See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.

net/publication/346221617

Road traffic loads for geotechnical analyses of embankments

Article  in  Ground Engineering · June 2020

CITATIONS READS

2 517

1 author:

Michał Topolnicki
Keller Holding GmbH
29 PUBLICATIONS   220 CITATIONS   

SEE PROFILE

All content following this page was uploaded by Michał Topolnicki on 24 November 2020.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

 Road traffic loads for geotechnical analyses of embankments

Michał Topolnicki, Prof. Ph.D.

Keller Holding GmbH, michal.topolnicki@keller.com

Summary
Derived are two road traffic load models based on the draft of prEN 1991-2:2019, applicable
for practical calculations using simplified numerical models and analytical design methods. In
the primary model equivalent characteristic traffic loads depending on the effective height of
the embankment and road width are introduced. The supplementary model takes into account
concentrated heavy vehicle characteristic load of 31 kPa applied at the most unfavourable
location, together with a uniformly distributed characteristic load of 9 kPa on the remaining
road area. The supplementary model yields higher loads in case of low height embankments,
and should be used, together with appropriate safety factors, for verification of ULS states
related to the design of basal reinforcement and structural elements supporting embankments
constructed on soft soils.

1. Introduction
Designers of road embankments are experiencing difficulties in determining traffic loads
applicable for practical geotechnical analyses. This is especially evident when designing
complex geotechnical solutions for embankments constructed on soft soils in order to comply
with the engineering demands for serviceability (SLS) and ultimate (ULS) limit states,
including verification of structural elements such as piles, rigid inclusions, stone columns, load
transfer platform and basal reinforcement.
Rational values of road traffic loads for geotechnical and structural analyses are important
not only in relation to the safety of construction works, but also because they have an impact
on investment costs. At the same time traffic loads have a complex nature, and therefore are
difficult to codify. This is reflected in the variety of approaches and load values adopted in
different countries. For example, in the USA, it is recommended to design road embankments
applying a uniform traffic load of at least 250 psf (12 kPa) [11], while in China a traffic load of
20 kPa is used [3]. In Australia (Queensland), a minimum of 20 kPa uniformly distributed live
loading for long-term conditions, and a minimum of 10 kPa uniformly distributed live loading
for initial construction should be adopted across the top of the embankment cross-section [10].
In the past, a uniform load of 25 kPa was used in Poland [9], 15 kPa in the Netherlands [3], and
10 kPa in Finland [5]. In the updated recommendations of the Finnish Transport Agency, issued
in 2017 [6], the obligation to use the EN 1991-2 standard was introduced, whereas in
embankment stability analyses a characteristic load of 12 kPa should be applied. This load
corresponds to the surface load evenly distributed on an approximately 25 m long section of the
embankment. If the loading length is different, the specific value of the traffic load shall be
determined using equations and methods provided in NCCI7 guideline (FTA, 2017). For
settlement calculations, however, traffic loads need not be considered. In Germany, before the
adoption of EN 1991-2, traffic load combinations of 33.3/16.7 kPa (first/second lane) on main
roads and 16.7/16.7 kPa on secondary roads were used in accordance with DIN 1072 [4], in

Published in Ground Engineering, June 2020 1/10

both cases to be applied on the surface 3×6/3×6 m, and used together with the additional load
of 5 kPa on the main notional lane beyond the concentrated load, and 3 kPa on the remaining
lanes.
The cited examples illustrate that the regulations adopted with respect to road traffic loads
take into account regional experience and design practice, and therefore differ by region. They
include different assumptions concerning the loaded surface and the stress distribution.
Consequently, there is a need to unify the values and application rules for road traffic loads
used in geotechnical analyses. In the following, a proposal based on the recommendations of
the working version of prEN 1991-2: 2019 [8], which is expected to supersede EN 1991-2:2003
and AC:2010, is presented with a particular emphasis on road embankments.

