Energy Geotechnics – Wuttke, Bauer & Sánchez (Eds)

© 2016 Taylor & Francis Group, London, ISBN 978-1-138-03299-6

Wind farm development and the use of geogrid-stabilised unbound

platforms and floating access roads on soft ground

M.A. Horton, T.L.H. Oliver & J. Cook

Tensar International Ltd, Blackburn, UK

ABSTRACT: Onshore wind farms in Northern Europe are frequently located on land that is marginal in
terms of accessibility by conventional plant. They are frequently located in upland areas on soils of with little
recognisable shear strength at formation. These factors, coupled with increasingly onerous bearing capacity
and deformation demands for access track and working platforms for delivery and erection of turbines plus a
claims-conscious industry, make for challenging designs to deliver economical and safe construction.
This paper considers track and platform specifications and requirements, and examines the risks that these
contain in terms of safe and economical design and construction in upland areas. The paper examines design
methods incorporating the use of stiff hexagonal polymeric geogrids to stabilise access tracks and platforms.
The paper also discusses the advantages, limitations and problems involved with ‘floating’ working platforms to
create stiff platforms to limit movement on heavily loaded but very soft ground.

1 INTRODUCTION appropriate to this environment and able to detect any

sensitivity that natural site materials might possess.
1.1 Development in upland areas Investigations should be directed and interpreted by
appropriately experienced staff to ensure that design
Wind farm development in upland areas in the United
data passed to access roads and platform designers is
Kingdom has been conducted since the mid-1980s, ini-
reasonably accurate and reliable.
tially with small-scale developments but more recently
One of the issues with this type of land is that access
with much larger scale developments incorporating
can be poor. During ground investigations, the use of
many tens of turbines. In northern Europe, upland
low ground pressure plant may be the only means of
windfarm construction occurs on low-value land with
accessing much of the site to conduct activities as
relatively low productivity, commonly represented by
drilling and trial pitting; safe foot and plant access
moorland. Soils in such areas consist of peats and clays
might not be feasible on extremely poor ground. For
with very low stiffness interspersed with rock, the lat-
access roads, this is not always such an issue as rela-
ter frequently providing the source of the stone that is
tively shallow investigation (<1 m) at relatively close
used to construct the wind farm infrastructure.
spacing combined with deeper intrusive surveys at a
Construction of wind turbines in such areas can per-
wider spacing can provide adequate information for
mit dual land use, for example combined with forestry
design.
or sheep and deer farming and recreational activi-
For working platforms however, deeper investi-
ties. There is advice available in previously published
gation is frequently required due to the need for
documents that outline good practice with respect
adequate information for turbine foundation design.
to construction in these environments (SNH 2010,
Turbines are often micro-sited (i.e. moved from
Scottish Renewables et al 2010).
originally planned locations) after preliminary inves-
tigations to take advantage of better ground condi-
1.2 Ground conditions
tions. The revised locations can then permit access
Upland areas in Northern Europe are typified by gener- for heavier, non-specialised plant to conduct detailed
ally wet ground conditions and soils with poor bearing investigation.
capacity. Soils frequently demonstrate shear strengths
typically of 24 kN/m2 (approximately 1% CBR) and
less and typically comprise varying depths of peat
2 SPECIFICATIONS
and weathered glacial till clays. The latter can show
a marked tendency to lose shear strength when wet-
2.1 Development
ted and subjected to compaction loads, such that their
shear strengths can fall to less than 50% of that which As little as a decade ago, specifications for wind farm
might be obtained from a static soil test. It is therefore access roads were few and far between, depending
important that ground investigation techniques are upon the contractor building the site to determine

