EuroGeo4 Paper number 264

PILED EMBANKMENTS IN THE NETHERLANDS, A FULL-SCALE TEST, COMPARING 2 YEARS OF

MEASUREMENTS WITH DESIGN CALCULATIONS

Suzanne Van Eekelen1, Adam Bezuijen2 & Dimiter Alexiew3

1
Deltares. (e-mail: Suzanne.vanEekelen@Deltares.nl)
2
Deltares. (e-mail: Adam.Bezuijen@Deltares.nl)
3
Huesker Synthetic GmbH. (e-mail: dalexiew@huesker.de)

Abstract: A Dutch standard for the design of piled embankments is currently in preparation. For the purpose of
this preparation, existing design models are being considered and validated. This paper presents a comparison of the
analytical models for the design of piled embankments based on BS 8006 and EBGEO chapter 6.9. To make it
possible to validate these design models, a piled embankment is being tested in the field. On top of this embankment is
an unpaved road. Two years of field measurements are compared with the predictions using BS 8006 and EBGEO.
Results show that for the test site, the German EBGEO gives a better approach to the design of piled embankments
than the British Standard BS 8006.

Keywords: Piled embankment, arching, field monitoring, full-scale test, geosynthetic, geogrid reinforcement

INTRODUCTION
For constructing roads on very soft soils, several construction methods have been developed. A piled embankment
is one of these methods and has become more and more popular in the Netherlands. For example, in 2004 to 2006,
several sections of the highway A15 have been constructed with piled embankments. In 2005 and 2006, a piled
embankment was constructed in Overtoom, Papendrecht, and in 2007, a bicycle road on timber piles was constructed
in Gorinchem (figure 1). Also in 2007, a 430 m long piled embankment was constructed between Hoofddorp and
New Vennep, and in July 2007, a start was made on the construction of a 14 km long road through the polder
‘Krimpenerwaard’. A piled embankment makes it possible to construct a road relatively quickly, which is important in
the viewpoint of the present policy of Dutch Public Works that demands shorter construction times.

Figure 1. Constructing a piled embankment in Gorinchem. Photograph’s: Van Biezen Heipalen BV.

A Dutch Standard for the design of piled embankments is currently in preparation. For the purpose of this
preparation, existing design procedures for reinforced embankments on piles are being considered and validated. This
paper considers the only official standard available: the British Standard BS 8006 (1995) and the German Draft-
Standard EBGEO (2004). The numerical calculations of the models from both standards are validated against and the
results of a full-scale test. It is the purpose of this work to create a software tool (‘MPiledRoad’) in the future Dutch
Standard, which contains the design rules for the piles below a pile mattress, and the mattress itself. The design model
used in the software can be chosen from various existing design standards such as BS 8006 or EBGEO Draft, the
design model according to Bush and Jenner and the future Dutch Standard.
This paper only considers the calculation of the tensile force in the geosynthetic reinforcement (GR) due to the
vertical loads and the fill arching on the piles. The (often significant) tensile forces in the GR due to the horizontal
stresses in the embankment (as a result of “spreading”) are beyond the scope of this study.

ARCHING, THE BASIS FOR THE DESIGN OF PILED EMBANKMENTS

A piled embankment is usually reinforced with GR and is constructed on top piles in the field. Depending on the
type of piles, the centre to centre distance between the piles is usually between 1.0 and 4.0 m. The embankment is
usually constructed with one or more layers of GR and granular (non-cohesive) material. This paper focuses on the
design of the geosynthetic reinforcement (GR) of the embankment.

1
 EuroGeo4 Paper number 264
One of the basic steps in the design of the reinforcement is the assumption of “arching” in the fill. The
loads/stresses in the embankment fill tend to be transferred directly to supporting stiff elements, in this case, the piles.
The load on the soft subsoil is therefore reduced. The part of the load that is not being transferred to the piles is
assumed to be carried by the geosynthetic reinforcement and perhaps partly by the soft subsoil. Advantages of the
application of a piled embankment are the high reduction of settlements (if necessary, negligible settlement is
possible), the small influence on the surroundings (negligible to small horizontal deformations), and at last but not
least that a piled embankment can be constructed much faster than a traditional road embankment because it is not
necessary to wait for the consolidation settlement of the soft soil. Nearly all models for the design of the GR of a piled
embankment comprise the following calculation steps:
1. Distribution / division of the load into two or three parts, as shown in Figure 5.
2. Load part B, which is carried by the GR, is then assumed to work as a line load on a virtual “GR-strip” just
between two adjacent pile caps.
3. With a simple chain or parabolic rule or in a more precise way (EBGEO Draft), the tensile force in the GR is
calculated from the line load on the virtual “GR-strip”.

