PFSF AGS WEBINAR 2 Working Platform Design Slides Additional Material

Webinar: Design and
Construction of Piling
Platforms
Stephen Buttling | Principal,

National Geotechnical Consulting
4 real incidents – (1) UK

A very near miss in the UK
Some people I know well were closely involved
4 real incidents – (2) UK

CFA rig collapsed across main London – Paris railway line
• As this piling machine fell, it brought down the overhead power
supply lines, effectively stopping all trains
• What would have been the carnage if a train had been passing at
the time?
1
4 real incidents – Newstead
2017
 Piling Rig-falls-and-crushes-cars-in-brisbane
4 real incidents – Broadbeach

April 2022
 50-tonne-piling-rig-crashes-to-the-ground Gold Coast
Workshop Design and

construction of piling platforms
 Content
 Rig bearing pressures from FPS Rig Track Pressure Calculation Tool
assumed
 Conservatism?
 BR470 (2004)
 Review of BR470 (2011)
 TWf method (2019)
 T Value method (2019)
 Calibration
 Importance of parameters
 Corke et al (2009)
 Lees et al (2019)
2
Webinar: Piling
platform design
1. Suggestions of conservatism
2. We “have not followed the
BRE method for this
platform as it is known to
be highly overconservative
for granular subgrades”
3. “The typical view of most
practitioners I met and
discussed the issue with
support the view that BRE
is conservative”
4. Nothing specific as to the
what in the method is
conservative, or by
comparison with what?
Webinar: Piling
platform design
1. Can apply basic principles
of soil mechanics.
2. Bearing capacity of
layered soil.
3. Methods such as in
Bowles.
4. Error not relevant for
surface loadings.
5. Or use BRE Method based
on punching shear.
6. Now we also have TWf
and T Value methods
BR470 Design Process

• Define geotechnical parameters
• Platform
- Weight density γ
- Angle of friction φ’
• Sub-grade
- Shear strength su
• If su < 20 kPa method not applicable
• If su > 80 kPa platform probably not
necessary
9
3
• Loading Case 1
- When the rig or crane operator is unlikely to
be able to aid - recovery from an imminent
platform failure
• Standing
• Standing
• Travelling
• Travelling
• Handling (e.g. lifting a casing, rebar cage or
• Handling (e.g. lifting a casing, rebar cage
precast pile
or precast pile
10
10

• Loading Case 2
- When the rig or crane operator can control the load
safely, for example by reducing the line load or
reducing power, to aid recovery from an imminent
platform failure
•• Installing
Installingcasing
casing
•• Drilling
Drilling
•• Extracting
Extractingananauger,
auger,bucket
bucketor
orcasing
casing
•• Travelling/slewing
Travelling/slewingwith
withaafoot
footor
orload
load(e.g.
(e.g.pile
pilein
leaders) close
in leaders) to the
close ground
to the ground
11
11

• Convert triangular/trapezoidal pressure distribution to
rectangular (Meyerhof method)
12
12
4
13
13

• Is a platform required?
• Check if the sub-grade alone can support the
track loading
• Standard bearing capacity calculation
- Load factor for Case 1 = 2.0
• If OK – provide only a running surface
14
14

• If not OK – designed platform required
• Check platform material for bearing capacity
• If not OK, have to use a better platform material
(higher φ’)
• If OK, design platform thickness
15
15
5
• Punching shear failure mechanism
16
16

• Punching shear failure mechanism
- Side shear
Track
17
17

• Platform thickness calculation
0.5
W q  s  N  s 
D1   d 1d ud c c1 
  p  K p  tan   s p1 
• Check minimum platform thickness
• Must be at least 30 cm or half the track width
(whichever is less)
•This is where I believe the calibration was done
18
18
6
Working platform design Clay
subsoils
The BRE Method has been written into a spreadsheet
10 Working platform calcs clay subgrade.xlsx
19
Working platform design

Granular subsoils
With another one for granular subsoils
11 Working platform calcs granular subgrade.xlsx
20
Alternative methods 1 – TWf

method
21
7
TWf method
Load spread model
22
TWf method
Actual pressure on formation
23
Bearing pressure under

foundations
 Elastic theory
 Real clay
 Real sand
24
8
TWf method
Punching shear model
25
TWf method
Recommended methods
26
TWf method
General form of displacement
27
9
TWf method
Actual and assumed failure planes (Hanna)
28
TWf method
Punching shear failure pattern
29
TWf method
 Cohesive subgrades
 TWf clay Case study 1.xlsx
 Granular subgrades
 TWf granular Case study 2.xlsx
30
10
T Value method
 Based on Lees (2019) and marketed by Tensar
31
T Value method
 Based on Lees (2019) and marketed by Tensar

 Used results of 60 centrifuge tests by Okamura et al
 Found a linear relationship between the increase in
bearing stress ( ⁄ ) and the ratio between the
platform thickness and the footing width ( ⁄ ) for strip
footings, and ⁄ .
and ( ⁄ ) for square or circular
footings
 The gradient of the linear relationship, 𝑇, can be
referred to as a load transfer efficiency factor
32
T Value method
33
11
T Value method
 Leads to = 1+𝑇 ≤ for strip footings
 Leads to = 1+𝑇 ≤ for square or circular

footings
 𝑞 = ultimate bearing capacity on top of platform
 𝑞 = ultimate bearing capacity of subgrade
 𝑞 = ultimate bearing capacity of platform material
alone
 Lees carried out large numbers of numerical analyses to
compare with centrifuge and other published data
34
T Value method
 Lees found that T varies with normalized undrained shear

strength of the subgrade according to a power law
 Normalised by effective stress at platform/subgrade
interface (𝑝′ )
 𝑇 = 1.4 +𝐵
 𝐴 = −0.41𝜑 − 0.18
 𝐵 = 4.2𝜑 − 3.4
 𝜑′ in radians
 For a particular granular material and geogrid Lees found
.
𝑇 = 2.9 − 0.6
35
T Value method
36
12
Comparison of methods
 Calculations working platforms final.xlsx

 Calibration
 Punching shear vs load spread
37
Comparison of methods
38
Comparison of methods – for

cohesive subgrades
39
13
cohesive subgrades
 From these 138 load cases 19 were selected

 Run through BR470, TWf method, T Value method and
Naue PLATFORM software
 Included
 track widths from 0.7 to 1.0 m
 L1 from 1.73 to 4.21 m
 L2 from 1.09 to 2.79 m
 Q1 from 118 to 347 kPa
 Q2 from 265 to 633 kPa
 Subgrades from 20 to 100 kPa
40

cohesive subgrades
41
Comparison of methods - for

cohesive subgrades
42
14
Comparison of methods - for
cohesive subgrades
 Based on these charts it is considered to be impossible

to say that any of the four methods is either
conservative or non-conservative across the whole range
 BR470 uses the 𝐾 tan 𝛿 method, TWf uses a 1(H):2(V)
load spread, and the T Value method uses the results of
FE analysis and large-scale testing to determine the
load spread empirically
43
Stabilised platforms
 The Review of BR470 in 2011 allowed for geogrid

suppliers to produce their own validated methods
 “The basis of the design calculations should be stated
and reference made to credible research that validates
the method”
44
Recent advances
 The BRE Design method allows for the use of geotextile

reinforcement.
 The benefit is based upon the additional bearing
resistance to add to the punching shear effect. If the
ultimate strength of the reinforcement is Tult, then:
 𝑇 =
 And the benefit is + where W = the track width
45
15
Recent advances
 There is now evidence to show that geogrids can

achieve much better load spreading.
 This has been known since the 1980s, when load
spreading of 45° or more was suggested by tests at
Oxford University.
 It has been backed up by work on load transfer
platforms over piles, which work in reverse, and
experience on working platforms for wind farms, which
often require very heavy and high lifts over soft soils
46
Recent advances
 This has been followed up with new tests at the BRE.
47
Recent advances
 When a 300 mm thick plain gravel layer was placed over

the subgrade and a plate loaded to 35 kN the result was
like this:
48
16
Recent advances
 But when the platform was reinforced with a geogrid

the load could be increased to 84 kN for the same
effect:
49
 A review of BR470 by BRE in 2011 allowed for better

load spreading but left it to manufacturers to verify
 The geogrid suppliers now have their own methods,
which require geogrid but save a lot of platform
material
 Likely to be competitive over soft soils and where
aggregates are expensive
 Good with recycled concrete
 Tensar have T Value method which can accommodate
stabilized platforms
 Geofrabrics have a Naue equivalent
50
 Tensar have done large scale triaxial tests, and plotted

σ1 against σ3
51
17
 Naue have done similar tests and got almost identical

results!
52
Cautionary note
 Working platforms are frictional and VERY sensitive to

friction angle
 For example:
 Subgrade friction angle = 32°
 Subgrade weight density = 18 kN/m3
Platform friction angle (°) 40 45 50

Platform weight density (kN/m3) 19 20 21
Platform thickness (m) 1.02 0.74 0.52
53
Cautionary note
 This came from someone who thought that a 1 m thick

platform was “somehow ridiculous for medium dense
sand but that is what BRE is telling us”
 How much medium dense sand has:
 φ’ = 32°; γ = 18 kN/m3 ?
 Change to φ’ = 36°; γ = 20 kN/m3
Platform friction angle (°) 40 45 50

Platform weight density (kN/m3) 19 20 21
Platform thickness (m) 0.3 0.3 0.3
54
18
Cautionary note
 Testing by Corke et al (2021):
55
Cautionary note
 Re BR470 TWf states:

 Sensitivity to input parameters – In practice, the analytical
method has proved extremely sensitive to the values used
for the platform material and subgrade strengths
 Limited range for cohesive subgrades – The calculations
are only considered valid for undrained cohesion greater
than 20 kPa and less than 80 kPa.
 Single strata subformation – The design method is only
valid for single strata with no alternative offered for
multi-layered subgrades; it is assumed that the designer is
expected to take the worst case soil parameters.
 Geosynthetic reinforcement mechanism – The proposed
method of analysis is only representative if punching type
failure occurs through the platform and in the subgrade;
56
Conclusions
 Based on the comparison of the 5 different methods,

none is consistently conservative or non-conservative
 There are cases within the set for which one method
may be relatively conservative, but these vary from
case to case
 The benchmarking data which FPS used creates a
standard against which other methods can be calibrated
for non-stabilised platforms on cohesive subgrades
 Methods which suggest thinner platforms are potentially
unsafe and need to be calibrated against the data set
57
19
Conclusions
 It appears that the use of strength factoring of the

platform in the T value method may be affecting some
results adversely, and this is being further investigated
 A similar exercise for granular subgrades is currently
being planned, and results will be published when
available
 The loading factors in BR470 are empirical in nature,
and CANNOT be taken out and used within other
methods to produce working platforms of lesser
thickness
58
Conclusions
 For stabilised platforms there is no data set available

against which to calibrate design methods
 Each supplier is working on their own methods, and will
need to verify these in a manner as robust as that in
BR470, by using full-scale testing, laboratory testing,
and numerical modelling in appropriate ways
59
Thank you
60
20
www.bre.co.uk
BR470 WORKING PLATFORMS FOR TRACKED PLANT
Use of ‘structural geosynthetic reinforcement’

– A BRE review seven years on
The guide to good practice, Working platforms for tracked plant, was prepared by BRE under the direction of an FPS Steering group,
and was published in June 2004 as Report BR470. Available evidence indicates that the guide has proved satisfactory in its principal
objective of improving safety by promoting the implementation of minimum design, installation and maintenance standards.
However, some concerns have been expressed about the way in which the effect of ‘structural geosynthetic reinforcement’ is
evaluated and it has been pointed out that the contribution of geosynthetics can be represented in ways other than that depicted
in the guide. Pending a full review of the guide, BRE has reviewed this one issue and its findings are summarised here.
The performance of working platforms reinforced with geosynthetics is complex and a wide variety of geosynthetics
with very different properties may be utilised. In addition, there are several possible failure mechanisms along with
the commonly considered punching-type failure. It is therefore unlikely that a single simple design method can be
developed which will have a universal application and which will preserve both safety and economy. The calculation
method in the guide for geosynthetic reinforced working platforms has two stages. The second stage of the
calculation, which in many cases will be the decisive consideration in determining the depth of the platform, applies
a control on how much contribution can be obtained from the inclusion of geosynthetic reinforcement.
BR470 acknowledges that there will be many situations in which alternative design approaches are acceptable. In
section 3.1 it is stated ‘On some sites, where it may be more economic, or where particularly difficult conditions are
encountered that are not covered by this guide, a more sophisticated approach is warranted.’ In practice a number
of other approaches have been adopted for the design of geogrid reinforced working platforms. These include the
load spread model which is based on an assumed redistribution of the applied load through the reinforced platform,
the bearing capacity improvement model in which it is assumed that a reinforced working platform has the effect of
increasing the bearing capacity of the subgrade by a certain multiple and the load factor model which is based on an
experimentally determined relationship between the bearing capacity of reinforced and unreinforced platforms.
Such alternative methods should only be used in situations for which they have been validated by past experience and by
appropriate experimental testing. Experimental laboratory testing should be carried out at an appropriate scale. For example,
the load should be applied through a loading plate of suitable shape and of a size commensurate with the geosynthetics
and the particle size distribution of the granular material used to represent the platform. Ideally the overall scale of the test
should be able to incorporate materials used in platform construction and a plate width or diameter of at least 0.3 m is
recommended. A test enclosure should be of sufficient size to ensure that boundary effects are not significant. Measurements
should include real-time monitoring to demonstrate the development and distribution of internal stresses and strains within
the platform and subgrade. The measurement of lateral strain within the geosynthetics would be of particular value. The
application of the experimental results to a particular design approach should be undertaken by a competent person.
Geosynthetic reinforcement for a working platform should be designed by a competent person and a number of issues
need to be considered including the position, extent, type, stiffness and strength of the reinforcement. Another critical
feature in design calculations is the assignment of design values to ground properties, geosynthetic reinforcement and
loading conditions and, since most calculation methods are likely to have an element of empiricism, it is important that
design values incorporate factors which have been found to be appropriate for the particular method of calculation.
Manufacturers of geosynthetic products may have wide experience of the behaviour of their products
in working platforms and be able to offer a cost-effective design. Where a geogrid reinforced working
platform is designed by the geosynthetic manufacturer it is particularly important to identify clearly
where responsibility lies for the design, placement and operation of the platform. The basis of the design
calculations should be stated and reference made to credible research that validates the method.
Part of the BRE Trust

www.bre.co.uk
The guide emphasises that the results of calculations should be critically appraised by a competent person.
Furthermore, all forms of guidance can only be effective in so far as they are actually followed and careful
supervision, control and monitoring of the platform on site under appropriate contractual arrangements are
essential during placement of the platform and in its subsequent use. A particular consideration for a reinforced
working platform is the vulnerability of the geosynthetic reinforcement to damage due not only to inadvertent
site activities involving excavations through the platform but also to the piling operation itself.
Summary
1. BR 470 has proved satisfactory in its principal objective of improving safety.
2. BRE has reviewed the single point about the use of alternative methods to represent
the contribution of geosynthetics instead of that depicted in the guide.
3. In principle, BR 470 can embrace alternative approaches to the design of mechanically stabilised working platforms providing:
a) the objective of safety is preserved,
b) alternative approaches are based on credible and representative research which is interpreted and
formulated according to the geotechnical discipline and validated by well documented case studies,
c) a person competent in both geotechnical engineering and geosynthetics is made responsible for the design.
For Further Information contact Ken Watts:
BRE
Bucknalls Lane Tel. +44 (0)1923 6648646
Watford Email. wattsk@bre.co.uk
WD25 9XX Web. www.bre.co.uk
Part of the BRE Trust © BRE 2011

