TECHNICAL NOTE
Revisions to BS8006 for
reinforced soil what do
these mean for the industry?
By Stephen P Corbet, Aecom, (Chairman BSi B526/4 Reinforced
and Strengthened Soils), Chris Jenner, Tensar International UK,
Graham Horgan, Huesker UK.
Presented at the Ground Engineering Slopes Conference on 16 November 2010.
O
ver the past 15 years, the design
of reinforced soil structures has
evolved from the principles set
out in the first edition of BS8006,
published in 1995. The introduction
of Eurocodes made a revision to
BS8006:1995, essential as EN1997-
1 specifically excludes the design of
reinforced soil structures and slopes.
The BSi has completed the revi-
sion of BS8006 and Part 1, which
covers the design of reinforced fills
was published at the end of 2010,
while Part 2, which covers the
design of reinforced insitu soils, is
due to be published this year.
Introduction
Since the publication of BS8006 in
1995 after 10 years of drafting in
committee, the design of reinforced
soil structures has evolved as the
results from research have improved
the understanding of the behaviour
reinforcement in soil.
The publication of the Eurocodes
for design has resulted in the need
to withdraw or revise all existing
design codes in the UK and Europe.
The Eurocode EN1997-1 Geotech-
nical Design does not include any
provision for the design of rein-
forced soil structures and the UK
NAD makes a clear statement to
this effect.
In particular, the factors to be
applied to the strength of the rein-
forcing elements cannot be deter-
mined from the Eurocode.
Structure of the code
The standard will be published in
two parts: Part 1: Reinforced Fills
Retaining walls, slopes, basal rein-
forcement and transfer platforms;
and Part 2: Strengthened Insitu
Soils Soil nails.
The two parts recognise that the
design of insitu soils reinforced with
soil nails is completely different to
the reinforcement of soils placed
26 ground engineering
as fills. Part 2 will be based on the
CIRIA C637 Soil Nailing Best
Practice Guidance, but with more
emphasis on the design of rein-
forced soil slopes
The changes
The BSi committee of experts has
reviewed the whole document and
the following changes have been
made. The changes were made pub-
lic in a draft for public comment,
published in July 2009, and the
comments received were incorpo-
rated into the final document.
n Clauses and information which
conflicted with BSEN1997-1, BSEN
14475 & BSEN 14490 have been
removed, but we have not revised
all terminology to agree with BSEN
1997-1.
n The correction of some outstand-
ing errors found in text (at least two
found in the last published version).
n The partial factors were reviewed.
The review was to look at the pos-
sibility that the partial factors in
BS8006 could be the same or very
close to the partial factors used in
EN1997-1. The current situation is
that the partial factors in BS8006
will remain unchanged.
n A new section on reinforced mod-
ular block walls has been added to
cover this new technology.
n The design of facings for slopes
and walls has been reviewed.
n All text previously included by
the Highways Agency in BD70, has
been moved to BS8006-1 for bridge
abutments and bank-seats.
n The construction details have
been revised, with more informa-
tion included for information.
n Advice on the use of vegetation on
steep slopes is included. The advice
includes information about the best
methods for getting grass and other
vegetation to grow and survive.
n The problems associated with lat-
eral forces at the edges of embank-
ments with basal reinforcement
and with piles or other foundation
improvements have been addressed.
n In Annex A the derivation of par-
tial factors for polymeric reinforce-
ment has been updated to follow the
principles described in PD ISO CR
20432: 2007.
n A new Annex has been added
with seismic effects on reinforced
soil structures, based on experiences
form Japan and US, with cross refer-
ence to BSEN 1998.
n Other Annexes giving test pro-
cedures have been reviewed and
removed where now described in
testing standards.
n New features include: The use
of recycled materials is encouraged
using the Highways Agency docu-
ment HD35/04 as a basis; cohesive
fills can benefit from inclusions
of drains within the soil layers to