131

Figure 1. Automated Plate bearing test being conducted on
a working platform using an excavator as a reaction load.
design and construction, usually using traditional
methods.
More recently, wind turbine manufacturers have
formed their own specifications, commonly specify-
ing minimum access and working platform dimen-
sions, required geometry, minimum bearing capacities
for road and working platforms and sometimes com-
bined (or replaced by) requirements for Ev 2 and Ev 2
to Ev 1 ratio (to determine adequate compaction). In
nearly all cases, verification of the roads and working
platforms is required in terms of a plate bearing tests
(e.g. BS 1377 Part 9 or an EV2 test (e.g. DIN 18134).
However, it is pointed out that the dimensions of the
test plate for these tests (even for the largest test plates)
is not the same as, say, the outrigger bearing plate on
a 750t-lift crane; whilst they can provide a degree of
comfort, such a test does not replicate the dimensions
and depth of influence of the real working load.
On some sites, plate bearing testing on working plat-
forms is not the only testing undertaken. Where time
permits, the main lift crane can do a more realistic bear-
ing test by raising the boom of the crane and aligning
the counterweight load over each of the outriggers and
spreader plates in turn. This places a load (of up to
200t) over the outrigger for several hours allowing the
platform to be monitored. This represents a far more
realistic test of both loads and the loaded area for this
application.
The use of EV 2 specifications (essentially a Ger-
man highways-based specification with the blacktop
removed) has limited applicability on peaty windfarm
sites and those sites where the Ev 2 at formation is
less than 5MPa (approx. 1% CBR). In such sites,
alternative methods, including shear strength/CBR
assessment are required and alternative design can pro-
duce a more economical ‘floating road’ and platform
construction rather than by using such techniques as
chemical stabilisation or cement mixing (which may
be environmentally undesirable).
132
Figure 2. Main lift crane conducting a working platform
performance test.
Typically, requirements for access roads usually
specify an allowable bearing pressure of 180–220 kPa
or an EV 2 of 80–100 MPa.
3 ACCESS ROAD DESIGN
3.1 Road types
There are essentially three road types in common use:
dig out and replace, floating and displacement.
Dig out and replace roads involve removing sur-
face vegetation and soft superficial materials down to
a more competent horizon, typically up to 1m depth
(but can be more depending on specific site location
and conditions) and replacing with competent, usually
granular, material to form a road, usually bringing the
road up to or above the original ground level. Such
roads require the removal and dumping of excavated
material and, in the case of peat and allied materials,
this can make this construction less environmentally
friendly than other techniques due to peat desiccation
and degradation.
Floating roads (a focus for this paper) are utilised
where deep peat is encountered and/or digging out
and replacing would be uneconomic or undesirable.
The usual method of forming these roads is not to
strip-off the vegetation but to place the road directly
upon the existing surface. On a peat bog, for example,
the vegetation and root mat may be the stiffest part
of the formation as these deposits frequently show a
reduction in stiffness and shear strength with depth as
the peat becomes less ‘rooty’ and more amorphous in
consistency.
Floating roads can use ‘brash’ (tree branch trim-
mings from forestry operations) or logs but more
commonly nowadays use geogrids or a combination
of geogrids and brash in very poor conditions and
especially over forestry furrows (Fig 3).
Floating roads nearly always settle after construc-
tion. The weight of the placed geogrid and stone upon
the surface causes consolidation of the peat and leads

