Geotextiles and Geomembranes 47 (2019) 755–766

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Geotextiles and Geomembranes

journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/geotexmem

Investigation on geogrid reinforcement and pile efficacy in geosynthetic- T

reinforced pile-supported track-bed
Han-Lin Wanga,b, Ren-Peng Chena,∗, Qi-Wei Liua, Xin Kanga
a
MOE Key Laboratory of Building Safety and Energy Efficiency, College of Civil Engineering, Hunan University, Changsha, 410082, China
b
Geoenvironmental Research Centre, School of Engineering, Cardiff University, Cardiff CF24 3AA, UK

ARTICLE INFO ABSTRACT

Keywords: This paper presents a full-scale model study of geosynthetic-reinforced pile-supported (GRPS) track-bed to in-
Geosynthetic reinforcement vestigate the effect of geogrid reinforcement and the evolution of pile efficacy (ratio of load borne by the pile cap
Pile-supported track-bed to the total applied load). Three testing procedures were followed: model construction, static loading and subsoil
Full-scale model test settlement (simulated by discharging of water bags surrounding the pile caps). The results indicated that par-
Soil arching effect
tially mobilized soil arching was developed during the first two procedures. When sufficient subsoil settlement
Pile efficacy
was reached, fully mobilized soil arching was established. The geogrid was proven to effectively transfer load
from the water bag to the pile cap. The stress difference induced by the geogrid showed lower absolute values for
the corresponding sensors above the water bag during loading and settlement procedures, due to the inverse
triangular distribution of the vertical-directional geogrid tensile force above the water-bag area. The experi-
mental results of pile efficacy were compared to the estimations of four analytical models. For the present test at
partially mobilized arching state, the pile efficacy increased with the construction height increasing and de-
creased as the static loading increased. The partially mobilized arching also resulted in overestimations of the
pile efficacy from all four analytical models. At fully mobilized arching state, the pile efficacy stayed relatively
stable, being well predicted by all four analytical models.

1. Introduction
With several advantages compared to the conventional embank-
ments, the geosynthetic-reinforced pile-supported (GRPS) track-bed has
been widely employed in the field of high-speed railways in China
(Zhou et al., 2012; Chen et al., 2014, 2016; Wang et al., 2018a, 2019a;
Wang and Chen, 2019). This kind of embankment is commonly built on
the foundation improved with a range of piles and the geogrid re-
inforcement. Due to the stiffness difference between the piles and the
surrounding soil, the differential settlement may occur, thus leading to
the shear resistance provided by the soil above the pile cap. Then, the
shear resistance transfers part of the load from the subsoil to the pile
cap, inducing the well-known soil arching effect. For the Chinese bal-
lastless railway track-bed, it mainly consists of two parts (Chen et al.,
2016, 2018a. 2018b; Wang et al., 2018a, Wang et al., 2019; Wang and
Chen, 2019): superstructure (rail, fastener, track slab, cement asphalt
mortar and concrete base) and substructure (subgrade surface layer,
subgrade bottom layer and subsoil). Because the substructure serves as
the intermediate part between the superstructure and the foundation,
assessing the load transfer mechanism in the substructure, especially in
the soil arching area, is necessary for the maintenance of the GRPS
track-bed during its long-term service life (Chen et al., 2010, 2016;
Wang et al., 2017, 2018a; Wang et al., 2018b, 2018c; Wang et al., 2019;
Wang and Chen, 2019).
The application of the geosynthetic reinforcement is an important
aspect for the performance of the GRPS track-bed (Lai et al., 2014; Xing
et al., 2014; Rowe and Liu, 2015; Huckert et al., 2016; Villard et al.,
2016; Zhang et al., 2016; Zhao et al., 2016; Zhuang and Ellis, 2016;
King et al., 2017a,b; Rui et al., 2019; Wang et al., 2019). This re-
inforcement is used to transfer load to the piles through membrane
effects (Le Hello and Villard, 2009; Jones et al., 2010). To date, several
studies about this field have been reported. For example, Han and Gabr
(2002) studied the effect of geosynthetic stiffness on the soil arching
evolution in the GRPS embankment by numerical simulation. Heitz
et al. (2008) investigated the strain variation of the geogrid and the soil
arching evolution in a 1:3 scaled model. Briançon and Simon (2012)
performed some field tests on a granular platform reinforced with
geosynthetics and studied the effect of the type of geosynthetic layers
on the reinforcement. In addition, Briançon and Simon (2017) proved
that the GRPS embankment with geogrid reinforcement presented less

∗
Corresponding author.
E-mail addresses: wanghanlin@zju.edu.cn (H.-L. Wang), chenrp@hnu.edu.cn (R.-P. Chen), liuqw@hnu.edu.cn (Q.-W. Liu), kangxin@hnu.edu.cn (X. Kang).

