Is 1+1=2?

Results of 3D model experiments on piled embankments

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

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

ABSTRACT:
Most design models for basal reinforced piled embankments design the geosynthetic reinforcement (GR) as
a single biaxial layer. In practice, however, the required strength and stiffness is frequently divided into two
or more GR layers with or without a layer of granular material in between. This paper compares three geogrid-systems: (1) one GR layer consisting of one biaxial geogrid and a (2) one GR layer consisting of two
uniaxial geogrids installed directly upon each other and (3) two geogrids with a fill layer in between.
Five model tests have been carried out to study the differences between these three systems. This test series has been presented earlier by Van Eekelen et al., 2012a. The present paper presents part of the results.
It was shown that the behaviour of the first two systems is the same: the GR stiffness of the biaxial geogrid
is apparently the same as the summed stiffness in each direction of the two uniaxial grids.
It was also shown that the application of a fill layer between the two GR layers results in a slightly more
linear dependency of the net load on the fill and in the end of the tests, in slightly more arching. However,
the differences are very small. The GR stiffness, for example, has much more influence than whether or not
a fill layer has been applied between the two GR layers. It is therefore concluded that the stiffness and
strength of two or more GR layers can be summed, thus 1+1=2 indeed.
Keywords: piled embankments, reinforcement, model experiments, geogrid

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

1L1G =
1 Layer
1 Geogrid

1L2G =
1 Layer
2 Geogrids

2L2G =
2 Layers
2 Geogrids

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

one geogrid with a fill layer in between. The three tests K1, K2 and K3 have a comparable total strength
and stiffness and tests S3 and S4 have the same total strength and stiffness.
Part of this work has been published before in Van Eekelen et al., (2012a, 2013). However, for this paper, two more tests have been carried out to be able to finalize this study.
In this paper, the load distribution is considered as follows: the vertical load (traffic weight, road and fill
weight) is distributed into three load parts A, B and C (shown in Figure 2). These are defined as follows:
part A (arching) is transferred directly to the piles, part B goes through the GR to the piles and part C
(subsoil) is carried by the soft subsoil. This paper gives load parts A, B and C in kN/pile. Note that A, B
and C are vertical loads.