Many models adopt the assumption of ‘full arching’. They assume that the arching effect is ‘full’ or complete once
the embankment is constructed to a certain level. All embankment weight and/or surcharge above this level are
assumed to be transferred directly to the piles. Thus, the GR doesn’t “feel” the additional thickness of the
embankment, or the weight of a heavy lorry above this level. This paper considers two important methods for the
design of piled embankments provided in the only official Standards available, British Standard BS 8006 (1995), and
the German Draft-Standard EBGEO (Chapter 6.9) (2004).
The paper first presents briefly the basis of these two models. After that, a full-scale test is presented. Then, the
results of two years monitoring are compared with the EBGEO- and BS 8006 predictions.

BRITISH STANDARD BS8006

The British code BS 8006 makes four assumptions to calculate the load on the GR of a piled embankment:
Figure 2. BS8006. Jones et al (1990, figure 2a)
WT (kN/m’) is acting upon a reinforcement strip
between two adjacent pile caps. This WT gives a
tensile tress in the reinforcement.
• The load on the pile caps may be calculated using the
equation by Marston (1913) for pipes, adapted for a piled
embankment.
• No support of soft soil (load part C=0, Fig. 5).
• The line load on the reinforcement, WT,(p’r) is transferred to
line loads, p’r, on the strips of reinforcement between
adjacent pile caps. BS 8006 presents equations for the line
load on the reinforcement, WT. For these equations, BS 8006
is based on the work of Jones et al (1990), who assumed a 2-
dimensional geometry, which means walls in the soil in stead
of piles. This gives, especially for the case of partial arching,
much too high tension in the GR as all the load is carried in
one direction, i.e. perpendicular to the walls, only. In reality,
the load is carried in two directions between the piles. Many
authors however assume that BS 8006 is meant to be fully 3-
dimensional. BS 8006 assumes that ‘full arching’ exists, such
that if the embankment is high enough, extra embankment
height or traffic load is just ignored in the calculation of the
line load, p’r. This can give an unsafe of reinforcement in the
case of thick embankments. The consequence of both
assumptions, the 2D base of Jones et al, and the full arching,
is that there is no vertical equilibrium. This is fully
elaborated and an improvement on BS 8006 is presented in
Van Eekelen and Bezuijen (2008).
• The relationship between the line-load, WT, strain, ε, and the
tensile force in the GR is given by the catenary equation.

The calculated tensile force in the reinforcement due to vertical load and arching is dependent on the geometry of
the system (embankment thickness, centre to centre distance between the piles, sizes of the pile caps), the weight of
the fill, the foundation layer and asphalt, and the surcharge (traffic)). No dependence is assumed on other fill
properties (e.g. shear strength). The angle of internal friction has influence only on the tensile force due to “spreading”
near the edges of embankment.

EBGEO
The design concept in the German EBGEO-Draft (Chapter 6.9) is based on the work by Zaeske (2001). The tensile
force in the reinforcement due to vertical loads and arching are dependent not only on the parameters in the BS 8006,

2
 EuroGeo4 Paper number 264
but also on the internal friction angle of shearing resistance of the fill material and the modulus of subgrade reaction, k
(kN/m³), of the soft subsoil.

Figure 3. Theoretical arching model from Zaeske (2001) and Zaeske et al (2002). This is the basis for the German
EBGEO

In EBGEO, load A (see Fig. 5) of the total load is carried directly by the piles and is first calculated. Part of the
remaining part of the total load (loads B and C shown in Fig. 5) generates a strain in the GR. Load B can be
determined using the graphs given in EBGEO together with others parameters defined in Winkler “spring” analysis,
including time-dependent tensile modulus (tensile stiffness), J (kN/m)of GR, and the subgrade reaction, k (kN/m³), of
the soft subsoil. Then, by using J, the tensile force, F (kN/m) can be determined. The remaining load, i.e. load C in
Fig. 5, is supposed to be carried by the soft subsoil, although there is no specific procedure on how this should be
calculated. The EBGEO-graphs mentioned above are given numerically by Heitz (2006).