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.geotexmem.2019.103489
Received 2 August 2018; Received in revised form 4 January 2019; Accepted 2 August 2019
Available online 06 September 2019
0266-1144/ © 2019 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
H.-L. Wang, et al.
Fig. 1. Model overview: (a) profile view; (b) plan view.
settlement and more stable characteristics than that without geogrid
reinforcement. Nevertheless, the soil stresses above and below the
geosynthetic-reinforcement were scarcely mentioned in these studies.
To solve this problem, van Eekelen (2012a) conducted a series of small-
scale model tests and investigated the soil stresses above and below the
geogrid in the pile area separately. However, considering the model size
effect, the small-scale model tests may not fully represent the practical
case. The stress difference above the subsoil also needs to be identified
in field or larger-scale model tests to address this issue.
On the other hand, the pile efficacy, defined as the ratio of the load
transmitted on the pile cap to the total load including the surcharge, is
another significant aspect for the performance of the GRPS track-bed
(Xing et al., 2014; Wang and Chen, 2019). In terms of the analytical
estimation of the pile efficacy, the stress distribution concentrated on
the pile cap or the subsoil has been widely investigated. Terzaghi
(1943) proposed a two-dimensional analytical model to calculate the
stress distributed on the subsoil (simulated by trap-door) through trap-
door tests. Hewlett and Randolph (1988) considered the soil arching as
the three-dimensional hemisphere by model test without geosynthetic-
reinforcement and proposed a method to estimate the pile efficacy
following the limit state of soil arching. Based on this method, Low
et al. (1994) indicated that the stress on the subsoil was nonuniform
and then introduced a parameter to modify this model to obtain the
uniform subsoil stress. Using the soil arching model considering the
consolidation of the subsoil, Chen et al. (2008) developed a closed-form
solution to calculate the stress exerted on the pile cap. Following this
study, Zhao et al. (2017) proposed a simplified axisymmetric model to
study the load transfer mechanism based on a column (pile) supported
system simulated by a cylindrical unit cell, which was verified by a
numerical solution and a case study. For the above-mentioned studies,
the effect of the geosynthetic reinforcement was not considered, which
might result in some inaccuracies about estimating the pile efficacy.
Then, the German standard EBGEO (DGGT, 2010) considered the
geosynthetic reinforcement and recommended a new method to eval-
uate the load born by the geogrid, while the estimations were relatively
higher than the testing results (van Eekelen et al., 2012b). To fix this
difference, van Eekelen et al. (2013) raised a limit-state equilibrium
model using the concentric arches. This model was well validated by
756
Geotextiles and Geomembranes 47 (2019) 755–766
the model tests of van Eekelen et al. (2012a, b) and several other model
tests from the literature (van Eekelen et al., 2015). Based on the model
of Hewlett and Randolph (1988), Zhuang et al. (2014) proposed a
simplified three-dimensional analytical model to assess the relative
contribution of the subsoil and the reinforcement, showing good con-
sistency with three case studies. However, these analytical methods to
estimate the pile efficacy were all based on the ultimate state of the
fully mobilized arching. In practical, the partially mobilized soil
arching, which refers to the state before the shear stress at the interface
of the soils above the pile and the subsoil reaches the maximum value,
may exist in some cases. In addition, as Nunez et al. (2013) reported,
the current analytical models presented great differences in the load
transfer predictions, due to the reason that these methods were mainly
according to small-scale model tests or numerical simulations, which
might be different from the in-situ condition. Hence, to the author's
knowledge, the evolution of the pile efficacy with the development of
soil arching has not been fully addressed yet in the GRPS railway track-
bed.
In this study, a full-scale model of geosynthetic-reinforced pile-
supported railway track-bed was established, with the concrete slab and
the water bag simulating the pile cap and the surrounding subsoil, re-
spectively. A geogrid cushion was installed above the piled system. The
development of soil arching was simulated following three testing
procedures: model construction, static loading and subsoil settlement
(discharging of water bags). The soil stresses at various locations were
monitored by the pre-embedded soil pressure sensors. The testing re-
sults allowed the effect of the geogrid on the load transfer and the
evolution of the pile efficacy to be analyzed. Finally, the estimated pile
efficacy values of four analytical models were compared with the ex-
perimental results to evaluate the reliability.
2. Testing apparatus and materials
2.1. Full-scale model
The full-scale GRPS railway track-bed model was built in a steel-
constituted chamber with 15 m length, 5.5 m width and 4 m height,
according to the Chinese standard TB10621-2009 (Ministry of
H.-L. Wang, et al. Geotextiles and Geomembranes 47 (2019) 755–766

