Basal Reinforced Embankments
Basal Reinforced Embankments Over Soft Foundations with Reference
to BS 8006:1995
by
Chris Lawson
TenCate Geosynthetics Asia, Malaysia
1. BS 8006:1995
BS 8006:1995, shown in figure 1, is a British
Standard Code of Practice on reinforced soil and
other fills. Since its original publication in 1995 it
has been used for the design of a wide range of
reinforced soil structures in many countries. BS
8006 is a limit state Code, and covers the
applications of reinforced soil retaining walls,
reinforced fill and soil nailed slopes, and basal
reinforced embankments on soil foundations and foundations and draws reference from BS
spanning voids. The prescriptive design
equations in BS 8006 are balanced by the use of the various geosynthetic reinforcement
partial factors in order to generate a suitable
factor of safety. These partial factors are applied
to the loads that cause instability and to the soil
and reinforcement parameters that maintain
stability.
BRITISH STANDARD BS 8006 : 1995
Code of practice for
Strengthened/reinforced
soils and other fills
STANDARDS
Figure 1: BS 8006:1995 a Code of Practice for
reinforced soil and other fills.
© C. Lawson 2007
Since the original publication of BS 8006 in 1995
there have been a number of refinements in the
analysis of reinforced soil structures. This
document includes these relevant major
analytical refinements but also preserves the
approach taken by BS 8006:1995 in order to
maintain its validity and consistency.
This document examines the application of basal
reinforced embankments constructed over soft
8006:1995 on this subject. Also discussed is how
parameters are determined. Finally, the
geosynthetic reinforcements commonly used for
basal reinforced embankments are described,
along with their relevant parameters of
importance.
2. Embankments over soft foundation
soils
Soft foundation soils are particularly problematic
for infrastructure structures, e.g. embankments
and abutments. Here stability and settlement
control are of prime issues. Figure 2 shows the
two foundation problems that occur with the
construction of embankments over soft
foundation soils and where the crest of the
embankment has to be constructed to a required
height. Problems arise if the soft foundation does
not have the required shear strength to support
the embankment fill height, and instability can
occur, figure 2a. Problems can also arise due to
the compressible nature of the soft foundation
with the crest of the embankment settling, figure
2b.
Instability is a problem where the foundation has
inadequate shear strength. The problem can arise
because of the speed at which the embankment
is constructed and of the required geometrical
extent of the embankment. Solutions to this
problem revolve around controlling the geometry
and speed of construction of the embankment.
1
Basal Reinforced Embankments
Slip instability Embankment
Soft foundation
a) Foundation has inadequate stability
Embankment
Settlement at embankment
surface
Original
embankment
Soft, compressible foundation
b) Foundation is compressible
Figure 2: Problems with construction of
embankments over soft foundations.
Compressibility of the foundation causes
settlement of the embankment. In some instances
settlements may not be a problem but for many
infrastructure structures settlements are a
problem. The problem is not just the magnitude
of settlement but also how long it takes to occur.
Solutions revolve around either preventing
settlements from occurring or ensuring most
settlements have occurred during the
construction period.
Geosynthetics may be used to enhance
foundation stability and may be used to control
foundation compressibility. Their primary role is
as basal reinforcement, but they may also be
used for drainage to accelerate foundation
consolidation.
© C. Lawson 2007
3. Basal reinforced embankments to
enhance foundation stability
3.1 Techniques used to enhance stability
There are three techniques that can be used to
enhance foundation stability during embankment
construction. These are stage construction, the
use of berms, and the use of basal reinforcement.
Stage construction, figure 3a, entails the
construction of the embankment in stages in
order to prevent foundation instability. Each fill
stage is placed and the foundation is allowed to
consolidate until such time as a subsequent fill
stage can be placed safely. The disadvantage
with this technique is that it can take a long
period of time to construct the embankment fully.
With time periods being important in modern
construction contracts this technique is seldom
used today.
The use of berms, figure 3b, extends the
geometry of the embankment and increases the
loaded area thereby improving stability. The
disadvantage with this technique is that a
considerable area is required for the
embankment including berms. Further, if land
costs are at a premium this technique can prove
expensive.
The use of basal reinforcement, figure 3c,
enables an embankment of minimal geometry to
be constructed relatively quickly and at the same
time maintaining stability. The advantage of this
Embankment constructed Geosynthetic separator
in stages
Soft foundation
a) Stage construction
Embankment Geosynthetic separator
Berm
Berm
Soft foundation
b) Berm construction
Geosynthetic reinforcement
Embankment
Soft foundation
c) Basal reinforcement construction
Figure 3: Different embankment construction
techniques used to enhance foundation stability.
2
Basal Reinforced Embankments

technique is that embankment height can be in the direction of the horizontal shear stress in
maximised while embankment area is minimised. the unreinforced and reinforced embankment
Also, speed of construction is assured. cases provides the benefit of using the basal
reinforcement. This benefit may be realised in
In some instances the most economic solution
terms of either steeper allowable side-slopes on
may involve a combination of all three of the
the embankment, or it may be constructed to a
techniques shown in figure 3 – stage
greater stable height.
construction, use of berms and basal
reinforcement. The most efficient procedure to be The tensile load generated in the basal
adopted is site specific and is also dependent on reinforcement is not constant with time, figure 4.
the required construction period. During embankment loading the tensile load in
the reinforcement increases and reaches a
Basal reinforced embankments constructed over
maximum at the end of embankment
foundations of inadequate shear strength can be
construction, figure 4a (designated as Tr). Over
considered a problem of bearing capacity. In an
time, the soft foundation consolidates, gains in
unreinforced embankment the combination of
shear strength, and can support more of the
vertical embankment loading and horizontal
embankment loading. Thus, the tensile load in
outward shear stress must be supported by the
the reinforcement reduces until such time as the
soft foundation. In a reinforced embankment the
foundation can support the full embankment
combination of vertical embankment loading and
loading, and the reinforcement load becomes
horizontal inward shear stress must also be
zero. The time taken for this to occur depends on
supported by the soft foundation. The difference
how long it takes the soft foundation to
consolidate, but times can range from 6 months
Geosynthetic reinforcement to 10 years.
Embankment
The maximum tensile load generated in the
reinforcement Tr is an important parameter as far
as the reinforcement is concerned because the
Soft foundation reinforcement must be strong enough to carry
this tensile load for the required duration of time.
Construction period Theoretically, this is only for a short period of
time because the tensile load in the
reinforcement, T

Tr
Load applied to

Time for reinforcement starts to reduce following

consolidation Shear strength of
embankment construction as the foundation
may be important foundation supports consolidates. However, from a design
embankment
perspective, it is normally assumed
(conservatively) that the tensile load Tr will have
to be carried by the reinforcement for some time,
Time and for simplification this time period is normally
a) Load regime in basal reinforcement over time assumed to be as long as it takes the foundation
to consolidate, figure 4b. Thus, the design load
carried by the geosynthetic reinforcement is of
Minimum design load
in reinforcement Critical load point, Tr,t magnitude Tr,t as shown in figure 4b.
reinforcement, T