reduce the drainage paths for excess
pore water pressure; new reinforce-
ments can be considered, such as
electro-kinetic geosynthetics, used
to set up an electro osmosis system
for rapid drainage; low strain/high
strength geogrids.
Sections 6 and 7 reinforced
soil walls and steep slopes
concepts and fundamental
principles (Jenner)
To satisfy the requirements of a
limit state code, partial load factors
are applied to the actions and mate-
rial factors are applied to the mate-
rial properties.
Once the factors have been
applied, the requirement for stabil-
ity is that the design restoring forces
and moments should be greater
than the design disturbing forces
and moments. In a particular appli-
cation, the load factors applied to
dead loads and live loads can vary
depending on the load combination
under consideration; in some cir-
cumstances, the partial load factors
for live loads may be set at zero to
produce a worst-case combination
for the design load.
The loads, both dead and live, are
calculated in their unfactored form
as characteristic values, which then
have the appropriate partial factor
applied to give the design load.
The resisting forces in any appli-
cation are generated from the avail-
able shear strength of the soil and
the tensile strength of the reinforc-
ing elements.
The shear strength of the soil,
allowing for any pore pressure,
should be a characteristic value
determined as a cautious estimate
of the value recognising the limit
state under consideration. For walls
and slopes, the peak friction angle
is used. In all applications, the con-
sideration of external, internal and
compound stability is required. For
internal and compound stability,
the resistance provided by the soil is
supplemented by the strength of the
reinforcement.
The reinforcement strength is
derived following a procedure
described in an Annex of the docu-
ment.
Reinforcement is defined as being
extensible if the design strength is
sustained at a total axial strain value
>1%, and inextensible if the design
strength is sustained at a total axial
strain <1%. This definition can
determine the actual design method
adopted for a particular application.
The Code of Practice is applica-
ble to all types of geosynthetic and
steel soil reinforcement.
Vertical walls and bridge
abutments
The principles described in the
previous section apply to both
reinforced soil walls and bridge
abutments, which are designed as
vertical structures.
Other structures with facing
April 2011
 Effects Combinations Reinforced slopes
The design methods for reinforced
A B C slopes, generally defined as those
slopes with face angles greater than
Dead load of the structure ffs = 1.5 ffs = 1.0 ffs = 1.0 20 to the vertical, are all derived
from limit equilibrium methods,
Dead load of the fill on top of the structure ffs = 1.5 ffss = 1.0 fs = 1.0 originally derived for unreinforced
Dead load of bridge and bank seat ff = 1.2 ff = 1.0 ff = 1.0 slopes. The Code does not limit the
methods that can be used for design,
Backfill pressure behind the bank seat ffs = 1.5 ffs = 1.5 ffs = 1.0 provided that they can be adapted
to a limit state format. However,
it does describe the most common
methods in some detail.
Backfill pressure behind the structure ffs = 1.5 ffs = 1.5 ffs = 1.0
The partial factors are defined
Horizontal loads due to creep and shrinkage ff = 1.2 ff = 1.2 ff = 1.0 in Table 4 (overleaf). with only
two load cases, ULS and SLS. The
Traffic loading Over the Behind the reinforced friction angle of the fill should be
entire zone, fq = 1.5 defined as the peak value and, as
structure, with the wall design, there are par-
fq = 1.5 tial factors of safety applied to soil/
reinforcement interaction and slid-
Bridge vertical live load HA fq = 1.5 fq = 1.5 ing along the base.
The requirement for the inclusion
HA and HB fq = 1.3 fq= 1.3 of the Moment Correction Factor c
Braking dynamic load HA fq = 1.25 fq = 1.25 has been removed in the revised ver-
sion of the BS. Any potential failure
HA and HB fq = 1.1 fq = 1.1 surface that passes around the rein-
forced soil zone without cutting a
Temperature effects fq = 1.3 fq = 1.3 layer of reinforcement is now ana-
lysed using the approach defined in
Table 1: Partial load factors for walls Eurocode 7.
that varies between the at-rest For reinforced slopes where the
