Transportation Infrastructure Geotechnology

https://doi.org/10.1007/s40515-022-00243-5

TECHNICAL PAPER

Design Charts for Geogrid‑Reinforced Granular Working

Platform for Heavy Tracked Plants over Clay Subgrade

Boon Tiong Chua1 · Hossam Abuel‑Naga2 · Kali Prasad Nepal3

Accepted: 7 April 2022

© The Author(s) 2022

Abstract
This study investigates the bearing capacity of a geogrid-reinforced granular work-
ing platform for heavy tracked plants on clay subgrade using a 2D plane strain finite
element method. It substantially extends a case study investigated by incorporat-
ing wider soil parameters, depth-to-width ratios and geogrid stiffness modulus. The
developed models are first verified by comparing them with the published literature
and found to be in good agreement. The parametric modelling results are then used
to develop a comprehensive set of design charts with non-dimensional parameters,
bearing capacity ratio verses shear strength ratio, so that they can be directly used
by practitioners. With the help of a design example, minimum design thickness of
the granular working platform is compared and benchmarked with other established
design methods. The results show that the proposed design charts and methods are
comparable and provide reasonable predictions for the bearing capacity and working
platform design thicknesses. A design example shows that thickness of the geogrid-
reinforced granular base could be reduced from 1.2 to 55.6% for different geogrid
strengths whereas the reduction is very nominal for soft geogrids ranging from only
1.2 to 3.0%.

Keywords  Working platform for tracked plants · Bearing capacity · Geogrid

reinforcement · FEM

* Boon Tiong Chua

boon.chua@kbr.com
Hossam Abuel‑Naga
h.naga@latrobe.edu.au
Kali Prasad Nepal
k.nepal@cqu.edu.au
1
KBR Australia, Adelaide, Australia
2
La Trobe University, Melbourne, VIC, Australia
3
Central Queensland University, Melbourne Campus, Melbourne, Australia

13
Vol.:(0123456789)

Content courtesy of Springer Nature, terms of use apply. Rights reserved.

 Transportation Infrastructure Geotechnology

1 Introduction

Working platforms are temporary geotechnical structures that provide a stable sup-
port during operations to prevent failure and overturning. The supporting ground
below the track needs to be stable with adequate bearing capacity to withstand the
pressure of the track to prevent failure. Due to the varying nature of soil and com-
plex interaction between the layers, various considerations and simplified assump-
tions have been used to formulate a particular design method (MIDAS 2017). The
purpose of the granular layer above weak subgrade is to provide an all-weather oper-
ating surface with a minimum bearing capacity without subgrade failure through
excessive deformation. This means that the granular fill needs to be sufficiently
thick to dissipate the vertical stresses induced by the applied pressure to a level
not exceeding the subgrade shear strength. In order to further improve the bearing
capacity, a common ground improvement technique is to place a layer of geosyn-
thetics, particularly geogrid, at the interface between granular fill and soft subgrade
as a separation layer both to improve its load carrying capacity and to limit exces-
sive settlement. Therefore, it is feasible to convert the tracked plant bearing capacity
problem to that of the traditional bearing capacity problem for surface strip footings
on layered soils with a relatively thin top dense granular base layer overlying the
semi-infinite depth weak soil subgrade, as shown in Fig. 1.
Failure to comprehend the unpredictable nature of soil and improper working
platform design has resulted in a number of track plants toppling over while operat-
ing on granular working platforms. Overturning may result in severe injuries and
fatalities, delays to the work, potential prosecution, uninsured costs, increased insur-
ance premiums, damage to reputation and loss of business. McCann et  al. (2009)
reported that 323 fatalities in 307 crane incidents occurred in the USA between 1992
and 2006 and a total of 68 fatalities (21%) which were associated with the collapsed

Fig. 1  Schematic diagram and terminologies of the problem

13
Content courtesy of Springer Nature, terms of use apply. Rights reserved.
 Transportation Infrastructure Geotechnology

of a crane. In the 10 years from 2004 to 2013, 22 of the total 359 workers died in the
Australian construction industry involved the use of a crane (Gharaie et al. 2015).
ARTC (2020) reported that between 2003 and 2015, 47 workers were killed in inci-
dents involving cranes.
The conventional bearing capacity calculations (Terzaghi 1943; Meyerhof 1963;
Hansen 1970; Vesic 1975; Bowles 1996) in which bearing capacity factors are
adopted are mostly for homogeneous soil and isotropic conditions for simplification.
The bearing capacity of footings on layered soil is dependent on the properties of the
bottom layer, unless the thickness of the topsoil layer is sufficiently large enough to
accommodate the entire failure mechanism. The layered soil system can be a strong
upper layer and weak lower layer or vice versa. For this study, the upper layer is
strong and the lower layer is weak as it resembles dense granular fill over soft clay
subgrade for a working platform.
The behaviour of geogrid-reinforced granular working platforms under static
tracked plant pressure is analysed using a 2D plane strain finite element method in
ABAQUS software. The finite element model (FEM) takes into consideration the
applied load, geogrid properties, soil properties and geometric parameters in the
analysis. FEM is well suited to investigate such a complex geotechnical engineer-
ing problem and the bearing capacity of footings over a two-layered soil system as
an experimental approach is time consuming and expensive, and commonly used
classical solutions such as limit equilibrium are no longer applicable (Mosadegh and
Nikraz 2015). The developed FEM model is first verified using published research
data and benchmarked against other methods. Once the verification is complete,
the case study purposed by Chua et al. (2021) is extended incorporating wider soil
parameters (granular platform friction angle (ϕ = 35 to 45°), clay subgrade cohesion
(cu = 15 to 150 kPa), depth-to-width ratios (H/B = 0.5 to 2.0), and geogrid stiffness
modulus, E (weak = 35 MPa, medium = 1970 MPa and stiff = 4730 MPa)) to gener-
ate a comprehensive set of dimensionless design charts: bearing capacity ratio (q/
γB) vs shear strength ratio (cu/γB). These design charts are ready to be used by prac-
titioners for the conditions within these wide ranges.

2 Literature Review

There have been several attempts to estimate and model bearing capacities and
settlements of both homogeneous and layered soils over several decades. These
attempts have produced a substantial corpus of work covering analytical methods,
empirical methods, experimental observations and numerical simulations. The
approaches used in the past can be broadly divided into three general categories:
limit equilibrium, limit analysis and slip-line methods (Cheng et al. 2016). In limit
equilibrium methods for assessing failure in soil, a simple induced failure surface
shape of a planar or circular is assumed and is widely used owning to its simplicity
and reasonably good predictions. Two commonly used limit equilibrium methods
are the semi-empirical methods proposed by Meyerhof (1974) and Hanna and Mey-
erhof (1980), and the project area method proposed by Yamaguchi (1963). The for-
mer method assumes a punching shear failure mechanism with a shearing resistance