VALIDATION WITH 2 YEARS OF MEASUREMENTS IN A FULL-SCALE TEST

Full scale test

A full scale test has been carried out in Giessenburg in the Netherlands (Fig. 4). The reason of giving the name ‘Kyoto
Road’ to the test project after the Kyoto Protocols is that putting timber piles in saturated soil would prevent the
production of CO2 that would have been released by the same timber if it was left to decay or burned. A piled
embankment was constructed on 13 m long timber piles, concrete pile caps with a height of 0.4 m and a diameter, a, of
0.3 m (equivalent side width, aeq = 0.27 m for square pile caps), geogrid reinforcement and a 1.15 m high embankment
fill made of a ‘Hegemann sludge mixture’ (Hegemann 2004 and 2005). A measurement program was carried out to
validate several design methods for the reinforcement in piled embankments.

Figure 4. Scheme of the full scale test Kyoto Road

3
 EuroGeo4 Paper number 264
A Hegemann sludge mixture is a mixture of dredged material and additives containing mainly clay and cement. It was
used here as embankment fill because it was environmentally friendly to re-use waste material. Usually, non-cohesive
granular material is used for embankment fills. During construction, the Hegemann sludge mixture looked like a
mixture of clay and sand. Samples of fill taken from the embankment a few months after it was constructed were
tested and the test results provide an indication of the average properties of the material as given in Table 1. For design
soil unit weight, γ, the average between the wet and dry unit weights was assumed as the material would in practice
change between medium wet and dry.

Table 1. Properties Hegemann sludge mixture (fill material of embankment)

γwet γdry γaverage W Kv ϕ coh
kN/m3 kN/m3 kN/m3 % m/s o
kPa
22.2 17.0 18.6 18.1 2.1 E-9 33.8 11.5
γ is unit weight, γdr is the dry unit weight, W is the water content, Kv is the vertical permeability, ϕ is the internal
friction angle and coh is the cohesion. The modulus of subgrade reaction of the soft subsoil, k, determined by
laboratory tests on samples is 554 kN/m3.

The following parameters have been monitored: the total pressures both on top of and below the reinforcement above
the piles (TPC in Fig. 5), the lateral displacements of the piles, the ground water level and the pore pressures below the
embankment. This paper focuses on the measured values of TPC only. The measurements will be continued for
several years. This paper presents the results of the first 2 years of measurements.

COMPARISON OF 2 YEARS OF MEASUREMENTS WITH EBGEO AND BS 8006 PREDICTIONS

Basis for comparison

Figure 5 shows how the design models given in both BS8006 and EBGEO divide the load (weight of the
embankment and surcharge load) into two or three parts.

A A A A
A

B B B B B B
TPC t1
TPC b1
C C C C C C

Figure 5. All design models basically split the load into three parts, loads A, B and C: load A is transferred directly to
the piles, load B is carried by the reinforcement, which then transfers the load to the piles, and load C is the part
carried by the soft subsoil. In BS 8006, load C is assumed to be 0. This picture also shows the locations of the Total
Pressure Cells (TPC’s) in the Kyoto Road test.

In the Kyoto Road embankment, the total pressure cells TPC t1, TPC t2 and TPC t3 installed on top of the geogrid
reinforcement measure load A directly (only TPC t1 is shown in the figure, but the other two were mounted in the
same way on different piles). Pressure cell TPC b1 measured the combined load of A and B. Knowing the total weight
of the embankment enabled load C to be calculated, i.e. load C = total load – measured load on TPC b1.

Predictions with BS8006 and EBGEO

Table 2 shows the results of the predictions based on EBGEO and BS 8006. Although the measurements showed
that the soft subsoil carried a considerable part of the load, the predictions by EBGEO without subsoil support are also
presented in the table for comparison purposes.
BS 8006 (original version) calculated the load on the geogrids assuming a 2D configuration and the piles were
modelled as walls as a result in the calculations. The assumption of no vertical equilibrium in the 2D case as required
in BS8006 was OK because we were considering a non-full “arching” in this case,.