Figure 3. Geogrid-stabilised floating access road on deep
peat in felled forestry constructed on brash bundles (‘facine
mats’).
to an increase in shear strength and stiffness. At some
point this increase is sufficient to support the road with
only minor or insignificant further settlement.
Floating roads can cause relatively little damage to
the peat and can allow it to remain relatively undam-
aged under the road line. However, on slopes, the
aggregate in the road can act as a drain and the detail
design of such roads on slopes needs careful consid-
eration to ensure that the road does not damage peat
bogs at the top of the slope.
The use of stabilisation geogrids can have an advan-
tage in that they can permit a marked reduction in the
thickness of aggregate that needs to be used. Typically,
on peat with a CBR of less than 1% this reduction can
be up to a third. This reduction in road thickness is an
advantage not only in cost terms but the reduction in
dead-load leads to a reduction in overall road settle-
ment post-construction leading to better serviceability
and less remediation during use.
Displacement roads use large quantities of dumped
rock pushed (or allowed to settle in very poor ground
conditions) into the surface of peat and that essentially
displace it horizontally, building up a pyramid of stone
that can eventually be used to found the road upon, the
base having reached (or the load of the stone having
created through consolidation of underlying strata) a
firmer horizon.
This method of construction is usually only used in
very wet and extremely poor ground conditions with
virtually no shear strength and where a floating road
would become unserviceable in a short time due to set-
tlement. It is also used where there are floating bogs
(vegetation and root mass several meters thick sitting
on water). It is relatively expensive and time consum-
ing and can only be used where there is no risk of
damage to infrastructure to the sides of the road line;
some vertical displacement (heave) of peat can occur
in rapid filling operations.
133
3.2 Geogrid/geotextiles and mechanisms
Geogrids and geotextiles have been used for several
years to improve the performance of access roads and
working platforms on soft ground. These materials
work in two distinct ways:
Reinforcement: the reinforcement geogrid or geo-
textile acts as a tensile element within the ground
helping to support the aggregate and running sur-
face in a ‘tension membrane’ or hammock mechanism
that depends on a certain amount of strain in order
to develop the strength needed to support the loaded
surface. This mechanism can need a considerable
anchorage length of material buried in the ground
(which may not be available under the shoulders of
the road alone) and may need additional geogrid or
geotextile buried in the ground at the sides of the
access road in order to prevent the geogrid or geotex-
tile from pulling through the ground; it is not adequate
to assume that the buried length along the road line is
sufficient to allow the geogrid or geotextile to strain
as a wheel load is imposed radially and will strain the
geogrid/geotextile in all directions.
Geogrids and geotextiles operating with such a
mechanism usually need to strain to the order of 2% in
order to start functioning, although due to the nature of
some materials, strain at full tensile strength can be of
the order of 7–9%. This can lead to deformation at the
surface of the road leading to additional rutting (over
and above that imposed by the axle passes themselves)
which will need to be remediated with additional mate-
rial, reflected deformation down through the aggregate
layer onto the formation (this is where the strain in the
geogrid is occurring to support the surface loads) and
ponding of water at both the surface and at the forma-
tion surface (within the aggregate layers), which can
lead to softening of the formation.
Stabilisation: at present this mechanism is restricted
to a single manufacturer (Tensar International Ltd)
and a single innovative product (TriAx) which is
a polypropylene, punched and drawn, monolithic,
hexagonal geogrid with triangular apertures.
This product works as a stiff geogrid with inte-
gral nodes between the ribs to interlock with suitably
sized aggregates and markedly reduce their tendency
to move when trafficked. The aggregate stabilised by
the geogrid aperture (in a ‘fully confined’ zone), in
turn, provides stability to the aggregate layers above
(in a partially confined zone) and typically this can
be to a distance of 350–500 mm above the geogrid
layer (Fig 4); if a design requires a thicker aggregate
layer, then it may be necessary to introduce a sec-
ond layer of geogrid to ensure that the whole of the
aggregate thickness is either fully confined or partially
confined.
The incorporation of integral nodes joining the
geogrid ribs is important in that the almost 100%
junction efficiency they impart ensures that aggregate
particles remain interlocked and confined when loaded
with stone; broken junctions (such as with welded