2. Standard road traffic load model for geotechnical structures

According to [8], a revised load model shall be used for calculating the load effects of road
traffic on abutments, wing walls, side walls and other parts of bridges in contact with the
ground. The adopted model, herein referred to as the standard model, has two components
which together represent a characteristic traffic load (dynamic amplification included), as
shown in Figure 1.

Fig. 1. Standard road traffic load model for geotechnical structures with two components
qek = 9 kPa and Qek = 600 kN, the latter equivalent to Qek /(3×5) = 40 kPa [8].

The first component comprises a uniform characteristic load qek = 9 kPa, applied on the road
surface adjacent to the concentrated load. The second represents a single concentrated
characteristic load Qek = 600 kN (tandem system 2 × 300 kN), which is spread over a rectangular
surface area 3 m wide and 5 m long, resulting in a uniformly distributed load of 40 kPa.
Compared to DIN 1072 [4], the increase from 33.3 kPa to 40 kPa results from the reduction of
the length of the area of influence from 6 to 5 m. The concentrated load of 40 kPa should be set
on unfavourable parts of the road, maintaining axial alignment with respect to a selected
notional lane. Considering the combined action of both components, in calculations it is more
convenient to apply the load of 9 kPa on the entire road surface, and the load of 31 kPa (i.e.
40-9) on the area of the concentrated load. According to EN 1990, road traffic loads are
classified as variable actions.

Published in Ground Engineering, June 2020 2/10

 The implementation of the standard load model in practical geotechnical analyses is however
troublesome. Consideration of the second load component requires, in essence, the use of spatial
computational models. In the case of road embankments, for example, an adequate 3D model
would need to include a sufficiently long section of the embankment to take into account the
effect of the concentrated load applied on the surface area of 3×5 m, the location of which may
vary in addition. Although progress has been made in 3D modelling, in design practice variant
calculations using 3D models are time consuming and still uncommon. Use of 2D models and
simplified 3D models, the latter including short sections of the embankment typically sized to
be 1 to 2 axial spacing of column supporting the embankment, can allow faster computations.
A problematic implementation of the standard load model does not apply to numerical
calculations only. Difficulties also arise when using analytical methods developed for plane
strain conditions, such as verification of embankment stability or bearing capacity of the
subsoil, as well as when applying useful analytical methods and axially-symmetrical models
applicable to unit cell conditions, such as the LTM model [1, 2] used for designing
embankments supported on rigid inclusions or the CUR model used for design of basal
reinforcement in piled embankments [3], for example.
In the following sections a solution is presented to overcome these shortcomings, and
equivalent characteristic traffic loads applicable for practical geotechnical analyses are derived
from the standard load model. The equivalent traffic loads applicable in 2D representations are
denoted with the letter p to distinguish them from the notations used in [8].

3. Adaptation of the standard road traffic load model to plane strain condition
The first component of the standard load model, i.e. the uniform load qek ,1 , is assumed to act on
a large surface area and therefore in a plane strain system can be represented by the equivalent
strip load p1 = 9 kPa applied along the entire width of the road. For the second component of
the standard traffic load model a schematic shown in Figure 2 is considered.

Fig. 2. Equivalent strip load p2 balancing influence of the second component of the standard
load model qek ,2 in a plane strain representation.

Published in Ground Engineering, June 2020 3/10

In the xOz plane, a uniformly distributed equivalent load is sought in a strip of width Bq, whose
influence on the subsoil at a given depth below the level of load application is approximately
the same as of the load qek ,2 = 31 kPa acting on the surface area Bq×Lq = 3×5 m. More precisely,
the condition of compliance of vertical stresses at depth z under the midpoint (O) of the surface
area loaded with qek ,2 is adopted. With increasing distance from the centre at a given depth the
stress  ( p2 ) slightly exceeds  ( qek ,2 ) , but the difference is small and has no practical
significance.
Consequently, classical analytical solutions for the elastic half space can be utilised to
determine the vertical stress σ as a function of the loaded area geometry and depth z, yielding:
- under the centre of a rectangular area Bq×Lq loaded with a uniformly distributed load qek ,2