3.2 Determination of maximum geosynthetic

Load applied to

Actual load carried

reinforcement tensile load, Tr,t
by reinforcement Basal reinforced embankments are best designed
Design life of
reinforcement according to limit state design principles.
Ultimate limit states are possible collapse modes
while serviceability limit states are possible
Time excessive deformation modes. The design
b) Simplified load regime carried by basal procedure adopted is to design for the worst
reinforcement for purposes of design ultimate limit state case and then check to see if
Figure 4: Geosynthetic reinforcement load regime the serviceability limit states are satisfied. For
in a basal reinforced embankment. basal reinforced embankments the limiting case

© C. Lawson 2007 3
Basal Reinforced Embankments

Slip within Embankment Horizontal Embankment

embankment Embankment Reinforcement
Reinforcement movement Reinforcement
fill of fill

Soft foundation
a) Local stability c) Lateral sliding
b) Rotational stability

Lateral Embankment
extrusion of Reinforcement Embankment Reinforcement Embankment Reinforcement
foundation

d) Foundation extrusion f) Strain in reinforcement

Deep-seated
rotation

e) Overall stability
Figure 5: Limit states for basal reinforced embankments on soft foundations (After BS 8006:1995).

is always an ultimate limit state and thus
serviceability need not be analysed in detail for
this type of embankment other than setting
maximum reinforcement strain limits.
The limit states that need to be considered are
shown in figure 5. These include evaluation of
local stability (figure 5a), rotational stability
(figure 5b), lateral sliding (figure 5c), foundation
extrusion (figure 5d) and overall stability (figure
5e). A further check should be made to limit the
strain in the reinforcement to an acceptable
maximum level (figure 5f). The limit state that is
crucial to the determination of the maximum
reinforcement load Tr,t in the basal reinforcement
is the rotational stability (figure 5b). It is this limit
state that will be considered in more detail in this
document.

Xi Slice i Embankment

Y Reinforcement
Rd
Wi

Soft foundation Tro

ai
Most critical bi
slip surface

Maximum force

Locus of required
tensile force, Troj
Tro

Figure 6: Determination of maximum geosynthetic reinforcement tensile load by slip circle analysis.

© C. Lawson 2007 4
Basal Reinforced Embankments

A number of methods exist to analyse the Table 2: Sources of commercial continuum

rotational stability limit state for basal reinforced methods computer software suitable for basal
reinforced embankments.
embankments. These range from plasticity
analyses to limit equilibrium analyses based on Name Type Details Contact
slip circle methods to continuum methods
Plaxis Finite Complexity Plaxis bv,
analyses. All have their advantages and V8.2 element limited by Netherlands
disadvantages. Until recently, the most computer www.plaxis.nl
commonly used technique was the slip circle memory
email:
method where a search is carried out across the info@plaxis.nl
base of the embankment to determine the
reinforcement load required to provide a safe SAGE - Finite Complexity SAGE Engineering,
CRISP element limited by UK
level of rotational stability, figure 6. The computer Tel:
maximum restoring load Tro across the base of the memory +44-1225-426633
embankment is equal to the maximum
reinforcement design load Tr,t. This repetitive FLAC Finite Complexity Itasca Group, USA
procedure is well made for computer programs V5 difference limited by www.itascacg.com
computer
and a number exist that can take into account the memory email:
restoring stability provided by basal software@itascacg.
com
reinforcement – see table 1.
More recently, computer analysis techniques have been used for reinforced soil structures, are
based on continuum methods have been used for listed in table 2.
the design of basal reinforced embankments
constructed on soft foundations. Continuum 3.3 Maximum geosynthetic reinforcement
methods do not suffer from some of the strain
limitations of older, more conventional, methods The maximum reinforcement strains that yield
and can analyse all of the limit states shown in good performance have been derived from field
figure 5 in one run. However, it should be noted performance and not from a rigorous theoretical
that continuum methods require a “steep learning analysis. Generally, acceptable maximum
curve” on the part of the operator and require reinforcement strain levels are 5 to 6% at the end
sophisticated input parameters. These parameters of the reinforcement design life.
may be difficult to obtain with any degree of
accuracy from a site. A number of suppliers of 3.4 Efficient layout of geosynthetic
continuum methods computer software, which reinforcement at base of embankment
For basal reinforced embankments on soft
foundations the tensile load generated in the
Table 1: Three sources of commercial limit
equilibrium computer software suitable for basal reinforcement occurs essentially in one direction,
reinforced embankments. across the width of the embankment, figure 7a.
Thus, in this direction the reinforcement must
Name Details Contact
resist the maximum tensile load Tr,t. In the
ReSSA Internal stability ADAMA Engineering Inc, direction along the length of the embankment the
V2.0 analysed by USA tensile load requirements are fairly minimal and
two-part wedge only have to be adequate to resist the loads
www.geoprograms.com
method +
circular slip email: generated by differential fill heights in the
adama@geoprograms.com embankment during construction.
SLOPE/W Internal stability Geo-Slope International, The optimal reinforcement layout to support the
analysed by Canada tensile load across the embankment is shown in
circular slip figure 7b. The reinforcement (which for cost
email:
method
info@geo-slope.com reasons should be uni-directional in strength)
Internal stability Geosolve, UK
should be laid across the width of the
SLOPE
analysed by embankment in one continuous length. Adjacent
V8.23 email:
two-part wedge Daniel@geosolve-demon. pieces of geosynthetic reinforcement can be
or circular slip co.uk joined either by overlap or sewing to achieve the
methods required reinforcement continuity and minimum
© C. Lawson 2007 5
Basal Reinforced Embankments
Tr,t
Tmin
a) Direction of tensile load regime in embankment
b) Direction of installing geosynthetic reinforcement
Figure 7: Direction of tensile load regime and
optimal layout of geosynthetic reinforcement.
strength requirements in the direction along the
length of the embankment.
4. Basal reinforced embankments to
enhance stability and control
settlements
In some instances where embankments are
constructed over soft foundations the resulting
settlements may not be a problem. However, for
many transportation structures settlements are a
problem. The problem is not just the magnitude
of settlement occurring but also how long it takes
to occur. Solutions revolve around either
preventing settlements from occurring or
ensuring the settlements occur relatively quickly
before the surface structure is completed.
Four techniques are used to control foundation
compressibility. These involve the use of
surcharging (figure 8a), prefabricated vertical
drains (figure 8b), piled foundations (figure 8c)
and foundation replacement. The surcharging of
embankments to increase the magnitude of
settlements in a shorter period of time is one of
the oldest settlement-control techniques. While it
is a very cost-effective technique it does take a
considerable period of time, which can be from 2
to 10 years. Reinforced soil techniques can be
applied to embankment surcharging to ensure
stability if required (figure 8a). The design
procedure is the same as already covered
previously.
The use of prefabricated vertical drains (PVD’s) to piles can range from timber to concrete to stone,
accelerate the consolidation of the soft
© C. Lawson 2007
Geosynthetic reinforcement Surcharge
Embankment
Compressible foundation
a) Construct embankment and wait for settlement
Geosynthetic reinforcement Surcharge
Embankment
Vertical Compressible
drains foundation
b) Use vertical drains to accelerate settlement
Geosynthetic reinforcement Embankment
Compressible Piles
foundation
c) Use foundation treatment (piling) to prevent
settlement
Figure 8: Different techniques used to control
foundation compressibility.
foundation reduces the settlement period to
within the time taken for normal construction
contracts. Surcharging, in conjunction with
PVD’s, can reduce the period of settlement even
further. Typical times taken to achieve the
desired degree of settlement when using PVD’s
are 6 months to 2 years. Basal reinforcement, can
also be applied to embankment construction
where PVD’s are used (figure 8b). The design
procedure for the determination of reinforcement
loads is the same as already covered previously,
but the principles of use are slightly different.
These principles are discussed further in the
section following.
The use of a foundation treatment to prevent
settlement from occurring can also be very
effective. A variety of foundation treatments can
be used ranging from piles to stone, concrete and
lime columns, to jet grouting, to deep mixing
methods. Foundation piling and columns are the
most common technique within this category and
to concrete and lime columns. The reinforced
6
Basal Reinforced Embankments

soil technique, in the form of basal Instantaneous loading

reinforcement, is an integral part of piled
embankment foundations (figure 8c). This is t0
discussed in more detail in a following section.

