Egan, Feest and Horgan

2013). Adapting these for working platforms usually requires unreinforced and reinforced platform depths have been
assuming a load spread angle (β) to reduce the imposed rig load considered for the following methods BR470, SP123 and
pressure throughout the platform. With little guidance on Okamura et al. (1998), for a granular platform on a cohesive
suitable partial factors, these are often designed in line with subgrade. A range of subsoil strengths were compared for a
permanent foundations and as a consequence can be typical working platform case, detailed in Table 1.
excessively conservative.
Table 1. Input Parameters for Design Comparison
Okamura et al. (1998) enhanced this model by analysis and Loading Conditions
formulating the bearing capacity of a granular fill overlying an Rig Loading Pressure ws 200 kN/m2
undrained soil. This provided a more realistic bearing capacity Track Width W 0.5 m
but included no option to consider geosynthetic reinforcement. Track Length L 2.4 m
Platform Fill Properties
2.4 Numerical Analysis Frictional Shear Strength ' 40°
Unit Weight  20 kN/m3
In addition to analytical and empirical models, it is possible to
Subgrade Properties
use numerical tools to analyse the complex failure planes and Undrained Shear Strength cu 20-50 kN/m2
bearing capacity. This can be undertaken typically using Unit Weight γ 19 kN/m3
bearing capacity or limit equilibrium software. Increasingly In each comparison the strength of geosynthetic reinforcement
Discontinuity Layout Optimisation (DLO) modelling is being was increased until there was no conceivable benefit to the
used to check bearing capacity. The indiscriminate nature of reduction of platform thickness.
the check allows realistic bearing shear failure planes to be
found for complex problems (Figure 4). More information on Figure 5 highlights the wide range of calculated platform
the study of working platforms using this tool can be found in thicknesses required by each approach with varying subgrade
Smith and Tatari who concluded that the DLO method was strength. For unreinforced platforms the Okamura et. al.
better at determining a greater number of failure mechanisms methodology generally results in the thinnest platform. There
including a formerly unreported rotational snapping of a thin is some cross over with the BRE 470 method below a subgrade
embankment (2016). strength in the order of 23kPa and equalling the SP123
thickness at 50kPa. For the BRE 470 and SP123 methods, as
expected, the reinforced platforms calculated are thinner than
unreinforced platforms.

The saving in platform thickness in BR470 is less than in

CIRIA SP123 due to its initial ‘unreinforced’ check.
Figure 4. Typical DLO analysis of reinforced bearing
capacity.
2.5 Empirical Methods
Empirically-based methods can be used for the design of
reinforced platforms. Some use performance databases to
determine the platform thickness and geosynthetic. These often
show large reductions in platform thicknesses compared to the
analytical approaches but are limited to the range of the dataset
(loading, shear strength, reinforcement products etc.). Similar
empirical methods have historically been used to determine the
thickness of unreinforced access roads (TRRL 1984), but the
conditions of repeated loading experienced by an access road
is usually not appropriate for a granular working platform and
this approach is generally not favoured by industry.
Figure 5. Minimum Working Platform Thickness Comparison;
UR – Unreinforced, R- Reinforced.
3. Design Approach Comparison
The variety of design approaches results in a range of
computed platform thicknesses. To illustrate this, the minimum

345
 Proceedings of the XVI ECSMGE
Geotechnical Engineering for Infrastructure and Development
ISBN 978-0-7277-6067-8

© The authors and ICE Publishing: All rights reserved, 2015

doi:10.1680/ecsmge.60678

Working platforms for tracked plant – an alternative

design approach to BR470 using hexagonal geogrid
mechanically stabilised layers
Plates-formes de travail d’usine de chenilles, une approche de
conception alternatives à une BR470 utilisant une couche stabilisé
mécaniquement avec une géogrille hexagonal
Mitul J Dalwadi*1 and John Dixon1
1
Tensar International UK
* Corresponding Author
ABSTRACT Temporary working platforms are critical for plant stability, efficiency and safe operation. The guide to good practice (BR
470), ‘Working platforms for tracked plant’ was prepared by BRE in June 2004. The prime objective of this guide is to achieve an accepta-
ble level of safety for piling and other tracked plant operations. The guide includes the option to use geosynthetic products as structural re-
inforcement. Designs based on this guideline often results in an excessively thick working platform. Extensive research has been carried
out on unbound aggregate layers mechanically stabilised with a hexagonal structure geogrid with triangular apertures. Based on this re-
search together with experience from the field, a load spread method has been developed as an alternative approach to the BR470 guide that
provides a safe but more economic design with a lower carbon footprint. This approach has been widely used on numerous projects in UK
for working platforms over weak foundation soil, sometimes including extreme loading conditions. This paper highlights the application of
mechanically stabilised working platforms on two projects with challenging geotechnical and loading conditions; Crossrail, Contract C310
at North Woolwich and a commercial development at Ipswich. The stabilised working platforms not only allowed the use of recycled mate-
rial but also reduced the thickness of working platform by up to 65% compared to a design to BR470. Thus mechanically stabilised work-
ing platforms designed with a load spread method empirically derived for hexagonal structure geogrids can reduce the cost and time of con-
struction and minimise or avoid the need to import granular fill, while still creating a sustainable, safe working platform for the tracked
plant.