Railways, 2009). The schematic view of the model is shown in Fig. 1, Table 2
including the superstructure and the substructure. The superstructure Soil properties.
consists of a concrete base (C40 concrete; size: 5 m × 3 m × 0.3 m; Soil γ (kN/m3) c (kPa) ϕ (degrees) Ev1 (MPa)
distributed mass: 1200 kg/m), a cement asphalt mortar (CAM) layer, a
CRTS-I type track slab (size: 4.96 m × 2.4 m × 0.19 m; distributed Surface layer 19.6 1.2 50.3 72.6–85.3
Bottom layer 22.7 16.3 43.6 31.2–53.5
mass: 950 kg/m), 8 pairs of separated 300-mm-length CHN-60 type rails
Subsoil 18.4 0 40 –
(distributed mass: 60 kg/m) and the matched WJ-7 type fasteners along
the longitudinal direction of track slab. Eight load distribution beams Note: γ is the unit weight; c is the cohesion; ϕ is the internal friction angle; Ev1 is
can be lowered to be in contact with the corresponding pair of rails and deformation modulus measured by static plate loading test.
fasteners. Each load distribution beam is fixed to an actuator, which is
connected to a servo-controlled loading system. Then, static load can be controlled as 4%–7%. The subgrade was constructed in layers with a
applied to the model using this system, with a maximum force of thickness of 200 mm. The stiffness parameters of each subgrade layer
200 kN for each actuator. were measured by static plate loading test to ensure the compaction
The substructure is constituted by three layers including subgrade quality (Table 2), which met the criterion required by the standard
surface layer, subgrade bottom layer and subsoil, with the thickness of TB10621-2009 (Ministry of Railways, 2009; Wang et al., 2018a, Wang
0.4 m, 2.3 m and 0.7 m, respectively. At the bottom of the subsoil, the et al., 2019; Wang and Chen, 2019).
pile-supported system was simulated, with 15 C40 concrete slabs
(1 m × 1 m × 0.2 m) representing the pile caps and polyvinyl chloride
2.3. Layout of sensors
water bags arranging between the pile caps to simulate the surrounding
subsoil (Fig. 1b). To protect the water bags and to ensure the uniform
To monitor the soil stress as a function of time during the tests, soil
displacement of the water bags, several wood boards (0.01 m thickness)
pressure sensors (made by Geokon Technology Co., Beijing, China)
were used to cover them. A water-supply system was used to charge the
were used, with 230 mm diameter, 12 mm thickness and the measuring
water bags through the charging valves, allowing the height of water
range of 0–350 kPa. In the measuring process, the sensors were con-
bags (including the wood boards) equaling to that of the pile caps at
nected to an optical interrogator namely MOI sm130 (produced by
saturated state. In addition, the water bags can also be discharged
Micron Optics Inc., Atlanta, USA) to acquire the data. The layout of the
through the discharging valve to simulate the subsoil settlement during
sensors is shown in Fig. 1. The sensor legend “P” indicates that the
the test. The pressure in the water bags was not measured in this study.
sensor is located above the pile cap and “W” indicates the sensor above
For this model, the top of the piled system is set as the 0-m elevation
the water bag. Four sensors were set close to (above and below) the
level (Fig. 1a). Above the piled system, a uniaxial geogrid layer (poly-
geogrid above both the center pile cap and the water bag, to study the
propylene type) is set at the elevation of 0.25 m, with the geometric
effect of the geogrid on the variation of the soil stress. These four
properties shown in Table 1. The direction of the longitudinal rib is
sensors were located in the center profile of the model. Another six
set along the 15 m length of the model (see Fig. 1). The ultimate tensile
sensors were placed on the top of different sections of the center pile
strength and the tensile stiffness (at strain 2%) of the geogrid for the
cap and the surrounding water bag. Using these sensors, the soil arching
longitudinal rib are 130.6 kN/m and 2459.5 kN/m, respectively (Wang
effect can be further investigated.
et al., 2019b).

3. Experimental methods
2.2. Materials
In this study, three testing procedures were applied, as shown in
Three kinds of soils were used in this model. These soils were ex- Table 3. Firstly, the model was built in layers. Table 3 shows the con-
cavated from the construction filling sites in Yuhang, Hangzhou, China, struction height after which the soil stress was measured. Note that
where the soils were also applied to build the railway track-bed in during the construction procedure, the water bags were kept full of
practice. Table 2 lists the basic soil properties. The detailed soil prop- water, leading to the same height as the pile caps. After the construction
erties (including the grain size distribution curves) can be seen from procedure of the substructure, the superstructure was installed, causing
Wang et al. (2018a, Wang et al., 2019, and Wang and Chen (2019), for an initial static stress of 7.42 kPa (summation of the unit-length weights
the related series of the full-scale model tests. The surface layer was
constituted by well-graded gravels (GW, maximum grain size of Table 3
40 mm), according to the standard ASTM D2487-11 (ASTM, 2011). The Testing procedures.
bottom layer was composed of clayey gravels (GC, maximum grain size Procedure 1: Construction
of 40 mm), with fines (particle size < 0.075 mm) content of 15.4%,
liquid limit of fines as 24% and plasticity index of fines as 13%. For the Step 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9

subsoil, poorly-graded gravels (GP, maximum grain size of 15.9 mm) H (m) 0.25 0.5 0.9 1.3 1.7 2.1 2.5 2.8 3.2
were used. Note that the soil properties of all materials were verified
before the construction of the model, showing a good agreement with Procedure 2: Static loading*
the standard TB10621-2009 (Ministry of Railways, 2009).
During the construction process, the water contents of the soils were Step 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11

σa (kPa) 0 4 8 12 16 20 24 28 32 36 40
Table 1
Geometric properties of the installed geogrid. Procedure 3: Subsoil settlement (discharging of water bag)

Type Size of longitudinal rib (mm) Size of transverse rib Geogrid Step 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
(mm) solid area/
Total area Sw (mm) 0 5 10 15 20 25 27.5 30 32.5 35
Length Width Thickness Interval Width Thickness (%)
Note: H = construction height; σa = applied static loading; Sw = subsoil set-
PP 500 4.2 1.6 20 20 5.6 22.6 tlement.
*After the measurements under 40 kPa, the applied static loading σa in
Note: PP = Polypropylene. Procedure 2 was released slowly back to 0 kPa, before Procedure 3.