The replacement of the soft foundation with good
quality fill is only economical for shallow depth
foundations thus; foundation replacement is only
of limited use.
5. Basal reinforced embankments with
prefabricated vertical drains
Due to time constraints on most construction
contracts and the need to provide
post-construction, relatively settlement-free
structures on many transportation projects the
technique of accelerating the rate of
consolidation of soft foundations has become a
very common procedure. The most common
form of this technique is the installation of
prefabricated vertical drains (PVD’s) into the soft
foundation stratum, figure 8b. The presence of
the PVD’s shortens the pore water drainage path
and thus accelerates the rate of consolidation.
A full treatise on the subject of consolidation
using PVD’s is not given in this document.
However, this document will concentrate on the
adoption of PVD’s as they affect the
performance, and the required properties, of the
basal geosynthetic reinforcement.
The use of PVD’s in conjunction with basal
reinforcement enables settlements to occur
within a relatively short time frame while at the
same time maintaining the stability of the
embankment. Figure 4 shows the tensile load
generated in the basal reinforcement during and
after construction of an embankment on a soft
foundation. Figure 9a shows the effect of
increasing the rate of consolidation of the soft
foundation on the generated reinforcement
tensile loads. Increasing the rate of consolidation
results in shorter consolidation times and hence
shorter periods of time over which the
reinforcement is required, figure 9a. If the
embankment loading is instantaneous (time to in
figures 9a and b) then increasing the
consolidation rate will not affect the magnitude
of the maximum reinforcement load, but will
affect the period of time over which the load is
carried. However, if the embankment loading
occurs over a specific construction time (say, 1 to
2 months) then increasing the consolidation rate
will affect both the magnitude of the maximum
Reinforcement load
Increasing
consolidation
rate
Shear strength of
foundation supports
embankment without
reinforcement
Time
a) Effect of increasing consolidation rate on
required reinforcement tensile load
Instantaneous loading
t0 Construction
Reinforcement load time
Increasing
consolidation Shear strength of
rate foundation supports
Tmax embankment without
reinforcement
Time
b) Effect of increasing consolidation rate and a
specific embankment construction time on
maximum required reinforcement tensile load
Figure 9: Effect of increasing the rate of foundation
consolidation on tensile loads generated in basal
reinforcement.
reinforcement load (Tmax in figure 9b) as well as
the period of time over which the load is carried.
The reason for this is that the foundation is
consolidating at a specific consolidation rate
during the embankment construction period.
When the rate of consolidation is accelerated,
even a relatively short embankment construction
period, e.g. one month, can have a significant
effect on the maximum load generated in the
basal reinforcement.
The combination of a “managed” embankment
construction time along with an acceleration of
foundation consolidation provides the ideal
reinforced embankment solution where it is
necessary to control foundation compressibility
within a required period of time as well as
stability. Achieving this in the field requires good

© C. Lawson 2007 7
Basal Reinforced Embankments
attention to detail especially if the performance
of the consolidation acceleration treatment is
critical. A good knowledge of the insitu
foundation consolidation parameters is crucial.
Where PVD’s are used to accelerate foundation
consolidation good attention to drain
performance and drainage detailing are also
important. Controlling the rate of loading is
normally achieved by good site instrumentation
and site supervision.
Accounting for embankment loading rate and
foundation consolidation rate at the design stage
requires the use of relatively sophisticated
design/analysis techniques. Realistically, this can
only be undertaken using continuum methods,
table 2. With the improved ease-of-use of
continuum method computer programs this
technique is becoming more common and cost
effective. Today, almost all basal reinforced
embankment designs (with and without PVD’s) of
note are carried out using continuum methods.
The economies associated with the appraisal of
embankment loading rates and foundation
consolidation rates make the time required in
arriving at a continuum methods solution
worthwhile. However, a word of caution
concerning continuum method techniques is that
they require sophisticated parameter inputs in
order to produce realistic design information. In
many instances expert judgement is required for
these input parameters.
With the use of PVD’s, basal reinforced
embankments have to be constructed in a way to
maximise the performance of both the
Geosynthetic Embankment fill
reinforcement
Drainage
blanket
Geotextile
separator
Soft
foundation
PVD’s
Figure 10: Layout showing “upside down”
construction procedure for basal reinforced
embankments using PVD’s.
© C. Lawson 2007
reinforcement and the PVD’s. The construction
procedure used is normally referred to as
“upside-down construction”. This procedure
places the basal reinforcement above the
drainage blanket and not immediately adjacent
to the soft foundation layer. The resulting layout
is shown in figure 10. The reason for the basal
reinforcement being placed above the drainage
blanket, and after PVD installation, is to prevent
its damage (and consequent significant loss of
strength) that would otherwise occur during PVD
installation.
6. Basal reinforced piled embankments
Piling has been used to control embankment
settlements in South East Asia since the 1970’s,
Holmberg (1978). The conventional form of piled
embankment, shown in figure 11a, consists of
piles with large size pile caps to ensure all of the
embankment loading is transferred directly onto
the piles (and not onto the soft foundation). In
addition, raking piles are normally installed at the
outer extremity of the piled area to counteract
the horizontal outward thrust of the embankment
fill. Since the early 1980’s basal reinforced piled
embankments have become increasingly
common and a comparison between the two
systems is shown in figure 11. The benefits of the
Embankment
Large pile Raking
caps piles
Soft
foundation
Piles
a) Conventional piled embankment
Embankment
Geosynthetic
Small pile reinforcement
caps
Soft
foundation
Piles
b) Basal reinforced piled embankment
Figure 11: Comparison between a conventional and
a basal reinforced piled embankment.
8
Basal Reinforced Embankments

basal reinforced piled embankment technique
are that relatively small size pile caps can be
used since the basal geosynthetic reinforcement
is used to transfer the unarched vertical
embankment loading onto the pile caps, and
there is no need for raking piles as the
geosynthetic reinforcement counteracts the
horizontal outward thrust of the embankment fill,
figure 11b. This leads to considerable economies
over the conventional piled embankment
technique.
A major advantage of piled embankments is that
the height of embankment construction is
controlled by the group capacity of the
foundation piles, not by the strength of the soft
foundation soil. Furthermore, basal reinforced
piled embankments can be constructed at
unrestricted rates because the loading is not
dependent on the consolidation rate of the soft
foundation. In view of the above two advantages,
most of the applications where basal reinforced
piled embankments are used are those where
differential settlements are to be minimized.
Three main applications are shown in figure 12.