RÉSUMÉ Plates-formes de travail temporaires sont essentielles pour la stabilité de l'installation, l'efficacité et la sécurité de fonctionne-
ment. Le guide de bonnes pratiques (BR 470), «les plates-formes de travail pour l'usine de camions» a été préparé par le BRE en Juin 2004
Le premier objectif de ce guide est d'atteindre un niveau de sécurité acceptable pour empilage et d'autres opérations de l'usine à chenilles.
Le guide inclut l'option d'utiliser des produits géosynthétiques comme renfort structurel. Conceptions basées sur cette directive se traduit
souvent par une plate-forme de travail trop épaisse. Des recherches approfondies ont été réalisées sur des couches d'agrégats non liés méca-
niquement stabilisé avec une structure de géogrille hexagonale avec des ouvertures triangulaires. Sur la base de cette recherche avec une
expérience sur le terrain, une méthode de charge de propagation a été conçue comme une approche alternative au guide de BR470 qui four-
nit une conception économique sûr, mais plus avec une empreinte carbone plus faible. Cette approche a été largement utilisée dans de nom-
breux projets au Royaume-Uni pour les plates-formes de travail sur des sols de fondation plus faibles, parfois inclus, conditions de charge
extrêmes. Ce document met en évidence l'application de plates-formes de travail stabilisées mécaniquement sur deux projets avec des con-
ditions géotechniques et de chargement difficiles; Crossrail, contrat C310 à North Woolwich et de développement commercial à Ipswich.
Les plates-formes de travail stabilisées non seulement permis l'utilisation de matériaux recyclés, mais aussi de réduire l'épaisseur de la
plate-forme de travail pouvant aller jusqu'à 65% par rapport à une conception avec le BR470. Ainsi les plates-formes de travail stabilisé
mécaniquement conçus avec une méthode de charge de propagation de façon empirique pour des structures de géogrille hexagonale peut
réduire le coût et le temps de construction et de réduire ou d'éviter la nécessité d'importer le remblai granulaire, tout en créant une plate-
forme de travail durable, sans danger pour le suivi du projet.