4
 EuroGeo4 Paper number 264
For comparison purposes, a 3D back calculation of the average vertical load on the geotextile, WT, and the
calculation using adapted BS 8006 (Van Eekelen and Bezuijen, 2008) are also presented in Table 2.

Table 2. Predictions with BS 8006 and EBGEO. Loads (kN) per grid, which means the square of the centre to centre
distances between the piles (s2). For BS 8006 this case is a case of not-full arching.

EBGEO BS 8006
BS 8006
EBGEO EBGEO (Original) 3D inter-
without with BS 8006 pretation BS 8006
Parameter
support support 2D load on fully 3D**
soft soil soft soil approach reinforce-
ment*
Load division/distribution
kN 34.50 34.50
Total load (should be A+B+C)
kPa 21.39 21.39
kN 10.73 5.51
Load A, directly on piles
kPa 151.8 77.9
kN 23.77 11.06 28.99 47.95***** 28.99
Load B, carried by geosynthetic
kPa 15.41 7.17 18.80*** 31.09**** 18.80
Load C, carried by soft subsoil (kPa) kN 0 12.71 0 0 0
with modulus of subgrade reaction k
= 554 kN/m3 and J of reinforcement kPa 0 8.24 0 0 0
= 1500 kN/m’
Vertical line load WT due to B+C on
a “virtual” strip of reinforcement kN/m 11.88 23.88 14.44
between two adjacent pile caps
Calculated tensile force in geosynthetic reinforcement
Tensile force F in reinforcement kN/m 60.71 28.25 88.27 61.40
Calculation factors for comparison with other literature sources
E = load on pile A / total load
- 0.31 0.16
(kN/kN)
1 – E = load on reinforcement / total
- 0.69 0.84 1.39***** 0.84
load (kN/kN)
Stress Reduction Ratio SRR =
(average vertical stress on
- 0.72 0.88 1.45***** 0.88
geosynthetic B + soft soil C) / total
load (kPa/kPa)

* in agreement with Love et al (2008), Stewart (2005) and Russel & Pierpoint (1997), as described in Van Eekelen and
Bezuijen (2008)
** Adapted BS 8006 (Van Eekelen and Bezuijen, 2008)
*** calculated WT according to BS 8006 and a 2D relationship between WT and the average vertical load on the
reinforcement p’r: p’r = WT/s where s is the centre to centre distance between the piles, see Van Eekelen and Bezuijen,
2008.
**** calculated WT according to BS 8006 and a 3D relationship between WT and the average vertical load on the
reinforcement p’r: p’r = 2WT/(s+a) where s is the centre to centre distance between the piles, see Van Eekelen and
Bezuijen, 2008.
*****No vertical equilibrium, see Van Eekelen and Bezuijen (2008)
Values printed bold and italic are compared with measurements, see the figures below.

Table 3 gives the influence of the modulus of subgrade reaction on the division of the load between B (geotextile)
and C (soft subsoil).

5
 EuroGeo4 Paper number 264
Table 3. Predictions based on EBGEO, relationship between modulus of subgrade reaction k and load division
between geogrid reinforcement and soft subsoil for a tensile stiffness of reinforcement, J = 1500 kN/m
Tensile force in
Modulus of
reinforcement,
subgrade Vertical load B on geogrid Vertical load C on soft subsoil
prediction
reaction k
EBGEO
kN/m3 kN/m kPa kN kPa kN
0.00 60.71 15.41 23.77 0.00 0.00
250.00 43.63 11.08 17.08 4.34 6.69
554.00 28.25 7.17 11.06 8.24 12.71
850.00 18.42 4.68 7.21 10.74 16.56
1150.00 12.33 3.13 4.83 12.28 18.94
1500.00 8.16 2.07 3.19 13.34 20.58