757
H.-L. Wang, et al.
of a pair of rails, the track slab and the concrete base, divided by the
width of the concrete base). Secondly, the eight actuators with equally
induced force were used to apply the static load on the model by steps
with the stress increment of 4 kPa, till the maximum stress of 40 kPa. It
is worth noting that the static stress herein referred to the value of the
total applied force from the eight actuators divided by the area of the
concrete base (5 m × 3 m), excluding the stress induced by the self-
weight of the superstructure. This loading procedure was applied to
simulate the static load generated by trains (Wang, 2015). After a
specific load was applied, the soil stress was measured for each sensor.
When the measurement under 40 kPa surcharge loading was completed,
the static loading was released gradually back to 0 kPa before the next
procedure. Thirdly, the water bags were discharged by step to simulate
the differential settlement between the pile cap and the subsoil. As the
water bags were connected to each other, the overall lowered height of
the water bags (subsoil settlement) was determined by the volume of
the discharged water and the total area of the water bag system for each
step. The soil stress was measured after each step. The tests terminated
after the soil stress on the top of the pile cap remained relatively stable,
with a final lowered height of the water-bag system as 35 mm.
4. Experimental results
4.1. Construction procedure
Fig. 2 depicts the variations of soil stress close to the geogrid during
the construction procedure. The self-weight of the soil is the summation
of the weight (unit weight multiplied by height) of each layer. It can be
observed from this figure that the soil stress at the pile cap p shows
higher values than the self-weight, while the stress at the water bag w
presents lower values. This suggests that the soil arching was developed
during the construction procedure, due to the flowability of the water in
the water bag and thus the induced stiffness difference between the
water bag and the rigid pile cap. In addition, the development of soil
arching is strongly supported by the development of the tensile force in
the geogrid during this procedure, suggesting the occurrence of the
subsoil settlement (Wang, 2015). On the other hand, because of the
induced tensile force of the geogrid during this procedure, the pile-cap
soil stress below the geogrid is higher than that above the geogrid,
while opposite observation is identified for the water bag. In other
words, during the construction procedure, part of the load from the soil
above the water bag was transferred to that above the pile cap. This
phenomenon corresponds well with the designing concept of the ap-
plication of the geogrid (Jones et al., 2010; Chen et al., 2016; Wang
et al., 2019).
Fig. 3 shows the soil stress variation on the top of the piled system
Fig. 2. Variations of soil stress close to the geogrid in construction procedure.
758
Geotextiles and Geomembranes 47 (2019) 755–766
Fig. 3. Variations of soil stress on the top of the piled system in construction
procedure.
during the construction procedure. Similar observation is identified as
in Fig. 2, verifying the development of the soil arching: higher soil stress
on the pile cap and lower soil stress on the water bag. The stress dis-
tribution on the pile cap is not homogeneous, with the corner (P3-3)
and the edge (P3-2) of the pile cap showing higher values and the
center (P3) lower values, which might be attributed to the stress con-
centration. In addition, the water-bag sensor W3-3 presents higher
values than the other two sensors (W3 and W3-2) on the water bag with
similar values of soil stress. This observation is probably due to the
setup direction of the uniaxial geogrid with the longitudinal ribs along
the 15 m length of the model, inducing less membrane effect of the
geogrid in the area of the W3-3 sensor and thus higher stress trans-
mitted to this sensor. On the other hand, the continuous increasing
trend of the soil stress on the pile cap without reaching a stable status
indicates that the fully mobilized arching has not been developed (only
partially mobilized arching has been developed) in the model after the
construction procedure.
4.2. Static loading procedure
During the loading procedure, an additional stress is generated ac-
cording to the applied static loading a . In this study, the additional
stress is defined as the stress difference between the soil stress measured
at a specific static loading and the soil stress measured at a=0 kPa.
Fig. 4 plots the variations of measured soil stress and additional stress
with static loading during the loading procedure. The soil arching effect
can be distinctly identified, with higher soil stress at the pile cap and
lower one at the water bag. For the measured soil stress, the value at the
pile cap increases linearly as the static loading increases, while the
stress at the water bag is slightly influenced by the static loading
(Fig. 4a). For the additional stress, the value at the pile cap also in-
creases linearly with the static loading increasing (Fig. 4b). At
a=40 kPa, the additional stress increases to 39.4 kPa and 44.4 kPa for
P1 and P2, respectively. By contrast, the additional stresses of W1 and
W2 above the water bag are not significantly affected by the static
loading, all showing values close to 0 kPa. In addition, the geogrid re-
inforcement also presents the load transfer behavior, causing higher
pile-cap soil stress (additional stress) and lower water-bag soil stress
(additional stress) below the geogrid (Fig. 4).
On the top of the piled system, the variations of soil stress and ad-
ditional stress with static loading are plotted in Fig. 5. The observations
of soil arching effect, linear increasing trend of pile-cap soil stress
(additional stress) with static loading and uneven load distribution can
H.-L. Wang, et al. Geotextiles and Geomembranes 47 (2019) 755–766

Fig. 4. Variations of (a) soil stress and (b) additional stress close to the geogrid
in static loading procedure.

also be identified. For the additional stress at a=40 kPa, the values
increase to 45.8 kPa, 59.5 kPa and 68.9 kPa for the center, the edge and
Fig. 5. Variations of (a) soil stress and (b) additional stress on the top of the
the corner of the pile cap, respectively. Note that the water-bag sensor
piled system in static loading procedure.
W3-3 still presents higher soil stresses than the other two sensors on the
water bag because of the less membrane effect. For all the three sensors
on the water bag, the increment of stress or additional stress induced by
the static surcharge loading is not significant.