13
Content courtesy of Springer Nature, terms of use apply. Rights reserved.
 Transportation Infrastructure Geotechnology

along the side of vertical block (that is α = 0°). They used limit equilibrium analysis
to formulate the design equations by using the punching shear coefficient derived
from laboratory model tests at 1  g and presented in charts. These charts were not
in non-dimensional form and are only appropriate for the granular layer unit weight
and thickness used in this study (Burd and Frydman, 1997). The derived equation
for the dense granular layer on soft clay subgrade is expressed in Eq. (1).
) tan 𝜙
2D
(
qu = cu Nc + 𝛾H 2 1 + Ks 𝛾D ≤ qg (1)
H B
Equation  (1) assumes dense granular layer on soft clay. As the strength of clay
subgrade increases relative to the granular layer, this method is shown to overesti-
mate the ultimate bearing capacity (Shiau et al. 2003). It is worth noting that when
qu/qg equals unity, the bearing capacity is equal to the granular layer alone and a
critical depth ratio is reached at which the clay subgrade has no effect on the bear-
ing capacity. The finite element limit analysis shows a similar result in BR470 (BRE
2004) and over-predicts ultimate bearing capacities for sites with very soft clay
subgrade (Eshkevari and Abbo 2014). By considering the surcharge transfer in the
granular layer that could extend up to 5B, the bearing capacity may be enhanced by
20–30% and force critical failure surface to be deeper (Madhav and Sharma 1991;
Lees 2017).
In the projected area (or load spread) method, the granular layer is assumed to
dissipate the load uniformly to the underlying clay subgrade at a constant angle α to
the vertical direction without accounting for the shear strength contribution of the
granular layer, as in Eq. (2) (Terzaghi et al. 1996; Yamaguchi 1963).
2H W
( )( � )
qu = 1 + tan𝛼 cu Nc + p0 − (2)
B B + 2Htan𝛼
Nc used in Eqs. (1) and (2) is calculated for one rupture figure (failure zone) and
the simple superposition of other factors implies that the bearing capacity for the
layered soil system is an approximation.
Many load spread angles have been recommended by various authors; 18.4° by
Young and Focht (1981); 45° by Myslivec and Kysela (1978); equal to ϕ by Bagli-
oni et  al. (1982) and Das and Dallo (1984); 26.6° by Terzaghi and Peck (1948),
Kraft Jr and Helfrich (1983), Dutt and Ingram (1984), Chiba et al. (1986) and Tom-
linson (1986); 18.4–11.3° by Kellezi and Kudsk (2009); and around 40° for geotex-
tile and greater than 45° for geogrid reinforcement by Palmeira and Antunes (2010).
A load spread method assumes that the vertical stress distribution for the two-layer
soil system is similar to that of elastic solid estimated by Boussinesq analysis for
small deformation and homogeneous material. The arbitrary assumption of positive
dispersion angle α and the neglected shear resistance of granular layer is questioned
as load spread angle α changes as strains increase towards failure and may result
in an unreliable prediction. The value of α is dependent on shear strengths of the
soils, stiffness ratio between the layers and the geometry, H/B (Kraft Jr and Helfrich,
1983, Kenny and Andrawes 1997; Ballard et al. 2010; Lees 2017, 2020). Eshkevari
(2018) used the limit equilibrium method to develop a new model and found the

13
Content courtesy of Springer Nature, terms of use apply. Rights reserved.
 Transportation Infrastructure Geotechnology

dispersion angle α can be negative or zero. It shows that there is no consensus in the
selection of load spread angle α despite that it has significant influence on the esti-
mation of bearing capacity.
The limit analysis method is used to estimate the upper and lower bounds of the
ultimate collapse load without considering the eventual deformations by progres-
sive refinement until the exact solution can be approached (Aysen 2002). In slip-line
analysis, a set of differential equations of plastic equilibrium is established at yield
and equilibrium conditions accompanied with initial soil stress conditions (Chen
1975). By using the equations of statics and solving the differential equations, the
exact solution is determined (Grahnström and Jansson 2016). Slip-line analysis is
more complex and is not widely used by practitioners.

2.1 Industry Practices in Working Platform Design Methods

Historically, the approach to design the granular working platforms for tracked plant
has not been undertaken in a consistent manner across the industry. There are no
unified standards or criteria prescribed by the approving authorities. Generally,
for small projects, it is based on empirical or past experience of suitable material
and thickness. However, for large projects, more formal design methods based on
the classical bearing capacity methods for shallow foundations are being used for
tracked plant working platforms. These methods are not entirely appropriate consid-
ering the differences between building foundations and the tracked plants in terms of
load duration, allowable differential settlement, the significance of the project, etc.
The building industry is moving away from empirical method in favour of analyti-
cal method (BRE 2004). The common working platform design methods used in the
building industry are summarised in Table 1.

2.2 Finite Element Models

Numerical analysis is an alternative method for predicting bearing capacity of shal-

low foundations on two-layer soil as demonstrated in previous studies (Burd and
Frydman, 1997; Zhu 2004; Helwany 2007; Ballard et  al. 2010). Numerical tech-
niques can deal with complicated loadings, geometry of complex shape, anisotropy,
layered soils and complex stress–strain relationships. It is also convenient with the
added advantage of combining all the parameters into a single problem, less time
consuming to set up than experimental models and when commonly used classical
solutions such as limit equilibrium are no longer applicable.
There are many studies on bearing capacity of strip footings with 2D plane strain
model by FEM methods conducted over the last four decades. However, most of
these studies are not limited to footings on the surface of the soil and mostly related
to reinforced soil foundation rather than working platforms. Hence, this paper
applies FEM to estimate the bearing capacity of strip footings on the surface of the
existing soil and develops a comprehensive set of design charts for working plat-
forms for heavy tracked plants.

13
Content courtesy of Springer Nature, terms of use apply. Rights reserved.


Table 1  Industry practices in working platform design methods

Researcher (year) Method Comments

13
Terzaghi and Peck (1948) Projected area method Limit equilibrium approach, underestimates pressure at the centre and overestimates pressure
Yamaguchi (1963) at the edges, assumes α constant irrespective of soil cu (however, α is not constant and
depends on geometry, loads and soil strengths (Fannin 1986, Burd and Frydman 1997)),
overestimates bearing capacity for soft layer on stiffer subgrade (Ballard et al. 2010)
CIRIA SP123 (Jewell 1996) Analytical method Based on Milligan et al. (1989), granular subgrades not covered, arbitrary selection of angle
of load spread, assumes no friction between load and platform (which is unrealistic), zero
vertical friction with platform material (considered conservative), complexity of calcula-
tions best done with computer, valid for single strata sub-formation not multi-layered
BR470 (BRE 2004) Semi-empirical method Uses punching shear capacity concept (vertical side block with α = 0), develops within the
platform as suggested by Meyerhof (1974) and Hanna and Meyerhof (1980) and Hanna
(1981), provides conservative results but lacks dimensional consistency (Burd and Frydman
1997), valid for subgrade cohesion 20 kPa ≤ cu ≤ 80 kPa and α = 2ϕ/3, failure modes inde-
pendent of relative strength of the two layers
Eurocode 7 (BS EN 1997–2:2007, 2007, BS Either empirical, numeri- Widely used for permanent works but not generally used for working platform design, pro-
EN 1997–1:2004, 2004) cal or observational vides flexibility in design methods to meet limit state design requirements
methods
BS 8004 (British Standard 2015) Analytical method Provides advice on limit state design guidelines to align with Eurocode 7 but does not fully
cover working platform design and refers reader to CIRIA SP123 and BR470 as guidance
TWf (2019) Analytical method Eurocode 7 compliant method as an alternative to BR470 or CIRIA SP123 methods and
applicable to multi soil layers, is an extension of CIRIA SP123 and conservative assumption
α = 26.6°, complexity of calculations best done with spreadsheet
Plate load test Field test Plate size used needs to be representative of loaded area, sufficient test numbers with allow-
ance for site geometry, weather dependent and ground variability, depth of ground investiga-
tion up to 3B for tracks, acceptable settlement results
Geosynthetics manufacturers’ design methods Empirical method Considered as an alternative method in BR470 (BRE 2011), based on various design meth-
odologies that are bespoke to their products, field verification is needed to affirm designs as
recommended by AASHTO (2020)
Transportation Infrastructure Geotechnology