Comparison between measurements and predictions

Vertical load part A, transferred directly to the piles

Devices TPC t1, t2 and t3 were installed on top of the reinforcement, just above the piles. These TPCs measured
the pressures imposed directly on the piles. It was possible to calculate the pressure that would be measured if no
arching would occur at all. In this case, the entire load of the embankment was assumed to transfer completely
vertically to the piles. The transferred vertical load on each pile was calculated using the equation, γ*H + p = 18.6 *
1.15 + p = 21.39 + p kPa, p is a surcharge. The surcharge load was only present and hence measured occasionally
during the test. As soon as arching occurred, the load was transferred partly laterally to the piles. Therefore, the
pressures measured by TPC t1, t2 and t3 would be more than 21.39 kPa each. The vertical distance between TPC t1,
t2, t3 and the horizontal line at 21.39 kPa in figure 6 was an indication of arching. The figure shows that it took a long
time for the arching to develop fully. This delay was thought to be due to the settlements in the embankment and
cementation of the fill material. From July 2006 onward, the measurements were more or less constant. The
fluctuations were mainly due to variations in the weather conditions and moisture content of the fill, and the
alternating periods of heavy and no traffic. Van Eekelen et al (2007) describe these influences more specifically.
The prediction of the load acting directly on the piles using BS8006 is better than that by EBGEO, which is much
higher than the measured values. However, this value is not of great importance. The calculation of the vertical load
on the piles in both standards is only required for the calculation of the load on the geotextile. For the design of the
piles themselves, total load is usually conservatively assumed as the applied load on the piles.

180
.

160
Vertical load part (kPa), transferred directly to the pile cap

140

120

100

80

60 TPC t1
arching TPC t2
40 TPC t3
EBGEO
20 BS8006 (p'c)
no arching
0
21/11/05 25/02/06 1/06/06 5/09/06 10/12/06 16/03/07 20/06/07 24/09/07
Figure 6. Vertical load part A, transferred directly to the piles

6
 EuroGeo4 Paper number 264

Vertical load parts B, carried by the geotextile reinforcement, and C, carried by the subsoil
Figure 7 shows vertical load B, which is the load carried by the geosynthetic reinforcement (GR). By means of
tensile forces in the GR, this load is transferred to the piles. The curve presenting load B was determined by
subtracting the average measured pressure of LPT t1, LPT t2 and LPT t3 from LPT b1. The figure shows that
EBGEO, when taking into account the support of the subsoil, gives a better approach to predicting the vertical load on
geotextile than BS8006. This point is important as the imposed load on geoxtextile directly determines the predicted
tensile forces in the GR.
Figure 8 shows that the amount of the load carried by the soft subsoil is considerable, and is even larger than that
calculated using EBGEO based on a subgrade reaction of 554 kN/m3. Table 3 shows that in order to provide a
predication of the load carried by the soft subsoil similar to those measured, the subgrade reaction of the soft subsoil
would have to be between 1000 and 1500 kN/m3, much greater than the measured value 554 kN/m3 from laboratory
test on samples taken in the field.
35
.
Average vertical load B on geotextile reinforcement (kPa)

30
measured
EBGEO with support soft soil
25 EBGEO without support soft soil
BS8006 2D
BS8006 3D
20

15

10

0
05/09/05 14/12/05 24/03/06 02/07/06 10/10/06 18/01/07 28/04/07 06/08/07 14/11/07 22/02/08

Figure 7. Vertical load part B, carried by the GR

20.0

18.0
Average vertical load on soft subsoil (kPa) .

16.0

14.0

12.0

10.0

8.0

6.0
Measured
4.0 EBGEO
BS8006
2.0

0.0
09/05/05 12/14/05 03/24/06 07/02/06 10/10/06 01/18/07 04/28/07 08/06/07 11/14/07 02/22/08

Figure 8. Vertical load part C, carried by the soft subsoil

7
 EuroGeo4 Paper number 264

CONCLUSIONS
Comparison of two years of measurements at a full-scale test with the predictions based on German EBGEO-Draft
and the British BS 8006 shows that EBGEO gives better predictions of the load division/distribution in the piled
embankment than BS 8006. The occurrence of arching is demonstrated by the full-scale test. The arching increased
considerably a few months after the construction of the Kyoto road embankment, and then remained more or less
stable thereafter. This delay increase might be due to the built up of artificial cohesion with time in the fill material
made from Hegemann mixture.
The equations of BS 8006 based on both 2D and 3D assumptions show several inconsistencies such as the lack of
vertical equilibrium for the case of full arching. BS 8006 was adapted and improved by Van Eekelen and Bezuijen,
(2008) such that vertical equilibrium was satisfied, and the equations were fully 3D. The load distribution predicted
from the adapted approach was found the same as that of the original BS 8006. However, the adapted approach gave
lower tensile forces in the geosynthetic reinforcement (GR).
The support from the soft subsoil was considerable in the field tests and it is worthwhile calculating its influence
on the loading on the GR. The calculated tensile force in the GR using EBGEO with the account of the support from
the soft subsoil is only half of the value calculated based on no support using EBGEO, and is less than half of that
based on the measurements. However, a permanent long term presence of this support or counter pressure has to be
evaluated very carefully in the design stage because of various factors, including for example, the changes in the
ground water level, which could decrease the support from soft subsoil significantly (Van Eekelen et al, 2007).
In the case of Kyoto Road, EBGEO over-predicts the direct loads on piles. At the same time, EBGEO results in the
best prediction of the load on the GR. On the other hand, the over-prediction of the direct loads on piles in principle
implies that the load on the GR is under-predicted because of the total balance of vertical loads in the system. Some
more experiments will be necessary to check whether or not this can lead to unsafe results using EBGEO.