1395
Piling 2020
4. Additional Design Considerations
4.1 Extrusion and Edge Stability
The aforementioned design approaches cover the design of
infinitely wide platforms. They do not provide design
approaches to assess the platform edge stability, which can be
critical particularly on restricted sites and where there is a soft
subgrade.
In a similar way as one would consider extrusion and rotational
failures under a larger embankment, the platform edge stability
should be considered (Shown as Fig. 4 . These failure modes
are well covered by chapter 6 of BS 8006-1 (British Standards
Institute 2016), which includes design approaches for both
mechanisms in reinforced platforms, albeit considering them
as permanent embankments.
Figure 6: Embankment External Failures: Top: Rotational
Failure; Bottom: Extrusion failure (Extract from BS8006-
1995)
Extrusion is particularly problematic for heavily loaded
embankments or essentially thicker working platforms over
thin layers of weak soils. Here, the imposed loading can cause
extrusion of the weak underlying soils, which have insufficient
strength to resist the out of balance active earth pressures. Like
a toothpaste tube under pressure, this soft soil undergoes plastic
deformation out from underneath the embankment, causing the
platform to settle by displacement.
Smith and Tatari (2016) investigated the susceptibility of
reinforced embankments over weak soils to cause extrusion.
Their analysis using the DLO software programme,
LimitState:GEO and looked at the failure mechanisms of the
platform over varying soil strengths. The stability of highly
reinforced platforms was dominated by a susceptibility to this
346
“squeezing” deformation in the lower stratum. Depending on
the geometry and reinforcement strength, the embankment
itself either undergoes very localised shearing and vertical
“sinking” translation or rotational “snapping”. In both these
cases further increasing the strength of the reinforcement does
little to improve stability of the platform.
Where extrusion is a problem, standard solutions have included
flattening the side slopes or increasing the set-back from the
edge of the platform. Mounded fill around the platform can
provide counter pressure to extrusion. While sheet piling can
be used to cut off and retain these soft soils this solution is often
prohibitively expensive for large temporary sites. Where the
soft soil depth is limited in depth (e.g. 2 to 3 m), it may be more
economical to simply excavate it and replace with competent
granular fill.
4.2 Extrusion - Shear Key Trenches
Rather than excavating and replacing all the underlying weak
soils, this activity can be limited to the perimeter of the site in
a trench, creating a shear key. This is a well-established
earthworks technique used to disrupt potential weak slip-
planes (Giffen 2015).
There are three possible categories of shear key (see Fig. 8):
Unreinforced Full Depth: Typically extending through the
weak soil layer(s) and embedded into stronger soils below, the
key completely isolates the weaker layer, preventing extrusion.
The granular fill to these trenches improves the drainage of the
soft underlying soils.
Reinforced Full Depth: To limit the width of the key, and
excavation, geotextiles can be used to encase the trench and
maintain the integrity of a smaller shear key trench.
Reinforced Partial Depth: Where the depth of the soft layers,
makes a full depth trench uneconomical, a trench can be
considered that extends only a limited distance into to the soft
soil. This extends deep enough to limit the effective thickness
of the soft layer, until the destabilising extrusion pressure can
be resisted.
Piling 2020
4.3 Rotational Failure - Edge Stability
Further checks on rotational edge stability may be undertaken
using limit equilibrium software (Figure 9), especially where
adjacent features (in this case a river channel) could
compromise platform stability.
Figure 9: Limit equilibrium rotational failure check.
5. Conclusions
The safe design of granular temporary working platforms using
rational design methods has, for nearly 20 years, been routine
for piling sites.
Although having been mandated for geotechnical design for
nearly 10 years the application of EC7 for the design of
working platforms has not gained industry traction. The
BRE470 platform design approach, which has the merit of
simplicity, remains popular even though it may not the most
efficient design method when incorporating geogrid
reinforcement within the platform design. BRE 470 is also
quite sensitive to the angle of friction used in the calculation
which can be a cause of concern where either high quality
aggregate is difficult to source (increasingly problematic
especially in the south east of the England) or where slurry
contamination can lead to a reduction in the operative angle of
friction.
Whilst having the downside of being a more complex
calculation procedure the CIRIA 123 method can yield a more
economic design than the BRE 470 approach. However
uncertainty in the selection of the load spread angle b needs
careful consideration. For a small working or where the
subgrade is not particularly soft, the BRE approach remains the
most used method of design. Where a weaker subgrade is
present or for large areas the additional complexity and design
costs of the CIRIA 123 approach or numerical analysis can
yield overall cost savings.
348
Notwithstanding the design method used to establish the
working platform thickness additional design considerations
relating to edge stability are necessary. BS8006 provides a
comprehensive guidance or dealing with edge stability and
commercially available software packages are a useful
additional design tool. Shear key trenches, particularly when
reinforced, provide a cost-effective solution to enhance edge
stability as described within this paper.
References