Content courtesy of Springer Nature, terms of use apply. Rights reserved.

 Transportation Infrastructure Geotechnology

3 FEM for Working Platform: Model and Material Properties

The tracked plant footprint on a working platform has a long length dimension
compared to its width like a strip footing and can be analysed assuming 2D plane
strain conditions. The granular working platform model dimensions used in the
FEM are 10.3  m wide by 150 to 600  mm deep above 10-m-thick clay, as illus-
trated in Fig.  2(a). The geogrid reinforcement is placed at the interface of clay
subgrade and granular layer. The outer model boundaries are chosen to ensure
the effects of load dissipated are contained within the model and the stresses at
the outer boundaries are less than 0.01% of the applied contact pressure (Abu-
Farsakh et al. 2008). Considering the tracked plant elevation view is symmetrical,
only one of the tracks is modelled. For the boundary conditions, the vertical sides
are fixed in a horizontal direction with vertical displacement, and the bottom of
the model is fixed in both vertical and horizontal directions as shown in Fig. 2(b).
The track is represented by a weightless rigid body with vertical load applied as
uniform pressure over the track footprint. Depending on the test conditions, a dis-
placement method is applied to the footing width (B) equal to 300 mm, as shown
in Fig. 2(a).
An eight-node biquadratic plane strain quadrilateral shape function and a
reduced integration (CPE8R) element type were selected to discretise the sub-
grade and granular base, while a two-node linear displacement 2D displacement
truss element type (T2D2) was used to discretise the geogrid reinforcement. The
top granular layer was assumed to be stronger than the bottom clay layer. The
mesh topology relating to optimum element mesh size and density including
finite element model verification are detailed in Chua et  al. (2021). Mohr–Cou-
lomb plasticity models are selected to represent the nonlinear plastic behaviour
of the granular base and clay subgrade, where the shear strength developed in
soil is a function of internal friction, cohesion and applied stress. The soils are
simulated as weightless materials because in  situ stress has no effect on elastic
settlement (Griffiths 1982).

Fig. 2  Plane strain model geometry and boundary conditions with strip loading

13
Content courtesy of Springer Nature, terms of use apply. Rights reserved.
 Transportation Infrastructure Geotechnology

The interaction simulation for geogrid and soil interface consists of two compo-
nents. One is hard contact for the normal direction to the interface with no separa-
tion allowed between the two interfaces (geogrid-granular and geogrid-clay). Two is
in the tangential direction, and a penalty method with a Coulomb friction model is
used to simulate the frictional constraints to allow an elastic slip of 0.001 m when
the finite value of the interface shear stress is reached (Perkins and Cuelho 1999).
The friction model is represented by using geogrid and soil interface friction coeffi-
cient and elastic slip input data. This is done using kinematic coupling constraints to
constrain the movement of a granular and clay surface to the geogrid movement and
ensure that the geogrid stays in place (SIMULIA 2013).
The modulus of the granular base is dependent on the material characteristics, the
stress level it operates and the stiffness of the underlying in situ subgrade. Therefore,
the modulus of the granular base is influenced by the modulus of the subgrade (Aus-
troads 2018). For design subgrade CBR of 3% or more, modulus stress dependency
in the sub-layering rules is applied to address the effect of the underlying support.
In the case of subgrade CBR less than 3%, the subgrade materials are unlikely to
behave elastically when loaded. Under this scenario, the modulus ratio of the granu-
lar base to subgrade soil is usually taken to be 1.0 to 5.0 as recommended by Heuke-
lom and Klomp (1962) and a ratio of 2.0 to 5.0 was selected for the FEM analysis.
The subgrade soil is assumed to behave in an undrained condition and its shear
strength is equal to its undrained cohesion cu. In this study, the value of cu is deduced
from the CBR value of the subgrade soil with CBR less than 5% using the following
relationship as suggested by Giroud and Noiray (1981).
cu = fc CBR (3)
where fc = factor equal to 30  kPa. The empirical relationship (Eq.  4) as recom-
mended in Austroads (2018) is used to deduce the stress-dependent subgrade modu-
lus for soils with CBR 3% or more but not exceeding 15%.
Esg = 10 × CBR (4)
The nonlinearity behaviour in soil is attributed to dilatancy. In granular soils, dila-
tancy increases with increasing relative density and decreases with increasing confining
stress levels. The influence of the associated flow rule is significant for higher friction
angle (ϕ > 30°) up to 15% as demonstrated in Loukidis and Salgado (2009). The failure
mechanism is deeper and wider when the dilation angle is higher (Potts et  al. 2001;
Mosadegh and Nikraz 2015). Therefore, numerical analysis is performed assuming
associated flow. The selection of dilatancy angle ψ is based on the approximation used
in Plaxis analysis and studies by Shiau et al. (2003) and Ameratunga et al. (2016).
𝜓 = 𝜙 − 30◦ (5)
where ψ = 0 for ϕ < 30°. Other presumptive material constitutive model input param-
eters considered in this parametric study are based on published data from Leng and
Gabr (2005), BRE (2004) and Bowles (1996) as summarised in Table 2. Geogrid in
the model exhibits, in general, components of elasticity, plasticity and directional
dependency and creep is direction, time and temperature dependent. But this is not

13
Content courtesy of Springer Nature, terms of use apply. Rights reserved.
 Table 2  Material properties for FEM analysis for developing working platform design charts
Materials Element (type) Model and parameters Modulus (MPa) Poisson ratio (ν) Unit weight (kg/m3) Comments
Transportation Infrastructure Geotechnology

Granular base Solid (CPE8R) Mohr–Coulomb 10–200 0.35 1900–2100 Loose to dense granular base
ϕ = 35–45°
cu = 0 kPa
Soft clay subgrade Solid (CPE8R) Mohr–Coulomb 5–100 0.45 1700–2000 Very soft to stiff subgrades
ϕ = 0° (saturated)
cu = 15–150 kPa
Geogrid Truss (T2D2) Elastic (soft, medium and stiff) 35–4230 0.35 100–340 Soft to stiff geogrid

Material parameters based on compilation of published data from Leng and Gabr (2005), BRE (2004) and Bowles (1996)