Geosynthetic
reinforcement

Bridge Embankment
structure

Soft
foundation Piles

a) Embankment approaching a piled structure

Existing Embankment Geosynthetic

embankment widening reinforcement

Soft
foundation Piles

b) Embankment widening preventing differential settlements

Geosynthetic
Retaining reinforcement
wall Retaining
Building wall

Embankment
Roadway

Soft
Piles foundation

c) Embankment with vertical walls in confined area

Figure 12: Applications of basal reinforced piled embankments.

© C. Lawson 2007 9
Basal Reinforced Embankments

Basal reinforced embankments can be used Geosynthetic

where it is required to prevent differential reinforcement
settlements from occurring between a piled Embankment
bridge structure and an approach abutment, e.g.
figure 12a. Basal reinforced embankments can
also be used to construct embankment fills Pile
Piles caps
adjacent to existing embankments without the
problem of differential settlements, e.g. figure
12b. The technique can also be used to construct End of
confined embankment structures, e.g. figure 12c, construction
Tr
where the piled foundation not only prevents
differential settlements but also prevents

reinforcement, T
Load applied to
overstressing of the retaining walls due to inward
rotation.
In basal reinforced piled embankments the
reinforcement is required to transfer the
component of the vertical embankment loading
not supported by embankment arching between Time
adjacent pile caps onto the pile caps. The
a) Load regime in basal reinforcement over time
loading of this unarched embankment fill
generates a tensile load in the reinforcement
Minimum design strength Critical load
enabling the transfer of this load directly onto the
of reinforcement point, Tr,t
reinforcement, T

pile caps. Thus, the full embankment loading is

Load applied to

transferred onto the pile caps with negligible

loading applied directly to the soft foundation.
The tensile load generated in the basal
reinforcement over time has the profile shown in Actual load carried
figure 13a. As the embankment loading by reinforcement Design
life, td
progresses, increased load is generated in the
basal reinforcement, and the soft foundation soil
Time
between the pile caps undergoes some
deformation. After completion of the b) Simplified load carried by basal reinforcement for
embankment fill placement tensile load purposes of design
continues to develop in the reinforcement due to Figure 13: Geosynthetic reinforcement load regime
the time related deformation of the soft in basal reinforced piled embankments.
foundation soil between the pile caps. At some
point in time following embankment construction For simplicity, the tensile load profile over time
an equilibrium condition is reached where the that is assumed for design is shown in figure 13b
strain in the reinforcement is compatible with the where the tensile load in the reinforcement is
vertical deformation of the soft foundation constant over the full design life of the basal
between the pile caps and the reinforcement load reinforced piled embankment.
reaches a constant maximum value (denoted as Basal reinforced piled embankments are best
Tr in figure 13a). The load in the reinforcement designed according to limit state design
then remains constant for the full design life of principles as set out in BS 8006:1995. The
the basal reinforced piled embankment. various limit states define possible collapse or
6.1 Determination of maximum geosynthetic excess deformation modes. The design procedure
reinforcement tensile load, Tr,t adopted is to design for the worst limit state case.
For basal reinforced piled embankments there are
Clearly, the maximum reinforcement load, Tr in six limit states for design. These are shown in
figure 13a, is an important parameter as far as the figure 14. These include evaluation of the pile
choice of the appropriate reinforcement is group capacity (figure 14a), pile group extent
concerned. Also of importance is the time period (figure 14b), vertical load shedding across the
over which this maximum load is required to act. base of the embankment (figure 14c), lateral

© C. Lawson 2007 10
Basal Reinforced Embankments

Edge Reinforcement
Reinforcement Embankment instability Embankment

Piles Piles

a) Pile group capacity b) Pile group extent

Reinforcement
Embankment Horizontal Reinforcement
Vertical stress Embankment
profile movement
of fill

Piles Piles

c) Vertical load shedding d) Lateral sliding

Reinforcement
Embankment Embankment
Reinforcement

Pile caps
Piles

Piles
e) Overall stability f) Surface deformations
Figure 14: Limit states for basal reinforced piled embankments (After BS 8006:1995).

sliding of the embankment (figure 14d), overall
stability (figure 14e), and differential surface
deformations (figure 14f). The limit states that are
crucial to the determination of the maximum
reinforcement load Tr,t in the basal reinforcement
are the vertical load shedding (figure 14c) and
lateral sliding (figure 14d), while that of
differential surface deformation (figure 14f) is
crucial to determining required reinforcement
stiffness, and hence strain.
6.1.1 Vertical load shedding across the base of
the embankment
Fundamental to the determination of the tensile
loads in the reinforcement is the amount of load
shedding (arching) that occurs across the base of
the embankment. Because of the difference in
compressibility between the pile caps and the
adjacent soft foundation a complex vertical stress
distribution occurs along the base of a piled
embankment. The relatively stiff pile caps cause
arching to occur within the embankment fill and
thus attract more vertical loading directly onto
the pile caps. The role of the basal reinforcement
is to transfer the loading of the remaining
unarched fill onto the pile caps and prevent
direct embankment loading of the soft
foundation. Thus, the pile group must have
adequate capacity to support the full loading of
the embankment. This includes vertical as well as
horizontal load capacity. Where the foundation
soil is very soft care must be taken to ensure the
piles are installed well into the firm foundation
stratum beneath. Furthermore, the extent of the
pile group must ensure that no instability occurs
within the operating area of the surface of the
embankment, e.g. figure 14b. This normally
requires that the pile group be extended well out
into the shoulders of the embankment fill.

© C. Lawson 2007 11
Basal Reinforced Embankments

The pile group layout determines the type of
arching in the embankment fill and the
consequent loads carried by the reinforcement.
The three types of pile group layout that are used
in piled embankments are triangular grid layout
of individual piles; square grid layout with
connecting beams; and square grid layout of
individual piles. The two latter layouts are the
most common.
Connecting beams are sometimes used across the
tops of the pile caps in the direction across the
width of the embankment where the foundation
soil is very soft, or where the piles used cannot
tolerate lateral movements. The adoption of
connecting beams creates a two-dimensional

Embankment height, H Embankment height, H

Pile cap width, a Pile cap width, a

Pile spacing, s Pile spacing, s

i) Two-dimensional representation i) Three-dimensional representation

ii) Arching distribution within embankment fill ii) Arching distribution within embankment fill

Geosynthetic reinforcement Geosynthetic reinforcement

iii) Deformed shape of geosynthetic reinforcement iii) Deformed shape of geosynthetic reinforcement

Geosynthetic load (kN/m) Geosynthetic load (kN/m)

500 500
400 400
a/s=0.1
300 300
a/s=0.2
200 200
a/s=0.5 a/s=0.9
a/s=0.1 a/s=0.2 a/s=0.5 a/s=0.9
100 100
0 0
0 0.5 1.0 1.5 2.0 0 0.5 1.0 1.5 2.0
H/s H/s
iv) Geosynthetic load (After Kempton iv) Geosynthetic load (After Kempton
et al. 1998) et al. 1998)

a) Two-dimensional case b) Three-dimensional case

Figure 15: Effect of pile group layout on embankment arching and consequent basal reinforcement loads.