Atl

Btl
B

B
Bbl

A+B
C

Btl

Atl+Btl
Abl
Bbl
Abl+Bbl

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

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

pile 1 C
1

C3 pile 3

top cushion
fill
z1,2
foam
cushion

z1

z2

pile y

pile x

z1,2

Cy

Cx

C2 pile 2

total pressure cell

settlement transducer z

pile 4 C
4

Atl

Atl+Btl

strain transducer
Abl

A
pile

A +B

c. detail: 1L1G or 1L2G

pile

Abl +Bbl

d. detail: 2L2G: fill between GR layers

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

2 DESCRIPTION OF THE TESTS

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

scale model test. The scale is 1:3 to 1:5. The strength of the geotextile used in the tests was adjusted, to
have the same relative deformation as in prototype. The maximum surcharge load was high enough to produce realistic stresses in the fill so that stress-dependent fill behaviour is the same as in the prototype. A
foam cushion modelled the soft soil around the 4 piles. This cushion was a watertight wrapped soaked
foam rubber cushion. A tap allowed drainage of the cushion during the test, which modelled the consolidation process of the soft soil.
A 1.5 to 2 cm layer of sand was applied on top of the foam cushion and the piles. On top of this, one or
two stiff steel frames were placed on which one or two GR layers were attached. A fill of 0.42 m was
placed. The top load was applied with a water cushion that applied stresses comparable with field stresses.
After the installation of the fill, each test was carried out as follows: (1) 6 litres drainage foam cushion
(modelling subsoil consolidation), (2) installation of the water cushion on top of the fill followed by a first
top load increase, (3) one or more drainage steps of 6 litres until subsoil support approaches 0 kN/m2, (4)
second top load increase, (5) one or more drainage steps and top load increases, up to the maximal top
load (varying between 50 and 100 kPa) and the subsequent drainage steps (6) sucking vacuum the foam
cushion to create a situation without subsoil support.
The test set-up is similar to the test set-up of Zaeske (2001). In the series reported here, however, the
fill consisted of granular material instead of sand, the subsoil support was controlled with the foam cushion
and the load distribution was measured differently.
The following features were measured: pressures on the piles, both on top of and below the GR. The
pressure in the foam cushion and the water cushion, the total load on the foam cushion, strains of the GR
and settlements of the GR at 3 to 5 locations.
The results of the first twelve tests are described, analysed and compared with the Dutch CUR 226
(2010) and the German EBGEO (2010) extensively in Van Eekelen et al. (2012a, b).
2.2 Fill and GR type
This paper presents the results of five tests: K1, K2, K3, S3 and S4. Table 1 specifies these tests. In all
these tests, the fill was a well-graded granular fill (crushed recycled construction material 1-16 mm). Den
Boogert et al. (2012) carried out displacement-controlled (2 mm/min) triaxial tests on three 300 mm x 600
mm samples (diameter x height) of granular fill. She found a peak friction angle peak of 49.0o and a dilatation angle of 9o. The GR consisted of geogrid as specified in Table 1.
Table 1. Specification of the five tests considered in this paper
test
GR
Height fill
Material
Summed stiffness Fill unit
top loads applied during test
between
GR
of GR layers J2%
weight
(kPa)c.
(direction 1 / di2 GR layers
rection 2)a,b
m
kN/m
kN/m3
kPa and kN/pile
1L1G: one layer consisting of one geogrid
K1e
1 woven grid
PVA
2399/2904
16.70
0-25-50-75-100 kPa
biaxial
(0-7.6-15.1-22.7-30.2 kN/pile)
1L2G: one layer consisting of two geogrids without fill between the geogrids
K2e
2 woven grids
0.000
PVA
2269/2269
16.59
0-25-50-75-100 kPa
uniaxial d
(0-7.6-15.1-22.7-30.2 kN/pile)
S4
2 extruded grids
0.000
PP
757/757
16.15
0-25-50-75-100 kPa
(0-7.6-15.1-22.7-30.2 kN/pile)
isotropic d,f
2L2G: two layers with a fill layer between these layers
K3e
2 woven grids
0.050
PVA
2269/2269
16.60
0-25-50-75-100 kPa
uniaxial
(0-7.6-15.1-22.7-30.2 kN/pile)
S3
2 extruded grids
0.105
PP
757/757
16.75
0-25-50-75-100 kPa
(0-7.6-15.1-22.7-30.2 kN/pile)
isotropic f
a
The total stiffness of the reinforcement is given. If more layers of reinforcement are applied, the stiffness values are
summed.
b
The stiffness of geosynthetic reinforcement is dependent on the GR strain and the duration of loading, as well as other factors. The J2% given in this table is for a GR strain of 2%, and is determined in accordance with CEN ISO 10319.
c
After each top load increase, drainage of the foam cushion follows in 1 or more steps of usually 6 litres. Figures 5 to 9 give
the results after each top load increase and after each drainage step of 6 litres.
d
Two uniaxial geogrids are placed directly upon each other on one frame. The strength direction of one geogrid is perpendicular to the other.
e
Tests presented partly in Van Eekelen et al. 2012a.
f
Stiffness is in all directions more or less the same

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

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

a. mechanism 1

b. mechanism 2

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

3.1 Load distribution

Figure 5 to Figure 9 show test results. In most cases the net load Wn is given at the horizontal axes, which
is the top load minus the subsoil support and minus the friction between test box wall and fill. Figure 5
shows that the measured load distribution and settlements are virtually the same for both tests. Differences
between the two tests (a higher load part B in the final phase of test K1) must be due to differences in friction between the box and fill, as the top load, load parts A and C (and vertical deflection of the GR) are
nearly the same. From this Figure 5 it is concluded that no difference has been found for the case of one
biaxial or two uni-axial GR layers installed directly upon each other. Thus apparently, the stiffness of both
GR layers can be summed in each direction. Thus 1+1 = 2 for this case.
60
16