Soil material To be applied tan f fms = 1.0 fms = 1.0 condition in the upper zone reduc- face angle is 45 or less the need for
factors ing to active conditions deeper in a formal facing may not be required.
To be applied to c fms = 1.6 fms = 1.0 the structure with wall friction cal- In those situations the reinforce-
culated (see Figure 2). ment capacity close to the front face
To be applied to cu fms = 1.0 fms = 1.0 may be limited because of bond,
Ultimate limit state although higher shear strengths may
The appropriate partial factors are be mobilised because of the low
Soil/ Sliding across fs = 1.3 fs = 1.0 applied to the loads and materials confining stress. A check of super-
reinforcement surface of depending on the Load Case under ficial stability can be carried out to
interaction reinforcement consideration. Load Case A, with assess the stability of a free face in
factors maximum factors applied through- resistance to sliding on a plane that
Pull-out resistance fp = 1.3 fp = 1.0 out, is normally the critical condi- is very close, and parallel, to the
of reinforcement tion for reinforcement capacity and slope surface.
foundation bearing pressure and It is noted in the code that com-
Partial factors Foundation bearing fms = 1.35 n/a sometimes governs reinforcement pound stability considerations
of safety capacity: to be anchorage. where a slip surface passes partially
applied to qult Load case B, with minimum mass through the reinforced fill and par-
Sliding along base fs = 1.2 n/a of the structure but maximum over- tially through the unreinforced fill
of structure or any turning forces, is normally critical may well be the critical situation.
horizontal surface for sliding along the base of the rein-
where there is forced soil block and reinforcement Section 8 basal
soil-to-soil contact anchorage. reinforcement and load
transfer platforms (Horgan)
Table 2: Partial load factors for abutments Serviceability limit state UK BS8006-1 2009 Section 8 basal
Load Case C, with dead loads only reinforcement and basal reinforce-
angles within 20 of the vertical can Design methods for walls and partial factors of unity, is used ment over piles (aka load transfer
also be designed as vertical struc- The wall design approach is to determine the serviceability limit platforms), updates the previous
tures to the Code. Table 17 (Table 1 based on the classification of the states of foundation settlement and guidance and attempts to expand/
above) of the Code gives the partial reinforcement materials, whether reinforcement tension for internal clarify guidance considered ambigu-
load factors for load combinations the reinforcement is extensible or strains. The limit value of reinforce- ous in the previous draft and to
associated with walls and Table 18 inextensible. ment tension in the serviceabil- reflect changes in best practice since
(Table 2 above) gives the same infor- Extensible reinforcement is ity check is defined by a theoretical BS8006 was first published in 1996.
mation relating to bridge abutments. designed using the Tie-Back Wedge post-construction strain value. The main additional issues
Soil material factors can be method where the stress condition For a wall, the limit is 1% and addressed in the updates relate to:
extracted from Table 16 (Table 3 within the reinforced soil block is therefore the SLS allowable load- n Consideration of pile cap
overleaf) with a number of partial taken to be an active stress state and carrying capacity is the value at geometry;
factors of safety relating to soil/ wall friction on the back of the block which the reinforcement would n Consideration of alternative
reinforcement interaction, founda- is zero (see Figure 1). strain 1% between the end of con- arching mechanisms;
tion bearing capacity and sliding When inextensible reinforcement struction and the end of the design n More emphasis on assess-
along the base of the structure. is used, the Coherent Gravity design life (Figure 3, overleaf). For an abut- ing/controlling the settlements
The most adverse loads likely to method is used with a stress condi- ment, the limiting post-construction between piles;
occur should be considered. tion within the reinforced soil block strain is 0.5%. n Greater emphasis on collabo-