© C. Lawson 2007 12
Basal Reinforced Embankments

arch in the embankment fill above the piles, σ’v that takes into account a loading safety factor.
figure 15a. Two-dimensional arching can be Thus,
analysed in plane strain with a resulting
simple-geometry arch and consequent deflected σ'v = ff γ H + ff w s (1)
reinforcement shape, figure 15a. The resulting where, ff is load factor (= 1.3); γ is unit weight of
tensile loads generated in the reinforcement as a embankment fill; H is height of embankment; ws
result of the two-dimensional arch is relatively is the surcharge loading on top of embankment.
low, figure 15a(iv), compared to the
three-dimensional case.
The square grid pile group layout is the most
Embankment Embankment
common form of pile support in embankments. It fill not carried
30°
also generates the most complicated arching H by arch
geometry in the embankment fill, being
three-dimensional in nature, figure 15b. Due to p’f
s-a a
its three-dimensional characteristics, this pile
group layout results in a more complicated s
deflected reinforcement shape, and a greater
plan area of unsupported loading. Consequently, Arching ratio p’f /s’v
the tension generated in the reinforcement is 1.0
significantly greater than for a similar geometry H/(s-a) = 1
0.8
two-dimensional pile group layout (compare
figure 15b(iv) with figure 15a(iv)). 0.6
H/(s-a) = 2
The magnitude of the loads in the basal 0.4
H/(s-a) = 4
reinforcement due to arching is dependent on the
0.2
layout of the piled foundation, the height of the
H/(s-a) = 6
embankment and the nature of the embankment 0
1 2 3 4 5
fill. Changes in the frictional component of the s/a
fill do not affect the amount of arching a) Two-dimensional arching ratio,
significantly but changes in the cohesive after Rogbeck et al. (1998)
component of the fill can affect the amount of
arching significantly. Until recently, analytical
methods have been used to estimate the amount Embankment
of arching in piled embankments, but with their
H
increased sophistication and ease of use
continuum methods are becoming more p’f a
s-a
common.
The analytical methods simplify the problem by s
Arching ratio p’f /s’v
de-coupling the determination of the magnitude 1.0
of embankment arching from the resulting basal H/(s-a) = 1
reinforcement loads. Thus, any direct 0.8
fill/reinforcement interaction that may occur is
neglected. 0.6
H/(s-a) = 2
A number of analytical embankment arching 0.4 H/(s-a) = 4
models are in existence and they may be divided
into two groups – those modelling 0.2
two-dimensional behaviour and those modelling
H/(s-a) = 6
three-dimensional behaviour. Each model 0
1 2 3 4 5
determines an “arching ratio”, which is the ratio s/a
of the vertical stress acting on the soft foundation b) Three-dimensional arching ratio,
between the pile caps to the average vertical after Lawson (1995) and BS 8006:1995
stress at the base of the embankment, p’f/σ’v. For Figure 16: Two analytical arching models for piled
design, it is common to use a factored value of embankments.

© C. Lawson 2007 13
Basal Reinforced Embankments
Two common arching models are shown in
figure 16. The first is a two-dimensional arching
model by Rogbeck et al. (1998) and assumes that
arching approximates a triangle within the
embankment with a 30° apex angle. The
resulting arching ratio relationships are plotted in
figure 16a. The second is a three-dimensional
arching model by Lawson (1995) using
curve-smoothing applied to the algebraic arching
equations of BS8006 : 1995 to derive the arching
ratio relationships shown in figure 16b.
Once the appropriate value of arching ratio has
been obtained from the analytical model the
resulting load in the geosynthetic reinforcement
is determined. This is done by use of tension
membrane theory with an assumed deflected
shape to describe the deformed reinforcement.
The assumed deflected shape can be circular,
parabolic or hyperbolic. The parabolic shape is
most commonly used as it approximates more
closely the true catenary (hyperbolic) shape and
is mathematically simpler (than a hyperbolic
relationship). The tensile load generated in the
reinforcement deflected in the shape of a
parabola is given by the following relationship;
Ac (s − a)p' f 1 6.1.2 Lateral sliding across the base of the
Trp = 1+
2 6ε
where, Trp is the reinforcement load; Ac is the
relative coverage area of the reinforcement; s is
the spacing between adjacent piles; a is the size
of pile caps; p’f is the factored vertical stress
acting on the soft foundation between the pile
caps; and ε is the strain in the deflected
geosynthetic reinforcement.
Embankment
Le
Lb
Lp
Soft foundation
Figure 17: Determination of lateral sliding resistance (After BS 8006:1995).
© C. Lawson 2007
For the two-dimensional (plane strain) case the
relative coverage area of the reinforcement Ac =
1.0, however, for the three-dimensional case Ac >
1.0. The reason for this is that the plan area of the
reinforcement spanning between the pile caps is
greater for the three-dimensional case than for
the two-dimensional case. BS 8006:1995 adopts
a three-dimensional value of Ac = s/a which is
very conservative (and results in the calculation
of relatively high tensile loads in the basal
reinforcement). A more realistic
three-dimensional value of Ac = 1+(s-a)/4a has
been proposed by Rogbeck et al. (1998) and it is
recommended that this more reasonable value of
Ac be used for three-dimensional arching cases.
Because of the relative magnitude of Ac, and the
three-dimensional arching model used, the loads
calculated in the reinforcement are significantly
greater for the three-dimensional case compared
to the two-dimension case (e.g. compare figures
15a(iv) and b(iv)). The tensile loads in the
geosynthetic reinforcement are at a maximum
around the edges of the pile caps because it is
here that the point of maximum reinforcement
curvature occurs.
(2)
embankment
The basal reinforcement must also prevent lateral
sliding of the embankment fill, figure 14d. The
parameters involved in this analysis are shown in
figure 17. First, the tensile load generated in the
reinforcement Tds must resist the outward
horizontal thrust of the embankment fill Pfill.
Second, the reinforcement length Le must develop
an adequate bond to ensure sliding of the
Surcharge, ws
Fill: g, f’cv
H
Pfill
Reinforcement
Tds
Pile caps
Piles
14
Basal Reinforced Embankments

embankment fill over the surface of the basal
reinforcement cannot occur. Thus,
Tds = Pfill = 0.5K a ff (γ H + 2w s )H
and,
6.2 Determination of maximum geosynthetic
reinforcement strain and stiffness
(3) The maximum geosynthetic reinforcement strains
that give good performance have been derived
from field performance and not from a rigorous

Le =
(Tds + Trp ) theoretical analysis. Generally, initial
(4) reinforcement strains of maximum 4% with an
0.5γ H α' tan φ' cv
upper creep strain limit of 2% over the design life
where, Ka is the Rankine active earth pressure of the structure have been found to be
coefficient; ff is the load factor (= 1.3); γ is the acceptable (a total strain of 6% at the end of the
unit weight of embankment fill; H is height of design life). These strain values are also stated in
embankment; ws is the surcharge loading on top BS 8006:1995.
of embankment; Trp is the load in reinforcement Recently in Asia there has been considerable
due to embankment arching (equation 2); α’ is interest in the use of the piled embankment
the reinforcement/soil bond coefficient (= 0.8). technique for low-height embankments. This has
In situations where connecting beams are used been motivated by the need to provide
across the width of the embankment then it is settlement-free abutments to low-height
assumed that the connecting beams will carry the structures such as concrete culverts, and to
full horizontal outward thrust of the embankment prevent the differential settlements of services
and thus, the reinforcement is not required to do founded in low-height embankments over soft
this. foundation soils.