Acknowledgements: The members of the CUR task group (Dutch Standard for the design of piled embankments)
and Delft Cluster are acknowledged for their support.

Corresponding author: Mrs Suzanne Van Eekelen, Deltares Unit Geo-Engineering, P.O. Box 69, 2600 AB Delft,
Netherlands. Tel: +31 15 269 35 87. Email: Suzanne.vanEekelen@Deltares.nl.

REFERENCES
British Standard, BS8006, 1995, Code of practice for Strengthened/reinforced soils and other fills,
CUR 2007-2 report: "Eisen aan paalmatrassystemen, palen en inventarisatie matras", can be downloaded at
www.delftcluster.nl/wegen, ‘publicaties’ (in Dutch)
EBGEO: Empfehlung “Bewehrte Erdkörper auf punkt- oder linienförmigen Traggliedern”, juli 2004, Entwurf EBGEO
Kapitel 6.9. Deutsche Gesellschaft für Geotechnik e.V. (DGGT). Fachsektion “Kunststoffe in der Geotechnik”
Arbeitskreis AK 5.2 “Berechnung und Dimensionierung von Erdkörpern mit Bewehrungen aus
Geokunststoffen”.
Eekelen, S.J.M. van, Van, M.A. & Bezuijen, A. 2007, The Kyoto Road, a Full-scale Test, Measurements and
Calculations, 14th European Conference on Soil Mechanics and Geotechnical Engineering, Madrid, Millpress,
Rotterdam, pp 1533-1538, 24-27 September 2007.
Eekelen, S.J.M. van, Bezuijen, A. 2008, Design of piled embankments, considering the basic starting points of the
British Standard, to be published in the proceedings of EuroGeo4, to be held in September 2008 in Edinburgh
UK.
Heitz, C., 2006, Bodengewölbe unter ruhender und nichtruhender Belastung bei Berücksichtigung von
Bewehrungseinlagen aus Geogittern. Schriftenreihe Geotechnik, Uni Kassel, Heft 19, November 2006
Jones, C.J.F.P., Lawson, C.R., Ayres, D.J. 1990, Geotextile reinforced piled embankments, Geotextiles,
Geomembranes and Related Products, Den Hoedt (ed.) © 1990 Balkema, Rotterdam, ISBN 90 6191 119 2, pp
155-160
Love, Jerry and Milligan, George 2003, Design methods for basally reinforced pile-supported embankments over soft
ground, Ground Engineering, March 2003
Russell and Pierpoint 1997, An assessment of design methods for piled embankments, Ground engineering, Nov.
1997, pp 39-44.
Stewart, M.E. and Filz, G. 2005, Influence of Clay Compressibility on Geosynthetic Loads in Bridging Layers for
Column-Supported Embankments, Proceedings of Geo-Frontiers 2005, USA, GSP 131 Contemporary Issues in
Foundation Engineering
Zaeske, D., 2001, Zur Wirkungsweise von unbewehrten und bewehrten mineralischen Tragschichten über pfahlartigen
Gründungselementen. Schriftenreihe Geotechnik, Uni Kassel, Heft 10, Februar 2001
Zaeske, D; Kempfert, H.-G. (2002): Berechnung und Wirkungsweise von unbewehrten und bewehrten mineralischen
Tragschichten auf punkt- und linienförmigen Traggliedern. Bauingenieur Band 77, Februar 2002