ground engineering April 2011 27

TECHNICAL NOTE
ration between geosynthetics
and pile designers;
n Time dependant consolidation of
soil between piles and consideration
of partial support between piles;
n Additional guidance on anchor-
age details etc.
Selection of soil parameters
and partial factors
The British standard differentiates
between soils/fills used in slopes
and walls and those used in embank-
ments. Since the strains induced in
multiple layer reinforcement such as
walls and slopes are deemed small, Figure 2: Coherent gravity stress state
the frictional strength is represented 0 Ka Ko
by tanp, the peak effective angle of
internal shearing resistance. Larger
strains are allowed in other scenar-
ios, for example an embankment
subject to differential settlement.
In these cases, the frictional
strength is represented by large Kj J
strain values. For cohesionless soils H
this is the value when the soil shears Arc tan 0.3
at constant volume. 6m
Consideration of foundation

Ws2
Ws1
z

Soil 1: Soil 2:
c1 1 1 1 c2 2 2 2 T
hj W

Tpj
H P

L-2e b = 0 for tie back Tcs

wedge method.
b = (1.2 L/H) f2
for coherent gravity
method
Isochrone for end of construction
Isochrone for end of design life
Prescribed post-construction strain limit
L
Figure 3: Assessment of post-construction strain
Figure 1: Stressed imposed by the soils and surcharges

Partial Factors Ultimate limit state Serviceability limit soils: BS8006-1 assumes that all of
state the embankment loading will be
transferred through the piles down
Soil unit mass eg slope fill ffs = 1.5 fs = 1.0 to a firm stratum either by direct
arching on the pile caps or by the
External deal loads eg line ff= 1.2 ff = 1.0 load carried to the piles by the geo-
Load factors or point loads synthetic reinforcement.
Consequently, the characteristics
of the soft foundation soil is con-
External live loads eg traffic fq = 1.3 fq= 1.0 sidered only with regard to the type
loading of piles used and their installation.
However, the time dependant con-
Soil material To be applied tan fr fms = 1.0 fms = 1.0 solidation of soil between piles is
factors subsequently discussed.
BS 8006:1996 was one of the first
To be applied to c fms = 1.6 fms = 1.0 national codes to adopt limit state
principles and these are maintained
in the updated code.
Reinforcement To be applied to the The value of fm should be consistent
material factor reinforcement base strength with the type of reinforcement to be Consideration of pile
used and the design life over which the cap geometry
reinforcement is required (see 5.3 and The original guidance did not dif-
Annex A) ferentiate between circular or square
Soil Sliding across surface or fs = 1.3 fs = 1.0 pile caps of equal dimension yet the
reinforcement reinforcement area ratio of the square pile cap (a2)
interaction is different to that of a circular cap
factors Pull out resistance of fp = 1.3 fp = 1.0 (D2/4). Yet this dimension is used
reinforcement subsequently used to determine the
amount of arching (Marstons ratio)
Partial factors Sliding along base of fs= 1.2 NA or stress redistribution that occurs
of safety structure where there is within the piled embankment. The
soil-to-soil contact new guidance recommends reduc-
Table 3: Partial factors for reinforced slopes ing the design dimensions of cir-

28 ground engineering April 2011

 Embankment Surcharge Ws
Optional geotextile separator
(dependant on embankment fill material)
Outward
shear stress
Fill: ,cv Minimum cover
Lo Reinforcement Anchor bond length 500mm to
H (varies) reinforcement
Lb Pfill

BRP layer
depth can vary
Lds
Lp
Pile
Soft foundation caps
Edge trench
option detail
Piles

Figure 4: anchorage length (Lb) at the edge of the piled area

Piles with pile caps
Partial factor Ultimate limit Serviceability (pre-cast driven, vibro concrete columns
driven/cast insitu, continuous flight auger)
state limit state
Load factors Figure 5: Reinforcement anchorage at edge of fill

Soil unit mass, ffs = 1.3 ffs = 1.0 Pile arrangement Arching coefficient
eg embankment fill
End-bearing piles Cc = 1.95H/ a -0.18
External dead loads, ff = 1.2 ff = 1.0 (unyielding)
e.g. line or point loads
Friction & other piles Cc = 1.5H/ a -0.07
External live loads, e.g. fq = 1.3 fq = 1.0
traffic loading Table 5: Arching coefficient Cc