12

10

B
8
6
1L1G test K1 A
4

1L1G test K1 B

1L2G test K2 A

GR deflection (mm)

load (kN/pile)

z1: centre of
4 piles

50

14

40

z2: centre of
2 adjacent piles

30

1L1G test K1 z2

20

1L1G test K1 z1
1L2G test K2 z2

10

1L2G test K2 z1

1L2G test K2 B
0

0
0

10
15
20
net load Wn (kN/pile)

25

30

10
15
20
net load Wn (kN/pile)

25

30

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

3.2 Deformation pattern

Figure 5b shows that 1L1G and 1L2G give nearly the same GR deflections. However, the GR stiffness has
a clear influence: the stiffer K1 and K2 reinforcement shows less deflection.
Figure 9a shows measured strains. Each measured strain is the strain in the direction along the long side
of the strain gauge, as indicated in the figure. The figure shows that the strain concentrates mainly in the
GR strips. This measured strain pattern is similar throughout all 19 tests of the test series. The highest
strains have been measured on top of the piles. Several researchers found the same in model tests or numerical calculations (for example Jones et al. (2010), Halvordson et al (2010) and Zaeske (2001)). However, measurements in field cases show smaller GR strains above the pile caps than in the surrounding GR
strips. One difference is that smooth piles with a relatively small diameter were used in the different model
tests, while large precast concrete or cast-in-place concrete pile caps were used in the field (for example

Haring et al. 2008 or and Weihrauch et al, 2010). Furthermore, arching result in a relatively high vertical
pressure on the pile cap, so that it is likely that relatively much friction occurs between pile cap and geotextile which may prevent elongation of the geotextile on top of the pile cap in field conditions. In all cases
the strains found in the GR strips between adjacent piles were found to be much larger than in the GR area
in between. Also for test K2 in Figure 9a. This agrees with mechanism 1 of Figure 4a. The load travels in
both directions, mainly along the strips between adjacent pile caps, as shown by Figure 4a.
4 THE INFLUENCE OF THE APPLICATION OF A FILL LAYER BETWEEN TWO GR LAYERS

20

65%

16

55%

12

45%

35%

25%

K2: B and K3: Bbl+Btl (kN/pile)

15%

0
-5

10

15

20

24

45%

20

40%

16

35%

12

30%

25%

20%
15%

25

-5

20

65%

16

55%

12

45%

35%

25%
15%

0
0

10

15

20

25

net load Wn (kN/pile)

S4: B and S3: Bbl+Btl (kN/pile)

24

-5

10

15

20

25

net load Wn (kN/pile)

1L2G test S4 (kN/pile)

2L2G test S3 (kN/pile)
1L2G test S4 (%)
2L2G test S3 (%) 75%

S3: Abl-Btl and S4: A (%)

S4: A and S3: Abl-Btl (kN/pile)

net load Wn (kN/pile)

24

45%

20

40%

16

35%

12

30%

25%

20%

S3: Bbl+Btl and S4: B (% )

K2: A and K3: Abl-Btl (kN/pile)

24

K2: A and K3: Abl-Btl (%)

1L2G test K2 (kN/pile)

2L2G test K3 (kN/pile)
1L2G test K2 (%)
75%
2L2G test K3 (%)

K2: B and K3: Bbl+Btl (%)

As described before, the required GR strength and stiffness is frequently divided into two or more GR layers with one or more fill layers in between. This section compares the situation with and without the fill
layer between two GR layers, thus 1L2G and 2L2G.
Two sets of tests are particularly suitable for this purpose. These are tests K2 and K3 and tests S3 and
S4. In K2 the same GR was applied as in K3. In S3 the same GR was applied as in in S4. K2 and S4 are
1L2G; no fill between the GR layers, whilst the two GR layers in tests K3 and S3 are separated by respectively 0.05 m and 0.10 m granular fill as indicated in Table 1. Thus K3 and S3 are of the 2L2G-type.