British Standards Institute (2016). BS 8006-1+A1:2016:
Code of practice for strengthened/reinforced soils
and other fills, London: British Standards Institute.
British Standards Institute (2013). BS EN 1997-
1:2004+A1:2013, Eurocode 7: Geotechncial Design
– Part 1: General Rules, London: British Standards
Institute.
Building Research Establishment [BRE] (2004). BR 470:
Working platforms for tracked plant, London: BRE
Bookshop.
Construction Industry Research and Information
Association [CIRIA] (1996). Special Report 123: Soil
Reinforcement with geotextiles, London: Thomas
Telford.
Corke, D. and Gannon, J. (2010). Economic design of
working platforms for tracked plant. Ground
Engineering, 43, pp 29-31.
Giffen, A.D. (2015). Design and construction of a
strengthened embankment for an intermodal transfer
facility. Proceedings of the XVI ECSMGE,
Edinburgh, Scotland. pp. 583-588.
Highways England (2016). Manual of Contract
Documents for Highways Works [MCHW], Volume 1
– Series 600 Earthworks, London:
Okamura, M., Takemura, J. and Kimura, T. (1998).
Bearing capacity predictions of sand overlying clay
based on limit equilibrium methods, Soils and
Foundations 38(1), pp. 181–194.
Palmeira, E.M. and Antunes, L.G.S. (2010) Large scale
tests on geosynthetic reinforced unpaved roads
subjected to surface maintenance, Geotextiles and
Geomembranes, 28 (2010), pp. 547-558.
Smith, C.C. and Tatari, A. (2016). Limit analysis of
reinforced embankments on soft soil, Geotextiles and
Geomembranes, 44 (2016), pp. 504-514.
Temporary Works Forum [TWf] Working Platforms
(2019) Design of granular working platforms for
construction plant. A guide to good practice.
Transport and Road Research Laboratory [TRRL]
(1984). Laboratory Report 1132: The Structural
Design of Bituminous Roads. Berkshire, UK.
Waste and Resource Action Programme [WRAP] (2010).
Sustainable Geosystems in Civil Engineering
Applications, WRAP, Banbury, UK.
Proceedings of the Institution of
Civil Engineers
Geotechnical Engineering 161
December 2008 Issue GE6
Pages 279–281
doi: 10.1680/geng.2008.161.6.279
Paper 14201 J. A. Charles D. Corke
Keywords:
design methods & aids/piles &
piling/temporary works
Briefing: Working platforms for tracked plant
J. Andrew Charles, Building Research Establishment, UK, David Corke, DCProject Solutions, UK
(previously Bachy Soletanche) and Hilary D. Skinner, Ramboll Whitbybird, UK (previously BRE)
If a piling rig overturns there can be a risk of casualties.
Working platforms are critical for plant stability, and a
good practice guide to the design, installation,
maintenance and repair of ground-supported working
platforms for tracked plant has been prepared. A
simplified approach to the design calculations has been
based on a punching shear failure mechanism. The
platform design is an integrated package, from track
loading through to geotechnical design.
NOTATION
cu undrained shear strength of cohesive subgrade
D depth of platform material
Kp tan
punching shearing resistance coefficient
L effective track length of plant
Nc bearing capacity factor for cohesive subgrade
Nªp bearing capacity factor for granular platform
material
R bearing resistance
Rc bearing resistance of cohesive subgrade when no
platform is present
Rp bearing resistance of working platform when
platform is sufficiently deep that bearing
resistance is unaffected by underlying cohesive
subgrade
sc , sp and sª shape factors; functions of W and L
W track width of the plant
ªp bulk unit weight of platform material
9 angle of shearing resistance of granular material
1. INTRODUCTION
Working platforms are critical for plant stability, and while
most ground-supported working platforms perform well,
overturning of rigs has occurred more frequently than it should.
Although serious incidents involving working platforms are
relatively rare, when they do occur there can be a risk of
casualties. A good practice guide for ground-supported working
platforms for tracked plant has been prepared at the instigation
of the Federation of Piling Specialists (FPS). A contract was let
by FPS to the Building Research Establishment Ltd (BRE) to
prepare the guide under the direction of a Steering Group
appointed by FPS. The guide was published in June 2004. 1
The principal objective of the guide is to facilitate the design,
specification, installation, operation, maintenance and repair of
Geotechnical Engineering 161 Issue GE6 Briefing
H. D. Skinner
ground-supported working platforms constructed of granular
material, so that an acceptable level of safety is achieved. A
secondary objective of the guide is that safety should be
achieved without unnecessary or excessive expenditure.
The guide is not intended to replace or reduce the designer’s
input, but rather to promote the implementation of minimum
design, installation and maintenance standards. The guidance
has sought to avoid being over-prescriptive, as this might limit
the scope for innovative solutions, and does not in any way
limit the responsibilities of those parties involved in the
provision and operation of a working platform, who must
exercise their own knowledge, experience and judgement.
2. GOOD PRACTICE GUIDANCE
Following an introductory chapter, the guide has four chapters
that deal with, respectively, site conditions, design, installation
and, finally, operation, maintenance and repair.
The strength of the near-surface ground is critical for the
design of the working platform, whereas for most construction
projects it is the strength at greater depths that is important.
The near-surface strength is unlikely to have been determined
in the site investigation for the construction project, and it may
be necessary to augment information obtained for the
construction project with further investigation specifically for
the working platform. The desk study and site inspection are
critically important, and should be carried out with the