Proceedings of the 11th International Conference on Geosynthetics
Case study: performance of a geogrid stabilised working platform

constructed over extremely soft dredged silt
Michael Dobie
Tensar International Limited, Indonesia
Andrew Lees
Tensar International Limited, Cyprus
Jiraphan Khanardnid
CUEL Limited, Thailand
ABSTRACT: This case study describes the construction of a working platform forming part of a fabrica-
tion yard for offshore equipment in Laem Chabang, Thailand. Subsoil was extremely soft dredged silt,
and loadings were high, coming from heavy cranes and the equipment being fabricated. The working plat-
form was required to provide adequate performance for many years. Various solutions were investigated,
including the use of geosynthetic materials, and the final design consisted of a granular layer stabilised
with two layers of geogrid. To verify the design, a load test was carried out using concrete slabs, which
were arranged to apply 115t over a 2m x 2m area, thereby applying almost 300 kPa contact pressure. The
test confirmed that this load could be supported by the working platform with minimal settlement, and the
observed behaviour also demonstrated how the geogrid stabilised granular layer was acting as a strength-
ened mattress, thereby sustaining greater load spread over a large area at the surface of the underlying silt.
This type of behaviour from geogrid stabilised layers is generally difficult to quantify, going far beyond
simple load spread or membrane techniques. The complex interactions were simulated by finite element
analysis to derive a new “surcharge transfer” design method for working platforms. This case study was
back-analysed using the new design method for which a good match was obtained considering the site
conditions, thereby providing valuable validation of the new design method. Importantly, this working
platform has been providing the required performance for more than 10 years since construction.
Keywords: working platform, soft subsoil, load test, design
1 INTRODUCTION
Working platforms are an essential element of many construction projects, especially where heavy plant
must be operated over soft subsoils. Such pavements are generally considered to be temporary works, of-
ten with little or no investigation and design to ensure safe operating conditions for the heavy plant in-
volved. Inadequate design of such working platforms can result in very poor working conditions, such
that frequent re-filling or re-grading may be required with associated down-time and delays. In severe
cases heavy plant, especially tracked cranes, may become unstable resulting in collapse or overturning,
and many pictures of such accidents may be found. In severe cases these accidents result in injuries or fa-
talities, such that they become health and safety issues, and inevitably lengthy investigations result, which
are likely to include detailed scrutiny of soil data, loading and the design method used to dimension the
working platform. In order to provide a more formal approach to designing working platforms, the Build-
ing Research Establishment (BRE) in United Kingdom published a good practice guide “Working plat-
forms for tracked plant” more than 10 years ago, generally referred to by its report reference, BR470
(Building Research Establishment, 2004). A detailed discussion of BR470 is beyond the scope of this pa-
per, but it does also provide for the inclusion of the benefits of geosynthetics in working platform design
and construction, which is the main theme of this paper.
Although working platforms are often built for very short term use, for example to provide access to
install piles or vertical drains, they can also be used for much longer term purposes. One common longer
term use of working platforms is for the construction of fabrication yards, in particular for the fabrication
16-21 September 2018, Seoul, Korea

of offshore equipment. Inevitably such developments will be close to the sea in order to provide suitable
access to deploy the equipment being fabricated, in which case poor ground conditions may frequently be
expected and loads from both the cranes being used and from the fabricated units are likely to be high.
This paper outlines some early experience of using geogrids in a heavy duty working platform, to-
gether with an important discussion concerning the definitions of stabilisation and reinforcement. The de-
sign and performance of a working platform built more recently at Laem Chabang in Thailand was veri-
fied by carrying out a large-scale loading test. This test provides an opportunity to make a comparison
with a “surcharge transfer” design method for working platforms developed recently by the second au-
thor.
2 WORKING PLATFORMS AND MECHANICAL STABILISATION
A good example of a working platform built as part of a fabrication yard is described by Yong et al
(1990), built at Pasir Gudang, Malaysia in 1987. This working platform was 1m thick, and used two lay-
ers of a stabilisation geogrid to provide an enhanced performance under the expected loadings. The per-
formance was investigated by carrying out trafficking trials using a heavy crane. Several years after the
initial construction, the fabrication yard was extended, and a further trafficking trial was carried out to ex-
amine the performance of the geogrid stabilised working platform, and compare this performance with a
similar profile reinforced with a woven geotextile. The details of this testing are reported by Ong & Dobie
(2013), and the cross-section through the trial section is shown in Figure 1.
2300 kN crane
with 700 kN load
2 layers of geogrid
MP MP
MP
1m thick MSL
MP
2 layers of
Deep deposit
woven geotextile MP = measurement of very soft
point Upper Marine
Clay
Figure 1. Cross-section of trial carried out on the Pasir Gudang working platform (after Ong & Dobie, 2012)
The results from the trafficking trial, carried out using a heavily loaded crawler crane, as indicated in
Figure 1, are shown in Figure 2. The difference in performance between the geogrid stabilised section and
the geotextile reinforced section is very clear to see, and on the basis of this result, the geogrid stabilised
arrangement was adopted for construction of the extension to the fabrication yard at Pasir Gudang.
Passes (no)
0 10 20 30 40
Trial procedure with geogrid
-100
(1) 8 passes along single track
Single Multiple track Single (2) 20 passes along multiple
0 track
(3) Refill ruts
Settlement (mm)
(4) 8 more passes along single

100 track
(5) Measuring settlement at three
measurement points (MP) as
200 shown on Figure 3
Trial procedure with geotextile

300 Edge of track On subgrade (1) First pass gives 350mm rut
Under track Geotextile (2) Rut filled, then further passes
quickly result in 200mm rut
400
Figure 2. Settlement versus number of passes from the second crane trafficking trial (after Ong & Dobie, 2012)

An important distinction is made in the description of the Pasir Gudang trial above, namely that the
geogrid provided the function of “stabilisation”, whereas the geotextile acted as “reinforcement”. This is
an important distinction, which has only been fully understood and established in the last 10 years or so.
In fact the title of the Yong et al paper is “Reinforced soil working platform for offshore jacket fabrica-
tion yard”, however the function of the geogrid was stabilisation, a distinction not appreciated in 1990.
The principal difference between the two mechanisms can be described as follows. In the case of rein-
forcement, relatively high strains and, therefore, high loads are created in the geosynthetic, a situation
which is very clear in reinforced soil structures such as retaining walls. In pavements the reinforcement
function is required when the geosynthetic acts as a tensioned membrane, in which case it must be an-
chored beyond the edges of the wheel-path, and a large deformation created by way of a deep rut or sur-
face depression, so that the upward component of the force generated in the deformed geosynthetic helps
to support the load. As clarified by Giroud (2006), the tensioned membrane effect is relatively small,
and can only be applied in cases of channelised traffic on unsurfaced roads, where large surface rutting
may be acceptable.
Stabilisation, or mechanical stabilisation (in order to distinguish it from lime or cement stabilisation),
takes place when aggregate or soil particles interlock with the apertures of a stiff geogrid, resulting in
confinement of the particles, as shown in Figure 3. This combination of geogrid and aggregate may be
considered as a composite. If a geogrid is able to develop this interaction effectively, then significant
benefits will result in terms of the mechanical performance of the composite layer, and these benefits will
be seen as very small surface deformation, implying very small deformation of the geogrid itself. Al-
though sophisticated discrete element modelling of mechanically stabilised layers has been carried out to
investigate this behaviour (for example, see Jas et al, 2015), the vast majority of data which demonstrate
the mechanical stabilisation benefit and confirm its magnitude are full-scale tests, both cyclic plate-
loading tests and trafficking trials, of a similar nature to the information shown in Figure 2.
Figure 3. Interlocking mechanism of stiff geogrid providing lateral confinement and stabilisation
Definitions of stabilisation by geosynthetics have been established, for example in EOTA Report TR
41 (European Organisation for Technical Approvals, 2012) stabilisation has this rather long definition:
“the beneficial consequence on the serviceability of an unbound granular layer via the inhibition of the
movement of the particles of that layer under applied load. This is the result of the mechanical effect of
confinement on an aggregate layer, resulting from the mechanism of interlock provided by a stiff geogrid
structure. The function of stabilisation is provided by the interlocking of the aggregate with the geogrid
and subsequent confinement of the particles”. Stabilisation has also been defined by ISO (International
Standards Organisation), as well as more recently by IGS (International Geosynthetics Society) who have
now included “stabilisation” as a specific geosynthetic function.
A further simple performance based definition is that effective mechanical stabilisation of an aggregate
layer results in retention of the thickness and geometry of that layer throughout the life of the pavement.
This is particularly important when considering the alternative tensioned membrane mechanism, which
relies on reinforcement. Giroud (2006) also made the important point that the tensioned membrane is not
applicable to unpaved areas, because the traffic is not channelised. Working platforms are trafficked ar-
eas, therefore the only mechanism relevant to the use of geosynthetics in this situation is stabilisation.

3 WORKING PLATFORM BUILT AT LAEM CHABANG
An offshore equipment fabrication yard in Laem Chabang, Thailand, required extension in 2007 in order
to increase capacity. The available area had been used to dump silt dredged from the adjacent wharf-front
during operations to maintain adequate water depth. The dredged silt was of an extremely soft consis-
tency, which can be seen in the left-hand photo in Figure 4. Various techniques were considered in order
to create a working platform over the dredged silt, including the use of geotextiles. An alternative method
was proposed using stabilisation geogrids, based on previous experience of successful installations, such
as at Pasir Gudang described in the previous section. Due to the high loads expected, both from cranes
and the offshore equipment being fabricated, a relatively thick working platform was suggested, including
two layers of a stabilisation geogrid. Being a fabrication yard, the expected working life of the platform
would most likely be many years, as outlined briefly in the introduction,
As part of the procedure for verifying the proposed design, a simple load test was carried out using
large concrete slabs which were readily available on the site as aids to fabrication. A view of the final
load test arrangement on reaching maximum load is shown in the right-hand photo in Figure 4. It can be
seen that the load is applied by three small concrete slabs and five large slabs. The details of this final test
arrangement are given in Figure 5, together with approximate dimensions and layer thicknesses. The final
load resulted in a mean pressure of almost 300 kPa over the 4 m2 area of the lowest slab causing a major
crack (see Figure 4 right) to develop around the perimeter of the stabilised area.
Figure 4. Laem Chabang fabrication yard: initial ground conditions (left) and final load test arrangement (right)
Based on the results of the loading test, it was decided to use the pavement construction method indi-
cated in the lower part of Figure 5, including two layers of stabilisation geogrid, over all locations where
the silt was present, with a total area of about 50,000 m2. This construction was carried out in 2007, and
the working platform is still providing adequate service at the current date, around 10 years later. During
its working life the platform has supported a wide range of heavy loads, from large crawler and other
cranes to the items of equipment being pre-fabricated.
Total load = 115t 5 slabs @ 20t

Base area  4m 2
Pressure on base  290 kPa

Bearing capacity of subsoil
 43 kPa
3 slabs @ 5t
Compacted crushed rock (0.65m) Extremely

Compacted sand (0.9m) with 2 layers of Geogrid A soft dredged
silt subsoil
Figure 5. Details of the mechanically stabilised working platform at Laem Chabang and load test arrangement

4 SURCHARGE TRANSFER DESIGN METHOD
4.1 Background
Calculation of the bearing capacity of a granular layer overlying a soft soil arises often in the design of
foundations and unpaved roads as well as working platforms. Different methods exist, perhaps the most
commonly used being the semi-empirical Hannah and Meyerhof (1980) method and the load spread
method, as summarized by Craig and Chua (1990). The drawbacks of these methods include the difficulty
of determining key parameters defining the complex interaction between the layers and including the
effects of stabilisation of the granular layer. Many studies (e.g. Adams & Collin, 1997; Yetimoglu et al,
1994; Das et al, 1994) have shown the significantly improved bearing capacity brought by geogrid
stabilisation, yet no reliable, simple method of its calculation has been available.
Lees (2017a) addressed this need by identifying an approximately linear relationship between dimen-
sionless bearing capacity (qu/qs) and geometrical (H/B) ratios (where qu and qs are the bearing capacity of
the layered system and subgrade alone respectively, H is the granular layer thickness and B is the founda-
tion width). The slope of the linear relationship was called the load transfer efficiency T which can be de-
termined by full-scale testing and parametric study by numerical analysis. It was found to vary exponen-
tially with subgrade shear strength as shown for the centrifuge test data (Okamura et al, 1998) for strip
and circular surface footings on a sand layer overlying clay in Figure 6.
13 8
su
11 strip 22 PS
circular 9 6
9  13
19
qu /qs
7 24 4
45 T = 24su-0.63
5 47
2
slope T 52
3
75
86
1 0
0 1 2 3 0 20 40 60 80 100
H/B su (kPa)
Figure 6. Load-transfer efficiency T derived from centrifuge test data of bearing capacity of sand layer overlying
clay (Okamura et al, 1998).
Ballard et al (2011) obtained a similar exponential relationship between an equivalent load spread an-
gle and subgrade shear strength in a parametric study using discrete layer optimisation techniques.
Back-analysis of a number of instrumented plate load tests on granular layers overlying soft subgrades
(Lees, 2017a) revealed that geogrid stabilisation increases the load transfer efficiency T of granular layers
by several mechanisms, as shown in Figure 7. The enhanced strength of the stabilised granular layer re-
sults in punching shear occurring at a higher surface load and at a greater angle, which improves load
spread to the subgrade and forces the bearing capacity mechanism deeper and wider, thereby further en-
hancing overall bearing capacity. Additionally, more of the applied load is transferred beyond the punch-
ing shear mechanism to a region where it counter-balances the subgrade bearing capacity mechanism, al-
lowing larger load to be applied at the surface.
To take account of all these beneficial mechanisms explicitly in a design method would result in an
overly-complicated analysis. Rather, they are all taken into account by advanced numerical methods using
finite element analysis (FEA). Parametric study including the range of parameters encountered in
practical working platform applications was used to derive relationships between T and su for a range of
granular layer types, with and without geogrid products, validated by full-scale testing to bearing capacity
failure. Constitutive model parameters for the granular layers were obtained from very large triaxial
compression tests performed on compacted specimens of the material with and without geogrid products
installed at the mid-height.

Applied load Applied load
Some surcharge NON-STABILISED More surcharge STABILISED

transfer GRANULAR transfer GRANULAR
LAYER LAYER
Wider punching shear

CLAY SUB- CLAY SUB-
Subgrade GRADE GRADE
shear plane Shear plane
forced deeper
and wider
Figure 7. Mechanisms of bearing capacity improvement brought by geogrid-stabilisation.