6.1.3 Maximum geosynthetic reinforcement load Normal-height piled embankments rely on the
in basal reinforced piled embankments arching occurring fully within the embankment
fill and consequently, negligible differential
In basal reinforced piled embankments the deformations occur at the embankment surface.
tensile loads are generated in two directions – However, for low-height embankments the
along the length of the embankment and across arching may not be contained fully within the
its width. For pile groups consisting of individual embankment fill and the local vertical
pile caps on a square grid (figure 15b(i)) the deformations may affect the serviceability of the
transfer of the unarched portion of the embankment surface. The problem of incomplete
embankment loading occurs in the two directions arching and localised vertical deformations in
while the transfer of the horizontal outward thrust low-height reinforced piled embankments is
occurs across the width of the embankment only. shown in figure 14f. The resulting differential
The loads in both of these directions must be surface deformations create problems with regard
carried by the basal reinforcement. Thus, the to pavement quality and riding quality.
load in the reinforcement across the
embankment, [Tr]across will be; The effect of the various basal reinforced piled
embankment parameters on embankment
[Tr ]across = Trp + Tds (5) differential surface deformations is shown in
and the load in the reinforcement along the figure 18. It is noted that specific combinations of
embankment, [Tr]along will be; embankment geometry (in terms of H/(s-a) ratio)
and geosynthetic reinforcement tensile stiffness J
[Tr ]along = Trp (6) are required to fulfil a specific surface
For pile groups consisting of connecting beams serviceability requirement (measured in terms of
(figure 15a(i)) the transfer of the loadings occur in surface differential deformation). For good riding
both directions across and along the quality, highways normally require surface
embankment, however, it is assumed that the differential deformation limits ds/Ds = 1%, but
connecting beams carry all of the loading across fast expressways and other sensitive structures
the embankment. Thus, the basal reinforcement may require ds/Ds = 0.5%.
is only required to carry the tensile load due to The appropriate geosynthetic tensile stiffness
arching only in the direction along the determined from figure 18 should be the Jsec6,t
embankment. value of the geosynthetic reinforcement. This is

© C. Lawson 2007 15
Basal Reinforced Embankments

H/(s-a) ratio
Differential surface 5.0
deformation, ds/Ds
ds/Ds = 0.5%
Ds 4.0

H ds a 3.0 ds/Ds = 1%

Reinforcement 2.0
ds/Ds = 2%
stiffness, J
1.0
s
ds/Ds = 4%
0
1,000 2,000 3,000 4,000 5,000 6,000
Geosynthetic reinforcement stiffness J or Jsec6,t (kN/m)
Figure 18: Serviceability limits for low-height geosynthetic reinforced piled embankments.

the secant tensile stiffness value between 0% and application because 100% seaming efficiency
6% strain at the design life td of the piled cannot be attained. Adjacent (side-by-side)
embankment. To ensure excessive surface lengths of reinforcement can be butted together
differential deformations do not occur over the as there is no need for overlaps in the non-load
design life of the piled embankment the tensile direction.
stiffness of the geosynthetic reinforcement must
In situations where connecting beams are used
be maintained for this period of time. Also, the
across the width of the embankment the
upper strain limit of 6% on which the tensile
reinforcement only has to transfer the vertical
stiffness is determined is compatible with the
maximum allowable strain limit of the
geosynthetic reinforcement as stated previously. Direction of Embankment
The method of determining the value of Jsec6,t for reinforcement
geosynthetic reinforcements is discussed in Two layers of layout
section 8.4. reinforcement

6.3 Efficient layout of geosynthetic

reinforcement at base of piled embankment
The efficient layout of the basal reinforcement to
absorb the tensile loads is governed by the type Individual pile caps
of pile cap geometry used. If the tops of the piles a) Bi-directional reinforcement layout
consist of individual pile caps then the
reinforcement has to transfer the tensile loads in
both the length and cross directions in the Embankment
Direction of
embankment. To do this efficiently it is best reinforcement
practice to use two layers of uni-directional layout
Single layer of
reinforcement laid at right angles to each other, reinforcement
figure 19a. In this case the reinforcement layers
should be laid in continuous lengths in both
directions to avoid joins in the load direction at
the base of the embankment. Where it is
impossible to avoid joins along the reinforcement Connecting beams
lengths in the load carrying direction then a
minimum overlap of three times the pile group b) Uni-directional reinforcement layout
spacing should be used. Sewing and seaming Figure 19: Geosynthetic basal reinforcement layout
techniques are not appropriate for this according to pile group geometry.

© C. Lawson 2007 16
Basal Reinforced Embankments
embankment loads not supported by arching in
the direction right angles to the connecting
beams. This reduces the loading to a
two-dimensional condition and a single layer of
uni-directional reinforcement laid along the
length of the embankment will suffice, figure
19b. Again, where joins are inevitable in the
reinforcement load carrying direction, a
minimum overlap of three times the pile group
spacing should be used along the length of the
reinforcement. Again, adjacent (side-by-side)
lengths of reinforcement can be butted together.
7. Summary of geosynthetic
reinforcement requirements for basal
reinforced embankments.
The design/analysis of basal reinforced
embankments over soft foundations (sections 3, 5
and 6) generate the fundamental geosynthetic
reinforcement requirements. These requirements
are summarized in table 3. For basal reinforced
embankments with and without PVD’s the
fundamental geosynthetic reinforcement
requirements are tensile load and tensile strain at
the end of the required design life. The design
life is normally characterized as the time of
consolidation of the soft foundation. For basal
reinforced piled embankments the fundamental
geosynthetic reinforcement requirements are
tensile load, tensile strain and tensile stiffness (for
low-height piled embankments) at the end of the
required design life. Here, the design life is
normally characterized as the design life of the
piled embankment.
When it comes to selecting an appropriate
geosynthetic reinforcement all of the above
requirements must be satisfied. To do this, one
must have an appreciation of the characteristics
of geosynthetic reinforcements in relation to
Table 3: Summary of geosynthetic reinforcement requirements for basal reinforced embankments.
Basal reinforced embankments with and without PVD’s
• Tensile load – rated at end of design life (Tr,t)
• Tensile strain – rated at end of design life (εt = 6%)
• Design life – rated at end of consolidation of foundation
Fundamental requirements:
Load – strain – design life
© C. Lawson 2007
tensile load, tensile strain and tensile stiffness
over time.
8. Geosynthetics for basal reinforcement
For basal reinforcement applications geosynthetic
reinforcements are required to carry significant
tensile loads at defined strains (6%) over
considerable design lives, e.g. the design life may
be in excess of 100 years for basal reinforced
piled embankments. These fundamental
requirements place considerable restrictions on
the types of geosynthetics that can perform this
reinforcement role in an efficient manner. The
geosynthetic materials that have their polymeric
load carrying elements arrayed in a linear
manner are the most efficient geosynthetic
reinforcement materials. There are three types of
geosynthetics that have this fundamental
attribute, namely, woven and knitted geotextiles,
geogrids and geocomposite reinforcements.
These types, along with their variety of structures
and types of polymeric load carrying elements
are listed in table 4.
The behaviour of geosynthetic reinforcements is
a function of the polymer used, the type of
processing of the polymer, and the structure of
the geosynthetic material. It should be evident
from table 4 that just as there is a wide range of
polymer and structure types used for geosynthetic
reinforcements, there is also a wide range of
engineering properties available. Some of the
fundamental tensile properties arising from the
polymer and structure combinations listed in
table 4 are shown in table 5. It is to be noted that
geosynthetic reinforcements can be
manufactured in a wide range of tensile
strengths, from 10 kN/m to 1,200 kN/m, having a
wide range of maximum short term tensile
strains, from 10% to 30%.
Basal reinforced piled embankments
• Tensile load – rated at end of design life (Tr,t)
• Tensile strain – rated at end of design life (εt = 6%)
• Tensile stiffness (for low-height embankments) – rated at
maximum strain of 6% and end of design life (Jsec6,t)
• Design life – rated at end of design life of piled
embankment
Fundamental requirements:
Load – strain – stiffness – design life
17
Basal Reinforced Embankments