products placed on very soft ground) are unable to
interlock and confine the aggregate meaning that
Figure 4. Model of confinement for TriAx stabilisation
geogrid.
reinforcement from the intact ribs (with the associated
deformation) is the only mechanism that can prevent
rutting.
The calculation of access road thickness incorpo-
rating TriAx stabilisation geogrids depends on the use
of empirical testing of various aggregate thicknesses
and different formation stiffnesses. This testing allows
the calibration of designs incorporating TriAx with
respect to the ground conditions, expected trafficking
and acceptable rut depth. Such data cannot be derived
theoretically and involves many trials using wheeled
traffic loading in order to determine design data that
can be used reliably and is a method advocated by
Giroud and Han (2004). It has proven to be a reliable
and economical method of access road design.
Crucially, the stabilisation mechanism is a low-
strain mechanism and does not depend upon the tensile
strength of the geogrid at a specified strain; confining
and stabilising the aggregate particles generates strain
levels of the order 0.5% for a trafficked, correctly cal-
ibrated and designed access road. This results in less
deformation in terms of rutting (which can also be lim-
ited based upon the requirements of the design), less
deformation at the formation surface (as the geogrid
is straining much less than with the tension membrane
mechanism) allowing the formation to retain its shear
strength and function to help to support the road. A
main aim of design with the stabilisation mechanism
is to prevent deformation at the surface and protect the
formation.
3.3 Access road design
Design of wind farm haul roads can use several
methods of design, all of which are of empirical ori-
gins. Many of these methods can also be used with
geogrids in order to restrict the thickness of aggregate
used in their construction over an unreinforced and
unstabilised construction.
The Ev 2 method for reinforced or stabilised float-
ing roads usually uses design charts (or computerised
versions of such charts) with modifications to take
account of the reduction in aggregate thickness that
can be effected by incorporating one or more layers of
geogrid. These design charts need to be calibrated for
the specific product to be used and it is not entirely
134
Figure 5. Estimation of standard axle passes for a typical
aggregate delivery vehicle.
safe (or necessarily economical) to substitute another
unrelated geogrid into such designs without reassess-
ing the design. This information should come from
adequate testing both in the laboratory and in the field
to corroborate the design values.
The Ev 2 method can lead to the development of
designs that can be overly thick for roadway design on
such sensitive ground. The Ev2 method aims to limit
deformation at the top of the aggregate layer to avoid
overstressing blacktop. However, as the vast majority
of wind farm access roads have an unbound surface,
the reduction in deformation has a limited scope; most
geogrid stabilised wind farm, access roads on peat
will deform (largely elastically) under the passage of
vehicles and it is often more important to limit the
differential movement between the axles of the vehi-
cles (especially very long vehicles delivering turbine
blades).
CBR target methods follow a similar methodol-
ogy but would also require some form of calibration
to ensure target values are likely to be met by a
geogrid and thickness of aggregate on a given subgrade
stiffness .
An alternative method which is permitted by the use
of geogrids such as TriAx which have been calibrated
as described in section 3.2, is to assess the type and
amount for trafficking that is likely to enter the site
(rendering these in terms of ‘standard axles – either
80 kN or 100 kN) and using this data to produce a suit-
able road thickness consistent with allowable rutting.
Axles that are not ‘standard axles’ are converted
using the ‘4th power rule’ (RRL 1970) to standard
axles as follows (80 kN example):
Ns = (actual axle loads/standard axle load)3.95
Where Ns = vehicle equivalency in terms of standard
axles.
So for a typical standard 20t payload road-going
vehicle, the vehicle imposes 5 standard axles worth of
damage (in terms of rutting potential) upon the road
(Figure 5).
 It should be noted that the standard axle loads for
an off-road articulated hauler can be much higher for
each visit.
The trafficking takes two forms:
Construction traffic – the traffic required to actually
build the access roads and working platforms. This
traffic, which can include heavily loaded aggregate
delivery vehicles (articulated haulers and road-going
trucks) is by far the most onerous loading on most
wind farms in terms of trafficking and standard axles.
On very large sites, other traffic is almost negligible
in terms of total standard axles.
In-service traffic: the traffic that uses the access
roads to access and build other elements, such as
concrete and steel delivery trucks for turbine bases,