15%

0
-5

10

15

20

25

net load Wn (kN/pile)

Figure 6. Measured load distribution (kN/pile). Comparison with fill between GR layers (2L2G: tests K3 and S3) and without
fill between layers (1L2G: tests K2 and S4). Left axes: load in kN/pile, right axes: load in % of total measured load

4.1 How to compare 1L2G and 2L2G tests.

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

ter of Atl is therefore smaller than the virtual diameter below the top grid layer, as indicated in Figure 2b.
Both Atl and Btl may be larger than the measured Atl and Btl. The results in the present paper have not been
corrected for this: thus the measured values are presented.
While being aware of these limitations, the measured load part B in a 1L2G test can be compared approximately with Btl+Bbl in a 2L2G test, and load part A in a 1L2G test can be compared approximately
with Abl-Btl in a 2L2G test.
1L2G test K2 A
2L2G test K3 Abl-Btl
1L2G test K2 B
2L2G test K3 Bbl+Btl

60%
50%
40%
30%
20%
10%
0%
0%

20%
40%
60%
Load part C (%)

80%

70%

load parts A (or Abl-Btl) and B (Bbl+Btl) (%)

load parts A (Abl-Btl) and B (Bbl+Btl) (%)

70%

1L2G test S4 A
2L2G test S3 Abl-Btl
1L2G test S4 B
2L2G test S3 Bbl+Btl

60%
50%
40%
30%
20%
10%
0%

100%

0%

20%
40%
60%
Load part C (%)

80%

100%

Figure 7. Measured load distribution, development of arching. Comparison with fill between GR layers (2L2G: tests K3 and
S3) and without fill between layers (1L2G: tests K2 and S4). The total GR stiffness of K2 and K3 is J2% = 2269 kN/m, the total GR stiffness of S3 and S4 is J2% = 757 kN/m. A, B and C are given in percentage of total measured load A+B+C.
80

60

70
60

50
S3 and S4
40
30
K2 and K3

20
10
0
-5

10

15

net load Wn (kN/pile)

20

25

settlements between 4 piles: z1 (mm)

70

settlements between 2 piles: z2 (mm)

80

2L2G test S3 top layer

1L2G test S4
2L2G test S3 bottom layer
1L2G test K2
2L2G test K3 bottom layer
2L2G test K3 top layer

S3 and S4

50
40

K2
30
20
10
0
-5

1L2G test S4
1L2G test K2
2L2G test S3 bottom layer
10
15
20
25

net load Wn (kN/pile)

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

4.2 Load distribution, development of arching in 1L2G and 2L2G tests

Figure 5 and Figure 6 compare the load distribution for the 1L2G and 2L2G tests. It can be concluded that
arching is virtually comparable for both reinforcement systems. In the 2L2G tests, however, the arching
develops a bit more slowly and ends up a bit higher than in the 1L2G tests. The final value for arching A
(thus Abl-Btl) of the 2L2G tests is thus slightly higher than the value for arching A in the 1L2G test. Corresponding with this, Bbl+Btl ends up slightly smaller than load B in the 1L2G tests.
Figure 7 shows the development of the arching A and load part B as a function of the subsoil support C.
The tests start at the right hand side of each figure, with C=100%. The alternation in the model tests between consolidation of the subsoil (C% decreases) and top load increase (C% increases) is shown clearly,
specifically for the 1L2G tests. Tests K2 and K3 end up with sucking vacuum the foam cushion that models the subsoil, leading to C=0%. Tests S3 and S4 have not been carried out this far.