Rather than modelling the geogrid explicitly (e.g. with tensile membrane elements), the stabilising ef-
fect of geogrid on the granular layer was simulated using the c′-profile method (Lees, 2017b) by adding
an increment of strength to the soil in the form of apparent cohesion c′ at the geogrid elevation, decreas-
ing to the non-stabilised value at, typically, 0.3m above and below the geogrid plane. This method has
been found to produce significantly more accurate simulations of plate load tests of geogrid-stabilised
soils than the membrane element, as described by Lees (2017b).
The derived T-su relationships can then be used in the routine ultimate limit state design of working
platforms on fine-grained subgrades for the granular layer and geogrid product types included. This de-
sign method was coined the “surcharge transfer” design method after one of the geogrid-stabilisation
mechanisms that it takes into account.
4.2 Application to this case study

Back-calculation of the T value of the stabilised granular layer utilised in this case study is presented in
Figure 8. The relationships between T and subgrade shear strength were derived for a granular material
with and without the geogrid used at this site (denoted “Geogrid A”). The bearing capacity qu of 290 kPa
obtained in the test with the estimated subgrade bearing capacity qs of 43 kPa gives a bearing capacity
ratio of 6.7. Using the linear relationship in Equation (1) adopted in the new design method with 1.55m
granular layer thickness and 2m loaded width, a T value of 7.4 was obtained. This was plotted on the
graph of T-su relationships derived by FEA parametric study shown in Figure 8 and was located close to
the line with “Geogrid A” stabilising a granular layer for B/L=1.
qu H
1T (1)
qs B
1 . 55
6 .7  1  T  T  7 .4 (2)
2
where qu = applied stress, qs = ultimate bearing capacity of the underlying subgrade, T = load transfer
efficiency, H = thickness of granular layer and B = width of applied load.
Therefore, the location of the point from this case study on Figure 8 provides good validation of this
new design approach. In fact, the true bearing capacity may be higher because failure occurred around the
perimeter of the stabilised layer.

8
qu = 290 kPa "Geogrid A", B/L = 1
No geogrid, B/L = 1
6 "Geogrid A", B/L = 0
B = L = 2m
H = 1.55 m No geogrid, B/L = 0
Stabilised granular layer Load test
T
4
Soft silty clay subgrade
su = 7 kPa
qs = 43 kPa 2
0
0 20 40 60 80 100
su (kPa)
Figure 8. Surcharge transfer design method applied to case study.
5 DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSIONS
Working platforms are likely to be an important element of many civil engineering projects, either as
temporary works or for more permanent use, but with a target to provide safe access for heavy plant over
soft or weak subsoils. The good practice guide BR470 (Building Research Establishment, 2004) provides
guidance to designers and operators of working platforms, and although published in the United King-
dom, it is being used as a guide in other countries. BR470 does provide guidance on the use of geosyn-
thetics, and importantly BRE published a brief supplementary document in 2011, entitled “Use of struc-
tural geosynthetic reinforcement” (Building Research Establishment, 2011) and described as “a review
seven years on”. Importantly this document acknowledges that BR470 can embrace alternative ap-
proaches for the design of mechanically stabilised working platforms, provided that the objective of
safety is preserved, and that the approaches are based on credible and representative research. This re-
search should be interpreted and formulated according to the geotechnical discipline and validated by
well documented case studies.
This paper describes two working platforms, built 20 years apart, but both as fabrication yards for off-
shore equipment. The platform at Pasir Gudang was tested using simple trafficking trials with a heavy
crane, in both cases indicating that the geogrid stabilised platform provided adequate performance. The
fabrication yard at Laem Chabang, which is the main subject of this paper, was built over slightly poorer
ground conditions, and is slightly thicker, although consisting of a combination of a lower geogrid stabi-
lised sand layer and an upper crushed rock aggregate layer. The large-scale load test carried out on this
working platform provides valuable information about its performance.
A long time after both fabrication yards were constructed, Lees (2017a) developed a new “surcharge
transfer” design method for working platforms, which is described in the previous section. This provides
an alternative method for designing working platforms incorporating the beneficial effects of stabilisation
geogrids, compared to the method given in the original BR470 guide (Building Research Establishment,
2004) which only incorporates the strength of the geosynthetic. However the method is based on credible
and representative geotechnical principles and research, a target given in the 2011 supplementary review
of BR470 (Building Research Establishment, 2004) outlined above. This research includes both very
large triaxial tests to provide data in order to establish fundamental behaviour of the geogrid/aggregate
stabilised composite, as well as numerical analysis in order to apply this behaviour to the complex prob-
lem of designing a working platform. Importantly the large-scale load test carried out on the Laem Cha-
bang working platform provides validation by a well-documented case study, also a target of the BRE470
supplementary advice (Building Research Establishment, 2004).
Both working platforms described in this paper were constructed using stabilisation geogrids, although
the term was not known in 1987, and was only just being developed at the time when the Laem Chabang
platform was constructed. However it is now well established that this distinction concerning the function
of a geosynthetic used to enhance the mechanical performance of a working platform is vital. Stabilisa-
tion geogrids provide enhanced performance with very little surface deformation of the platform, com-
pared to reinforcing geosynthetics which must use the tensioned membrane mechanism in order to de-

velop a beneficial mechanical effect. Although suitable for channelised traffic on unsurfaced pavements
which can tolerate the large surface ruts required to form the tensioned membrane in the geosynthetic, this
mechanism is not applicable to the design of working platforms, which are unpaved areas with random
traffic patterns. The “surcharge transfer” design method for working platforms is based on the use of
granular materials combined with stabilisation geogrids for which the fundamental behaviour has been es-
tablished by carrying out very large triaxial tests.
REFERENCES
Adams, M.T. & Collin, J.G. 1997. Large model spread footing load tests on geosynthetic reinforced soil founda-
tions. Journal of Geotechnical and Geoenvironmental Engineering, Vol. 123(1), pp. 66-72.
Ballard, J.-C., Delvosal, P., Yonatan, P., Holeyman, A. & Kay, S. 2011. Simplified VH equations for foundation
punch-through sand into clay. Frontiers in Offshore Geotechnics II (ed. Gourvenec & White). CRC:London: pp.
655-660.
Building Research Establishment. 2004. Working platforms for tracked plant. BR470, BRE, United Kingdom.
Building Research Establishment. 2011. BR470 working platforms for tracked plant – use of “structural geosyn-
thetic reinforcement”. BRE review seven years on, United Kingdom.
Craig, W.H. & Chua, K. 1990. Deep penetration of spud-can foundations on sand and clay. Géotechnique, Vol. 40,
pp. 541-556.
Das, B.M., Shin, E.C. & Omar, M.T. 1994. The bearing capacity of surface strip foundations on geogrid-reinforced
sand and clay – a comparative study. Geotechnical and Geological Engineering, Vol. 12, pp. 1-14.
European Organisation for Technical Approvals. 2012. Non-reinforcing hexagonal geogrid for the stabilisation of
unbound granular layers by way of interlock with the aggregate. EOTA Technical Report TR 41, prepared by
KIWA.
Giroud, J.P. 2006. Functions of geosynthetics in road applications. Seminar on road pavements in Indonesia, In-
donesian Chapter of the International Geosynthetics Society, Jakarta, Indonesia.
Hannah, A.M. & Meyerhof, G.G. 1980. Design charts for ultimate bearing capacity of foundations on sand overly-
ing soft clay. Canadian Geotechnical Journal, Vol. 17, pp. 300-303.
Jas, H., Stahl, M., Konietzky, H., te Kamp, L. & Oliver, T. 2015. Discrete element modelling of a trafficked sub-
base stabilised with biaxial and multi-axial geogrids to compare stabilisation mechanisms. Proceedings of Geo-
synthetics 2015, 15-18th February, Portland, USA, pp 245-254.
Lees, A. 2017a. Bearing capacity of a stabilized granular layer on clay subgrade. Proceedings of the 10th Interna-
tional Conference on the Bearing Capacity of Roads, Railways and Airfields (eds. Loizos et al), 28-30 June, pp.
1135-1142.
Lees, A. 2017b. Simulation of geogrid stabilization by finite element analysis. Proceedings of the International
Conference on Soil Mechanics and Geotechnical Engineering, Seoul, 18-22nd September, pp. 1377-1380.
Ong, R. & Dobie, M.J.D. 2013. Working platform for heavy tracked plant constructed using geogrid over soft
ground. Proceedings 18th Southeast Asian Geotechnical & Inaugural AGSSEA Conference (eds Leung et al),
Singapore, 28-31 May, pp. 129-134.
Okamura, M., Takemura, J. & Kimura, T. 1998. Bearing capacity predictions of sand overlying clay based on limit
equilibrium methods. Soils and Foundations, Vol. 38(1), pp. 181-194.
Yetimoglu, T., Wu, J.T.H. & Saglamer, A. 1994. Bearing capacity of rectangular footings on geogrid-reinforced
sand. Journal of Geotechnical Engineering, Vol. 120(12), pp. 2083-2099.
Yong, K.Y., Chan, S.F. & Lee, K.K. 1990. Reinforced soil working platform for offshore jacket fabrication yard.
Proceedings 4th International Conference on Geotextiles, Geomembranes and Related Products, The Hague,
Netherlands, pp 223-226.
View publication stats

Prediction 0odels for 'eformation and 3unching 6hear 5esistance of
*eogrid-Ueinforced :orking 3latforms under 7racked 3lant
Abhinandan Khansari,1 Lars Vollmert,2 Christopher Quirk,3 and

Jörg Klompmaker4
1
BBG Bauberatung Geokunststoffe GmbH & Co. KG, Espelkamp, Germany; e-mail:
akhansari@bbgeo.com
2
lvollmert@bbgeo.com
3
NAUE Geosynthetics Ltd., Warrington, United Kingdom; e-mail: cquirk@naue.co.uk
4
jklompmaker@bbgeo.com
ABSTRACT
The majority of available models in practice to predict the punching shear resistance of working
platforms may result in considerable overestimation of platform thickness due to
conservative simplifications in the development process of the design models. With this
background, systematic large laboratory tests were conducted to identify and overcome the
shortcomings in the available design models with a particular focus on the popular model by
BRE470. The focus is laid on achieving an improved understanding of the parameters and
processes affecting the behavior of geogrid reinforced working platforms under concentrated
loads. In this regard, the working platform is subject to extreme loads representing track
loads. The gained improved knowledge from laboratory tests is then used to modify the
available bearing capacity equation to account for the effect of a footing punching through a
geosynthetic reinforced granular platform material overlying a soft cohesive subgrade. In
addition, the data is further analyzed to develop a simplified semi-empirical equation to predict
the immediate deformation of working platforms subject to loads from semi-rigid tracks. The
developed prediction models are finally applied for the boundary conditions of the laboratory
tests and the accuracy of models in terms of bearing capacity and deformation is examined.
INTRODUCTION
Dimensions of piling rigs and cranes as well as their operating loads have grown considerably
over the last years as the demand to install larger structural components is increasing (e.g.
piled foundations, on-shore wind turbines, etc.). This has resulted in an increasing
number of applications using geogrid-reinforced base courses and increased knowledge of
understanding the interaction of reinforcement to stabilize granular soils (e.g. Vollmert & Bräu,
2018). Transferring the beneficial behavior to working platforms results in a competitive
solution to thicker unreinforced aggregate layers, especially in terms of both costs and
response to heavy loads induced by tracked plant. Hardstands for this increasingly heavy
equipment demand a reliable, safe and economical ultimate limit state design procedure which
enables a complete verification of safety against different failure modes.
Geosynthetics Conference 2021 ©Industrial Fabrics Assocaition International 505

a) b)
Figure 1. Examples of piling rig accidents: a) overturned due to soil low bearing capacity of
working platform in Germany 2018; b) at quay in Emsworth, Australia at 30th July 2019
Currently applied design procedures for geogrid reinforced working platforms being
exposed to high concentrated loads caused by tracked plant mainly consist of two analyses:
(i) Ultimate Limit State analysis to prove sufficient punching shearing resistance of the
reinforced platform subject to the high localised forces;
(ii) Serviceability Limit State analysis to restrict total and differential settlements of
working platforms under tracked plant overlying the soft cohesive soil.
For an Ultimate Limit State (ULS) design of working platforms, considerable advances in
design and analysis of reinforced working platforms is achieved through the contribution of several
research studies and design standards such as the popular methods of load spreading angles,
BRE470 etc. Among these models, the model from BRE470 is one of the most popular models
due to its simplicity even though that, the limitation of this model is addressed in several research
studies (e.g. Dobie et al., 2019; Scotland et al., 2019). In general, the main weakness of the BRE40
method can be summarized as:
the model does not consider the curved shear planes develop between the edge of the
track and the formation and assumes a vertical shear plane which underestimates the
working platform shear strength;
the effect of the geogrid tensile strength in the basic resistance equation proposed by
BRE470 has not been considered around the perimeter of the track despite the
symmetric shape of track;
the effect of relative subgrade-working platform stiffness in the reduction of working
platform shear strength as suggested by Hanna and Meyerhof (1980) is neglected in
BRE model.
For Serviceability Limit State (SLS) designs of working platforms, less attention is paid to
the estimation of immediate deformations underneath tracked plant and most of the designs in
practice focus solely on the ULS design, which addresses the punching shear resistance of the
working platform.
Therefore, new knowledge and modelling techniques need to be generated for both SLS
and ULS designs of reinforced working platforms underneath high concentrated loads. Indeed, it
is crucial for both, design optimization and safety assessments, to develop an improved

understanding of the process involved in the failure mechanisms and deformation behavior of
working platforms against punching loads. Therefore, the objective of this study is to
(i) enhance the available model from BRE470 to determine an optimized thickness of the
reinforced working platform and;
(ii) provide a simple equation to account for the effect of reinforcement on the immediate
settlement of working platform under tracked plant. This has been conducted on the
basis of results from two large scale laboratory tests performed at the Technical
Universities in Stuttgart and Aachen, Germany.
LABORATORY TESTS IN STUTTGART
For the laboratory tests in small-scale condition to investigate the bearing capacity of working
platforms, several phenomena such as scale effect and the effect of boundary conditions might
influence the accuracy of the results. Therefore, large scale experiments were performed on
geogrid reinforced working platforms by Stuttgart university in the framework of a DFG (Deutsche
Forschungsgemeinschaft) project in Germany (Deutsche Forschungsgemeinschaft). The main
objective of these experiments was to investigate the effect of reinforcement on the behavior of
the working platform and consequently develop a conceptual model to estimate the working
platform thickness and the type of reinforcement under localized high loads from rigid footings.
The model setup of the laboratory tests for the working platform over soft clay subject to
loads from footing is shown in Figure 2.
272 cm
Displacement transducer
Strain gauges
25 cm 25 cm
Hydraulic Cylinder
Force Transducer
482 cm
35 cm
Working platform
Geogrid
20 cm
Strain Geocomposite
gauges (Geogrid + Force Transducer
80 cm
geotextile)
Soft clay (a) (b)
Figure 2. Model setup: a) cross section; b) plan view
Loads of increasing magnitude (P=10, 20, 40, 50 etc.) are applied on the working platform
to allow for an incremental comparison of results for reinforced versus non-reinforced platforms
and to enable a trackback estimation of maximum allowable bearing capacity. The model is subject
to loads from a rectangular shaped plate with the dimension of 25 cm x 35 cm. The geometry of
model is considered to represent a prototype problem with a scale of 1/3. The width of the box and
the distance between the footing and the wall is chosen large enough to minimize the boundary
effects (footing width / box width < 0.1). The settlements in several positions underneath the
loaded area corresponding to each load step is measured by the displacement transducers. Different