2qek ,2  B L B L z 1 1 
 (qek ,2 ) =  arctan q q + q q  2 +   = 3D  qek ,2 (1)
  4 zW 4W  Bq / 4 + z 2 L2q / 4 + z 2  

where W = Bq2 / 4 + L2q / 4 + z 2 ,

- under a strip of width Bq loaded with a uniformly distributed load p2

p2  Bq 
 ( p2 ) = (2 + sin 2 ) =  2 D  p2 , where  = arctan  . (2)
  2z 
To meet the postulated condition of compliance of both vertical stresses at depth z under the
midpoint of the area loaded with qek ,2 , the equivalent strip load p2 in a plane strain
representation should be equal to
3 D
p2 = q (3)
2 D ek ,2
Because Bq, Lq and qek ,2 have constant values in equations (1) to (3), the equivalent load p2 can
be determined as a function of the depth at which the influence of qek ,2 has been balanced in
the plane strain representation. The calculation result is shown in Figure 3, indicating that strip
load p2 decreases with increasing depth below the level of application.

Fig. 3. Equivalent strip load p2 as a function of depth below the level of application.

Published in Ground Engineering, June 2020 4/10

4. Road traffic loads for embankments
Considering embankments it is reasonable to balance the influence of road traffic loads qek ,2 and
p2 at the embankment base level adopting z = H, where H is the effective height of the
embankment. The effective height usually corresponds to the vertical distance between the
crown and the base of the embankment, typically coinciding with the ground level. In the case
of piled embankments, however, the effective height should represent the vertical distance
between the crown and the supporting level, which is the level of pile/column heads or caps
placed above them.
Furthermore, two design situations associated with a primary and supplementary load model
are considered. The first applies to geotechnical analyses in which the combined action of both
traffic load components p1 and p2 can be replaced by a single uniform load p distributed over
the entire width B of the roadway. The second design situation concerns analyses in which, in
addition to the component p1 , the action of a heavy vehicle represented by the load component
p2 shall be taken into account.

4.1 Equivalent uniform traffic load p for the primary load model
The load model for the first design situation is shown in Figure 4. The equivalent load p on a
roadway with width B reads:
p = p1 + p2 Bq / B . (4)

Fig. 4. Equivalent characteristic traffic load p for the primary load model.

According to (4), the value of the equivalent load p depends on the width of the roadway B and
the effective height of the embankment H (because of the contribution of p2 ). Table 1 includes
calculated values of the equivalent loads for typical widths of main roads comprising 2 and 3
lanes.

Table 1. Equivalent characteristic traffic load p [kPa] as a function of the effective height of
the embankment H and the width of the roadway B.
B H [m]
[m] 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
7,0 22,1 21,2 19,9 18,5 17,2 16,2 15,4
7,5 21,2 20,4 19,1 17,8 16,7 15,8 15,0
10,5 17,7 17,2 16,2 15,3 14,5 13,8 13,3
10,75 17,5 17,0 16,1 15,2 14,4 13,7 13,2
11,25 17,2 16,6 15,8 14,9 14,1 13,5 13,0

Published in Ground Engineering, June 2020 5/10

4.2 Equivalent uniform traffic load pH for the supplementary load model
The load model applicable in the second design situation is shown in Figure 5. The heavy
vehicle load component p2 should be applied on unfavourable parts of the roadway maintaining
axial alignment relative to a selected notional lane, for example near the edge or centre of the
embankment crown.

Fig. 5. Equivalent characteristic traffic load pH for the supplementary load model (heavy
vehicle component p2 to be positioned at unfavourable locations).