13
Content courtesy of Springer Nature, terms of use apply. Rights reserved.
 Transportation Infrastructure Geotechnology

practical for use in the numerical simulations because it requires many input param-
eters which are not readily found in the product datasheets and design manuals pro-
duced by the manufacturers. It is for this reason that geogrid reinforcement is mod-
elled as a linear elastic material. The geogrid properties are chosen to encompass the
full range of geogrid available in today’s market (Erickson and Drescher 2001).
Table 2 shows a band of granular base modulus values 10–200 MPa being used in
the modelling. The modulus of the granular base is dependent on the inherent char-
acteristics of the materials, the stress level at which they operate, the thickness of the
base layer and the modulus of the underlying subgrade layer. The ability to compact
the granular base is dictated by the degree of support provided by the underlying
subgrade layer. Therefore, the modulus of the base layer can be significantly lower
when placed over soft subgrade. For a loose granular base overlying soft subgrade
with CBR less than 3%, the lower bound of the modulus ratio of a granular base to
subgrade ranging from 2 to 3 has been adopted. In the case of a dense granular base
over stiff subgrade with CBR greater than 3%, the modulus ratio of 3 to 5 has been
used, as used in several past studies. Heukelom and Klomp (1962) recommend using
a modulus ratio of a granular base to subgrade soil between 1.0 and 5.0. Hammitt
(1970) used from 1.7 to 17 with a ratio of 5.23 based on linear regression. Leng and
Gabr (2002) generated a stress distribution angle versus modulus ratio chart for a
two-layer system. The chart infers that the modulus ratio is between 3.0 and 6.5 for
the granular base with ϕ ranging from 35 to 45°.
The granular working platforms analysed are summarised in Table 3. Based on
the number of pavement configurations premutation, a total of 288 cases have been
analysed in this parametric study to generate enough data to produce the design
charts. For each granular working platform type, the critical compressive stress on

Table 3  Granular working Granular base layer Geogrid ­quality# Subgrade

platform configurations
Thickness (mm) Internal fric- Modulus (MPa)
tion angle ϕ

150 35° Soft 5 to 100 for

40° Medium each series of
­six++
45° Stiff
300 35° Soft
40° Medium
45° Stiff
450 35° Soft
40° Medium
45° Stiff
600 35° Soft
40° Medium
45° Stiff
#
 Geogrid stiffness modulus: soft = 35 MPa, medium = 1970 MPa and
stiff = 4230 MPa based on Erickson and Drescher (2001)
++
 Subgrade modulus (MPa): 5, 10, 15, 30, 70 and 100

13
Content courtesy of Springer Nature, terms of use apply. Rights reserved.
 Transportation Infrastructure Geotechnology

the top of the granular layout directly underneath the applied vertical displacement
is extracted from the finite element model after each numerical computation.

4 FEM for Working Platform: Results and Discussions

4.1 Modelling of Strip Footing on Surface over Two‑Layered Soils

Past researchers (Craig and Chua 1990; Michalowski and Shi 1993; Burd and Fry-
dman 1997) have shown that the bearing capacity and the performance of shallow
foundation on a granular base layer underlying a soft clay are governed by dimen-
sionless groups as shown in Eq. (6).
( )
q H cu
=f , , 𝜙, E (6)
𝛾B B 𝛾B

The bearing capacity ratio (q/γB) represents the average pressure under a strip
footing which is a function of four groups of parameters. The work done by weight
of the soft clay must be zero considering the incompressibility of the soft clay and
the geometry of the failure mechanism. Therefore, the bearing capacity of the foot-
ing is independent of the unit weight of the clay. FEM is first used to compare design
charts with published studies followed by a compressive set of design charts. Mini-
mum design thicknesses using several methods are also compared and discussed.

4.2 Comparison of FEM Results with Published Studies

Sample design charts for a working platform granular base are first developed using
FEM models and are compared with published results. The comparison is done
for applicable cases available in the published literature for specific conditions and
shown in Fig. 3(a) to Fig. 3(d).
Design charts for an unreinforced granular base shown in Fig. 3(a)–(c) are com-
pared with the displacement finite element method solutions of Burd and Frydman
(1997), the analytical kinematic predictions of Michalowski and Shi (1993), semi-
empirical results proposed by Hanna and Meyerhof (1980), the advanced upper and
lower bound techniques suggested by Shiau et al. (2003), the limit equilibrium anal-
ysis proposed by Al-Shenawy and Al-Karni (2005), the FEM upper bound multi-
block solutions by Huang and Qin (2009), the discontinuity layout optimisation
method by Zheng et al. (2019) and the rigid-plastic finite element method by Pham
and Ohtsuka (2021). For the case of an unreinforced granular base with internal fric-
tion angle (ϕ) equal to 35°, 40° and 45° and depth-to-width ratio (H/B) equal to 1.0
and 2.0, FEM modelling results closely align with the other studies. It is worth not-
ing that most of the past studies are limited to low cu/γB values.
The geogrid-reinforced granular base results (q/γB) are compared with results by
Shahkolahi and Crase (2012) which is based on BR470 (BRE 2004) and the sur-
charge transfer design method (now called T-value method) by Lees and Matthias
(2019). For the case of a geogrid-reinforced base with friction angle (ϕ) equal to 40°

13
Content courtesy of Springer Nature, terms of use apply. Rights reserved.
 Transportation Infrastructure Geotechnology

Fig. 3  Comparison of FEM models with published studies

and depth-to-width ratio (H/B) equal to 1.0, Fig. 3(d) shows FEM results about the
bearing capacity ratio (q/γB) at larger values of shear strength ratio (cu/γB) which are
comparable to the T-value method by Lees and Matthias (2019). For cu/γB greater
than 3, the results (q/γB) by Shahkolahi and Crase (2012) are comparatively lower.
This could be attributed to the safety factor of 2 being applied to the ultimate tensile
strength of the geogrid reinforcement. In addition, by assuming the mobilised fric-
tion angle of α = 2ϕ/3 regardless of granular platform, soil parameters and the rela-
tive strength of the two layers might have resulted in a conservative estimate of the
actual resistance. Nonetheless, the FEM modelling results are closely comparable
with these studies.
For unreinforced and geogrid-reinforced (geogrid stiffness modulus
E = 1970 MPa) granular base estimates of the bearing capacity ratio (q/γB) values,
the results trend towards upper bound solution. Overall, the results as indicated in

13
Content courtesy of Springer Nature, terms of use apply. Rights reserved.
 Transportation Infrastructure Geotechnology

Fig. 3 show that the design charts developed using FEM give a comparable bearing
capacity estimate with those published previously.