platforms (including un-reinforced, with one geogrid layer, with two geogrid layers) are set up to
investigate the effect of reinforcement. In this paper, the results from the un-reinforced platform
versus platform with two geogrid layers are focused. The results show that, the ultimate allowable
load to be applied on the model with reinforcement (82.5 kN) is moderately higher (ca. 25%) than
the load on the non-reinforced model (67.5 kN), Figure 3. Accordingly, larger deformations were
observed in the non-reinforced working platform at the different loading steps, especially before
the ultimate bearing capacity of the working platform was achieved (loads smaller than P=25 kN
as shown in Figure 8a).
Distance from the middle in m
10 kN
20 kN
Settlement (cm)
40 kN
50 kN
67.6 kN
Working platform
20 cm
Geotextile
80 cm
soft clay
Figure 3. Recorded settlement and ultimate bearing capacity for: a) reinforced working
platform and; b) unreinforced working platform
The test results showed that, the extreme loading of the working platform cause large and
deep shear failures at the perimeter of plate and further away far from the loaded plate.
LABORATORY TESTS IN RWTH AACHEN
Elastic and immediate settlement will occur directly after the application of loads from the tracks
of a heavy machine. The magnitude of the developing settlements is a function of the geotechnical
properties of the working platform and subsoil. Among the soil parameters, which affect the
immediate settlement, the modulus of elasticity of the working platform is the most decisive
parameter to influence the magnitude of the settlement. Several experimental and numerical
studies have revealed that, the application of geogrids in working platforms may significantly
increase the soil mechanical parameters (e.g. modulus of elasticity). With this background, large
triaxial tests of 500 mm diameter and 1.1 m height have been carried out at the Institute of
Foundation Engineering, Soil Mechanics and Waterways Construction at RWTH Aachen
university for quantification of the effect of geogrid application on the soil characteristics.
Figure 4 a) shows the test setup, while the number of geogrid layers has been varied. Strain gauges

have been applied to the welded geogrid. Figure 4 b) shows the development of strains within the
reinforcement at a strain of the soil sample of 2 %. The maximum strain required to stabilize the
sample is limited to approx. 0.5%. The results from the tests revealed a significant improvement
of soil bearing capacity and modulus of elasticity due to the application of geogrid reinforcement.
ig
(Figure gu 9)
4 c and Figure
3 layers of geogrid
unreinforced
(a) (b) (c)
Figure 4. Large scale triaxial tests at RWTH Aachen university (Ruiken, 2013)
a) test setup b) strain development of a geogrid placed in the centre of the sample with
three layers of Secugrid®30/30 Q6 at a uniaxial strain of the sample of e1 = 1 % c) increase
of appliable stress of a sample with three layers of geogrid Secugrid®30/30 Q1 compared to
an unreinforced sample
PREDICTION MODEL FOR PUNCHING RESISTANCE
The ultimate bearing capacity of a single or multi-layered soil is generally determined according
to Terzaghi theory (1943) which has been developed by the extension of Prandtl plastic failure
theory (1921). Several models have been proposed so far, to refine the solution as provided by the
Terzaghi’s bearing capacity formula.
Track with length “L”
Actual failure plane

qk
Ca Ca ૎‫ܘ‬
H ࢽ࢖ Platform
Pp ઼ ઼ Pp
۱u Subgrade
BRE470 ࢽ࢙
failure plane
lane
Figure 5. Punching shear failure mechanism of layered soils according to Meyerhof &
Hanna (1978)

The bearing capacity of layered soil system for the case of dense working platforms over
soft clay has been studied for both strip and circular footings (Meyerhof 1974). Meyerhof (1974)
suggested that for the case of loose sand over stiff clay the bearing capacity is limited to the top
layer, which means that the failure surface is also limited to the top layer and pressure does not
reach down to the bottom layer. For a stiff working platform over a soft clay however, the scenario
may be different. The developed theoretical models assume that the failure plane may extend
through the soft underlaying soil. Moreover, the laboratory tests and some available conceptual
models consider the curved shear planes develop between the edge of the track and the formation
(see Figure 5) even though that the majority of simplified models in practice (including BRE470)
take a vertical shear plane into account.
The analytical based model by BRE470 is one of the most popular models which covers
designs for both reinforced and unreinforced platforms for different uniform subsoil conditions.
The main reason for this popularity is probably the wide range of application along with its
simplicity. However, the BRE470 model has a high tendency to produce safe (and conservative)
results which has been evaluated and addressed in several publications. (e.g. Dobie et al., 2019;
Scotland et al., 2019). In fact, the analytical method is based on classical bearing capacity methods
for two layered soils (dense soil over weak soil) but uses the concept of punching shear capacity
within the platform as suggested by the experimental model developed by Meyerhof and Hanna
(1978). For development of model in BRE470 however, several extreme simplifications are made
which leads to the conservative estimation of platform thickness.
With this background the methodology as depicted in Figure 6 was planned in this study
to improve the BRE equation based on the model from Hanna and Meyerhof (1980) and according
to the experience gained from the Stuttgart large scale model tests. For the punching shear failure,
the BRE method is modified to account for the footing punching through a geosynthetic reinforced
granular platform material overlying a soft cohesive subgrade.
In a “First Step”, the large-scale experiments from Stuttgart university were used to
investigate the behaviour of the working platform over soft soil in terms of settlements, ultimate
resistance of platform, failure mode and type of failure. The test programme is planned to support
the development of the model in Step 2.
In the “Second Step”, the model from BRE470 is modified according to the basic Hanna
and Meyerhof’s graphs and equation. Generally, the following corrections are undertaken to
achieve a safe and optimized model: (i) unlike the model from BRE470 which provides equations
in a 2D environment, for the development of the new model the geotechnical problem is
investigated in a 3D environment considering the symmetry of the problem. This led to the
development of 3D equations to predict the acting and resisting forces; (ii) Geogrid tensile strength
has been activated at the perimeter of the track considering the relevant tensile strengths in
transverse and longitudinal directions; (iii) A reduction factor (as recommended by Meyerhof) has
been implemented in the model to reduce the working platform shear strength as a function of
relative bearing capacity of working platform to subgrade. The BRE model neglects the
dependency of platform punching strength to the soft soil bearing capacity. The weakness of the
main proposed model in the determination of the platform shear strength was covered by
implementation of a correction factor based on the study by Burd and Frydman (1997); (iv) unlike
BRE470 which considers a vertical shear failure plane, the actual shape of the shear plane (see the
inclined failure plane in Figure 5) is taken into account which may reduce the effect of the lateral
passive resistance. The angle can be estimated based on laboratory tests considering the condition
of subgrade, working platform and type of reinforcement. The main parameters affecting the

platform thickness and reinforcement tensile strength are identified as track dimensions, track
loading, platform and subsoil shear strengths, track spacing and stress distribution angle through
the reinforced platform.
Model for punching shear STEP 2: Semi-empirical model for Punching
resistance of working platforms Shear Strength
(i) Equilibrium equations in 3D
STEP 1: Laboratory tests environment
Large scale laboratory tests in (ii) Mobilisation of geogrid

Improvement of the model from tensile strength at the perimeter
Stuttgart BRE470 based on Meyerhof & of track
Hanna for geogrid reinforced
(iii) Implementation of punching
working platforms
strength reduction factor based on
Analysis of tests data related to
relative stiffness of working
punching bearing capacity of working
platform to subgrade
platform over soft clay
(iv) consideration of pyramidic soil
failure in working platform
STEP 3: Validation
Validation of developed semi-empirical
Model for punching shear strength of
platform against Stuttgart tests
STEP 4: Set up KEM models

Development of KEM model for
rotational stability of working platforms
over clayey soil
STEP 5: Parameter Study

Parameter Study:
Rotational failure (KEM model)
vs.
Punching failure (semi-empirical model)
Figure 6. Applied methodology for development of the prediction model for punching shear
resistance of reinforced working platform
In the “Third Step” the developed semi-empirical model was applied to estimate the
allowable pressure over the working platform to the lab tests in Stuttgart considering the boundary
condition of each test. Load settlement curve related to a certain test is shown in Figure 7 (left).
As shown in the figure, the ultimate resistance of working platform is obtained with 285.7 kPa (25
kN / B / L) for this particular test. The developed model is this study is then applied for the test
condition to predict the maximum allowable load on the working platform. The maximum bearing
capacity of the working platform is estimated considering applying load versus settlement. As
shown in Figure 7 and 3b, increasing the load from 20 kN to 40 kN has resulted a dramatic
settlement of working platform thus the ultimate bearing capacity is expected to be between these
values. As shown in Figure 7 (right) the ultimate bearing capacity by the model in this study is
estimated with 250 kPa. Afterwards, the original model from BRE470 is implemented to predict
the allowable loads on the working platform. As can be seen, the model from BRE470 has
dramatically underestimated the allowable loads on working platform (on the safe side). The
further results for the prediction model vs. tests are shown in Figure 7 (right). The area below the
line is the safe zone where the predicted allowable load is lower than the measured soil bearing
capacity. The proposed model in this study and the BRE model are applied to estimate the
allowable pressure on the working platform. The result shows that, the developed model in this
study tends to predict safe and optimised results (utilisation factor between 0.7 to 0.95). In contrast,
even though that the model in BRE has proposed safe results, the allowable load is much smaller

than the platform bearing capacity. Therefore, it can be concluded that, the BRE model has
produced very conservative results (utilisation factor between 0.4 to 0.7).
Point load on plate (kN)

q model vs. q test
10 25 100
0 290
Model in this Study
2 270 BRE Model
Settlement D (cm)
4 P = 25 kN
250
q model (kPa)
6
230
8
210
10
190
12
170
14
16 150
18 130
130 180 230 280
q test (kPa)
Figure 7. Allowable pressure on working platform: developed model vs. large scale
laboratory tests from Stuttgart university
In addition to the semi-empirical model as developed in this study derived from Meyerhof’s
model, a Kinematic Element Model (KEM) is set up (Step Four) to investigate the rotational and
overall stability of the working platform. The KEM model implements the rigid body approach to
examine the equilibrium state, thus enabling a full interaction of soil wedges with the intersecting
geosynthetic reinforcement. The rotational and overall stability of the working platform might be
even more dominant when the construction equipment is positioned close to the edge of working
platform.
The KEM and the developed model in this study are applied (Step five) to perform a
systematic parametric study by variation of the most influencing parameters affecting the ultimate
bearing capacity of the working platform (e.g. soil shear strength, loads, geometry of tracks, etc.).
The preliminary results show that, while the stability of working platforms overlying firm to hard
cohesive subsoil (approx. cu > 30 kN/m2) is commonly governed by the soils punching shear
strength, the failure mode of working platforms over very soft to soft cohesive soil may be
governed by rotational slip circles. Therefore, it is recommended to investigate the overall and
rotational stability of the platform (especially when the heavy machine is positioned close to the
platform’s edge) during the design phase.
According to the preliminary KEM results in this study, further development of the
available models in practice is required to take into account the rotational and overall failure modes
of working platforms.
PREDICTION MODEL FOR IMMEDIATE SETTLEMENT
While several design guidelines provide methods and equations for the prediction of the punching
shear strength of the working platform, less attention is paid so far to the estimation of
deformations underneath the tracked plant. For the design of working platforms under tracked

plant, the relevant settlement is mostly immediate settlement which occurs directly after the
application of the load without a change in the moisture content of the soil. In general, foundations
are not perfectly flexible and are embedded at a certain depth below the ground surface. It is
however recommendable to evaluate the distribution of the contact pressure under a foundation
along with the settlement profile under idealized conditions.
For a perfectly flexible foundation resting on an elastic material such as saturated clay, if
the foundation is subjected to a uniformly distributed load, the contact pressure will be uniform
and the foundation will experience a catenary profile. On the other hand, if a perfectly rigid
foundation is resting on the ground surface, the foundation will undergo a uniform settlement and
the contact pressure will be redistributed.
Theoretically, for a perfectly flexible foundation the settlement can be expressed by the
following equation, as derived from the theory of elasticity:
ଵିఓೞమ
S = Dı (ĮB) ‫ܫ‬௦ ‫ܫ‬௙ Eq. (1)
ாೞ
Where:
Dı = net applied pressure on the foundation
ȝs = Poisson’s ratio of soil
Es = weighted average modulus of elasticity related to reinforced working platform und subsoil
under the foundation up to z = 4B
B = the width of track for estimation of maximum deformation
Is = shape factor
If = depth factor
Į= factor that depends on the location on the foundation where settlement is being calculated
According to Eq. (1), the influencing parameters can be classified into (i) geometrical
parameters; (ii) load parameters and; (iii) soil geotechnical parameters. While less uncertainties in
determination of geometrical and load parameters during the design process of working platforms
is expected, the correct estimation of soil parameters (especially through application of geogrid
reinforcement) is known as the most challenging task for an accurate settlement analysis.
Nevertheless, it is crucial to implement the correct value of elasticity modulus as well as Poisson
ratio for a reliable deformation estimation of the working platform. Therefore, the focus of this
study is on the general equation for immediate deformation of shallow foundation to account for
the effect of geogrid stabilization and reinforcement of the working platform material. As a result,
a simplified relation is proposed to predict the soil elasticity modulus as a function of geogrid
stiffness and the number of reinforcement layers.
For this purpose, the data from the large triaxial tests at RWTH Aachen university is
analyzed to investigate the effect of soil stabilization due to application of 1, 3, and 5 geogrid
layers. The results from the triaxial tests are depicted in Figure 8 (left). Accordingly, the equivalent
elasticity modulus of the soil has been extracted using the classical geotechnical equation
according to triaxial tests and are shown in Figure 8 (right). The best fitted exponential function
has been determined by statistical analysis of the data and the function is proposed for the particular
geogrid as used in this study.
The result from laboratory tests shows that, the application of laid and welded geogrids
with a defined initial tensile stiffness may increase the soil elasticity modulus up to ca. 70%.