When using calculation methods that automatically take into account load distribution inside
the embankment, such as FEM models, both substitutive traffic loads p1 and p2 can be applied
directly on the road surface and the respective values determined using equations (1) to (3)
depending on the effective height of the embankment. A different approach is required,
however, for calculation methods that do not take into account favourable load distribution in
the embankment. This applies to analytical methods developed for a unit cell system and used
for design of piled embankments and calculations of basal reinforcement, for instance, that is
to models where the load applied on the road does not decrease with depth. A similar situation
occurs for unit cell FEM models using axially symmetrical representation.

Considering a simplified load distribution pattern according to 2:1 rule as shown in Figure 5,
the equivalent traffic load pH at depth H below the road surface and in the area of combined
influence of p1 and p2 equals to

B Bq
pH = p1 + p2 . (5)
B+H Bq + H

The resulting loads calculated with the equation (5) for a practical range of road width and
effective height of the embankment are depicted in Figure 6 and compared, in addition, with
the recommendations adopted in the Netherlands [3] and Finland [7].
In case of the Dutch recommendations [3] used for the design of basal reinforcement in piled
embankments the load also depends, but to a lesser extent, on the spacing of rigid supports,
with values increasing as the spacing of piles decreases. The curve shown in Figure 6 represents
a ‘typical’ column spacing of 2×2 m. Finnish recommendations [7] used for the design of deep
soil mixing columns under embankments take into account, in addition to column spacing, also

Published in Ground Engineering, June 2020 6/10

column and soil stiffness, and the depicted curve represents a relatively dense column grid
(quotient spacing to diameter of 2.17) and the stiffness ratio Ecol/Esoil of 15.5.
The proposed solution for pH coincides with [7] for embankment heights up to about 3 m,
and for H→0 approaches the load of 40 kPa adopted in the standard load model, unlike [3],
where maximum values are in the range of 70 to 80 kPa, which seem to be excessive. For higher
embankments the calculated loads fall between the regulations adopted in [3] and [7].

Fig. 6. Equivalent characteristic traffic load pH for the supplementary load model as a function
of the effective height of the embankment and road width.

5. Practical application
Allowing for a practical simplification, two representative equivalent traffic loads for main
roads are proposed for the primary load model depending on the effective height of the
embankment, i.e.:
- for H ≤ 4 m, p = 20 kPa,
- for H > 4 m, p = 15 kPa.

In the case of very wide roadways, the selection of constant values of 20 and 15 kPa partly
compensates for the assumed distribution of the heavy vehicle component over the entire width
of the roadway (cf. Fig. 4). It should be noted that the standard traffic load model [8] assumes
a single concentrated load imposed by a heavy vehicle (cf. Fig. 1), whereas national annexes
may change this recommendation. In such situations, representative values of the equivalent
load p should be recalculated based on modified equation (4). For secondary roads, an
equivalent load of p = 15 kPa can be adopted irrespective of the embankment height.
For convenience, the proposed equivalent road traffic loads to be used in plane strain and
unit cell geotechnical analyses are summarised in Table 2 depending on the effective height of
the embankment. For intermediate values of the embankment height a linear interpolation can
be applied.

Published in Ground Engineering, June 2020 7/10

 Table 2. Equivalent characteristic road traffic loads in [kPa] for plane strain conditions
depending on the effective height of the embankment H.
H [m] 0 0,5 1,0 1,5 2,0 2,5 3,0 3,5 4,0
p1 9 9 9 9 9 9 9 9 9
p2 31,0 30,9 30,6 29,8 28,5 27,0 25,3 23,7 22,1
p 20 20 20 20 20 20 20 20 20
pH 40 35,0 31,0 27,5 24,4 21,7 19,4 17,4 15,6
H [m] 4,5 5,0 5,5 6,0 6,5 7,0 8,0 9,0 10,0
p1 9 9 9 9 9 9 9 9 9
p2 20,6 19,2 18,0 16,9 15,9 15,0 13,4 12,1 11,0
p 15 15 15 15 15 15 15 15 15
pH 14,2 13,0 11,9 11,0 10,2 9,5 8,4 7,5 6,8