platform in mind; it is particularly important to locate any
weak and variable areas. Care must be taken in backfilling trial
pits to avoid creating additional hazards.
The design of a working platform is a geotechnical design
process, and should be carried out by a competent engineer
who has full access to the health and safety plan, including the
desk study and all other site investigation information. The
quality of the granular platform material is crucial, and it
should be such that all the performance requirements, in terms
of compactibility, durability, trafficability and drainage, can be
met. Materials that will undergo significant crushing when
trafficked should be avoided for works of any significant
duration, because drainage may be impaired. Sometimes it may
be economic to incorporate geosynthetics to strengthen the
working platform as an alternative to using a greater depth of
granular material. A separating geofabric between a clay
Charles et al. 279
 subgrade and the platform may improve long-term
performance by preventing the granular platform material from
being punched into the clay.
The platform should be installed to an appropriate specification
that ensures that the design strength of the platform material is
achieved, and there should be adequate supervision by
competent staff during platform installation. Careful
observation during placement of the working platform material
may reveal weak areas of the subgrade that require design
modifications. Where required, quality control tests should be
carried out.
A formulation of good practice is of value only where it is
applied with careful supervision, control and monitoring of the
platform under appropriate contractual arrangements.
Throughout its working life, the platform should be under the
day-to-day control of appropriately experienced site staff.
Contractual arrangements should ensure that the platform is
adequately inspected, controlled and maintained. Site control
should be adequate to ensure that it is not used by plant for
which it has not been designed, and that working areas are
clearly marked. Problems may arise where working platforms
are also used as haul roads, because there is likely to be an
incompatibility between the two uses.
The integrity of the working platform should be preserved at
the original designed standard throughout its working life.
Inadequate performance of working platforms may be due to
poor maintenance, and many problems experienced with rig
instability can be associated with failure to adequately
maintain and repair a working platform rather than with
inadequacies in specification or installation. Figure 1 illustrates
the hazard presented by a poorly backfilled excavation.
3. ROUTINE DESIGN CALCULATIONS
The guide has two appendices: the first provides an approach
to routine design calculations, with some worked examples,
and the second gives guidance on the determination of
characteristic values of soil parameters.
Working platforms are subject to complex loading conditions,
and it is not easy to reflect in the design calculations the
loading that will actually be experienced. The pressure under
Poorly backf illed excavations
Fig. 1. Hazard posed by poorly backfilled excavations
280 Geotechnical Engineering 161 Issue GE6
the tracks should be calculated in accordance with EN
791:1996 Drill rigs—safety and EN 996:1996 Piling equipment—
safety requirements. Using the weights of the various
components of the rig or crane, the overturning moments can
be calculated for the range of operations that will be carried
out, including standing, travelling, handling, penetrating and
extracting, for different jib and mast orientations. The bearing
pressure distributions, which can be calculated from the
overturning moments, may be triangular or trapezoidal, but
radically simplified stress distributions are recommended for
use in the design calculations. Non-uniform loading
distributions can be transformed into equivalent uniform loads
over a reduced areal extent using the method described by
Meyerhof. 2 For a more recent review of the problem, see
Foundoukos and Jardine;3 further information on loading can
also be found on the FPS website, www.fps.org.uk.
Two loading situations are considered.
(a) Case 1 loading applies to the situation when the rig or
crane operator is unlikely to be able to aid recovery from
an imminent platform failure.
(b) Case 2 loading applies to the situation when the rig or
crane operator can control the load safely, for example by
releasing the line load, or by reducing power, to aid
recovery from an imminent platform failure.
The guide gives recommended partial factors to be applied to
the loads derived according to EN 996:1996, which are
converted to an equivalent uniform loading.
The design calculations indicate the depth of working platform
that is required for the given soil and loading conditions.
Where a working platform of relatively shallow depth is placed
on a weak subgrade, a simple approach to the design
calculations can be based on the analysis of punching failure,
as illustrated in Figure 2. The bearing resistance R is considered
to be the sum of the shear required to punch through a vertical
plane in the granular platform material and the bearing
capacity of the subgrade. It is considered that this mechanism
can be applied to the design of granular platforms overlying
subgrades of cu ¼ 20–80 kPa.
Using the simplified analysis for a footing punching through a
dense granular layer overlying soft clay, the following
Loaded area
W L
Platform Punch D
Subgrade
Bearing capacity failure
Fig. 2. Punching failure mechanism
Briefing Charles et al.
expression is obtained for the bearing resistance of a platform
on a cohesive subgrade with a low water table. Rp
Granular material alone
cuNcsc
5
ªp D2
1 R ¼ cu Nc sc þ K p tan
sp
W