450,00 1,8
400,00 1,7
350,00
1,6
300,00 3 Layers 5 Layers
Es,R / Es,UR
1,5
ʍ1 (KN/m2)
250,00
1,4
200,00
1,3
150,00 1 Layer
Un-reinforced
1,2
100,00 1 layer
3 Layers 1,1
50,00
5 Layers
Un-reinforced
0,00 1,0
0,00 2,00 4,00 6,00 8,00 10,00 12,00 0 1000 2000 3000 4000 5000
ɸ΀й΁ J (kN/m)
Figure 8. Improvement of soil mechanical behavior due to application of geogrid

reinforcement
The modified deformation model is then applied to predict the settlements underneath the
footing as measured in laboratory tests from Stuttgart tests taking into account the boundary
conditions as defined for the experiments (Dı N3Dȝs = 0.3, Es,UR = 80000 kN/m for sandy
material, B=0.25 m, L=0.35 m). For the test with two layers of a laid and welded geogrid
reinforcement a total stiffness of 600 kN/m (@ 2% strain) are applied. Therefore, the Es,R can be
predicted to 112720 kN/m according to Figure 8 and the proposed equation for estimation of
equivalent elasticity. For this particular case study (Stuttgart test), the developed settlement
equation estimates an immediate settlement of 21 mm. The comparison of recorded data (see
Figure 3a) against the calculated settlement shows an inconsistency of less than 5% for this
particular test.
CONCLUSION
The main objective of this study was to (i) generate a knowledge base through performing large
scale laboratory tests to improve the understanding of the processes involved in the interaction of
laid and welded geogrids and aggregates within working platforms; (ii) develop an optimized and
reliable methodological approach for the prediction of the maximum bearing capacity of working
platforms by overcoming the weaknesses of the BRE470 design methodology; (iii) quantify the
effect of geogrid reinforcement on improvement of soil mechanical behavior and accordingly
develop equation for the prediction of total immediate deformation of working platforms. In this
regard the key achievement of this study can be summarized as follows:
(i) The large-scale laboratory tests on reinforced and non-reinforced working platforms
under a rectangular plate at Stuttgart university along with the large scale triaxial tests
at Aachen university were applied to improve the knowledge associated with the
ultimate limit state (bearing capacity) and serviceability limit state (deformation)
analyses of working platforms. Both tests revealed that the application of a laid and
welded geogrid will improve soil mechanical properties and will enhance the working
platform behavior in terms of bearing capacity and deformation.
(ii) Given the knowledge and practice gaps in the design of working platform (i.e.
aforementioned weaknesses and shortcomings from BRE470) and considering the

results from large scale laboratory tests in Stuttgart a modified model is developed as
derived from BRE470 and Hanna and Meyerhof (1980). The verification of model
versus the data from large scale model tests showed that, the model is able to produce
safe and economic results.
(iii) A new semi-empirical equation has been developed according to large scale triaxial
tests at Aachen university to estimate the equivalent soil stiffness taking into account
the stabilization function of laid and welded geogrids. The new equation will allow
systematical prediction of the soil stiffness as a function of the geogrid axial tensile
stiffness. The equivalent stiffness has been adapted into the settlement equation for a
perfectly flexible foundation to estimate the immediate deformation of working
platforms underlying cohesive soil. The accuracy of the new equation in predicting the
platform deformation has been proven by comparing the results versus large-scaled lab
tests at Stuttgart university (deviation less than 5%).
(iv) In contrast to currently applied models in practice, which solely focus on the punching
resistance of the platform, the analysis in this study using a complex Kinematic
Element Method (KEM) revealed that, the overall and rotational stability of the system
might be dominant especially when the construction equipment (e.g. crane, piling rig)
is positioned at the edge of the working platform. Therefore, it is obligatory to
investigate the failure possibility via shear surfaces underneath the track due to
rotational and overall failure modes in addition to available models in practice.
Although this study contributed to substantially enhance the BRE470 design model by the
development of 3D equations for the prediction of maximum bearing capacity of the working
platform over cohesive subgrade, a major limitation and uncertainty still remains which must be
overcome in order to achieve a safer design of working platforms. In fact, further research is
required to develop a more comprehensive model which can consider overall and rotational failure
modes in addition to punching failure criteria.
REFERENCES
Al-Shenawy, A. O., & Al-Karni, A. A. (2005). Derivation of bearing capacity equation for a two
layered system of weak clay layer overlaid by dense sand layer. Pertanika J. Sci. & Technol,
13(2), 213-235.
Ballard, J.-C., Delvosal, P., Yonatan, P., Holeyman, A. & Kay, S. (2011). Simplified VH equations
for foundation punchthrough sand into clay. Frontiers in Offshore Geotechnics II (ed.
Gourvenec & White), CRC:London, pp. 655-660.
BRE (2004). Working platforms for tracked plant. BR470. Garston, Watford
Burd, H. J., and Frydman, S. (1997). Bearing capacity of plane-strain footings on layered
soils. Canadian Geotechnical Journal, 34(2), 241-253.
Chen, Q., & Abu-Farsakh, M. (2015). Ultimate bearing capacity analysis of strip footings on
reinforced soil foundation. Soils and Foundations, 55(1), 74-85.
Das, B. M., & Sobhan, K. (2013). Principles of geotechnical engineering. Cengage learning.
Dobie, M., Lees, A., & Khanardnid, J. (2018). Case study: performance of a geogrid stabilised
working platform constructed over extremely soft dredged silt. In Proceedings of the 11th
International Conference on Geosynthetics, Korea.
Dobie, M. J. D., Lees, A. S., Buckley, J., & Bhavsar, R. (2019). Working platforms for tracked
plant–BR 470 guideline and a revised approach to stabilisation design with multiaxial

hexagonal geogrids. 13th Australia New Zealand Conference on Geomechanics, Perth Western
Australia
El Samee, W. N. A. (2018). Effect of Shape and Depth of Shallow Foundations on Failure
Mechanism and Wedge Angle of Sandy Soil. In International Congress and Exhibition
Sustainable Civil Infrastructures Innovative Infrastructure Geotechnology (pp. 197-216).
Springer, Cham.
Eshkevari, S. (2019). Bearing capacity of surface strip footings on layered soils, Doctoral
dissertation, University of Newcastle, Newcastle, England
Hanna, A. M., and Meyerhof, G. G. (1980). Design charts for ultimate bearing capacity of
foundations on sand overlying soft clay. Canadian Geotechnical Journal, 17(2), 300-303.
Lees, A. 2017b. Bearing capacity of a stabilized granular layer on clay subgrade. Proceedings of
the 10th International Conference on the Bearing Capacity of Roads, Railways and Airfields
(eds. Loizos et al), 28-30th June, pp. 1135-1142.
K S Miller, K. S., (2013). Technical Note on Use of BR470 in Soft Clay
Meyerhof, G. G., & Hanna, A. M. (1978). Ultimate bearing capacity of foundations on layered
soils under inclined load. Canadian Geotechnical Journal, 15(4), 565-572.
M. J. D. Dobie, A. S. (2019). Working platforms for tracked plant – BR 470 guideline and a revised
approach to stabilisation design with multiaxial hexagonal geogrids. 13th Australia New
Zealand Conference on Geomechanics. Perth Western Australia.
Prandtl, L. (1921). über die Eindringungsfestigkeit (Härte) plastischer Baustoffe und die Festigkeit
von Schneiden, Zeitschrift für Angewandte Mathematik und Mechanik, Basel, Switzerland, Vol.
1, No. 1, 15–20.
Rethaliya, R. P., & Verma, A. K. (2009). Strip footing on sand overlying soft clay with geotextile
interface. Indian Geotech J, 39(3), 271-287.
Ruiken, A. (2013). Zum Spannungs-Dehnungsverhalten des Verbundbaustoffs "geogitter-
bewehrter Boden". Dissertation. Aachen: Fakultät für Bauingenieurwesen, Lehrstuhl für
Geotechnik, Rheinisch-Westfälische Technische Hochschule (RWTH).
Salimi Eshkevari, S., Abbo, A. J., & Kouretzis, G. (2019). Bearing capacity of strip footings on
sand over clay. Canadian Geotechnical Journal, 56(5), 699-709.
Shoaei, M. D., Alkarni, A., Noorzaei, J., Jaafar, M. S., & Huat, B. B. (2012). Review of available
approaches for ultimate bearing capacity of two-layered soils. Journal of Civil Engineering and
Management, 18(4), 469-482.
Scotland, I., Poberezhniy, V., & Tatari, A. (2019). Reinforced soil shear key to mitigate extrusion
failure in soft soils under working platforms. In The XVII European Conference on Soil
Mechanics and Geotechnical Engineering Reykjavik Iceland. International Society for Soil
Mechanics and Geotechnical Engineering.
Temporary Works Forum (2019). Design of granular working platforms for construction plant. A
guide to good practice, TWf2019: 02, Temporary Works Forum, c/o Institution of Civil
Engineers, London, England
Vollmert, L. & Bräu, G. (2018). Performance of geogrid reinforced and stabilized base courses. In
Proceedings of the 11th International Conference on Geosynthetics, Korea.

Proceedings of the 20th International Conference on Soil Mechanics and Geotechnical Engineering, Sydney 2021
Ultimate resistance of geogrid-reinforced working platforms for tracked plants over

cohesive subgrade
Résistance ultime des plates-formes de travail renforcées par des géogrilles pour les plantes à
chenilles sur une plate-forme cohésive.
Arash Khansari, Lars Vollmert & Jörg Klompmaker

Department of application techniques, NAUE GmbH & Co. KG, Germany, akhansari@bbgeo.com
Amir Shahkolahi
Technical manager Australia and New Zealand, Global Synthetics Pty Ltd., Australia
ABSTRACT: Field investigations and accidents on construction sites have revealed that mainly two mechanisms govern the stability
of geosynthetic-reinforced working platforms and hardstands exposed to high concentrated loads by piling rigs or cranes: (i) punching
shear failure of the reinforced platform subjected to the high localised forces; (ii) rotational/overall failure of the working platform
founded on the soft cohesive soil. For the punching shear failure, the Meyerhof’s method was modified to account for the footing
punching through a geosynthetic reinforced granular platform material overlying a soft cohesive subgrade. For the rotational and
overall failure, the Kinematic Element Method (KEM) has been applied which implements the rigid body approach to examine the
equilibrium state, thus enabling a full interaction of soil wedges with the intersecting geosynthetic reinforcement. The set-up models
are applied to perform a systematic parametric study by variation of the most influencing parameters affecting the ultimate limit state
(e.g. soil shear strength, loads, geometry of tracks, etc.). Finally, a new simplified model (so-called Hybrid model) has been developed
to predict the ultimate bearing capacity of working platforms corresponding to both punching and rotational failure modes.
RÉSUMÉ: Les investigations sur le terrain et les accidents survenus sur les sites de construction ont révélé que deux mécanismes
principaux régissent la stabilité des plates-formes de travail renforcées par des géosynthétiques et les supports exposés à des charges
concentrées élevées par des engins de forage ou des grues : (i) la rupture en cisaillement par poinçonnement de la plate-forme renforcée
soumise à des charges localisées élevées ; (ii) la rupture rotationnelle/ globale de la plate-forme de travail fondée sur le sol cohésif mou.
Pour la rupture en cisaillement par poinçonnement, la méthode de Meyerhof est modifiée pour tenir compte du poinçonnement de la
semelle à travers un matériau de plate-forme granulaire renforcé par géosynthétique sur un sol cohésif mou. Pour la rupture par rotation
et la rupture globale, la méthode des éléments cinématiques (KEM) a été appliquée. Elle met en œuvre l'approche des corps rigides pour
examiner l'état d'équilibre, permettant ainsi une interaction complète des coins de sol avec le renforcement géosynthétique intersecté.
Les modèles mis en place sont appliqués pour réaliser une étude paramétrique systématique en faisant varier les paramètres les plus
influents sur l'état limite ultime (par exemple, la résistance au cisaillement du sol, les charges, la géométrie des chenilles, etc.). En
conséquence, un nouveau modèle simplifié a été développé pour prédire la capacité de charge ultime des plateformes de travail
correspondant aux modes de défaillance par poinçonnement et par rotation.
KEYWORDS: Working platform, crane hardstand, piling platform, Hybrid model, geogrid reinforcement.
capacity of the working platform against the punching shear