4.3. Subsoil settlement procedure

Fig. 6 presents the variations of soil stress close to the geogrid

during subsoil settlement (water bag discharging) procedure. On the
whole, the soil stresses above the pile cap increase significantly in the
beginning as the subsoil settlement increases, while this increasing rate
decreases with more water being discharged. At a given subsoil settle-
ment, the effect of the geogrid on the load transfer is still obvious: the
pile-cap sensor below the geogrid presents higher stress than that above
the geogrid. For the soil stress above the water bag, the values decrease
when the subsoil settlement increases to 5 mm and then stays relatively
stable with the settlement increasing.
Fig. 7 shows the variations of soil stress on the top of piled system Fig. 6. Variations of soil stress close to the geogrid in subsoil settlement pro-
during subsoil settlement procedure. It can be observed that the evo- cedure.
lution of soil stress on different sections of the pile cap behaves ac-
cording to different patterns. The soil stress in the center of the pile cap
sensors W3 and W3-2 vary slightly in this procedure, while the sensor
(P3) increases at a rate that decreases with the subsoil settlement in-
W3-3 decreases rapidly to a much lower value (similar to the stresses of
creasing, while the values on the edge (P3-2) and the corner (P3-3)
the other two water-bag sensors) with the subsoil settlement increasing
sections of the pile cap increase when the settlement increases to 5 mm
to 5 mm. These observations can be explained as follows. During the
and then stay steady or decrease slightly with the continuous dischar-
process of subsoil settlement increasing to 5 mm, the shear stress
ging of the water bag. For the water bag area, the soil stresses of the