cranes for turbine construction and turbine mast, blade
and nacelle delivery vehicles. On smaller sites, such
vehicles (especially concrete delivery wagons) should
always be included in an assessment of trafficking as
they can form a higher proportion of the total traf-
fic than on larger sites and may increase the road and
platform thicknesses as a result. Pick-ups and light
vans can be excluded from this assessment as they
impose relatively little damage in terms of standard
axles, vastly simplifying the assessment.
All traffic that is expected to use the site is assessed
as above in terms of standard axles, the total number of
stared axles required is totaled and each section of road
is designed, based on the empirical trafficking testing
conducted previously, to give an aggregate thickness
when incorporating an appropriate TriAx geogrid to
suit this total.
For some wind farms, the method can become
quite involved; the access roads are designed from the
furthest point away from the aggregate access point
and then designed back towards the access points such
that the trafficking becomes cumulative – the parts
of the access road taking the most traffic are then
assured of having sufficient thickness to ensure their
performance consistent with the total axle loads and
trafficking, yet the least trafficked sections (typically
spurs to single turbines) have less thickness to give
the most economical construction for the respective
sections.
It should be noted that all of these methods can only
give the required performance with a certain minimum
quality of aggregate. Poor quality, crushable, rounded
and poorly graded aggregates can all lead to a road
that underperforms when used in a geogrid-stabilised
or reinforced road. If it is desired to use such mate-
rial for economic reasons, the designer needs to be
informed before design commences so that allowances
may be made for the sub-optimal aggregate, usually by
increasing the road thickness.
On very soft peat formations, the use of good
quality aggregate will ensure a minimal road
thickness which is likely to reduce settlement of
the road after construction and ensure long-term
serviceability.
135
3.4 Additional checks
In all cases, a check should be made for the worst-
case wheel load on an expected tyre footprint to check
against bearing capacity failure in a similar way to
the loads being checked on a working platform (see
section 4). In some deep peat deposits, it may also be
necessary to take into account possible circular slip
failure through the platform and into the peat deposit
for stationary loads. However, site operational rules
that dictate that no vehicle should remain stationary
on any floating road section can help to minimize road
thickness and reduce the requirement to conduct such
analysis; it is difficult to obtain appropriate parameters
for such assessment in peat due to the soft nature of
the deposits and difficulty in sampling and testing in
the laboratory.
4 WORKING PLATFOMS
4.1 Working platform types
All working platforms will require a certain number
of vehicle visits in order to construct them, in addi-
tion to the vehicles that will use them operationally,
such as piling rigs and cranes. The total number of
axles needs to be taken into account in any trafficking-
related design assessment and added in to the road
thickness calculations so that the additional traffic is
accounted for in the road thickness calculation.
There are generally two types of working platforms
used on wind farms, mainly at turbine lifting locations:
Working platforms founded on a firm stratum:
generally these will suffer from little in the way of
settlement and can often be dig-out and replace, replac-
ing the soft, near surface material with aggregate or
less compressible material with a geogrid stabilised
top surface. Such platforms may need to be assessed
for edge stability if surrounded by deep peat or similar
soft deposits.
Floating working Platforms: these are more contro-
versial and less commonly used. On very soft and deep
peat, it is difficult to justify their use for crane lifts as
edge stability and rotational failure of the platform
(which any incorporated geogrid will be hard-pushed
to mitigate) may become dominant failure mecha-
nisms leading to catastrophic failure of the platform
and a potential to lose the crane.
However, on smaller wind farms with more lim-
ited financial resources, it may be possible to build a
working platform, say, designed for the piling rig for
the ‘can’ for the base of the turbine and then use the
same piling rig at the outrigger positions for the lifting
crane. However, it should be noted that this limits the
type of crane that might be able to use the platform for
any subsequent maintenance or turbine replacement; it
will need to have outriggers in a similar arrangement
to that of the crane that the platform was originally
designed for. Piles also need to be designed in order
to deal with a lack of lateral support from peat in deep
deposits and also that the platform may settle relative