1 INTRODUCTION strength and fail to consider the requirements in terms of bearing
capacity to maintain the stability of the working platform over
When proving the foundation stability, the allowable subsoil and weak subgrades against rotational failures. Experiences gained
working platform bearing capacity, the type of geosynthetic from piling rig accidents on site however, have revealed that in
reinforcement and the loads arising from the equipment tracks some cases, the dominant failure mode is the rotational failure of
play an important role. The strength and deformation capacity of the system.
the soil determine the load capacity and deformation of the track Therefore, new knowledge and modelling techniques need to
foundation. be generated, especially for the reinforced working platform
Crane hardstands, exposed to high concentrated loads are underneath large concentrated loads caused by heavy equipment.
commonly subject to two types of ULS failures: (i) punching Indeed, it is crucial for both design and safety assessments to
shear failure of the reinforced platform subjected to the high develop an improved understanding of the process involved in
localised forces; (ii) rotational failure of the working platform the failure mechanisms of working platforms against both
founded on the soft cohesive soil. punching and rotational failure modes and to enhance current
There are several models available for the design of working models to determine an optimised thickness of the working
platforms under large concentrated loads. The models are platform by means of the application of relevant geosynthetic
commonly applied to predict the required reinforcement tensile material.
strength and aggregate layer thickness. Despite considerable
advances in design and analysis of reinforced working platforms
through the contribution of several research studies and design 2 GENERIC FAILURE MECHANISMS
standards including the popular methods of an improved load
distribution, BR470, etc., there is no model which can identify To comprehend the concept of ultimate soil bearing capacity
the type of failure underneath a working platform. In fact, most under tracked plant and accordingly track the mode of shear
of the currently proposed methods can only consider the bearing failure, the case of a rectangular footing of width wd located at
the surface of the working platform is shown in Figure 1. The In case of large deformation in soil, the differential settlement
working platform is subject to the concentrated loads of tracked under the tracked plant (or crane pad) may exceed the allowable
plants (or crane pads) with a load of Q1 and Q2 under the left and level and correspondingly, the construction equipment may
right tracks, respectively. When estimating the foundation overturn. The significance of any settlement is a matter for the
stability, the allowable subsoil and working platform bearing designer and the design specification. Complexity of the analysis
capacity, the required tensile strength of the geosynthetic whereas the total settlement of a structure can interfere with some
reinforcement, the loads arising from the equipment tracks and special aspect of its function, it is differential or relative
the position of the construction equipment play an important role. settlement which in general may be expected to produce the most
The strength and deformation capacity of the soil and geogrid severe effects on the completed structure and the construction
reinforcement determine the load capacity and deformation of machine itself. It should be ensured that the reinforced working
the track foundation. platform can withstand the expected differential settlements and
In general, three types of failures may happen on site for a commonly the soil and working platform elasticity modules as
working platform under localized forces by construction well as the reinforcement type dominate the problem. Geogrid
machines: reinforcement may reduce and homogenize the differential
a) Punching shear failure: This is the most known type of settlements under equipment tracks.
failure due to the typical bearing pressure imposed on a Despite considerable advances in design and analysis of
reinforced working platform overlying several soft subsoil strata. reinforced working platforms through the contribution of several
When the foundation settles under the application of the load, a research studies and design standards including the popular
triangular wedge-shaped zone is pushed down immediately methods of an improved load spread, BR470, etc., most of the
under the loaded area. In turn, the wedged zone presses the zones currently proposed methods can only consider the bearing
underneath the edge of the loaded area sideways and then capacity of the working platform against the punching shear
upward. At the ultimate pressure (Q) the soil passes into a state strength (failure mechanism “a”) and fail to consider the
of plastic equilibrium and shear failure occurs by sliding. Due to requirements in terms of bearing capacity to maintain the
this failure type, a part of the working platform will settle and stability of the working platform over weak subgrades against
sink into the subgrade soil. Commonly the failure does not extend rotational failures. While the failure mechanisms “b” and “c” are
up to the surface. discussed in detail in Khansari et. al (2021), this paper focuses
b) Rotational shear failure: Experience from working on the failure mechanisms “a” and “b”.
platform accidents have proven that, the dominant failure mode
of the subgrade for a piling rig close to the platform edge is the
rotational failure mode. This failure is characterised as sudden 3 PUNCHING SHEAR FAILURE MODE
and catastrophic failure with a fully developed failure plane and
bulging of locus the ground surface. The procedure involves a The bearing capacity of a single or multi-layered soil is generally
slip surface analysis search along the base of the working determined according to the Terzaghi theory, which has been
platform to determine the profile (locus) of the tensile load in the developed by the extension of the Prandtl plastic failure theory
reinforcement that is necessary to provide an adequate margin of (1921). The analytical based model by BR470 is one of the most
stability. popular models which covers designs for both, reinforced and
c) Large deformation and settlements: while the failure types unreinforced platforms for different uniform subsoil conditions.
(a) and (b) are related to the ultimate limit state (ULS) design, The main reason for this popularity is probably the wide range of
the failure type (c) is related to the serviceability limit state (SLS) application along with its simplicity. However, the BR470 model
of the system. Normally, the serviceability of a structure, may has a high tendency to produce safe (and conservative) results
not lead to catastrophic failure which causes human and financial which has been evaluated and addressed in several publications.
losses. However, this is different for a working platform (e.g. Dobie et al., 2019; Scotland et al., 2019). In fact, the
supporting a construction machine. analytical method is based on classical bearing capacity methods
for two layered soils (dense soil over weak soil) but uses the
Q
concept of punching shear capacity within the platform as
suggested by the experimental model developed by Meyerhof
and Hanna (1978).
Platform For the development of the model in BR470, several extreme
simplifications are made, which leads to conservative
(a) estimations regarding the platform thickness. In general, the
Weak soil
main weakness of the BR470 method can be summarized as: (i)
the model does not consider the curved shear planes developing
O between the edge of the track and the formation and assumes a
Q vertical shear plane which underestimates the working platform
shear strength; (ii) the effect of the geogrid tensile strength in the
basic resistance equation proposed by BR470 has not been
W Platform
considered around the full perimeter of the track, despite the
symmetric shape of the track; (iii) the effect of relative subgrade-
(b) Cu Weak soil working platform stiffness in the reduction of working platform
shear strength as suggested by Hanna and Meyerhof (1980) is
neglected in the BRE model. In Khansari et al. (2021), the
Q1 Q2 abovementioned weaknesses of BR470 are overcome and
α
accordingly an improved model is developed to analyse the
Platform
punching shear failure of multi-layered working platforms. In
this study the model in Khansari et al. (2021) is further developed
(c) Weak soil to investigate the failures derived from the punching shear
strength of the platform.
Figure 1. Probable failure mechanisms for a working platform under
concentrated loads from tracked plants
4 ROTATIONAL FAILURE MODE There is no need to estimate elastoplastic soil behavior and
complex deformation-dependent interaction between structures,
Special attention should be paid to the choice of the distance reinforcement and soil.
between the construction equipment and the edge of the working In this study, KEM is applied for determination of soil bearing
platform since several accidents of construction machines (e.g. capacity while the construction equipment is positioned close to
piling rigs and cranes) are observed on site due to the rotational the edge of the working platform. The KEM model is set up in
and overall failure of working platforms. In addition, the addition to the semi-empirical model as developed in the study
potential slip surfaces to account for occurrences of shallow from Khansari et al. (2021) on the basis of Meyerhof’s model, to
foundation depths and soil layers of varying strengths within the investigate the rotational and overall stability of the working
soft foundation soil have to be generated precisely to capture platform.
realistic resisting and acting forces to maintain the stability of the The model has been discretized in several rigid blocks with
problem. different edge characteristics. The loads are transmitted between
Geogrid reinforcement stabilizes a working platform over soft the kinematic elements (rigid bodies) through the interactions
ground by preventing lateral spreading of the fill, extrusion of the between element edges. In general, four types of edges are
foundation and overall rotational failure. This stabilizing force is assigned to the rigid polygons: (i) interelement edges (edges
generated in the reinforcement by shear stresses, transmitted between two elements) as shown also in Figure 2; (ii) the edge
from the foundation soil and fill, which finally place the with prescribed virtual displacement (see element 9-10 in
reinforcement in tension. The required tensile strength of the Figure 3); (iii) edges at rigid boundary with a prescribed
reinforcement to provide a sufficient margin of safety shall be displacement of zero and; (iv) edges without any boundary or
examined by rotational failure of the working platform to ensure compatibility condition.
that, the reinforcement is able to provide enough tensile
resistance force. In addition, it has to be examined if the working
platform is able to reduce the acting pressure on the subgrade soil
which may cause the rotational failure.
Different models are currently available in the academy and
practice to evaluate the stability of working platforms against
rotational failures. These models can be divided to Analytical
models (Bishop, Wedge, Janbu and etc.), Numerical models
(Finite Element Models FEM, Finite Difference Models FED,
Finite Volume Models FVD, Kinematic Element Models KEM,
Discrete Element Models DEM). Among these Bishop circle and
multi-line Wedge methods are known as the most conventional
and commonly applied models in practice. However, the Bishop
and Wedge models which are also addressed in classical
geotechnics are limited to circular and multi-linear shape surface Figure 2. Interaction between polygons as considered by KE model
planes which may misjudge the decisive failure surface. In applied in this study (Fides)
addition, the effect of geogrid reinforcement is often
underestimated while using the Bishop analysis. The reason is The developed KEM models in this study are applied to
the small distance between geogrid alignment and the center perform a systematic parametric study by variation of the most
search zone, which produce small resisting forces from the influencing parameters affecting the ultimate bearing capacity of
reinforcement and underestimate the additional restoring the working platform, which is supporting the construction
moment by the geogrid to enhance the overall stability of the machines that are positioned close to the platform’s edge (e.g.
embankment. As acting load, the factored disturbing moment soil shear strength, loads, geometry of tracks, etc.). The
along the working platform base is considered. The analysis may computation of the decisive failure plane concerning the working
be carried out using effective stress parameters taking account of platform bearing capacity has been performed by investigating
pore water pressures, however an analysis based on undrained the minimum remaining force on the displaced edge of the rigid
conditions simplifies the analysis and generally provides a more body or according to the Fellenius method taking into account a
accurate solution to short term stability. phi-c reduction approach. This is determined as the relation of
Along with the complexity of the application of Finite tangent of the possible versus required shearing strength.
Element models in practice they commonly cannot fully capture
the membrane and stabilisation functions of geogrid
reinforcement and neglect the complex interaction of the
reinforcement with the cohesive subgrade and aggregate. Among
the available models in practice and academy, the Kinematic
Element Model (KEM) allows to investigate any-shape failure
mechanisms and support the correct inclination of the inner gaps.
Most other available software uses a slice method like Bishop,
and do not handle the internal forces between the bodies
correctly. The KE-Method is also known as rigid body approach
for the description of equilibrium states as described in several
publications (Gussmann, 1992). It is also addressed in a few
design standards e.g. DIN 4084 to analyze inner/outer safety of
geotechnical shoring structures.
The main advantage of the KEM is, that one can calculate
forces and degrees of utilization resulting from failure
mechanisms only based on inner friction and cohesion of the soil
Figure 3. Application of Kinematic Element Model for analysis of
mass. The KEM model implements the rigid body approach to rotational stability of working platforms
examine the equilibrium state, thus enabling a full interaction of
soil wedges with the intersecting geosynthetic reinforcement.
The preliminary results show that, while the stability of

working platforms overlying firm to hard cohesive subsoil 6 COMPARATIVE STUDY
(approx. cu > 30 kN/m2) is commonly governed by the soils
punching shear strength, the failure mode of working platforms The Hybrid model as developed in this study and the original
over very soft to soft cohesive soil may be governed by rotational BR470 model have been applied to perform comparative
slip circles. Furthermore, the results showed that, the rotational analyses between available design models in practice. With this
and overall stability of the working platform might be even more regard the subsoil shear strength which dramatically influences
dominant when the construction equipment is positioned close to the stability of working platforms is varied. The design of a
the edge of working platform. Therefore, it is recommended to geogrid reinforced working platform under a piling rig has been
investigate the overall and rotational stability of the platform performed using the software “NAUE Platform” which
(especially when the heavy machine is positioned close to the implements the Hybrid model. The Software allows the design
platform’s edge) during the design phase. of working platforms and hardstands over cohesive subgrades
against punching, rotational, and overall failure modes according
to a model derived from the Kinematic Element Method (KEM),
5 HYBRID MODEL polygonal slip surfaces (General Wedge method) and Meyerhof
and Hanna (1980). Both models have been applied for the
The developed models for punching shear failure and rotational working platform overlying cohesive subgrades with different
failure are coupled to account all probable failure modes which ranges of undrained shear strength. The loads and geometry
may happen due to the application of concentrated loads from specifications are assumed the same for both analyses and are
tracked plant. summarized in Table 1. Overall, two types of load combinations
For the punching shear failure, Meyerhof’s method is induced by the piling rig are taken into account. Different
modified to account for the footing punching through a margins of safety as recommended by BR470 have been
geosynthetic reinforced granular platform material overlying a considered for the design based on either Load Case 1 or 2.
soft cohesive subgrade. For the rotational and overall failure, the Load Case 1: These loading conditions may apply when the
Kinematic Element Method (KEM) has been applied which rig or crane operator is unlikely to be able to aid recovery from
implements the rigid body approach to examine the equilibrium an imminent platform failure. Operations in which this type of
state, thus enabling a full interaction of soil wedges with the loading condition applies could include: Standing, Travelling or
intersecting geosynthetic reinforcement. The set-up models are Handling (in crane mode, e.g. lifting a precast concrete pile into
applied to perform a systematic parametric study by variation of the leader, handling casings and reinforcement cages)
the most influencing parameters affecting the ultimate limit state Load Case 2: These loading conditions may apply when the
(e.g. soil shear strength, loads, geometry of tracks and etc.). rig or crane operator can control the load safely, for example by
Finally, a new simplified model (so-called Hybrid model) has releasing the line load, or by reducing power, to aid recovery
been developed to predict the ultimate bearing capacity of from an imminent platform failure. Load Case 2 is generally
working platforms corresponding to both punching and given by the worst combination of load and orientation of the rig.
rotational failure modes. Operations in which this type of loading condition applies to a
piling rig could include: Installing casing, Drilling, Extracting an
auger, Extracting casing, Rig travelling or slewing with a fixed
Punching shear Rotational
strengh stability mast that has a foot or fixed load (e.g. pile held in the leader)
STEP 2: rotational
STEP 1: Punching
close to the platform surface.

failure mode
failure mode
Improvement of the Development of

model from Meyerhof & Kinematic Element
Hanna for geogrid Models Table 1. Assumed parameters for performance of comparative study
reinforced working
platforms Load Load
Plausibility analysis Parameter
Case 1 Case 2
Validation of the model in Yes
Khansari et al. 2021 Track width 0.9 0.9m
Track length 1.2m 1.2m

STEP 3: Sensitivity analysis Track spacing 4.0m 3.65m
Identification of influencing parameters on punching and
rotational bearing capacity of working platforms Load 130kPa 194kPa
,T&
Track distance from the edge 2m 2m
STEP 4: Parametric study
Parameter variation and investigation of
punching and rotational failure modes
The results show that, even though the Hybrid model is a
STEP 5: Hybrid model
holistic model, which examines different modes of failure, it may
produce more economic results in terms of the platform thickness.
Development of a simplified relation to identify the threshold between rotational vs. The main reason is due to the enhancement of the BRE model for
punching failure modes
evaluation of punching shear strength taking into account the
for >β; weaknesses as described in Section 3.
Rotational failure mode decisive The decisive failure mode for the comparative study as
performed in this study has been identified as punching shear
And for: failure. In case that, the rotational failure mode becomes
≤β; dominant (e.g. equipment is positioned close to the platform
Punching failure mode decisive edge, soil undrained shear strength is very low etc.) the Hybrid
model may provide safer results compare to BRE470. The main
Where is an equivalent acting load as a function of:
= f (wd, Ld, t, r, s, T) reason is that, the BR470 model fails to examine the rotational
β= constant value as a function of soil type and design situation stability of the working platform and provides results solely
based on the punching shear strength.
Figure 4. Methodology to develop Hybrid model
BRE 2004. Working platforms for tracked plant. BR470. Garston,

Watford
Das B. M., & Sobhan K. 2013. Principles of geotechnical engineering.
0,9 Cengage learning.
BRE470 Dobie M., Lees A., & Khanardnid J. 2018. Case study: performance of a
0,8 geogrid stabilised working platform constructed over extremely soft
0,7
Hybrid Model dredged silt. In Proceedings of the 11th International Conference on
Geosynthetics, Korea.
0,6 Dobie M. J. D., Lees A. S., Buckley J., & Bhavsar R. 2019. Working
Thickness (cm)
platforms for tracked plant–BR 470 guideline and a revised approach