The primary load model (cf. Fig. 4), i.e. the equivalent load p uniformly distributed across the
width of the roadway, should be used when analysing the interaction of the embankment with
the subsoil, including all structural elements like piles, columns, basal reinforcement, etc., if
present. Examples of use include calculations of deformations of the embankment and subsoil,
deformations and internal forces in structural elements, verification of the bearing capacity of
the subsoil and evaluation of the overall stability of the embankment, i.e. all analyses where the
combined action of both traffic load components p1 and p2 can be replaced (for simplicity) by
an ‘average’ load p without any significant loss of accuracy. The decision whether quasi-
permanent road traffic loads shall be used for settlement prediction including long term design
situations should be taken according to local practice and relevant regulations.
The supplementary load model (cf. Fig. 5) shall be used when the impact of a heavy vehicle
should be studied in addition to the primary load model. In such a case the load p2 has to be
combined with the load p1 , while the heavy load component is set in unfavourable parts of the
roadway maintaining axial alignment with a selected notional lane. Examples of use relate to
the design of the basal reinforcement and verification of the bearing capacity of piles or columns
under the embankment, i.e. to STR limit states where locally increased traffic load may cause
greater impact on structural elements as compared to calculations with the primary load model.
Higher traffic load applied near the edge of the roadway may also trigger increased horizontal
displacements of low height embankments built on soft grounds and impact the behaviour of
outer rows of piles or columns as well as the basal reinforcement. Moreover, the supplementary
load model can also be used when designing steep embankment slopes, e.g. using reinforced
earth systems, but should not be applied for verification of the overall embankment stability
along deep failure lines, which is the domain of the primary load model.
The derived equivalent loads p, p1 , p2 and pH represent characteristic loads. In the case of
verification of ULS states, partial safety factors applicable to variable actions shall be used
following the rules adopted in Eurocodes. For footways and cycle ways located on the
embankment crown and next to the road equivalent load q fk = 3 kPa (according to Table 6.4 in
[8]) can also be applied in plane strain analyses.

Published in Ground Engineering, June 2020 8/10

6. Examples
The first case includes a relatively low embankment, with a 7 m wide two-way roadway (2×3.5
m wide lanes) and a pedestrian/bicycle path on the crown (Fig. 7). The embankment is founded
on soft ground reinforced with rigid inclusions, covered with concrete caps installed at the level
of +0.5 m. The effective height of the embankment is H = 2.5 m. The equivalent road traffic
loads from Table 2 are p1 = 9 kPa and p2 = 27 kPa. Since H < 4 m, the equivalent load for the
primary load model is p = 20 kPa (equation (4) gives 20.6 kPa). In the case of the supplementary
load model, the equivalent load at the level of caps is pH = 21.7 kPa (equation (5) gives 21.4
kPa). The variable load on the pedestrian/bicycle path is 3 kPa.

Fig. 7. Embankment with a 7 m wide roadway and the equivalent traffic loads.

The second example comprises a relatively high embankment, with 7 m wide dual carriageways
(2×3.5 m wide lanes). The embankment is founded on soft ground reinforced with concrete
columns, and the effective height of the embankment is 6 m. For H = 6 m the equivalent loads
are p1 = 9 kPa and p2 = 16,9 kPa (Tab. 2). Since H > 4 m, the equivalent load for the primary
load model is p = 15 kPa (equation (4) gives 16.2 kPa). In case of the supplementary load model
the equivalent load at the level of rigid column heads is pH = 11,0 kPa (equation (5) gives 10.5
kPa).

Fig. 8. Embankment with a dual carriageway and the equivalent traffic loads.