The figure shows that the arching A% and load part B% are more strongly linearly dependent on C% in
the 2L2G tests than in the single layered tests. This is also shown by the 2L2G tests in Figure 5. In that
figure, the curves of Abl-Btl and Btl+Bbl in kN/pile are straighter than A and B in the 1L2G tests. The behaviour in the 2L2G tests is thus stronger linearly dependent on the net load Wn than those of the 1L2G
tests.
eps 4 across strip
eps 5 diagonal
eps 6 between 4 piles
eps 1 on pile
eps 2 between 2 piles
eps 3 between 2 piles

14

14
12

10
1L2G;
test K2

8
6
4
2
0
-2
-5

10

15

20

25

3 2 1

8
6

K3 bottom layer
1
2

4
2

0
4

-2
-5

12

measured strain in test S4 (%)

trend consistent but values too high

10
8

1L2G; test S4

6
4
2
0
-2

10

15

20

25

net load Wn (kN/pile)

eps 4 bl on pile
eps 5 bl across GR strip
eps 6 bl between 2 piles
eps 1 bl on pile
eps 2 bl between 2 piles
eps 3 bl across GR strip

14

measured strain bottom GR layer S3 (%)

trend consistent but values too high

14

2L2G; test K3

net load Wn (kN/pile)

eps 4 on pile
eps 5 across GR strip
eps 6 between 2 piles
eps 1 on pile
eps 2 between 2 piles
eps 3 across GR strip

K2

5 4

10

measured strain in test K3 (%)

trend consitent but values too high

measured strain in test K2 (%)

trend consitent but values too high

12

eps 4 bl on pile
eps 5 tl on pile
eps 6 tl between 2 piles
eps 1 bl on pile
eps 2 bl across strip
eps 3 bl between 2 piles

12

K3 top layer

10
2L2G; test S3

6
2

4
6

S3 bottom
layer & S4

0
-2

-5

10

15

net load Wn (kN/pile)

20

25

-5

10

15

20

25

net load Wn (kN/pile)

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

4.3 Deformations; GR deflection and GR strains in 1L2G and 2L2G tests

A 2L2G system gives comparable or a bit less GR deflections than a 1L2G system (Figure 8). Brianon
and Simon (2012) also found the same GR deflection with their full scale tests with a 1L2G and a 2L2G
system, each with more or less the same GR stiffness. Apparently, the GR stiffness has much more influence than the difference between 1L2G and 2L2G. The stiffer GR (K2 and K3) gives much less settlement.
The fill layer between the GR layers in test S3 is 0.1 m, in test K3 it is 0.05 m. The thicker fill layer in S3
does not compensate for the lower GR stiffness.
The figure also shows that the K3-top grid layer settles less than the bottom grid layer. For test S3 this
is different, which is unexpected and possibly a measurement mistake.
The GR strains (Figure 9) have been measured with a newly developed strain gauge, made of bicycle
gear cables. The system has been described by Van Eekelen et al. (2012a). The system gives consistent results, but some development is still needed as the measured strains are generally too high. This has been
concluded from two observations: (1) comparison with conventional strain gauges in other tests of the
same test series and (2) the measured strain is in some cases higher than possible for this geosynthetic
without rupture. However, the results show a consistent GR deformation pattern throughout all tests. The
top layer shows the same GR strain pattern as the bottom grid layer, but the GR strains are lower. The