Soil material factors
To be applied to tan fms = 1.0 fms = 1.0
To be applied to c fms = 1.6 fms = 1.0
To be applied to cu fms = 1.0 fms = 1.0
Soil/reinforcement interaction factors
Sliding across surface fs = 1.3 fs = 1.0
of reinforcement
Pull-out resistance of fp = 1.3 fp = 1.0
reinforcement
Table 4: BS8006 Section 8 Partial factors
cular pile caps to consider a square cent soil.
pile of an equivalent area. Where BS8006-1 identifies a minimum
circular pile caps are to be used, height whereby partial arching
the diameter of the pile should be begins to develop but additional
reduced to produce an effective pile loads placed at the surface of the
cap width aequ, embankment still influence the load
carried by the reinforcement. This
aequ = (D2/4)0.5 hence aequ = 0.886D minimum height is :
where: H 0.7(s a)
a is the size of the pile caps
(assuming full support can be gener- where:
ated at the edges of the caps); a is the size of the pile caps (or aequ
D is the diameter of the pile cap considering circular pile caps)
s is the spacing between adjacent
Determination of load acting piles
across the reinforcement BS8006-1 also identifies a criti-
Due to the significant differences cal height concept above which any
in deformation characteristics that additional embankment weight or
exist between the piles and the sur- surcharge loading placed at the sur-
rounding soft foundation soil, the face of the embankment is deemed
vertical stress distribution across the to pass directly to the pile caps and
base of the embankment is assumed not influence the reinforcement.
to be non-uniform. Soil arching The ratio of the vertical stress
between adjacent pile caps induces exerted on top of the pile caps to
greater vertical stresses on the pile the average vertical stress at the base
caps than on the surrounding adja- of the embankment may be deter-
mined by using Marstons formula:
sv [ ]
Pc = Cca
H
2
where:
Pc is the vertical stress on the
pile caps;
sv = (ffsH + fqws) and is the fac-
tored average vertical stress at the
base of the embankment;
is unit weight of the embank-
ment fill;
H is the height of the embank-
ment;
ws is the uniformly distributed
surcharge loading;
a is the size (or diameter) of the
pile caps;
Cc is the arching coefficient.
Where the value of the arching coef-
ficient will vary depending on the
type of piles.
Several authors have studied and
compared the phenomena of soil
arching using a variety of physical,
analytical and numerical models to
try to gain a better understanding
and quantify the load acting across
the reinforcement and distributing
directly to the pile caps (Alexiew
2002, Eekelen 2008, Kempton et al
1998, Love and Milligan 2003, Rog-
beck 1998, Stewart and Filz, 2005).
One criticism of the original code
is that the distributed load acting
across the reinforcement was very
sensitive to embankment heights
around the critical height
H 1.4(s a)
Embankment heights just under
this limit would result in consid-
erably more design load across
the reinforcement than embank-
ment heights just above this level.
Additional criticism related to the
fact the ratio of the vertical stress
exerted on top of the pile caps to
the average vertical stress at the base
of the embankment was dependant
solely on pile type and independent
of the type of fill used within the
embankment.
Finally a criticism that vertical
equilibrium is not satisfied (Eekelen,
2008). However, neither the load act-
ing across the reinforcement nor the
increased load acting on the pile caps
are calculated directly, but rather
indirectly from the ratio of increase
in stress concentration on the pile
caps to the average vertical stress at
the base of the embankment.
BS8006-1 2009 Section 8 allows
for an alternative theoretical solu-
tion which may be used to deter-
mine the vertical load acting across
the reinforcement based on work
presented by Hewlett and Ran-
dolph, 1998, which was based on
the observed failure mechanism
from model tests and considers a
series of hemispherical domes. The
theory determines the efficacy E as
the proportion of the embankment
weight carried by the piles, hence
the proportion of the embankment
weight carried by the geosynthetic
reinforcement may be determined
(1 E).
The original guidance utilises
Marstons formula to determine the
distributed load acting across the
reinforcement