Table 4: Types of geosynthetic reinforcements used important to know the long term load and strain
for basal reinforcement applications. characteristics of the geosynthetic reinforcements
Geosynthetic Polymeric load (i.e. their “design” properties) than their short
reinforcement Basic structure carrying term characteristics.
type elements used
The fundamental requirements of geosynthetic
Wpven and Textile-based Polyester or reinforcements in basal reinforced embankments
knitted polypropylene are to carry tensile loads at defined strains and
geotextiles
stiffness (depending on the application) over the
Geogrids Extruded and Polyethylene required design lives. These four fundamental
drawn sheets attributes of geosynthetic reinforcements are
Textile-based Polyester commonly grouped into two sets of properties:
Extruded and Polyester tensile load capability over time and tensile strain
bonded strips capability over time. (Tensile stiffness capability
Composite Yarns in matrix or Polyester over time is derived from the same properties as
reinforcements casing and linked tensile strain capability over time.)
together
8.1 Geosynthetic tensile load capability over
While a knowledge of the initial (i.e. ultimate), time
pristine properties of geosynthetic reinforcements The methodology used to assess the tensile load
are interesting from the viewpoint of the diversity capability over time for geosynthetic
of properties available; more important from the reinforcements is shown in figure 20. Two
viewpoint of design, analysis and the fundamental characteristics act to reduce the
performance of reinforced soil structures over load carrying capability of geosynthetic
time is the properties of geosynthetic reinforcements over time. These are a reduction
reinforcements over their required design life. in load capability due to the visco-elastic (creep)
Depending on the type of basal reinforcement nature of the geosynthetic and a reduction in
application, design lives may range from as little load capability due to installation damage and
as 1 year (e.g. a basal reinforced embankment environmental effects. The magnitudes of these
where the foundation consolidates within 1 year) reductions depend on the type of geosynthetic
to over 100 years (e.g. a basal reinforced piled reinforcement used, the environment in which it
embankment which is required to last for 100 is installed, and the time over which the
years). Thus, to be of use, the geosynthetic geosynthetic is required to carry a tensile load
reinforcements have to perform over these (the longer the time period, the greater the
required design lives. As we have seen already in reduction).
previous sections of this document it is more
For a given design life, these reductions are
normally applied to the initial ultimate tensile
Table 5: Typical ultimate tensile strength and strain
properties of geosynthetic reinforcements used for strength of the geosynthetic reinforcement in the
basal reinforcement applications. form of reduction factors (also referred to as
partial material factors) fcr and fmr, such that the
Geosynthetic Ultimate tensile Extension at geosynthetic long term allowable strength Ta is
reinforcement strength maximum Load
equal to the initial ultimate tensile strength Tult
type (kN/m) (%)
divided by the relevant partial material factor for
Woven and 40 – 1,200 10 - 30 creep fcr and divided by the relevant partial
knitted material factor for installation damage and
geotextiles environmental effects fmr, figure 20. In some
Geogrids: well-recognised design codes, e.g. BS8006 :
Polymeric sheets 10 – 200 20 – 30 1995, the partial material factor fmr may be further
Textile-based 20 – 600 10 – 20 broken down into sub-units (fmr11, fmr12, etc.)
Polymeric 20 - 400 10 - 20
describing specific geosynthetic reinforcement
strips-bonded behaviour.

Geocomposites:
Linked 100 – 1,200 10 - 15

© C. Lawson 2007 18
Basal Reinforced Embankments

Geosynthetic ultimate Reduction in strength due to

tensile strength visco-elastic nature of geosynthetic
Geosynthetic reinforcement load

Tult
fcr Tult
Ta =
fcr x fmr
TB fmr or
Ta
Reduction in strength due to TB
Ta =
installation damage and fmr
environmental effects
where,
Geosynthetic long term
design strength Design life
fmr = fmr11 x fmr12 x fmr21 x fmr22

0 Time td

Figure 20: Methodology used to assess tensile load capability over time for geosynthetic reinforcements.

8.2 Geosynthetic tensile strain capability load) in the geosynthetic reinforcement over its
over time required design life. This was designated the
variable Tr,t. It is important to remember that this
The methodology used to record the tensile strain
design load needs to be supported by the
capability over time for geosynthetic
geosynthetic reinforcement at a prescribed
reinforcements is shown in figure 21.
maximum strain level. In sections 3.3 and 6.2 an
Geosynthetic reinforcements undergo differing
upper tensile strain level of 6% has been
amounts of strain over time due to their
prescribed for both basal reinforced embankment
visco-elastic (creep) nature. This change in strain
cases presented in this document. Thus, both the
over different time periods is normally presented
allowable geosynthetic strength determined from
in terms of “isochronous creep curves”, figure
its load carrying capability with time and the
21a. These curves enable the determination of
allowable strength determined from its strain
geosynthetic reinforcement strain over any design
carrying capability with time need to be assessed
life and can be divided into an initial (elastic)
to ensure both values meet or exceed the design
strain component and a creep (visco-elastic)
load (Tr,t) calculated.
strain component.
The assessment procedure used is a two-stage
As might be expected, different geosynthetic
process that is shown in figure 22. One stage
reinforcements exhibit different isochronous
involves the assessment of the geosynthetic
creep curve characteristics. Figure 21b shows
reinforcement load carrying capability over the
isochronous creep curves for a specific woven
required design life of the reinforcement, figure
polyester and a specific woven polypropylene
22a. The second stage involves the assessment of
geotextile reinforcement. It is to be noted that the
strain carrying capability over the required
woven polypropylene geotextile shows a greater
design life of the reinforcement, figure 22b. The
change in strain with time than the woven
geosynthetic reinforcement will meet the design
polyester geotextile, but either material may be
requirements if equation 7 is satisfied,
suited for a specific basal reinforcement
application depending on the relevant strain Tr ,t ≤ [Ta ]load and[Ta ]strain (7)
limits required.
where, Tr,t is the design load (see sections 3 and
8.3 Use of geosynthetic reinforcement 6); [Ta]load and [Ta]strain are as shown in figures 22a
tensile load capability and tensile strain and 22b.
capability to achieve design requirements
8.4 Geosynthetic tensile stiffness capability
In sections 3 and 6 of this document design over time
procedures are presented to determine the
For low-height basal reinforced piled
maximum generated tensile load (the design
embankments there is an additional requirement
© C. Lawson 2007 19
Basal Reinforced Embankments