Figure 6. Working platform with piled outrigger positions
on very deep soft peat showing settlement around piles
caps due to consolidation. Geogrids are unable to prevent
such movement but can stiffen the platform to minimize
differential settlement.
to the pile cap and pile, requiring remediation to ensure
serviceability (Fig 6).
Working platforms are required to have an
allowable bearing pressure of 200–260 or an EV 2
of 100 to 120 MPa in many turbine manufacturers’
specifications.
4.2 Working platform design
There are a number of methods for working platform
design. In the UK, guidance in the form of BR470
(BRE 2004) produces safe but relatively uneconomic
designs. A review of this document produced in 2011
suggested that alternative methods could be used pro-
viding they were validated by appropriate laboratory
and field testing (BRE 2011).
Although EV 2 design methods can be used to
achieve a specified EV 2 at the top of the platform,
some geogrid manufacturers use their own in-house
methods to assess such platforms. This involves the
use of a ‘load spread’ method where the expected pres-
sure on a specified loaded area is dissipated through a
design platform thickness through an angle established
through appropriate laboratory and field testing to get
a pressure at formation level that gives an acceptable
factor of safety against bearing capacity failure.
This is usually done by iterative calculation and can
lead to an economical design that still maintains the
desired safety in such platforms.
4.3 Working platform testing
Working platforms are frequently tested using either
EV2 (DIN1834 2001) tests or BS1377:Part 9:1990
(BSI 1990) plate bearing tests. Whilst such tests are
relatively easy to conduct and might be appropriate for
tracked plant and very small outrigger bearing plates
on small cranes, even the largest plates commonly used
in such test (750 mm or so) can only provide a degree
136
of comfort; they do not represent a realistic test of
the loads and area that a large crane can impose on
an outrigger plate (which may be 200 t on an area of
2.5 m × 6 m), nor the depth of influence of such a load.
Tests conducted on some sites involve the main lift
crane raising an unloaded boom and rotating to place
the full counterweight load over each of the outrigger
in turn, often for several hours, and monitoring settle-
ment. This is a far more onerous and realistic test of
such a working platform and gives better confidence
of the performance during a lift.
5 CONSTRUCTION OF ACCESS ROADS AND
WORKING PLATFOMS ON SOFT GROUND
Where wind farm access and working platform con-
struction takes place on very soft ground, cognizance
should be taken of the speed of construction.
With peats, care should be taken to avoid load-
ing the surface very rapidly with the full construction
thickness, especially in very wet ground, or where the
vegetation and root mat is relatively thin, as this can
induce shearing of the vegetation and root mat near sur-
face, which is often where much of the shear strength
lies. Geogrids are unable to compensate for this rapid
construction as the shear plane usually lies right on the
edge of the road pyramid and outside the zone of influ-
ence of the geogrids themselves. However, on sites
where this has been observed by the authors, it does not
appear to be detrimental to access road performance,
although the open shear plane can be disconcerting.
In a similar fashion, rapid construction over sensi-
tive clays (especially near-saturated weathered glacial
till clays) can lead to a marked reduction in shear
strength (by up to more than 50%) and especially
where compaction plant is used on relatively thin lifts
of aggregate fill above the formation; such sensitivity
should be picked up during the ground investigation
stage. Geogrids are again unable to deal with such cir-
cumstances as the loss in shear is a function of the
formation materials response to construction stresses.
This usually reveals itself by marked have during com-
paction and under such circumstances, construction
must be halted and the section of road left undisturbed
until the excess pore-water pressure has reduced and
some of the shear strength has been restored; further
work will only make the situation worse and requires
a reassessment of the construction method. It is usu-
ally better to track-in at least the first few layers of
aggregate instead of using formal compaction.
6 CONCLUSION
For in excess of 20 years, geogrids have provided a safe
and economical solution for the construction of wind
farms on soft ground in upland areas. With the correct
level of appropriate ground investigation data, access
roads and working platforms can be designed incorpo-
rating stabilisation geogrids such as TriAx to minimize
construction thickness consistent with trafficking and
bearing capacity requirements.
The use of these methods will ensure serviceability
of the constructed areas throughout the construction
phase and later design life of the wind farm. The abil-
ity to minimize construction depths can also lead to
a significant saving in the amount of CO2 generated
by such activities from the construction and quarrying
plant as this plant is having to quarry, transport, place
and compact less material compared to non-stabilised
construction.
REFERENCES
SNH, 2010. ‘Floating Roads on Peat’, Scottish Natural
Heritage.
Scottish Renewables, 2010. ‘Good Practice during Windfarm
Construction’, Scottish Renewables, Scottish Natural Her-
itage, Scottish Environment ProtectionAgency & Forestry
Commission Scotland.
137
BRE, 2004. ‘Working Platforms for Tracked Plant’, UK
Building Research Establishment.
BRE, 2011. ‘Working Platforms for Tracked Plant – Use of
Structural Reinforcement – A BRE Review Seven Years
On’ UK Building Research Establishment.
DIN1834 2001-09, 2001. ‘Determination and Strength Char-
acteristics of Soil by the Plate Loading Test’.
Cook, J., Dobie, M. & Blackman, D. 2016. ‘The Development
ofAPT methodology in theApplivcation and Derivation of
Geosynthetic benefits in Road Design’, Accelerated Pave-
ment Testing Conference, Costa Rica, September 2016 (in
print).
Giroud, J. P. & Han, J. (2004) ‘Design Method for Geogrid-
Reinforced Unpaved Roads. Part II. Calibration and
Applications’, Journal of Geotechnical and Geoenviron-
mental Engineering.
RRL, 1970. ‘A Guide to the Structural Design of Pavements
for New Roads’. UK Department of Environment Road
Note 29, 3rd Edition, UK Road Research Laboratory.
BSI, 1990 BS1377:Part 9:1990 ‘British Standard Methods
of Test for Soils for Civil Engineering Purposes – In-Situ
tests’.