759
H.-L. Wang, et al.
Fig. 7. Variations of soil stress on the top of the piled system in subsoil set-
tlement procedure.
between the soil above the pile cap and the water bag increased to a
peak value, leading to the development of a fully mobilized soil
arching. In this period, the soil stress was transferred from the soil
above the water bag to that above the pile cap. However, as the subsoil
settlement continued to increase from 5 mm to 35 mm, the peak shear
stress kept relatively stable or even decreased, leading to a stable or
weakened soil arching. Meanwhile, the soil stresses on the pile cap were
readjusted to a more uniform state, with the soil stresses on the edge
and the corner of the pile cap transferred to the center.
5. Discussions
5.1. Effect of geogrid reinforcement
To quantitively evaluate the effect of the geogrid reinforcement, a
parameter namely the stress difference induced by the geogrid g is
introduced as (van Eekelen et al., 2012a; Wang et al., 2019):
g = g b g a (1)
where g b and g a are the soil stresses below and above the geogrid
(for either pile-cap or water-bag area), respectively.
The quantitative effect of the geogrid reinforcement is shown in
Fig. 8, plotted with the stress difference g with the construction
height, the static loading and the subsoil settlement for the three testing
procedures, respectively. During the construction procedure, the stress
differences above both the pile cap and the water bag increase gradu-
ally with the construction height increasing (Fig. 8a). The positive stress
difference above the pile cap and the negative value above the water
bag indicate that part of the load above the water-bag area is trans-
ferred to the pile-cap area through the geogrid. Furthermore, the pile-
cap stress difference presents similar absolute values as that above the
water bag at a given construction height: for instance, at the end of
construction (H =3.2 m), the absolute values of the stress difference are
8.8 kPa and 9.4 kPa above the pile cap and the water bag, respectively.
Because of the deflection of the geogrid induced by the installation
of the superstructure and thus the spreading force (Chen et al., 2016),
the stresses close to the geogrid present different distribution patterns
at 0 kPa static loading (Fig. 4a; the static loading in this figure excludes
the self-weight of the superstructure) compared to the as-construction
state (3.2 m construction height, Fig. 2). Hence, a higher stress differ-
ence is identified above the pile cap at 0 kPa static loading (Fig. 8b)
than the as-construction state (Fig. 8a). On the other hand, under a
given static loading, the stress difference shows higher absolute values
760
Geotextiles and Geomembranes 47 (2019) 755–766
above the pile cap than those above the water bag (Fig. 8b). This might
be probably due to the inverse triangular distribution of the vertical
stress or the vertical-directional tensile force on the geogrid in the
water-bag area between two adjacent pile caps (van Eekelen et al.,
2012a, b; Chen et al., 2016). For the sensors located above the center of
the water bag (W1 and W2, see Fig. 1a), the vertical-directional geogrid
tensile force shows the minimum values, causing the more approaching
soil stresses above and below the geogrid in this area. However, the
maximum vertical-directional geogrid tensile force is presented at the
edge of the pile cap. Owing to the higher vertical-directional geogrid
tensile force above the pile cap, more load is transferred to the pile-cap
sensor below the geogrid, showing a higher stress difference. In addi-
tion, as the static loading increases, the stress difference above the pile
cap increases slightly, whereas the stress difference above the water bag
keeps relatively stable.
During the subsoil settlement procedure, the stress difference above
the pile cap increases with the settlement increasing, while the absolute
values of water-bag stress difference decrease when the settlement in-
creases to 5 mm and then stay stable close to 0 kPa (Fig. 8c). In com-
bination with Fig. 7, it can be concluded that before the settlement
increases to 5 mm, the fully mobilized soil arching is not developed,
with the load above the water-bag area transmitting on both the geo-
grid and the water bag. When the subsoil settlement increases from
0 mm to 5 mm, the load above the water-bag area is transferred gra-
dually to the pile cap, with significant deflection of the geogrid and
change of the tensile force (see Chen et al., 2016). After the fully mo-
bilized arching state is reached, almost only the geogrid participates in
the load bearing process above the water-bag area, also leading to the
water-bag stress difference close to 0 kPa. For the pile cap area, as the
subsoil settlement increases, the more deflection of the geogrid trans-
fers more load to the pile cap, resulting in higher values of pile-cap
stress difference above the center area of the pile cap.
5.2. Variation of mean stress on pile cap
Considering that the soil stress distribution is not homogeneous on
the pile cap (Figs. 3, 5 and 7), the mean stress is determined using the
uniformly divided sections of the pile cap, as shown in Fig. 9. In this
figure, the pile cap is divided into nine sections sharing the same area: 1
pile-cap (PC) center section, 4 pile-cap (PC) edge sections and 4 pile-cap
(PC) corner sections (Fig. 9). Due to the symmetry and the same area of
each section, the mean stress p mean on the pile cap can be calculated
as:
p cen +4 p ed +4 p cor
=
p mean
9 (2)
where p cen , p ed and p cor represent the soil stress on the center, the
edge and the corner sections of the pile cap, respectively.
Fig. 10 shows the variations of mean pile-cap stress with the con-
struction height, the static loading and the subsoil settlement. It can be
observed that the mean pile-cap stress increases linearly with the con-
struction height and the static loading increasing (Fig. 10a and b).
During the subsoil settlement procedure, the mean stress increases
significantly when the settlement increases to 5 mm and then stays
relatively steady as the settlement continues to increase. This suggests
that the fully mobilized arching state is developed since the additional
subsoil settlement reaches 5 mm.
5.3. Verification of the testing data
In order to verify the testing accuracy, the total measured and ap-
plied loads are compared on the top of the piled system for the region
with the size of pile cap center spacing shown in Fig. 9. The total ap-
plied load is determined as ( i Hi + p) s 2 , where i and Hi are the unit
weight and the height of each soil layer, respectively; p is the surcharge
applied on the substructure (including the static stress induced by the
H.-L. Wang, et al.
Fig. 8. Effects of geogrid reinforcement: (a) construction; (b) static loading; (c) subsoil settlement.
Fig. 9. Calculation region with the size of pile cap center spacing. Note:
PC = pile cap; WB = water bag.
actuators and the self-weight of the superstructure); s is the pile cap
center spacing (1.8 m, see Fig. 1b). The total measured load includes the
loads borne by the pile cap, the surrounding water bag and the geogrid.
The load borne by the pile cap can be estimated as p mean a2 , where a is
the pile cap length (1 m, see Fig. 1b) and a2 is the area of one pile cap.
The load borne by the water bag is calculated as wi Wi , where wi and
Wi are the soil stress and the area for each section of the water bag (two
edge-1 sections, two edge-2 sections and four corner sections, see
Fig. 9), respectively. For the estimation of the load borne by the geo-
grid, the modified model by van Eekelen et al. (2011) is used. When the
construction height is less than 1.12 m [1.4(s a) , BSI (British
Standards Institution) 2010], the load borne by the geogrid Fg is defined
as (van Eekelen et al., 2011):
Fg = (s 2 a2)( i Hi + p) X
Geotextiles and Geomembranes 47 (2019) 755–766
in which X is a grouped variable as:
p mean
s2 a2
i Hi + p
X=
s2 a2 (4)
Note that the measured mean stress on the pile cap p mean (see
Fig. 10) is used for the calculations in Eq. (4). When the construction
height exceeds 1.12 m [1.4(s a) ], the load borne by the geogrid Fg is
determined as (van Eekelen et al., 2011):
Fg = 1.4 (s a)(s 2 a2) X (5)
where is the weighted unit weight of the soils in the whole sub-
structure as ( i Hi )/ Hi ( Hi equals to the construction height of the
substructure). After the determinations of the loads borne by the pile
cap, the water bag and the geogrid, the total measured load can thus be
obtained on the top of the piled system.
Fig. 11 shows the comparison of the total load on the top of the piled
system between the measured and the applied values for the three
testing procedures. In the construction procedure, the measured load
shows slightly higher values than the applied load when the construc-
tion height is less than 2.8 m. Approaching the completion of the con-
struction, the measured load has a good agreement with the applied
one. In the static loading procedure, the applied load locates above the
measured one, with the difference increasing with the increase of the
static loading. This difference might be induced by the determining
method of the applied load transmitted to the bottom of the model as
( i Hi + p) s 2 . The surcharge loading p should present the attenuation
pattern along depth, which is however not considered in Fig. 11, thus
leading to higher values of the applied load. Note also that the applied
load under 0 kPa surcharge (Fig. 11b) is higher than the value at 3.2 m
construction height (Fig. 11a), because of the installation of the su-
perstructure with the static loading of 7.42 kPa (see Section 3). During
the subsoil settlement procedure, the measured load corresponds well
with the applied one, showing the relative error within 10% compared
(3) to the applied value and verifying the testing accuracy.
761
H.-L. Wang, et al. Geotextiles and Geomembranes 47 (2019) 755–766

Fig. 10. Variations of mean soil stress on the pile cap: (a) construction; (b) static loading; (c) subsoil settlement.