4.3 Design Charts for Working Platform for Heavy Track Plants

The effects of the shear strength of the clay subgrade or the shear strength ratio (cu/γB)
on the bearing capacity ratio (q/γB), for the various values of ϕ for unreinforced and
geogrid-reinforced granular base working platforms with the allowable settlement of
50 mm, are illustrated by the design charts as shown in Figs. 4, 5, 6, and 7. The results
represent q/γB as a function of the dimensionless quantities H/B, cu/γB, ϕ and E and
independent of the unit weight of the clay. In each figure, separate diagrams are shown
for the internal friction angle of the upper granular base layer: 35°, 40° and 45° are
denoted as (a), (b) and (c) respectively. These plots are based on the average value
of bearing capacity obtained from ABAQUS FEM analysis with different H/B values
ranging from 0.5 to 2.0 for soil parameters summarised in Table  2. It is clear from
Figs.  4(a)-(c)–7(a)-(c) that the bearing capacity ratio increases with shear strength
ratio for constant H/B. In the case of H = 0 (when there is no working platform), the
bearing capacity increases proportionally to the clay strength. The general pattern of

Fig. 4  Dimensionless limit pressure on unreinforced granular base over soft clay subgrade

Fig. 5  Dimensionless limit pressure on soft geogrid-reinforced granular base over soft clay subgrade

Fig. 6  Dimensionless limit pressure on medium geogrid-reinforced granular base over soft clay subgrade

13
Content courtesy of Springer Nature, terms of use apply. Rights reserved.
 Transportation Infrastructure Geotechnology

Fig. 7  Dimensionless limit pressure on stiff geogrid-reinforced granular base over soft clay subgrade

these results for an unreinforced granular base is broadly aligned with past researchers
(Florkiewicz 1989; Michalowski and Shi 1993; Burd and Frydman 1997).
In practice, these design charts can be used to estimate the bearing capacity of a
granular base working platform with track plant width B trafficked on the granular
base layer thickness H with internal friction angle ϕ and the unit weight of granular
base γ rest on the clay subgrade with undrained shear strength of cu. The estimated
bearing capacities from these design charts satisfy structural performance require-
ments and serviceability criterion of 50 mm allowable rut depth.

4.4 Comparison of Minimum Design Thicknesses of the Working Platform

The developed design charts for unreinforced and geogrid-reinforced granular work-
ing platforms are used to calculate minimum design thicknesses and are compared
with existing methods (BR470 by BRE (2004), CIRIA SP123 by Jewell (1996) and
Okamura et al. (1998), several load spread methods by Eshkevari (2018) and Lees
(2020) with the help of a design example). The intent of this is to benchmark against
these methods to determine the minimum platform thicknesses. The track plant
loading conditions and soil data used in this design example are based on published
data from Scotland et al. (2019) as summarised in Table 4.
The comparison of minimum platform thickness using the FEM design charts
and other methods’ results is summarised in Fig. 8. It shows that the minimum plat-
form thickness required for the loading condition varies widely depending on the
method considered.
For unreinforced cases, BR470 (BRE 2004) shows the thickest platform
thickness for cu greater than 35 kN/m2 followed by CIRIA SP123 (Jewell 1996;
Okamura et al. 1998) and the load spread method (Eshkevari 2018; Lees 2020).

Table 4  Material properties for working platform design example

Materials Soil parameters Unit weight Loading conditions
(kN/m3)

Granular fill ϕ = 40° 20 Track plant working pressure = 200 kN/m2

cu = 0 kPa Track width = 0.5 m
Subgrade ϕ = 0° 19 Track length = 2.4 m
cu = 20 kPa

Material parameters based on published data from Scotland et al. (2019)

13
Content courtesy of Springer Nature, terms of use apply. Rights reserved.
 Transportation Infrastructure Geotechnology

Fig. 8  Comparison of platform thicknesses (UR, unreinforced; R, geogrid-reinforced)

The results show that the BR470 method is conservative in comparison to

other methods resulting in uneconomic platform thicknesses. This is attributed
to conservative input parameters used in the BR470 method. This finding is
in good agreement with the observations by the Federation of Piling Special-
ists (2005) and EFFC/DFI (2019). In the case of Okamura et  al. (1998), the
assumed positive load spread angle α between the failure planes and vertical
direction is inconsistent with the behaviour of layered soils whereby the fail-
ure planes’ inclined angle increases as the strength of the granular base rela-
tive to clay subgrade increases. In addition, the simplified assumption of using
Rankine’s passive coefficient to estimate horizontal stresses in the failure plane
has underestimated the mobilised resistance of the granular layer. The discrep-
ancy in predicting α and use of Rankine’s passive coefficient in the formulation
could have been attributed to the more conservative designs. Furthermore, the
superposition formulas Okamura et  al. (1998) used were a positive dispersion
shear angle in their failure model, which may have attributed to the underesti-
mation of the bearing capacity for the high shear strength of the clay subgrade.
On the contrary, Eshkevari (2018) found that the shear angle α in the failure
mode showed either a positive or negative is possible depending on the model
geometry and relative strength of the two-layer soils. This may have explained
Eshkevari’s (2018) method that resulted in no significant difference in mini-
mum platform thickness for cu greater than 35 kN/m2.

13
Content courtesy of Springer Nature, terms of use apply. Rights reserved.
 Transportation Infrastructure Geotechnology

The value of the load spread angle assumed in the computation has significant
influence on the estimated bearing capacity and the required platform thickness.
This is attributed to shear strength and load spreading of the overlying granular layer
has not been accounted for resulting in the in accurate estimation of bearing capac-
ity. It is apparent from this design example that that is not the case which explains
the traditional load spread method is the thinness by comparisons with other meth-
ods and may result in unsafe prediction of bearing capacity. It shows that with the
increase in load spread angle there is a decrease in the load transfer to the lower clay
layer and vice versa. This result reveals that the load method gives a conservative
prediction of bearing capacity.
In the case of soft geogrid reinforcement, it is not effective in reducing granu-
lar base thickness in all cases. This shows that soft geogrid reinforcements with a
low tensile strength is not effective in enhancing the structural strength of the work-
ing platform. The medium and stiff geogrid reinforcement results from the design
charts are comparable to CIRIA SP123 (Jewell 1996). The geogrid-reinforced plat-
forms are thinner than unreinforced platforms in all cases except for the load spread
method. This is attributed to the uplift forces generated by the geogrid reinforcement
during the deformation and the mobilisation of the axial tensile forces of the geogrid
reinforcement layer. The transfer of a part of the vertical load to a horizontal load
carried by the reinforcement thereby prevents shear failure of the soil resulting in
overall increase in bearing capacity of the reinforced layered soil system. The FEM
design chart approach for the unreinforced case shows closer agreement when com-
pared with Lees’ (2020) value method for soft subgrade conditions up to around
cu = 30 kN/m2. Overall, this design example illustrates the difficulty of obtaining
exact solutions for a two-layer soil system.
Table 5 shows that the reduction in the thickness of the granular base attributed
to the stiff geogrid reinforcement is more than that of the medium geogrid followed
by the soft geogrid for 610-, 495- and 410-mm granular base layer thicknesses. The
granular base thickness reduction from a loose to dense granular base varies from
1.2 to 55.6%. This infers that irrespective of the granular base layer thickness, the
stiff geogrid is more effective than soft and medium geogrids in the reduction of the
granular base layer thickness. In all cases, soft geogrid reinforcement yields nominal
reduction in granular base thickness ranging from 1.2 to 3.0%.