ground engineering April 2011 29

TECHNICAL NOTE
ffs is the partial load factor for soil
WT =
s2 a2
[
1.4 sffsg (s a) 2 2
]
s a (p/sv) unit weight (see Table 1);
fq is the partial load factor for
external applied loads (see Table 1).
where:
WT is the distributed vertical load Reinforcement details
acting on the reinforcement between The design approach essentially
adjacent pile caps; determines the requirement for two
ffs is the partial load factor for soil orthogonal layers of geosynthetic
unit weight (see Table 1); reinforcement at the base of the
fq is the partial load factor for piled embankment, one longitudinal
external applied loads (see Table 1). layer parallel along the centre line of
To satisfy vertical equilibrium the embankment and one transverse
then the remaining load must be layer perpendicular across the line
carried directly by the pile caps, WP of the embankment.
The longitudinal reinforcement is
WP= (f fsgH + fqws ) s2 WT (s2 a2) designed to resist the redistributed
vertical load Trp.
(although this formulation is not The transverse reinforcement is
provided in BS8006 -1 2009). Once designed to resist both redistributed
the distributed load WT acting across vertical load Trp and to resist the lat-
the reinforcement is determined, eral thrust of the embankment Tds.
then for an extensible reinforce- To mobilise these loads the rein-
ment the tensile load Trp per metre forcement should achieve an ade-
run, generated in the reinforcement quate bond with the adjacent soil
resulting from the distributed load at the extremities of the piled area
WT is determined by to ensure that the maximum limit
state tensile loads can be generated
1
Trp = WT (s a) 1 + 6 between the outer two rows of piles.
2a Across the width of the embank-
where: ment the reinforcement should
Trp is the tensile load in the rein- extend a minimum distance (Lb)
forcement; beyond the outer row of piles, (see
is the strain in the reinforce- Figure 4).
ment. The reinforcement may be
The above equation has two extended around the row of gabions
unknowns Trp and , and may be and returned into the embankment
solved for Trp by assuming a maxi- fill to develop the necessary bond
mum allowable strain in the rein- length (see Figure 5).
forcement and by an understanding Depending on the geometry of
of the load/strain characteristics of the embankment, it may be difficult
the reinforcement at different load to achieve an adequate bond length
levels. Initial tensile strain in the at the extremity of the piles by
reinforcement is needed to gener- maintaining the reinforcement in a
ate a tensile load; BS8006 stipulates horizontal alignment as depicted in
that a practical upper limit of 6% Figure 4. One solution that may be
strain should be imposed to ensure considered is to use a row of gabi-
all embankment loads are trans- ons, as a thrust block along the top
ferred to the piles. of the outer row of piles.
In addition to the load on the Another detail that may be con-
reinforcement generated by the sidered is the inclusion of a small
redistributed vertical embankment periphery trench just beyond the
load, the reinforcement needs to edge piles, running parallel to the
resist the outward thrust from the centreline of the embankment; the
embankment. The reinforcement trench is typically only as deep as
tensile load Tds needed to resist the the piling mat or pile cap depth. The
outward thrust of the embankment reinforcement can be extended into
may be taken as the trench and when backfilled, will
return into the embankment fill to
Tds = 0.5Ka (ffsH + 2fqws)H develop the necessary bond.
where: Time dependant consolidation
Tds is the tensile load in the rein- of soil between piles
forcement per metre run needed BS8006-1 assumes that all of the
to resist the lateral thrust of the embankment loading will be trans-
embankment fill; ferred through the piles down to a
Ka is the active earth pressure firm stratum either by direct arch-
coefficient [ = tan2(45 fcv/2)]; ing on the pile caps or by the load
H is the height of the embank- carried to the piles by the geosyn-
ment; thetic reinforcement. In reality, the
is the unit weight of the embank- soil between the piles will need to
ment fill; undergo some initial degree of con-
ws is the surcharge intensity on solidation to enable tensile forces in
top of the embankment; the geosynthetic to be mobilised.