0,5
to stabilisation design with multiaxial hexagonal geogrids. 13th
0,4 Australia New Zealand Conference on Geomechanics, Perth Western
Australia
0,3 Eshkevari S. 2019. Bearing capacity of surface strip footings on layered
0,2 soils, Doctoral dissertation, University of Newcastle, Newcastle,
England
0,1 Hanna A. M., and Meyerhof G. G. 1980. Design charts for ultimate
0 bearing capacity of foundations on sand overlying soft clay.
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 Canadian Geotechnical Journal, 17(2), 300-303.
undrained shear strength Cu (kN/m2) Fides GeoStability software, User manual, 2019.
Figure 5. Comparative analysis for design of a working platform (Hybrid Gussmann, P., 1992. Die Methode der kinematischen Elemente und
Model vs. BRE470) adaptive Optimierung. Bauingenieur, 67(9), pp.409-417.
Lees A. 2017b. Bearing capacity of a stabilized granular layer on clay
subgrade. Proceedings of the 10th International Conference on the
7 CONCLUSIONS Bearing Capacity of Roads, Railways and Airfields (eds. Loizos et
al), 28-30th June, pp. 1135-1142.
The main objective of this study was to improve the Khansari A., Vollmert L., Quirk C. and Klompmaker J. 2021. Prediction
understanding of the processes involved in the interaction of laid Models for Deformation and Punching Shear Resistance of Geogrid-
and welded geogrids and aggregates within working platforms. reinforced Working Platforms under Tracked Plant. Geosynthetic
In addition, it was aimed to develop a comprehensive model International, Kansas city, USA
K S Miller K. S., 2013. Technical Note on Use of BR470 in Soft Clay
which can consider overall and rotational failure modes in Meyerhof G. G., & Hanna A. M. 1978. Ultimate bearing capacity of
addition to punching failure criteria. With this background the foundations on layered soils under inclined load. Canadian
model from Khansari et al. (2021) was further developed to Geotechnical Journal, 15(4), 565-572.
predict all available types of a failure which may occur for a M. J. D. Dobie A. S. 2019. Working platforms for tracked plant – BR 470
construction machine on top of a working platform overlying soft guideline and a revised approach to stabilisation design with
cohesive soil. multiaxial hexagonal geogrids. 13th Australia New Zealand
With this background the Kinematic Element Method (KEM) Conference on Geomechanics. Perth Western Australia.
was used to perform a parameter study by variation of all Moormann, C., Lehn, J., Tazl, M. & Worbes, R. 2017: Messung des Trag-
influencing parameters affecting the stability analysis of a und Verformungsverhaltens einer Arbeitsplattform für Mobilkrane in
working platform. In contrast to currently applied models in einem Windpark. FS KGEO, 2017
practice, the results show that, the overall and rotational stability Moormann, C., Worbes, R., Lerner, T. & Henkel, J. 2019. Standsicherheit
und Gebrauchstauglichkeit von mobilen Baumaschinen -
of the system might be dominant especially when the
Feldversuche zur Interaktion zwischen Kettenfahrwerken und
construction equipment (e.g. crane, piling rig) is positioned close Baugrund_35. Baugrundtagung Stuttgart 2018
to the edge of the working platform. Therefore, it is obligatory to Prandtl L. 1921. über die Eindringungsfestigkeit (Härte) plastischer
investigate the failure possibility via shear surfaces underneath Baustoffe und die Festigkeit von Schneiden, Zeitschrift für
the track due to rotational and overall failure modes in addition Angewandte Mathematik und Mechanik, Basel, Switzerland, Vol. 1,
to available models in practice. No. 1, 15–20.
A new design model, the so-called “Hybrid” model was Ruiken A. 2013. Zum Spannungs-Dehnungsverhalten des
developed to proposed optimised and reliable design approach Verbundbaustoffs "geogitterbewehrter Boden". Dissertation. Aachen:
for the prediction of the maximum bearing capacity of working Fakultät für Bauingenieurwesen, Lehrstuhl für Geotechnik,
platforms by combination of two simplified models for the Rheinisch-Westfälische Technische Hochschule (RWTH).
punching shear strength and rotational stability of working Salimi Eshkevari S., Abbo A. J., & Kouretzis G. 2019. Bearing capacity
platforms. The Hybrid model is enabled to identify the type of of strip footings on sand over clay. Canadian Geotechnical Journal,
56(5), 699-709.
failure mode and accordingly calculate the required thickness of Shoaei M. D., Alkarni A., Noorzaei J., Jaafar, M. S., & Huat, B. B. 2012.
the platform and the reinforcement tensile strength. The Review of available approaches for ultimate bearing capacity of two-
comparative analysis between Hybrid and BR470 for design of layered soils. Journal of Civil Engineering and Management, 18(4),
working platforms showed that, the design from the Hybrid 469-482.
model in terms of aggregate layer thickness and geogrid tensile Scotland I., Poberezhniy V., & Tatari A. 2019. Reinforced soil shear key
strength might be more economic than BR470 when the to mitigate extrusion failure in soft soils under working platforms. In
punching shear failure is the dominant mode of failure. This is The XVII European Conference on Soil Mechanics and Geotechnical
substantially due to fact that, the punching shear analysis in the Engineering Reykjavik Iceland. International Society for Soil
Hybrid model is performed according to an improved model Mechanics and Geotechnical Engineering.
derived from BR470. Temporary Works Forum 2019. Design of granular working platforms for
construction plant. A guide to good practice, TWf2019: 02,
Temporary Works Forum, c/o Institution of Civil Engineers, London,
7 REFERENCES England
Vollmert L. & Bräu G. 2018. Performance of geogrid reinforced and
Al-Shenawy A. O., Al-Karni A. A. 2005. Derivation of bearing capacity stabilized base courses. In Proceedings of the 11th International
equation for a two layered system of weak clay layer overlaid by Conference on Geosynthetics, Korea.
dense sand layer. Pertanika J. Sci. & Technol, 13(2), 213-235.
clay. Frontiers in Offshore Geotechnics II (ed. Gourvenec & White),
CRC:London, pp. 655-660.
SAFETY AND ECONOMICS OF WORKING PLATFORMS – A UK PERSPECTIVE
David Corke, Northwich, Cheshire, UK, +44 7715 484199, djcorke@outlook.com
ABSTRACT
The paper presents the development of Federation of Piling Specialists (FPS) calculation of rig track
loading, the production of the Building Research Establishment document “Working platforms for
tracked plant” (BR 470), working platform testing and considerations of rig stability. The paper also
discusses the importance of rigorous and well documented procedures and proposed future development
of rapid working platform testing methods. Topics presented include the fundamental requirements and
principles involved in the testing, design and maintenance of working platforms, rig track loading, the
BRE design method and site testing analysis. The paper stresses the need for testing and design
processes to be robust and simple and quick to perform as there is often little time between the award
of a contract and the need to start work on site. Also, it is vital that all aspects of working platform
design can be carried out with information that is available to the platform designer. Developments in
the UK over the last two decades have resulted in improved quality and safety of working platforms
that will hopefully be further enhanced as design and testing methods continue to improve.
DEVELOPMENT OVERVIEW
Table 1. Working platforms documentation development

1990s FPS Working Platforms initiative commenced
2000 - 2003 FPS Track loading spreadsheet developed
2004 BRE BR 470 Working platforms for tracked plant: good practice guide to the
design, installation, maintenance and repair of ground-supported working
platforms
2016 FPS updated Track loading spreadsheet with rig stability Eccentricity Index
2019 Temporary Works Forum, Design of granular working platforms for construction
plant. A guide to good practice
2020 EFFC/DFI Working Platforms task Group. Guide to Working Platforms
INTRODUCTION
In the late 1990s the Federation of Piling Specialists (FPS) was becoming increasingly aware of the
problem of inadequate working platforms leading to an unacceptable number of rig related incidents,
of either rigs toppling over or near misses. At the time, the FPS issued the statement that “One third of
all Dangerous Occurrences reported by FPS Members are related to working platforms.” Action was
clearly required.
At that time there was a CIRIA document (Jewell 1996) which considered track loading as two
dimensional and involved relatively complex arithmetic and was regarded as not suitable for every day
working platform design. A platform design method in common use was “load spreading”, but one
difficulty with this was choosing an appropriate angle for the load spreading through the platform
material in order to calculate a bearing pressure on the subgrade immediately below the platform.
The FPS decided that in order to improve the safety and economy of working platforms there was a
need for a robust but simple design method that could be performed with a spreadsheet. It was also
decided that any design method should be produced by a recognised authority independent of the FPS.
Following presentations by interested parties Building Research Establishment (BRE) were awarded a
contract to produce a good practice guidance document that would include not only a working platform
design, but also appropriate site investigation, preparation, construction, maintenance and repair. Apart
from the need to be simple and robust, it was also essential that the design method would only need to
rely on information that would be available to the platform designer.
The FPS set up a special Working Platforms Committee to steer the whole process and work with BRE.
The work was funded partly by FPS members with contributions from industry. Ultimately, the project
delivered the publication BR 470 Working platforms for tracked plant: good practice guide to the
design, installation, maintenance and repair of ground-supported working platforms, (BRE 2004).
TRACK LOADING
Initially, FPS considered the development of simple tables for piling rig track loading pressures, but
this proved to be impractical due to the number of variables involved. This then led the FPS to develop
a spreadsheet to calculate track pressures. The factors considered, as summarised in Table 2, include:
 The weights and eccentricities of the various rig components, e.g. undercarriage, uppercarriage,
mast etc.
 The forces due to applied loading from the rig winches, for auger extraction, to apply crowd
loading or for lifting with an auxiliary winch (e.g. casings, reinforcement cages, precast piles).
 Additional stabilising forces from front and rear footpads.
Although it could, and still can, be difficult to obtain data on the weights and eccentricities of rig
components, the calculation was considered to provide a practical basis for calculating rig track bearing
pressures.
The theoretical triangular or trapezoidal pressure distributions cannot take into account either any
flexibility in the rig or its tracks or of the stiffness of the ground supporting the tracks. In reality, the
maximum pressure exerted on the ground would not be at a point at the extremity of the track, but at
some point behind this, as has been demonstrated by recent work measuring pressures with pressure
cells below the tracks (Topolnicki 2021). However, even a definition of a more realistic pressure
distribution does not facilitate a simple bearing capacity solution.
It should also be noted that the FPS track pressure calculation does not take into account the full range
of loading that has to be considered by rig manufacturers complying with Eurocode design requirements
(EN 16228 2014). It is a matter of practicality that platform designers can only function with available
information. Table 2 sets out a comparison of the two data sets.
Table 2. Data for platform designers and European rig manufacturers.

Data available to designers Data required to be used by
Loading (as in FPS spreadsheet) European rig manufacturers
(EN 16228)
Rig weight  
Rig dimensions  
Winch loads  
Dynamic effects X 
Wind X 
Accidental loading X 
Simple geotechnical bearing pressure calculations cannot readily deal with either triangular or
trapezoidal pressure distributions. In order to provide rig track pressures that could be used in a simple
ground bearing calculation, a transformation by Meyerhof (Meyerhof 1953) was adopted, to produce
an “equivalent” uniformly distributed load. The basis of this transformation is that the total load
supported by the track and the centre of action of that load remain the same. For the simple example of
a triangular pressure distribution, the equivalent uniformly distributed track bearing pressure would be
0.75 x the theoretical maximum pressure and would be applied over 2/3 of the length of the theoretical
triangular pressure distribution.
For rigs with front or rear footpads, most commonly a mast footpad, to provide additional support, the
loading due to the footpad bearing pressure and due to the static rig weight and winch loads was
statically indeterminate, i.e. could not be analysed on a simple basis. The adopted solution was to
assume that the pressure under a footpad was the same as the maximum track bearing pressure.
The spreadsheet produces a set of rig track bearing pressures for the range of operating conditions of
Standing, Travelling, Handling (Lifting), Extracting and Penetrating (Crowd loading).
BRE DESIGN METHOD
To comply with the brief to provide a simple and robust design method BRE produced a punching shear
model that considered the uniformly distributed rig track bearing pressure produced by the FPS
spreadsheet (referred to as the characteristic pressure), punching through the granular platform material
and exerting pressure on the underlying subgrade.
A detailed description of the analysis and mathematical model is provided in BR 470 and described
further in Briefing: Working platforms for tracked plant (Charles 2008). The punching shear model is
simple, and based on an analysis developed by Meyerhof and his co-workers (Meyerhof 1974). BR 470
describes the method as “semi-empirical in character”.
Design Track Loading Pressure
The rig track loading pressures produced by the FPS spreadsheet are in effect a “working load” pressure,
albeit subject to the limitations of the method of calculation set out above. The punching shear model
is effectively a failure condition, and therefore there needs to be sufficient margin between the working
condition and the failure condition in order to ensure the safe operation of a rig.
However, from the rig track loading produced by the FPS spreadsheet it became clear that there was a
significant difference over the range of operating conditions considered. These initial findings
demonstrated that it could be appropriate to consider different margins, or load factors, for different
operating conditions.
From a consideration of how the rig was operating and controlled in each of the operational modes
considered it was concluded that there were two distinct classes of operation.
As set out in BR 470, Box 4
“Case 1 loading applies to the situation when the rig or crane operator is unlikely to be able to aid
recovery from an imminent platform failure. Operations in which this type of loading condition applies
could include standing, travelling and handling (in crane mode, e.g. lifting a precast concrete pile into
the leader, handling casings and reinforcement cages).
Case 2 loading applies to the situation when the rig or crane operator can control the load safely, for
example by releasing the line load, or by reducing power, to aid recovery from an imminent platform
failure. Operations in which this type of loading applies to piling rigs could include installing casing,
drilling, extracting an auger, extracting casing, rig travelling or slewing with a fixed mast which has a
foot or fixed load (e.g. pile held in the leader) close to the platform surface.”
These two cases reflect different levels of risk, based on whether or not the machine operator would be
unlikely to be able to aid recovery or if they could control the load safely.
Having made this differentiation between various modes of operation, there remained the question of
the margin, or load factor, that should be allowed between the working track pressures calculated by
the FPS spreadsheet and the ultimate load condition analysed by the punching shear model.
Geotechnical Design Parameters
Before the matter of load factors could be addressed, a further issue emerged. In considering the
mechanical properties of the granular working platform material, a range of values of the angle of
friction had been assumed, which on reflection were likely to be conservative for the well graded nature
of the granular materials likely to be used for working platform construction.
It was considered that many engineers would consider the likely range of angle of friction for granular
materials to be typically between 30° and 40°. However, angles of friction for the well graded sub-base
type of materials often used for working platforms (MOT Type 1 and 6F2) can be significantly higher.
Testing published by The Waste & Resources Action Programme, “Ground engineering as potential
end uses for recycled and secondary aggregates” (Steele 2004), considered brick and concrete based
Construction & Demolition Waste (CDW) and found angles of friction to be in excess of 60 degrees.
For design purposes though the angle of friction should be limited to 50 degrees. This is the maximum
value shown in any of the tables and plots in BRE 470 and at higher values the various factors derived
from the angle of friction are increasing very rapidly.
Two options for the basis of the angle of friction were considered.
A. Conventional conservative values. If loading factors for Case 1 and Case 2 were assessed on
the basis of users entering a conservative angle of friction then using a more realistic and higher
angle of friction the resulting platform design would be less safe.
B. Realistic values. If loading factors for Case 1 and Case 2 were assessed on the basis of users
entering a realistic angle of friction and then a user entered a conventional conservative (lower
than realistic) angle of friction the resulting platform design would be safe but likely to be
excessively thick and uneconomic.
The only way to ensure that platform designs were safe and economic was to adopt Option B, but accept
that it would be necessary to promote the use of realistic angles of friction and advise that the use of
conservative parameters would lead to unnecessarily thick and uneconomic working platforms.
Loading Factors
Rig track pressures calculated by the FPS spreadsheet:
 Do not include the effects of wind, dynamic or accidental effects.