Published in Ground Engineering, June 2020 9/10

 7. Conclusions
Considering practical needs, two load models have been developed and equivalent road traffic
loads derived from the standard load model proposed in the working document of prEN 1991-
2:2019 [8]. These loads, conveniently summarised in Table 2, are directly applicable for
geotechnical analyses utilising simplified 2D and 3D numerical models and commonly used
analytical design methods.
In the primary load model, two values of the equivalent characteristic traffic load for main
roads have been introduced depending on the effective height of the embankment, namely 20
and 15 kPa. For secondary roads, the latter equivalent load can be used irrespective of the
embankment height.
The supplementary model takes into account a concentrated heavy vehicle characteristic load
of 31 kPa, set on unfavourable positions on the road, together with a uniformly distributed
characteristic load of 9 kPa on the remaining road area. This model yields higher local loads
and shall be used in addition to the primary load model to investigate specific design situations.
Especially in the case of low height embankments, relevant STR limit states associated with the
design of basal reinforcement and structural elements supporting embankments constructed on
soft soil should be checked with this load model. In addition, equivalent characteristic traffic
load pH at the level of embankment support has been determined for analysis utilising unit cell
models, which otherwise do not allow for a favourable distribution of the traffic load applied
on the road surface. Consequently, a reduction of the live load was obtained for the cases where
embankment self-weight has an increasing share in the total load transmitted to the basal
reinforcement and supports.
The derived equivalent loads p, p1 , p2 and pH represent characteristic loads. In the case of
verification of ULS states, partial safety factors applicable to variable actions shall be used
following the rules adopted in Eurocodes.

Bibliography
[1] ASIRI. Projet National: Amélioration des Sols par Inclusions Rigides. English version: Recommendations
for the design, execution and control of rigid inclusion ground improvements, 2012.
[2] Bohn C., Vogt N.: Lasttransfermethode zur Berechnung von Gründungen und Baugrund-verbesserung mit
starren Säulen, Bautechnik 95, Heft 9, 2018.
[3] CUR 226. 2016: Design Guideline for Basal Reinforced Piled Embankments, ed. S.J.M. van Eekelen and
M.H.A. Brugman, SBRCURnet and CRC Press, Delft, ISBN 978-90-5367-624-0, The Netherlands, 2016.
[4] DIN 1072. Straßen- und Wegbrücken. Lastannahmen. XII/1985.
[5] Finnish Transport Agency. Syvästabiloinnin suunnittelu (“Deep stabilization planning”, in Finnish), 11/2010,
Liikennevirasto, Helsinki, ISBN 978-952-255-030-9, 2010.
[6] Finnish Transport Agency. Eurokoodin soveltamisohje Geotekninen suunnittelu – NCCI 7 (“NCCI7
Geotechnical Design, Application guidelines for Eurocode in Finnish FTA’s guideline”, in Finnish),
13/2017, Helsinki, SBN 978-952317-387-3, 2017.
[7] Forsman, J.A, Korkiala-Tanttu, L.K., Uotinen V-M., Renewed Finnish guideline on deep mixing, Proc. Deep
Mixing – Best Practice and Legacy, Int. Conference, Gdańsk (in preparation).
[8] prEN 1991-2:2019. Actions on structures - Part 2: Traffic loads on bridges. Working document CEN/TC
250/SC 1/WG 3 N 141, Date 4-2019.
[9] Polish Regulation of the Minister of Transport and Maritime Economy (Rozporządzenie Ministra Transportu
i Gospodarki Morskiej z dnia 2 marca 1999 r. w sprawie warunków technicznych, jakim powinny
odpowiadać drogi publiczne i ich usytuowanie). Journals of Law from 14.05.1999, no 43, pos. 430.
[10] State of Queensland (Department of Transport and Main Roads), Manual Geotechnical Design Standard –
Minimum Requirements, February 2015.
[11] Washington State Department of Transportation (WSDOT), Geotechnical Design Manual, M 46-03.08,
October 2013.

Published in Ground Engineering, June 2020 10/10

View publication stats