30 ground engineering
This settlement can be related to
an increase in stress from the instal- BS 8006:-1:2010 Code of Practice for
lation of the temporary working
platform or as a result of initial fill
placement or by external factors
such seasonal fluctuations in the
ground water level increasing the
effective stress on the insitu soil.
Hence the time dependant con-
solidation of soil between piles is
important in reaching the assumed
end design condition of no partial
support between piles.
Consideration can also be given
to the introduction of a compress-
ible layer between the pile caps to
ensure deflection of the geosynthet-
ic during the initial placement of the
overlying fill.
The maximum mid-span deflec-
tion y of extensible reinforcement,
spanning between pile caps, may be
determined from the formulation
below (after Giroud)
y = (s a) 3 Eekelen, van SJM, Van, MA, Bezu-
8 ijen, A. Design of piled embankments
where:
a is the size of the pile caps;
s is the spacing between adjacent
piles;
is the strain in the reinforce-
ment.
The thickness of the compressible
layer can be such that it can accom-
modate the deflection of the geo-
synthetic during the early stages of
embankment construction, ensuring
that the assumed design deflections
are achieved.
Conclusions
BS8006 was first published in 1995.
Section 8 of the code has been used
to successfully design a vast number
of piled supported embankments
worldwide.
BS8006-1 2009 updates the previ-
ous guidance to reflect better indus-
try understanding of the behaviour
of such complex earthworks and to
reflect changes in best practice.
Currently there is a variety of dif-
ferent design approaches, which dif-
fer mainly in the amount of arching
considered and the degree of sup-
port offered by the existing sub soil.
The BS8006-1 assumption that
all of the embankment loading will
be transferred through the piles or
by the geosynthetic reinforcement
onto the piles can be considered
conservative.
However, the potential use
of compressible layers beneath
the geosynthetic reinforcement
between pile caps can ensure that
the end design condition of no
partial support between piles can
be achieved during construction.
This would make consideration
of the time dependant consoli-
dation of soil largely academic.
References
Strengthened/reinforced soils and fills,
BSi London 2010.
BS EN 1997-1:2005 Geotechnical
Design, BSi London 2005
CIRIA C637 Soil Nailing best prac-
tice guidance CIRIA 2005.
PD ISO CR 20432 Guidelines for the
derivation of the longterm strength of
geosynthetics for soil reinforcement
HD 35/04 Conservation and the Use
of Secondary and Recycled Materials
AASHTO (1998), Interim Standard
Specifications for Highway Bridges,
AASHTO, Washington DC, 16th
Ed
Alexiew, D., Piled embankment
design: Methods and case studies, Proc.
XV Italian Conference on Geosyn-
thetics, Bologna,October 2002. In:
Lingegnere e larchitetto, Special Issue
1-12/2002. pp. 32-39. 2002.
DIN 1054:2005-01 Baugrund; Sicher-
heitsnachweise im Erdund Grundbau.
considering the basic starting point of
the British Standard BS8006. Proceed-
ings of the Fourth European Geo-
synthetics conference. Edinburgh,
FHWA(1996) Mechanically Stabilized
Earth Walls and Reinforced Soil Slopes
Design and Construction Guidelines
(FHWA-SA-96-071).
Giroud, JP, (1995). Technical Note:
Determination of geosynthetic strain
due to deflection, Geosynthetics Inter-
national, Vol. 2, No.3, pp.635-641
Hewlett, WJ, Randolph, MA.
Analysis of Piled Embankments.
Ground Engineering. April pp.12-18.
1988
Kempton, G.T., Russell, D., Pier-
point, N.D., Jones, C.J.F.P. Two and
three-dimensional numerical analysis of
the performance of piled embankments.
Sixth international conference on
geosynthetics, Atlanta, Georgia.
pp.767-772. 1998.
Love J, Milligan G. Design meth-
ods for basally reinforced pile-supported
embankments over soft ground, Ground
Engineering, Vol. 36, No. 3. 2003.
Rogbeck, Y, Gustavsson, S,
Sdergren, I Lindquist, D. Embank-
ment support over piles using geogrids.
Sixth international conference on
geosynthetics, Atlanta, Georgia.
pp.755-762. 1998.
Stewart, ME, Filz, GM. Influence
of Clay compressibility on Geosynthetic
Loads in Bridging Layers for Column-
Supported Embankments, GSP 131
Contemporary Issues in Foundation
Engineering, Geofrontiers 2005,
Austin
April 2011