 Based on a theoretical pressure distribution which does not reflect the reality of the actual
pressure distribution
 Transformed mathematically into a uniformly distributed load which neither reflects the
maximum nor actual pressure under a track, or the actual loaded track length
 Based on the assumption that the pressure under a footpad is the same as the calculated
uniformly distributed pressure under the rig track
The whole process is much simplified and empirical and therefore conventional factors of safety or
even partial factors would not be appropriate.
Some factors would still be needed to apply to the characteristic pressures to calculate design pressures
for use in an ultimate load analysis. These are the loading factors and it is most important that these
should not be considered as factors of safety or partial factors.
Having concluded that any assessment of loading factors should be based on the use of realistic values
for the angle of friction of the platform material, it was decided to carry out a benchmarking process to
assess the most appropriate values of loading factor for Case 1 and Case 2 conditions.
In order to test the punching shear model, members of the FPS calculated rig track loading for a set of
piling rigs, ranging from a small mini-pile rig to medium size CFA and rotary rigs to a large rotary rig.
The data for this set of rigs was analysed for a range of subgrade strengths and a range of angles of
friction for the granular working platform material. The loading factors for Case 1 and Case 2 were
adjusted over a number of cycles of this process until it was considered that they provided a safe, but
still economic, working platform design. These loading factor values were then incorporated into BR
470.
For the BRE design method:

Design pressure (q1d) = Characteristic pressure [calculated from rig loading] (q1k) x Loading factor (γq).
As with the derivation of the characteristic track bearing pressures calculated with the FPS spreadsheet,
the loading factors were derived by a completely empirical process, ultimately based on the engineering
judgement of those involved in the benchmarking process.
Table 3 shows some examples of calculated characteristic and design pressures. It should be noted that
although the Case 2 characteristic pressures are generally higher than those for Case 1 the design
pressures can be governed by the Case 1 condition, due to the higher loading factor applied.
Table 3. Examples of application of loading factors
Typical Rigs Case 1 loading (γq=1.6) Case 2 loading (γq=1.2)
Characteristic Design Characteristic Design
pressure q1k Pressure q1d Pressure q1k Pressure q1d
(kN/sqm) (kN/sqm) (kN/sqm) (kN/sqm)
Large diameter auger 213 341 256 307
Driven precast 145 232 295 354
CFA 147 235 194 233
Mini-pile 87 139 157 188
The FPS method of calculating rig track pressures is completely empirical. BRE describe their
design method as “semi-empirical” and the loading factors were derived empirically and are
not factors of safety or partial factors.
Therefore, it would not be acceptable, and potentially unsafe, to attempt to use track bearing
pressures calculated on an alternative basis in conjunction with the BRE design method and
loading factors, or to use the FPS track bearing pressures with a conventional factor of safety
design method.
RIG STABILITY
From experience, piling rigs can topple over without there necessarily being a bearing capacity failure,
as shown in Figure 1.
Piling rigs are often provided with powerful winches, or hydraulic rams, for the application of extraction
or crowd forces as well as an auxiliary winch for lifting purposes. However, the maximum available
winch forces cannot necessarily be fully utilised with the rig upper body at all possible orientations.
Also, some rigs have movable masts and the maximum available extraction and crowd winch loads
cannot always be fully utilised for all possible mast configurations.
Figure 1. Rig overturned without platform bearing capacity failure
The Rig Stability Factor is calculated as:
Moment required to result in overturning / the actual overturning moment at the working condition
(Corke 2011).
As with working platform design there are different risk levels associated with loading condition Cases
1 and 2 and accordingly this should be reflected by the Rig Stability Factors for each Case, as shown
below in Table 4.
Adopting these limits effectively imposes the same factors on rig instability as the BRE design method
imposes on the design strength of the working platform.
Further development of FPS track loading spreadsheet
A recently issued updated version of the FPS spreadsheet has added one important feature as an aid to
providing a simple check on the stability of a rig.
From the FPS Guidance Notes:-

“An Eccentricity Index, Ie is introduced to indicate how far away from the centre of the rig the point of
action of the net force is with respect to the x and y axes. An Eccentricity Index between 0 and 0.33
indicates that the resultant force is within the middle third of the rig foot print. An Eccentricity Index
approaching 1.0 indicates that the point of action of the resultant force is close to the outer boundary
of the track foot print and may warrant a review of the input parameters and/or operation of the rig;”
The new FPS Eccentricity Index can be related to the Rig Stability Factor by the expression:
Eccentricity Index = 1 / Rig Stability Factor (Corke 2016).
Using this simple conversion, limits for Eccentricity Index can be set as in Table 4.
Table 4. Recommended values for Eccentricity Index

Loading Condition Recommended minimum Rig Equivalent maximum
Stability Factor Eccentricity Index
Case 1 1.6 0.62
Case 2 1.2 0.83
SITE TESTING
Any site testing for a working platform must produce design information for the envisaged design
method.
Plate load testing
Plate load testing is a well-established method to verify the quality of working platforms. However, the
tests need to be performed in a way that is suited to the characteristics typical of the granular material
commonly used in a working platform and to provide input data for the intended design method.
Recommendations for a suitable method of plate load testing and analysis of the results are presented
in “Plate Load Testing for Working Platforms” (Corke 2021).
Due to the size and geometry of the loaded area of rig tracks there is no practical test that replicates
the rig track loading distributed through a platform and onto the subgrade below. Consequently, it is
not possible to carry out a single test that will quantitively prove the overall adequacy of a constructed
working platform.
Therefore, to obtain relevant test data it is necessary to test the platform and subgrade separately and
perform tests to provide the strength properties needed for platform design or design verification.
It is recommended that the diameter of the plate is as small as possible. If the size of plate to be used
can be minimised, the maximum possible test settlement can be achieved with the available kentledge,
thus improving the reliability of the assessment of the test result.
A series of laboratory centrifuge tests were carried out to investigate the possible effects of plate
diameter relative to the maximum particle size of the material tested. As set out in Figure 2 these tests
showed that there was little effect of plate size down to a diameter of 3.5 times the maximum particle
size of the test material. For a commonly specified working platform material with a maximum size of
75mm this would equate to the use of a test plate with a diameter of 250mm.
Figure 2. Laboratory centrifuge testing for effect of plate diameter
A method of analysis of plate load tests reported in Corke 2021 derives the angle of friction of the test
material, which is the design parameter required for input to the BRE design method.
Figure 3. Example plate load test analysis
BS1377, 4.1.7.1 defines failure (ultimate) load capacity when penetration is 15% of the plate width.
Settlement for ultimate load capacity = 15% x 300mm
Settlement at 15% of plate diameter = 45mm [Sult]
Bearing Pressure at 15% of plate diameter = 10,749kN/sqm [Pult]
Angle of friction for a circular plate bearing on the surface of the working platform. (Lyamin 2017)
Ultimate bearing capacity = 0.5 x γ x B x Nγ x Sγ

Shape factor Sγ = 0.0336ϕ + 0.0000672ϕ2
Platform density γ = 20kN/cum
Plate diameter B = 300mm
Angle of friction of platform material ϕ = 53.5 degrees
Shape factor Sγ = 1.99
πtanϕ 2
Nq = e xtan (45 + ϕ/2) Nq = 637
Nγ = (Nq-1) x tan(1.32ϕ) Nγ = 1802
Ultimate Bearing Pressure, Pult = 10,749kN/sqm

(Note. Use Goal Seek to match ultimate bearing pressure at 15% of plate diameter with pressure
calculated from bearing capacity factors by varying the angle of friction)
Light weight deflectometer
The practical and economical limitation with plate load testing is that only a small number of tests
(possibly a maximum of 6) can be performed in a single day, making it expensive for a large site needing
multiple tests. One alternative being considered is the use of a light weight deflectometer (LWD) in
conjunction with conventional plate load tests for calibration purposes. The LWD test is quick to
perform and could provide dozens of tests in a day, providing a rapid working platform testing method
for improved coverage of the platform area.
SAFE AND ECONOMICAL WORKING PLATFORMS
Safety
 The whole process of working platform design, testing, construction and maintenance should be
subject to robust control of procedures. This needs to include inspection of the subgrade following
a site strip for any evidence of records of soft spot backfilled areas (trial pits, trenches for services,
ditches and ponds and defining the edges of the area constructed with the full platform thickness.
 The angle of friction of the working platform material is a critical design parameter. It is generally
found that well compacted and well graded material will provide an angle of friction in excess of
50°, whereas poorly graded or inadequately compacted material can provide angles of friction less
than 40°.
 According to the BR470 design method, reducing the angle of friction from 50° to 40° can
approximately double the thickness of the required working platform. It is vital that there is a high
degree of confidence in the angle of friction used for a safe working platform design, and this can
be provided by site testing.
Contractual liability
 It is important to define contractual responsibilities for design, construction & maintenance of the
working platform. This is to ensure that all aspects of the process are allocated to an appropriate
party. One example of this is the Federation of Piling Specialists (FPS) Working Platform
Certificate (WPC).
Economical design
 The maximum value of angle of friction shown in any of the tables and plots in BRE 470 is 50°. If
the angle of friction provided by a series of tests (such as plate load tests) can be shown to exceed
50°, then limiting the value used for the working platform design to 50° is considered appropriate.
 A visual inspection, or even tracking a piling rig over a site cannot provide a reliable indication of
the suitability of the grading of the material used and the degree of compaction achieved. Site testing
should be used to ensure that the angle of friction used for the platform design is not unduly
conservative, resulting in an unnecessarily thick platform.
 Piling rigs are often provided with powerful winches for the application of extraction and crowd
loading. However, it is not always possible to utilise the maximum available winch loads at all rig
configurations of the rig body orientation and mast position.
 The need for winch loading varies according to the requirements of individual projects. The
construction of deep large diameter piles is likely to require higher winch loads than for the
construction of smaller piles. To always assume that the maximum winch loads could be applied
would lead to unnecessarily thick working platforms. So, for economy winch loads should be
considered as needed for the specific site operation.
All processes for procedures, testing and platform design need to be quick & simple.
If they are not, contractors and platform designers are unlikely to carry them out.
REFERENCES
BS 1377 Part 7 : 1990. Methods for test for Soils for civil engineering purposes – Part 7: Shear strength
tests (total stress)
BS 1377 : Part 9 : 1990. Methods for test for soils for civil engineering purposes, In-situ tests.
Building Research Establishment (2004) BR470, Working platforms for tracked plant: good practice
guide to the design, installation, maintenance and repair of ground-supported working platforms. ISBN
1 86081 7009.
Charles J.A., Corke D.J., Skinner H.D. 2008, Briefing: Working platforms for tracked plant,
Proceedings of the Institution of Civil Engineers Geotechnical Engineering 158 June 2005 pp 1–3.
Corke D.J. and Gannon J., 2010. Economic design of working platforms for tracked plant. Ground
Engineering Feb 2010, pp 29-31
Corke D.J., 2011. A simple stability check for piling rigs. Ground Engineering, Sep 2011, pp 26-28
Corke D.J., 2016. A review of stability factor and eccentricity index for piling rigs. Ground Engineering
Dec 2016 pp 23-25.
Corke D.J., 2021. Plate Load Testing for Working Platforms. Ground Engineering, Oct 2021 pp 36-42
EFFC/DFI Working Platforms Task Group 2020. Guide to Working Platforms
Eurocode EN 16228-4,-5:2014. Drilling and foundation equipment — Safety, Part 4: Foundation

equipment, Part 5: Diaphragm walling equipment.
Federation of Piling Specialists (website) FPS Rig Track Pressure Calculation Tool and Guidelines
Federation of Piling Specialists Working Platform Certificate (website) (WPC).
Jewell R.A., 1996. Soil reinforcement with geotextiles. CIRIA Special Publication 123 (chapter 12, 35
Working platforms and unpaved roads, pp 235-289).
Lyamin A.V., Prezzi M., Salgado S.W., Sloan S.W. 2007. Two and three-dimensional bearing capacity
of footings in sand. Geotechnique 57, No 8, 647-662, October 2007.
Meyerhof G.G 1953. The Bearing Capacity of Foundations under Eccentric and Inclined Loads.
Proceedings of 3rd International Conference on Soil Mechanics and Foundation Engineering, Zurich,
Volume 1, pp 440-445.
Meyerhof G.G., Park D., Park J-S. 1974. Capacity of bucket foundation on sand over clay layers.
Canadian Geotechnical Journal, Volume 11, No 2, May, pp 223-229.
Steele D.P., 2004. (TRL Limited) Ground engineering as potential end uses for recycled and secondary
aggregates. The Waste & Resources Action Programme. June 2004, ISBN 1-84405-207-9.
Temporary Works Forum 2019. Design of granular working platforms for construction plant. A guide
to good practice
Topolnicki M, Jürgen Wäger J., Steffen Schweizer S., Koller A., Nenzing L-W and Tadeusz
Brzozowski T. and Grzegorz Sołtys G.,, 2021. Field test verification of ground bearing pressure under
rig tracks and implications for working platform design. Ground Engineering April 2021.

PFSF AGS WEBINAR 2 Working Platform Design Slides Additional Material

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

PFSF AGS WEBINAR 2 Working Platform Design Slides Additional Material

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Webinar: Design and

Stephen Buttling | Principal,

4 real incidents – (1) UK

4 real incidents – (2) UK

4 real incidents – Broadbeach

Workshop Design and

BR470 Design Process

BR470 Design Process

BR470 Design Process

BR470 Design Process

BR470 Design Process

BR470 Design Process

BR470 Design Process

Working platform design

Alternative methods 1 – TWf

Load spread model

Actual pressure on formation

Bearing pressure under

Punching shear model

General form of displacement

Actual and assumed failure planes (Hanna)

Punching shear failure pattern

 Based on Lees (2019) and marketed by Tensar

 Based on Lees (2019) and marketed by Tensar

 Leads to = 1+𝑇 ≤ for strip footings

 Leads to = 1+𝑇 ≤ for square or circular

 Lees found that T varies with normalized undrained shear

 Calculations working platforms final.xlsx

Comparison of methods – for

 From these 138 load cases 19 were selected

Comparison of methods – for

Comparison of methods - for

 Based on these charts it is considered to be impossible

 The Review of BR470 in 2011 allowed for geogrid

 The BRE Design method allows for the use of geotextile

 There is now evidence to show that geogrids can

 This has been followed up with new tests at the BRE.

 When a 300 mm thick plain gravel layer was placed over

 But when the platform was reinforced with a geogrid

 A review of BR470 by BRE in 2011 allowed for better

 Tensar have done large scale triaxial tests, and plotted

 Naue have done similar tests and got almost identical

 Working platforms are frictional and VERY sensitive to

Platform friction angle (°) 40 45 50

 This came from someone who thought that a 1 m thick

Platform friction angle (°) 40 45 50

 Testing by Corke et al (2021):

 Re BR470 TWf states:

 Based on the comparison of the 5 different methods,

 It appears that the use of strength factoring of the

 For stabilised platforms there is no data set available

BR470 WORKING PLATFORMS FOR TRACKED PLANT

Use of ‘structural geosynthetic reinforcement’

Part of the BRE Trust

1. BR 470 has proved satisfactory in its principal objective of improving safety.

a) the objective of safety is preserved,

For Further Information contact Ken Watts:

Part of the BRE Trust © BRE 2011

Case study: performance of a geogrid stabilised working platform

Keywords: working platform, soft subsoil, load test, design

16-21 September 2018, Seoul, Korea

2 WORKING PLATFORMS AND MECHANICAL STABILISATION

(4) 8 more passes along single