Time t = 0
Initial Creep
strain strain
Time t = t1

Geosynthetic tension
Time t = tn

Strain
a) Typical isochronous creep curves for geosynthetic reinforcement showing strain levels at
different times

Woven Polyester at 30°C Woven Polypropylene at 30°C

100 100
Percentage of initial tensile strength (%)

Percentage of initial tensile strength (%)

t=0
t=0
80 80
t = 10yrs

t = 60yrs t = 10yrs
60 60
t = 120yrs

40 40 t = 60yrs

20 20
t = 120yrs

0 0
0 4 8 12 16 20 24 0 4 8 12 16 20 24
Strain (%) Strain (%)
b) Isochronous creep curves for specific woven polyester and specific woven polypropylene
geotextiles at 30°C
Figure 21: Technique used to record the tensile strain over time of geosynthetic reinforcements.

for the geosynthetic reinforcement, that of tensile
stiffness (see section 6.2). As with load and strain,
the tensile stiffness of geosynthetic
reinforcements varies over time because of their
visco-elastic characteristics. The tensile stiffness
of geosynthetic reinforcements at any point in
time can be determined using the same
isochronous creep curves that are used to
determine reinforcement strain at various points
in time (tensile stiffness is the slope of the
load-strain curves at any point in time).
Figure 23 shows the procedure used to determine
the geosynthetic reinforcement stiffness
parameter Jsec6,t. It is the secant stiffness between
0% and 6% strain level on the isochronous creep
curve for time t = td, the design life of the
reinforcement.
8.5 The specification of geosynthetic
reinforcement properties for basal
reinforced embankments
In the design/analysis of basal reinforced
embankments a determination is made of the
reinforcement loads and strains required to
provide the required level of stability and
deformation. These tensile load and strain levels
are required to act over the design life and in the
environment in which the geosynthetic
reinforcement is placed. Thus, from the
design/analysis perspective it is the long term

© C. Lawson 2007 20
Basal Reinforced Embankments

Required design life

of reinforcement
Geosynthetic allowable
Geosynthetic reinforcement strength based on strain
ultimate tensile strength Time t = 0
Geosynthetic reinforcement load

Geosynthetic reinforcement load

Tult Time t = td
fcr
Time t = tn
fmr [Ta]strain
[Ta]load
Maximum strain
Geosynthetic allowable limit for basal
strength based on load reinforced
Required design life embankments
of reinforcement
0 td 6%
Time Strain

a) Allowable strength according to load b) Allowable strength according to strain

carrying capability over time carrying capability over time

Figure 22: Two stages involved in the assessment of suitable geosynthetic reinforcements for basal
reinforced embankments.

tensile loads and strains that are important and strains requires material data of the type
properties in assessing the requirements for the shown in figure 22.
geosynthetic reinforcements. This poses some
In specifying geosynthetic reinforcements for a
complications when it comes to assessing the
particular application the designer has two
suitability of different reinforcement types for a
alternative approaches. The first approach is for
particular application because, in general,
the designer to specify the relevant long term
reinforcements are characterised by their short
properties and material suppliers then submit for
term, i.e. initial, properties (e.g. ultimate tensile
approval suitable reinforcement types
strength, initial strain, etc.). Converting short term
demonstrating the conversion of the specified
tensile properties into long term allowable loads
long term properties into the relevant short term
tensile properties. The second approach is for the
Required design life designer to specify the relevant short term tensile
of reinforcement Time t = 0 properties after converting the required long term
properties determined in the design procedure.
Time t = td There are advantages and disadvantages with
either approach, but both rely heavily on the
Time t = tn provision of the appropriate information and
accurate data by prospective material suppliers to
support their material’s assessment.
Specification of the appropriate long term tensile
Maximum strain
limit for basal
properties of geosynthetic reinforcements
Jsec6,t involves four components. These are:
reinforced piled
embankments
1 • The required long term tensile load,
• The required level of long term strain,
6% • The required time over which the loads and
Strain strains apply,
Figure 23: Procedure used to determine • The insitu ground temperature. In South East
geosynthetic reinforcement stiffness Jsec6,t for low- Asia the average ground temperature can be
height basal reinforced piled embankments. taken to be approximately 25°C.
© C. Lawson 2007 21
Basal Reinforced Embankments

A simple specification statement could be “a International Conference on Geosynthetics. Vol.

tensile load of x kN/m at y% strain over z years at 2, Atlanta, USA:. 783-788.
25°C”. A more complex specification could be
generated to be more descriptive and take into
account additional details, but the above four
basic components should always be included.
Generally, if the designer is to be in control of
the geosynthetic reinforcement approval process
during construction then specification of the
relevant long term properties will suffice.
However, if the designer is not in control of the
approval process during construction then
commonly the initial (ultimate) geosynthetic
reinforcement properties should be specified.
This approach protects the designer from
misunderstandings that may arise in selecting the
appropriate geosynthetic reinforcement during
the construction process.

References
BS 8006 : 1995 Code of Practice on Reinforced
Soil and Other Fills, British Standards Institution.
Holmberg, S. (1978) Bridge Approaches on Soft
Clay Supported by Embankment Piles. Journal
Geotechnical Engineering. 10(1): 77-89.
Jewell, R.A. (1996) Soil Reinforcement With
Geotextiles. CIRIA, U.K.
Kempton, G.T., Russel, D., Pierpoint, N.D. &
Jones, C.J.F.P. (1998) Two- and
Three-Dimensional Numerical Analysis of the
Performance of Piled Embankments. Proceedings
Sixth International Conference on Geosynthetics.
2: 767-772.
Lawson, C.R. (1995) Basal Reinforced
Embankment Practice in the United Kingdom.
Proceedings the Practice of Soil Reinforcing in
Europe. Thomas Telford: 173-194.
Lawson, C.R. (2000) Serviceability Limits for
Low-Height Reinforced Piled Embankments.
Proceedings GeoEng 2000, IEA.
Rogbeck, Y., Gustavsson, S., Sodergren, I. &
Lindquist, D. (1998) Reinforced Piled
Embankments in Sweden – Design Aspects.
Proceedings Sixth International Conference on
Geosynthetics. Vol. 2, Atlanta, USA: 755-762.
Yeo, K.C. & Cowland, J.C. (1998) Performance of
Geotextile Reinforced Embankments on
Vertically Drained Soft Muds. Proceedings Sixth

© C. Lawson 2007 22