 8). Brianonand Simon (2012) also found the same GR deflection with their full scale tests with a 1L2G and a 2L2Gsystem, each with more or less the same GR stiffness. Apparently, the GR stiffness has much more influ-ence than the difference between 1L2G and 2L2G. The stiffer GR (K2 and K3) gives much less settlement.The fill layer between the GR layers in test S3 is 0.1 m, in test K3 it is 0.05 m. The thicker fill layer in S3does not compensate for the lower GR stiffness.

The figure also shows that the K3-top grid layer settles less than the bottom grid layer. For test S3 thisis different, which is unexpected and possibly a measurement mistake.

The GR strains (Figure 9) have been measured with a newly developed strain gauge, made of bicyclegear cables. The system has been described by Van Eekelen et al. (2012a). The system gives consistent re-sults, but some development is still needed as the measured strains are generally too high. This has beenconcluded from two observations: (1) comparison with conventional strain gauges in other tests of thesame test series and (2) the measured strain is in some cases higher than possible for this geosyntheticwithout rupture. However, the results show a consistent GR deformation pattern throughout all tests. Thetop layer shows the same GR strain pattern as the bottom grid layer, but the GR strains are lower. The

strain pattern shows a strong localisation of the strains on top of the piles and in the GR strips between ad-jacent piles. This pattern has further been discussed in section 3.2.

5 CONCLUSIONS

Most design models for piled embankments design the geosynthetic reinforcement as a single biaxial layer.In practice, however, the required strength and stiffness is frequently divided into two GR layers with orwithout a fill layer in between. Model experiments have been carried out to study the difference betweenthese three systems: (1) 1L1G: one single biaxial GR layer and a (2) 1L2G: one GR layer consisting oftwo uniaxial or biaxial GR layers installed directly upon each other and (3) 2L2G, two GR layers with a filllayer in between.

The measured load distribution and deformations do not show any differences between the behaviour ofthe first two systems. Thus the stiffness of one biaxial GR layers equals the summed stiffness of the twouniaxial layers installed directly upon each other. Thus 1+1=2.

A system with two GR layers with or without a fill layer in between also show similar behaviour. Thearching in the systems with a fill between the layers is a bit more linearly dependent on the net load on thefill. That means that the arching in the 2L2G is a bit less in the first phase of the tests and a bit more in thelast phase of the tests than found for 1L2G. The deformation pattern is similar for all cases, both with andwithout a fill layer between the GR layers, at least for the geometry considered in this study. For designpurposes it is sufficient to consider the systems with and without a fill layer between the GR layers as thesame. Thus 1+1=2 indeed.

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

The authors are grateful for the financial support for the model tests of Deltares, Huesker, Naue, TenCateand Tensar. The financial support and fruitful debate with these companies have been extremely valuable.

REFERENCES

Brianon, L., Simon, B., 2012. Performance of Pile-Supported Embankment over Soft Soil: Full-Scale Experiment. J. Ge-otech. Geoenviron. Eng. 2012. 138: 551-561.

CUR 226, 2010, Design guideline piled embankments. ISBN 978-90-376-0518-1 (in Dutch).Den Boogert, Th., Van Duijnen, P.G. and Van Eekelen, S.J.M., 2012. Numerical analysis of geosynthetic reinforced piled

embankent scale model tests. Plaxis Bulletin 31, pp. 12-17.EBGEO, 2010. Recommendations for Design and Analysis of Earth Structures using Geosynthetic Reinforcements

EBGEO, 2011. ISBN 978-3-433-02983-1 and digital in English ISBN 978-3-433-60093-1).Van Eekelen, S.J.M., Bezuijen, A., Lodder, H.J., Van Tol, A.F., 2012a. Model experiments on piled embankments Part I.

Geotextiles and Geomembranes 32: 69-81.Van Eekelen, S.J.M., Bezuijen, A., Lodder, H.J., Van Tol, A.F., 2012b. Model experiments on piled embankments. Part II.

Geotextiles and Geomembranes 32: 82-94 including its corrigendum: Van Eekelen, S.J.M., Bezuijen, A., Lodder, H.J.,van Tol, A.F., 2012b2. Corrigendum to Model experiments on piled embankments. Part II [Geotextiles and Geomem-branes volume 32 (2012) pp. 82e94]. Geotextiles and Geomembranes 35: 119.

Van Eekelen, S.J.M., Nancey, A. and Bezuijen, A., 2012c, Influence of fill material and type of geosynthetic reinforcement ina piled embankment, model experiments. Published in: proceedings of Proceedings of EuroGeo 2012, Valencia in Spain.

Van Eekelen, S.J.M., Bezuijen, A. and Van Tol, A.F., 2012b. An analytical model for arching in piled embankments. Geo-textiles and Geomembranes 39: 78-102.

Jones, B.M., Plaut, R.H., Filz, G.M., 2010. Analysis of geosynthetic reinforcement in pile-supported embankments. Part I:3D plate model. Geosynthetics International, Volume 17, Issue 2, pages 59 67 , ISSN: 1072-6349, E-ISSN: 1751-7613.

Halvordson , K.A., Plaut, R.H., Filz, G.M., 2010. Analysis of geosynthetic reinforcement in pile-supported embankments.Part II: 3D cable-net model. Geosynthetics International, Volume 17, Issue 2, pages 68 76 , ISSN: 1072-6349, E-ISSN:1751-7613.

Zaeske, D., 2001. Zur Wirkungsweise von unbewehrten und bewehrten mineralischen Tragschichten ber pfahlartigen Grn-dungselementen. Schriftenreihe Geotechnik, Uni Kassel, Heft 10, February 2001 (in German).

Haring, W., Profittlich, M. & Hangen, H., 2008. Reconstruction of the national road N210 Bergambacht to Krimpen a.d. IJs-sel, NL: design approach, construction experiences and measurement results. In: Proceedings 4th European GeosyntheticsConference, September 2008, Edinburgh, UK.

Weihrauch, S., Oehrlein, S. & Vollmert, L., 2010. Baugrundverbesserungsmanahmen in der HafenCity Hamburg amBeispiel des Stellvertreterobjektes Hongkongstrae. Tagungsband zur 31. Baugrundtagung der DGGT, 03 06 November2010, Mnchen, ISBN 978-3-9813953-0-3, pp. 147-153.

piled embankment

Documents