5 Conclusion and Recommendation

This study uses a 2D plane strain finite element analysis technique to model a two-
layer soil system reinforced at the interface and subjected to surface applied loading
and to simulate the soil behaviour of unreinforced and geogrid-reinforced granular
layers over the clay subgrade under tracked plant pressure. It is an extension of a
previous case study by Chua et al. (2021) for wider material properties. The results
of the analysis are verified with the results from published literature and shown to be
comparable. The parametric results are then used to generate a comprehensive set
of dimensionless design charts (q/γB vs cu /γB) for a wide range of material param-
eters that go beyond the coverage in previous studies. These charts could be used by

13
Content courtesy of Springer Nature, terms of use apply. Rights reserved.
 Table 5  Granular base reduction values for q/γB = 50 and cu /γB = 5 for 50 mm surface deformation
ϕ = 35° ϕ = 40° ϕ = 45°
Transportation Infrastructure Geotechnology

Reinforcement type
Base layer thickness Base reduction per- Base layer thickness Base reduction per- Base layer thickness Base reduction
(mm) centage (%) (mm) centage (%) (mm) percentage (%)

Unreinforced 610 495 410

Soft geogrid reinforced 600 1.6 480 3.0 405 1.2
Medium geogrid reinforced 450 26.2 300 39.4 240 41.5
Stiff geogrid reinforced 400 34.4 220 55.6 200 51.2

13
Content courtesy of Springer Nature, terms of use apply. Rights reserved.
 Transportation Infrastructure Geotechnology

practitioners directly to evaluate the cost-effectiveness of a geogrid-reinforced gran-

ular base as compared to conventional unreinforced granular working platforms. The
design charts can also be used for surface strip footings on layered soils.
The comparison of minimum platform thicknesses with existing methods also
shows a relatively close agreement. A closer look at the amount of reduction in the
thickness of a granular working platform for a specific case revealed that there is
hardly any reduction in thickness by using soft geogrids (less than 3%) whereas the
reduction in the thickness is substantial (up to 55%) for stiff geogrids. As the pro-
posed design charts are verified by a relatively small literature database due to lack
of sufficient previous studies resembling the problem investigated in this study, it
would be beneficial to verify them by using field tests.

Notation  B:  Foundation or track width or breadth; CBR:  California bearing ratio of subgrade soil; cu
:  Undrained cohesion of clay subgrade; D:  Depth of embedment; Esg:  Subgrade modulus; E:  Stiffness
of geo-synthetic reinforcement (soft, medium and stiff); g: Gravitational acceleration; H: Granular layer
thickness; Ks:  Punching
′
shear coefficient; L:  Foundation or track length; Nc:  Dimensionless bearing
capacity factor; po : Effective vertical stress at base of granular layer; q: Average limit pressure; qc: Bear-
ing capacity of clay subgrade; qg:  Bearing capacity of granular of infinite depth; qu:  Ultimate bearing
capacity of granular over clay; γ: Unit weight of granular layer; α: Load spread angle; ϕ: Friction angle of
granular layer; ψ: Dilatancy angle

Author Contribution Provide a better understanding of geogrid reinforcement benefits for difference

geogrid grades. The developed design charts with non-dimensional parameters can be simple and effi-
ciently used by practitioners to design a geogrid-reinforced granular base working platform for tracked
plants.

Funding  Open Access funding enabled and organized by CAUL and its Member Institutions

Data Availability This study contains no material previously published or written by another author,
except where due reference has been made in the text. The information presented in this study is factually
correct. There is no moral, ethical or legal impediment to the publication of the information presented.

Code Availability  Not applicable.

Declarations 

Conflict of Interest  The authors declare no competing interests.

Open Access  This article is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License,
which permits use, sharing, adaptation, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, as long as
you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Com-
mons licence, and indicate if changes were made. The images or other third party material in this article
are included in the article’s Creative Commons licence, unless indicated otherwise in a credit line to the
material. If material is not included in the article’s Creative Commons licence and your intended use is
not permitted by statutory regulation or exceeds the permitted use, you will need to obtain permission
directly from the copyright holder. To view a copy of this licence, visit http://​creat​iveco​mmons.​org/​licen​
ses/​by/4.​0/.

13
Content courtesy of Springer Nature, terms of use apply. Rights reserved.
 Transportation Infrastructure Geotechnology

References
AASHTO: Mechanistic-Empirical Pavement Design Guide: a Manual of Practice. Washington D. C.:
American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials (2020)
Abu-Farsakh, M., Chen, Q., Sharma, R., Zhang, X.: Large-scale model footing tests on geogrid-rein-
forced foundation and marginal embankment soils. Geotech. Test. J. 31, 413–423 (2008)
Al-Shenawy, A.O., Al-Karni, A.A.: Derivation of bearing capacity equation for a two layered system of
weak clay layer overlaid by dense sand layer. Pertanika J. Sci. & Technol 13, 213–235 (2005)
Ameratunga, J., Sivakugan, N. & Das, B. M.: Correlations of soil and rock properties in geotechnical
engineering. Developments in Geotechnical Engineering. New Delhi: Springer India, ISBN 978–
81–322–2629–1 (2016)
ARTC: Fatal & Severe Risk Program. Australian Rail Track Corporation (2020)
AUSTROADS: Guide to Pavement Technology Part 2: Pavement Structural Design Sydney (2018)
Aysen, A.: Soil mechanics: basic concepts and engineering applications. CRC Press (2002)
Baglioni, V. P., Chow, G. S. & Endley, S. N.: Jack-up rig foundation stability in stratified soil profiles.
Offshore Technology Conference, OnePetro. (1982)
Ballard, J.-C., Delvosal, P., Yonatan, P., Holeyman, A. & Kay, S.: Simplified VH equations for foundation
punch-through sand into clay. Frontiers in Offshore Geotechnics II. Taylor & Francis Group, ISBN
978–0–415–58480–7. (2010)
Bowles, L.: Foundation analysis and design. McGraw-hill (1996)
BRE: Working Platform for Tracked Plants: Good Practice Guide to the Design, Installation, Mainte-
nance and Repair of Ground-Supported Working Platforms. Watford, UK: Building Research Estab-
lishment (2004)
BRE: BR470 Working platforms for tracked plants: use of ‘structural geosynthetic reinforcement’ The
Building Research Establishment (2011)
British Standard.: BS 8004: 2015: Code of Practice for Foundations. British Standards Institution London
(2015)
BS EN 1997–1:2004: Eurocode 7: Geotechnical design - Part 1: General rules (2004)
BS EN 1997–2:2007: Eurocode 7: Geotechnical design - Part 2: Ground investigation and testing (2007)
Burd, H., Frydman, S.: Bearing capacity of plane-strain footings on layered soils. Can. Geotech. J. 34,
241–253 (1997)
Chen, W.: Limit analysis and soil plasticity. Elsevier scientific publishing company, Amsterdam (1975)
Cheng, Y., Wong, H., Leo, C.J., Lau, C.K.: Slip line, limit equilibrium and limit analysis methods. Front
Civil Eng 1, 70–182 (2016)
Chiba, S., Onuki, T. & Sao, K.: Static and dynamic measurement of bottom fixity. The Jack-up drilling
platform design and operation, 307–327 (1986)
Chua, B. T., Abuel-Naga, H. & Nepal, K. P.: A case study on unreinforced and geogrid-reinforced work-
ing platform design by finite element method. Transp Infrastruct Geotechnol, 1–18 (2021). https://​
doi.​org/​10.​1007/​s40515-​021-​00181-8
Craig, W., Chua, K.: Deep penetration of spud-can foundations on sand and clay. Géotechnique 40, 541–
556 (1990)
Das, B., Dallo, K.: Bearing capacity of shallow foundations on a strong sand layer underlain by soft clay.
Civ. Eng. Pract. Des. Eng. 3, 417–438 (1984)
Dutt, R. & Ingram, W.: Jackup rig siting in calcareous soils. Proc., Annu. Offshore Technol. Conf.;(United
States), Seafloor Engineers (1984)
EFFC/DFI.: Guide to working platforms. European Federation of Foundation Contractors (EFFC) and
Deep Foundations Institute (DFI) (2019)
Erickson, H. & Drescher, A.: The use of geosynthetics to reinforce low volume roads. Minnesota Depart-
ment of Transportation, Final Report: 2001-15, USA. https://​hdl.​handle.​net/​11299/​732 (2001)
Eshkevari, S.S.: Bearing capacity of surface strip footings on layered soils. PhD Thesis, The University of
Newcastle (2018)
Eshkevari, S. S. & Abbo, A.: Punching shear coefficients for the design of working platforms. Com-
puter Methods and Recent Advances in Geomechanics, Proceedings of the 14th Int. Conference
of International Association for Computer Methods and Recent Advances in Geomechanics, IAC-
MAG2014, 2015.317-322 (2014)
Fannin, R. J.: Geogrid reinforcement of granular layers on soft clay: a study at model and full scale. PhD
Thesis, University of Oxford, UK (1986)