strain pattern shows a strong localisation of the strains on top of the piles and in the GR strips between adjacent piles. This pattern has further been discussed in section 3.2.
5 CONCLUSIONS
Most design models for piled embankments design the geosynthetic reinforcement as a single biaxial layer.
In practice, however, the required strength and stiffness is frequently divided into two GR layers with or
without a fill layer in between. Model experiments have been carried out to study the difference between
these three systems: (1) 1L1G: one single biaxial GR layer and a (2) 1L2G: one GR layer consisting of
two uniaxial or biaxial GR layers installed directly upon each other and (3) 2L2G, two GR layers with a fill
layer in between.
The measured load distribution and deformations do not show any differences between the behaviour of
the first two systems. Thus the stiffness of one biaxial GR layers equals the summed stiffness of the two
uniaxial layers installed directly upon each other. Thus 1+1=2.
A system with two GR layers with or without a fill layer in between also show similar behaviour. The
arching in the systems with a fill between the layers is a bit more linearly dependent on the net load on the
fill. That means that the arching in the 2L2G is a bit less in the first phase of the tests and a bit more in the
last phase of the tests than found for 1L2G. The deformation pattern is similar for all cases, both with and
without a fill layer between the GR layers, at least for the geometry considered in this study. For design
purposes it is sufficient to consider the systems with and without a fill layer between the GR layers as the
same. Thus 1+1=2 indeed.
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
The authors are grateful for the financial support for the model tests of Deltares, Huesker, Naue, TenCate
and Tensar. The financial support and fruitful debate with these companies have been extremely valuable.
REFERENCES
Brianon, L., Simon, B., 2012. Performance of Pile-Supported Embankment over Soft Soil: Full-Scale Experiment. J. Geotech. Geoenviron. Eng. 2012. 138: 551-561.
CUR 226, 2010, Design guideline piled embankments. ISBN 978-90-376-0518-1 (in Dutch).
Den Boogert, Th., Van Duijnen, P.G. and Van Eekelen, S.J.M., 2012. Numerical analysis of geosynthetic reinforced piled
embankent scale model tests. Plaxis Bulletin 31, pp. 12-17.
EBGEO, 2010. Recommendations for Design and Analysis of Earth Structures using Geosynthetic Reinforcements
EBGEO, 2011. ISBN 978-3-433-02983-1 and digital in English ISBN 978-3-433-60093-1).
Van Eekelen, S.J.M., Bezuijen, A., Lodder, H.J., Van Tol, A.F., 2012a. Model experiments on piled embankments Part I.
Geotextiles and Geomembranes 32: 69-81.
Van Eekelen, S.J.M., Bezuijen, A., Lodder, H.J., Van Tol, A.F., 2012b. Model experiments on piled embankments. Part II.
Geotextiles and Geomembranes 32: 82-94 including its corrigendum: Van Eekelen, S.J.M., Bezuijen, A., Lodder, H.J.,
van Tol, A.F., 2012b2. Corrigendum to Model experiments on piled embankments. Part II [Geotextiles and Geomembranes volume 32 (2012) pp. 82e94]. Geotextiles and Geomembranes 35: 119.
Van Eekelen, S.J.M., Nancey, A. and Bezuijen, A., 2012c, Influence of fill material and type of geosynthetic reinforcement in
a piled embankment, model experiments. Published in: proceedings of Proceedings of EuroGeo 2012, Valencia in Spain.
Van Eekelen, S.J.M., Bezuijen, A. and Van Tol, A.F., 2012b. An analytical model for arching in piled embankments. Geotextiles and Geomembranes 39: 78-102.
Jones, B.M., Plaut, R.H., Filz, G.M., 2010. Analysis of geosynthetic reinforcement in pile-supported embankments. Part I:
3D plate model. Geosynthetics International, Volume 17, Issue 2, pages 59 67 , ISSN: 1072-6349, E-ISSN: 1751-7613.
Halvordson , K.A., Plaut, R.H., Filz, G.M., 2010. Analysis of geosynthetic reinforcement in pile-supported embankments.
Part II: 3D cable-net model. Geosynthetics International, Volume 17, Issue 2, pages 68 76 , ISSN: 1072-6349, E-ISSN:
1751-7613.
Zaeske, D., 2001. Zur Wirkungsweise von unbewehrten und bewehrten mineralischen Tragschichten ber pfahlartigen Grndungselementen. Schriftenreihe Geotechnik, Uni Kassel, Heft 10, February 2001 (in German).
Haring, W., Profittlich, M. & Hangen, H., 2008. Reconstruction of the national road N210 Bergambacht to Krimpen a.d. IJssel, NL: design approach, construction experiences and measurement results. In: Proceedings 4th European Geosynthetics
Conference, September 2008, Edinburgh, UK.
Weihrauch, S., Oehrlein, S. & Vollmert, L., 2010. Baugrundverbesserungsmanahmen in der HafenCity Hamburg am
Beispiel des Stellvertreterobjektes Hongkongstrae. Tagungsband zur 31. Baugrundtagung der DGGT, 03 06 November
2010, Mnchen, ISBN 978-3-9813953-0-3, pp. 147-153.