4
There are two limiting conditions.

(a) When D ¼ 0, the bearing resistance is simply that of the

R
cohesive subgrade 3
cuNcsc

2 Rc ¼ cu Nc sc
2

(b) When D is large, the bearing resistance is simply that of

the platform material when unaffected by the underlying
Rc
clay layer 1 Subgrade alone
cuNcsc

3 Rp ¼ 0:5ªp WNªp sª
Equation 1 used in conjunction with the limiting values given
in Equations 2 and 3 indicates an increase in bearing resistance
(R) with increasing depth of the platform (D), as illustrated in
Figure 3 for some typical conditions. The graph
is in the form of a dimensionless plot of bearing resistance,
R/(cu Nc sc ), against platform depth and loaded width (D/W).
When the platform depth D ¼ 0, the bearing resistance is a
minimum, corresponding to the subgrade alone, Rc /(cu Nc sc ) (see
Equation 2); when D is large (corresponding to a very thick
platform) the maximum bearing resistance is that provided by
an infinite depth of platform material, Rp /(cu Nc sc ) (see
Equation 3). For the conditions that apply in Figure 3, the
latter state is reached when D/W ¼ 2.5 and Rp /(cu Nc sc ) ¼ 5.6.
Between these two limits the bearing resistance of the
combined system can be determined using Equation 1.
The guide recommends values for the punching shear
coefficient, Kp tan
, for a range of 9 as well as shape factors
for this coefficient and for the subgrade bearing resistance.
A simple addition to the capacity of the platform is suggested
to take account of the effect of geosynthetic reinforcement.
This approach to the calculation of the required depth of the
working platform contains many simplifying assumptions,
which cannot fully represent actual soil behaviour. The method
described in the guide has been calibrated against other design
methods for strip loadings and the experience of FPS members.
However, the results of calculations should be critically
0
0 1 2 3
D
W
Fig. 3. Typical increase in bearing resistance (R) with
increasing depth of platform (D) for well compacted granular
platform material on soft clay subgrade
appraised by an appropriately experienced engineer, and in
situations where the routine design calculations are not
appropriate it may be necessary to carry out more sophisticated
forms of analysis.
REFERENCES
1. BUILDING RESEARCH ESTABLISHMENT. Working Platforms for
Tracked Plant: Good Practice Guide to the Design,
Installation, Maintenance and Repair of Ground-Supported
Working Platforms. Building Research Establishment,
Watford, 2004, BR470.
2. MEYERHOF G. G. The bearing capacity of foundations under
eccentric and inclined loads. Proceedings of 3rd
International Conference on Soil Mechanics and Foundation
Engineering, Zurich, 1953, 1, 440–445.
3. FOUNDOUKOS M. and JARDINE R. J. The effect of eccentric
loading on the bearing capacity of shallow foundations.
Proceedings of BGA International Conference on
Foundations: Innovations, Observations, Design and
Practice, Dundee, 2003, pp. 297–305.

What do you think?

To comment on this paper, please email up to 500 words to the editor at journals@ice.org.uk
Proceedings journals rely entirely on contributions sent in by civil engineers and related professionals, academics and students. Papers
should be 2000–5000 words long, with adequate illustrations and references. Please visit www.thomastelford.com/journals for author
guidelines and further details.

Geotechnical Engineering 161 Issue GE6 Briefing Charles et al. 281


REFERENCES
BR470- Working platforms for tracked plant, 2004
Use of ‘structural geosynthetic reinforcement’– A BRE review
seven years on, BRE2011
Jenner C.G.,Watts, G.R.A, Blackman and The performance of re-
inforced unpaved sub-bases subjected to trafficking
Dalwadi and Dixon
Watts K. & Jenner C.G. (2008) Large scale Laboratory Assess-
ment of Geogrids to reinforced Granular Working platforms, proc
4th European Geosysnthetics Conf. Edinburgh 2008.
European Technical Approval ETA12/0530, Report number KI-
WA K76041 issued by Kiwa Nederland B.V.
Tensar Case Study reference-Ref 319 for Stoke
Quay_Ipswich_Piling_Platform
Tensar Case Study reference Ref 344 for Crossrail Working Plat-
form.
1401