13
Content courtesy of Springer Nature, terms of use apply. Rights reserved.
 Transportation Infrastructure Geotechnology

Federation of Piling Specialists: Calculation of track bearing pressures for platform design. Federation of
Piling Specialists (2005)
Florkiewicz, A.: Upper bound to bearing capacity of layered soils. Can. Geotech. J. 26, 730–736 (1989)
Gharaie, E., Lingard, H., Cooke, T.: Causes of fatal accidents involving cranes in the Australian construc-
tion industry. Constr Econ Build 15, 1–12 (2015)
Giroud, J.-P. & Noiray, L. Geotextile-reinforced unpaved road design. J. Geotech. Geoenviron. Eng.
107(GT9), 1233–1254 (1981)
Grahnström, A. & Jansson, O.: Estimation of collapse load on a granular working platform using limit
analysis-a parametric study on a layered soil model. Master’s Thesis, Chalmers University of Tech-
nology, Gothenburg, Sweden (2016)
Griffiths, D.: Computation of bearing capacity factors using finite elements. Geotechnique 32, 195–202
(1982)
Hammitt, G.M.: Thickness requirements for unsurfaced roads & airfields bare base support, Technical
Report S-70–5, US Army Engineer Waterway Experimental Station, Vicksburg, Mississippi, USA
(1970)
Hanna, A., Meyerhof, G.: Design charts for ultimate bearing capacity of foundations on sand overlying
soft clay. Can. Geotech. J. 17, 300–303 (1980)
Hanna, A. M.: Foundations on strong sand overlying weak sand. J. Geotech. Geoenviron.
Eng., ASCE 107(7), 915–925 (1981)
Hansen, J.B.: A revised and extended formula for bearing capacity. Danish Geotechnical Institute, Copen-
hegan (1970)
Helwany, S.: Applied Soil Mechanics with ABAQUS Applications, John Wiley & Sons, ISBN: 978–0–
471–79107–2 (2007)
Heukelom, W. & Klomp, A.: Dynamic testing as a means of controlling pavements during and after con-
struction. International Conference on the Structural Design of Asphalt PavementsUniversity of
Michigan, Ann Arbor (1962)
Huang, M., Qin, H.-L.: Upper-bound multi-rigid-block solutions for bearing capacity of two-layered
soils. Comput. Geotech. 36, 525–529 (2009)
Jewell, R.A.: Soil reinforcement with geotextiles. Construction Industry Research and Information Asso-
ciation (CIRIA), London (1996)
Kellezi, L. & Kudsk, G: Spudcan penetration FE simulation of punch-through for sand over clay. Proc
12th Int Conf Jack-Up Platform Design, Construction and Operation (2009)
Kenny, M., Andrawes, K.: The bearing capacity of footings on a sand layer overlying soft clay. Geotech-
nique 47, 339–345 (1997)
Kraft, L.M., Jr., Helfrich, S.C.: Bearing capacity of shallow footing, sand over clay. Can Geotech J 20,
182–185 (1983)
Lees, A.: Bearing capacity of a stabilised granular layer on clay subgrade. Bearing Capacity of Roads,
Railways and Airfields. CRC Press, ISBN: 9781315100333 (2017)
Lees, A.: The bearing capacity of a granular layer on clay, Proceedings of the Institution of Civil Engi-
neers- Geotechnical Engineering, 13–20 (2020)
Lees, A. & Matthias, P.: Bearing capacity of a geogrid-stabilised granular layer on clay. Ground Engi-
neering, Technical Paper. 28–33 (2019)
Leng, J., Gabr, M.A.: Characteristics of geogrid reinforced aggregate under cyclic load, Transportation
Research Record 1786, pp. 29–35. Transportation Research Board National Research Council,
Washington, D.C. (2002)
Leng, J., Gabr, M.A.: Numerical analysis of stress–deformation response in reinforced unpaved road sec-
tions. Geosynth. Int. 12, 111–119 (2005)
Loukidis, D., Salgado, R.: Bearing capacity of strip and circular footings in sand using finite elements.
Comput. Geotech. 36, 871–879 (2009)
Madhav, M.R., Sharma, J.: Bearing capacity of clay overlain by stiff soil. J Geotech Eng 117, 1941–1948
(1991)
Mccann, M., Gittleman, J. & Watters, M.: Crane-related deaths in construction and recommendations
for their prevention. The Center for Construction Research and Training (CPWR). www.​cpwr.​com
(2009)
Meyerhof, G.G.: Some recent research on the bearing capacity of foundations. Can. Geotech. J. 1, 16–26
(1963)
Meyerhof, G.G.: Ultimate bearing capacity of footings on sand layer overlying clay. Can. Geotech. J. 11,
223–229 (1974)

13
Content courtesy of Springer Nature, terms of use apply. Rights reserved.
 Transportation Infrastructure Geotechnology

Michalowski, R.L., Shi, L.: Bearing capacity of nonhomogeneous clay layers under embankments. J Geo-
tech Eng 119, 1657–1669 (1993)
Midas: MiBLog. Design of working platforms for tracked plant [Online] (2017)
Milligan, G., Jewell, R., Houlsby, G. & Burd, H. A new approach to the design of unpaved roads--part I.
Ground Engineering 22(3), 25–29 (1989)
Mosadegh, A., Nikraz, H.: Bearing capacity evaluation of footing on a layered-soil using ABAQUS. J
Earth Sci Clim Change 6, 1000264 (2015)
Myslivec, A., Kysela, Z.: The Bearing Capacity of Building Foundations. Elsevier (1978)
Okamura, M., Takemura, J., Kimura, T.: Bearing capacity predictions of sand overlying clay based on
limit equilibrium methods. Soils Found. 38, 181–194 (1998)
Palmeira, E.M., Antunes, L.G.: Large scale tests on geosynthetic reinforced unpaved roads subjected to
surface maintenance. Geotext. Geomembr. 28, 547–558 (2010)
Perkins, S., Cuelho, E.: Soil-geosynthetic interface strength and stiffness relationships from pullout tests.
Geosynth. Int. 6, 321–346 (1999)
Pham, Q.N., Ohtsuka, S.: Ultimate bearing capacity of rigid footing on two-layered soils of sand–clay.
Int. J. Geomech. 21, 04021115 (2021)
Potts, D.M., Zdravković, L., Addenbrooke, T.I., Higgins, K.G., Kovačević, N.: Finite element analysis in
geotechnical engineering: application. Thomas Telford London (2001). https://​doi.​org/​10.​1680/​feaig​
ea.​27831
Scotland, I., Poberezhniy, V. & Tatari, A.: Reinforced soil shear key to mitigate extrusion failure in soft
soils under working platforms. The XVII European Conference on Soil Mechanics and Geotechnical
Engineering Reykjavik Iceland, 2019. International Society for Soil Mechanics and Geotechnical
Engineering.
Shahkolahi, A. & Crase, J.: Application of geogrids and geocomposites in designing working platforms
on cohesive subgrades; case study: Harvey Norman bulky goods development, Australia. Proceed-
ings of the 5th Asian Regional Conference on Geosynthetics. 13–15 (2012)
Shiau, J.S., Lyamin, A.V., Sloan, S.W.: Bearing capacity of a sand layer on clay by finite element limit
analysis. Can. Geotech. J. 40, 900–915 (2003)
SIMULIA: ABAQUS analysis user’s manual. version 6.13 (2013). http://​www.​abaqus.​com. http://​130.​
149.​89.​49
Terzaghi, K.: Theoretical soil mechanics. John Wiley & Sons, New York (1943)
Terzaghi, K., Peck, R.B.: Soil mechanics in engineering practice. John Wiley & Sons (1948)
Terzaghi, K., Peck, R. B. & Mesri, G.: Soil Mechanics in Engineering Practice, John Wiley & Sons,
ISBN: 0–471–08658–4 (1996)
Tomlinson, M.: Pile Design and Construction Practice. Longman (1986)
TWf. Working platforms: Design of granular working platforms for construction plant - A guide to good
practice. Temporary Works Forum, c/o Institution of Civil Engineers, UK (2019). www.​twfor​um.​
org.​uk
Vesic, A. S.: Bearing capacity of shallow foundations. foundations. Foundation Engineering Handbook,
2nd Edition, Van Nostrand Reinhold, New York, NY, 121–147 (1975)
Yamaguchi, H.: Practical formula of bearing value for two layered ground. Proceedings of the 2nd Asian
Regional Conference of Soil Mechanics and Foundation Engineering. Tokyo, Japan (1963)
Young, A., Focht, J.: Subsurface hazards affect mobile jack-up rig operations. Soundings 3, 4–9 (1981)
Zheng, G., Wang, E., Zhao, J., Zhou, H., Nie, D.: Ultimate bearing capacity of vertically loaded strip
footings on sand overlying clay. Computers and Geotechnics 115, 103151 (2019)
Zhu, M.: Bearing capacity of strip footings on two-layer clay soil by finite element method. Proceedings
of ABAQUS Users’ Conference, 787 (2004)

Publisher’s Note  Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published
maps and institutional affiliations.

13
Content courtesy of Springer Nature, terms of use apply. Rights reserved.
Terms and Conditions
Springer Nature journal content, brought to you courtesy of Springer Nature Customer Service Center
GmbH (“Springer Nature”).
Springer Nature supports a reasonable amount of sharing of research papers by authors, subscribers
and authorised users (“Users”), for small-scale personal, non-commercial use provided that all
copyright, trade and service marks and other proprietary notices are maintained. By accessing,
sharing, receiving or otherwise using the Springer Nature journal content you agree to these terms of
use (“Terms”). For these purposes, Springer Nature considers academic use (by researchers and
students) to be non-commercial.
These Terms are supplementary and will apply in addition to any applicable website terms and
conditions, a relevant site licence or a personal subscription. These Terms will prevail over any
conflict or ambiguity with regards to the relevant terms, a site licence or a personal subscription (to
the extent of the conflict or ambiguity only). For Creative Commons-licensed articles, the terms of
the Creative Commons license used will apply.
We collect and use personal data to provide access to the Springer Nature journal content. We may
also use these personal data internally within ResearchGate and Springer Nature and as agreed share
it, in an anonymised way, for purposes of tracking, analysis and reporting. We will not otherwise
disclose your personal data outside the ResearchGate or the Springer Nature group of companies
unless we have your permission as detailed in the Privacy Policy.
While Users may use the Springer Nature journal content for small scale, personal non-commercial
use, it is important to note that Users may not:

1. use such content for the purpose of providing other users with access on a regular or large scale
basis or as a means to circumvent access control;
2. use such content where to do so would be considered a criminal or statutory offence in any
jurisdiction, or gives rise to civil liability, or is otherwise unlawful;
3. falsely or misleadingly imply or suggest endorsement, approval , sponsorship, or association
unless explicitly agreed to by Springer Nature in writing;
4. use bots or other automated methods to access the content or redirect messages
5. override any security feature or exclusionary protocol; or
6. share the content in order to create substitute for Springer Nature products or services or a
systematic database of Springer Nature journal content.
In line with the restriction against commercial use, Springer Nature does not permit the creation of a
product or service that creates revenue, royalties, rent or income from our content or its inclusion as
part of a paid for service or for other commercial gain. Springer Nature journal content cannot be
used for inter-library loans and librarians may not upload Springer Nature journal content on a large
scale into their, or any other, institutional repository.
These terms of use are reviewed regularly and may be amended at any time. Springer Nature is not
obligated to publish any information or content on this website and may remove it or features or
functionality at our sole discretion, at any time with or without notice. Springer Nature may revoke
this licence to you at any time and remove access to any copies of the Springer Nature journal content
which have been saved.
To the fullest extent permitted by law, Springer Nature makes no warranties, representations or
guarantees to Users, either express or implied with respect to the Springer nature journal content and
all parties disclaim and waive any implied warranties or warranties imposed by law, including
merchantability or fitness for any particular purpose.
Please note that these rights do not automatically extend to content, data or other material published
by Springer Nature that may be licensed from third parties.
If you would like to use or distribute our Springer Nature journal content to a wider audience or on a
regular basis or in any other manner not expressly permitted by these Terms, please contact Springer
Nature at

onlineservice@springernature.com