5.4. Analytical models of pile efficacy mean stress p mean (see Fig. 10) is used for the calculations of the
present test.
In this study, the pile efficacy Ep is defined as: Four analytical models about the calculation of the pile efficacy are
2
taken into comparison with the present study. These analytical models
pa
Ep = are illustrated as follows.
( i Hi + p) s 2 (6)

where p is the soil stress on the top of pile cap. The measured pile-cap

Fig. 11. Verification of the testing data between the total measured and applied loads: (a) construction; (b) static loading; (c) subsoil settlement.

762
H.-L. Wang, et al. Geotextiles and Geomembranes 47 (2019) 755–766

5.4.1. Hewlett and Randolph (1988) deformation modulus of the bottom layer in the arching area is used as
Hewlett and Randolph (1988) considered the soil arching as semi- 42.4 MPa, see Table 2). As shown by Fig. 10, when the subsoil settle-
spherical geometry and defined two failure regions: the crown and the ment reaches 5 mm, the fully mobilized arching develops. After the
foot of the soil arching. With regard to the equilibrium equation of the fully mobilized arching state, the height of arching remains constant
crown at ultimate state, the pile efficacy Ep1 is defined as: (Wang and Chen, 2019). In other words, the height of arching should
not exceed the value at 5 mm subsoil settlement in Eq. (17). The de-
s2 a2
Ep1 = 1 w =1 (1 2 )(A AB + C ) termination of this parameter is illustrated in details in the following
Hs 2 (7)
Section 5.4.5. As the surcharge is not considered in this model either,
In this equation, w is the soil stress on the subsoil or the water bag; the additional height H is added to the height of soil layers as in the
and H are the unit weight and the height of the soil, respectively; , Hewlett and Randolph (1988) model.
A , B and C are parameters demonstrated as:
a 5.4.3. EBGEO (DGGT, 2010)
=
s (8) The German standard EBGEO (DGGT, 2010) used a three-dimen-
sional arching model to define the pile efficacy Ep as:
A = (1 2) 2(Kp 1)
(9)
[( 2 2 2
i Hi +p zo ) s / a + z0] a
s 2Kp 2 Ep =
B= ( i Hi + p) s 2 (18)
2 H 2Kp 3 (10)
where z0 is the normal stress on the geogrid reinforcement between
s a 2K p 2 pile caps, determined as:
C=
2 H 2Kp 3 (11)
p He2 2
= + H + He2 + He + + He2
in which Kp is the coefficient of the passive earth pressure, defined as: z0 1
H
1 2 1
4
1 2

1 + sin (19)
Kp =
1 sin (12)
In this equation, He is the height of soil arching, recommended by
where is the internal friction angle of the soil. He = H for H < sd/2 and He = sd/2 for H sd/2 , respectively (DGGT,
For the foot of the soil arching at ultimate state, the pile efficacy Ep2 2010); sd is the diagonal center spacing between neighboring pile caps
is defined as: (2.55 m in the testing model, Fig. 1b); , 1 and 2 are parameters,
determined as:
Ep2 =
1+ (13) a [tan2 (45° + /2) 1]
=
where is a parameter determined as: 2 sd (20)

2Kp 1 1
= [ (1 ) Kp (1 + Kp) ] = (sd a) 2
1
8 (21)
Kp + 1 1 + (14)
As suggested by Hewlett and Randolph (1988), the final pile efficacy s2d + 2asd a2
2 =
Ep should be the lower one of the aforementioned two estimations. Note 2sd2 (22)
that the surcharge p on the top of the embankment is not considered in
in which is the effective internal friction angle of the soil.
this model. Therefore, the p value (including the initial stress induced
Due to the lack of the effective strength index, the internal friction
by the self-weight of the substructure) is transferred to an additional
angle is used herein to approximately estimate the pile efficacy of the
height of the model as:
unsaturated full-scale model, in which low excess pore pressure may be
p generated.
H=
(15)
In other words, the height of soil H is modified as H + H with 5.4.4. van Eekelen et al. (2013)
surcharge during the calculation using this model. Through a series of laboratory model tests (van Eekelen et al.,
2012a, 2012b), van Eekelen et al. (2013) proposed a concentric arching
5.4.2. Chen et al. (2008) model, with the three-dimensional (3D) hemispherical arching on each
Based on the arching model considering the differential settlement four piles and the two-dimensional (2D) arching on each two piles.
between the pile and the subsoil, Chen et al. (2008) defined the soil Based on this model, the loads transmitted to the pile, the geogrid and
stress p on the pile cap as: the subsoil can be calculated. The loads borne by the geogrid and the
subsoil are the summation of the following two parts: (1) the load ex-
a 4fK 0 4fK 0 He
erted on the 3D arching to the geogrid square area FGRsquare ; (2) the load
p = 1+ (H He) e a 1
4fK 0 a (16) exerted on the 2D arching to the geogrid strips FGRstrips . In this study, the
where f is the friction coefficient on the slip surface between the pile calculating excel file provided by van Eekelen (2015) is used for the
and the subsoil (tan ); K 0 is the coefficient of the static earth pressure calculating process. Then, the pile efficacy can be estimated as (van
(1 sin ). Eekelen et al., 2013):
The parameter He represents the height of equal settlement plane ( H + p) s 2 FGRsquare FGRstrips
(height of soil arching). According to Chen et al. (2008), the height of Ep =
( H + p) s 2 (23)
arching He and the subsoil settlement Sw have the relationship as:

( ) ( )e
4fK 0 He
Se = 1 +
a2 a a
+H He a 1 He + 5.4.5. Interpretation about soil parameters
s2 a2 4fK 0 E 4fK 0
For the aforementioned four analytical models, only one kind of soil
He (2H He )
} layer is considered, while the present testing model contains three
2E (17)
layers. Hence, the determination of the soil parameters in the analytical
where E is the deformation modulus of the soil (the mean value of the estimations of pile efficacy is defined into two cases. Before the height

763
H.-L. Wang, et al.
Fig. 12. Evolution of pile efficacy in the model: (a) construction; (b) static loading; (c) subsoil settlement.
of model reaches 0.5 m, the calculation is related to only one layer
(subsoil) and the parameters of the subsoil are directly used to de-
termine the pile efficacy. After the construction height exceeds 0.5 m,
the weighted unit weight and the weighted internal friction angle
of the soils in the soil arching area are applied to calculate the pile
efficacy using the four analytical models, defined as:
i Hi
= tlement (additional 5 mm in this study) is reached, the fully mobilized
Hi
i Hi
= efficacy predicted by the four analytical models is similar to that in the
Hi
where i , i and Hi are the unit weight, the internal friction angle and
the height of each layer in the soil arching area, respectively; the total
calculating height Hi in these two equations are no more than the
height of the soil arching for all testing procedures.
The soil arching area is chosen because the load transfer through the
soil arching is only influenced by the soils in this area. For EBGEO
(DGGT, 2010), the height of soil arching is recommended as the con-
struction height H when H < sd/2 (sd/2 equals to 1.27 m) and sd/2 when
H sd/2 . For the other three models, the height of soil arching de-
termined by Chen et al. (2008) is used. The ultimate height of arching
at 5 mm subsoil settlement can be back-calculated using trial and error
method as 0.95 mm (Eq. (17)). Before the construction height reaches
0.95 mm, the height of arching is the construction height of the model;
when the construction height is higher than 0.95 m, the height of
arching is considered as 0.95 m.
Note that for the determination of the additional height H induced
by the surcharge loading for the models of Hewlett and Randolph
(1988) and Chen et al. (2008) in Eq. (15), the overall weighted unit
weight of all the three soil layers is considered.
5.5. Evolution of pile efficacy
Fig. 12 presents the evolution of pile efficacies from the present
study and the four analytical models. For the present model test, the
pile efficacy increases with the construction height increasing, to a
Geotextiles and Geomembranes 47 (2019) 755–766
value of 0.70 at the end of construction (Fig. 12a). Nevertheless, the
pile efficacy starts to enter the relatively stable state only when the
subsoil settlement increases to 5 mm (Fig. 12c). This suggests that
during the construction and the static loading procedures, only the
partially mobilized arching is developed. At the partially mobilized
arching state, the pile efficacy decreases monotonously as the surcharge
loading increases (Fig. 12b). However, since sufficient differential set-
(24)
arching is established.
During the construction procedure, the developing trend of the pile
(25)
present test. However, different evolution trend of the pile efficacy is
identified between the estimations and the testing results during the
static loading procedure. On the whole, in these two procedures, all the
four models overestimate the pile efficacy values of the present test
(Fig. 12a and b). This is because these analytical models all consider the
calculations at fully mobilized or ultimate arching state. However,
during these two periods, only partially mobilized arching is developed
in the model test, which reduces the load transmitted to the pile cap and
leads to a smaller value of pile efficacy.
In terms of the subsoil settlement procedure when Sw 5 mm (par-
tially mobilized arching), the analytical models still overpredict this
value. Since the fully mobilized arching is established (Sw >5 mm), the
pile efficacy from the present study has a good agreement with all the
four models. The relative errors of the estimations are less than 10%,
compared to the values of the present study, suggesting the reliability of
these models at the fully mobilized arching state.
5.6. Limitations of this study
There are limitations to this study, illustrated as follows. Firstly,
although the variations of the tensile force along the geogrid provided a
strong support for the development of the differential settlement during
the construction procedure (Wang, 2015), the differential settlement
was not measured. This is because the technical difficulty of installing
and maintaining the settlement plate (generally a vertical steel rod with
two plane faces, one face is fixed to the measured surface, the other face
764
H.-L. Wang, et al. Geotextiles and Geomembranes 47 (2019) 755–766

is stretched outside the model with a sensor mounted on it) on the top Ep1 pile efficacy with ultimate state at crown of soil arching
of the piled system, with more than 3.2 m height rod installed Ep2 pile efficacy with ultimate state at foot of soil arching
throughout the model. E v1 deformation modulus by static plate loading test
Secondly, according to the model of Chen et al. (2008), the height of f friction coefficient on slip surface
arching changes with the differential settlement. However, a constant FGRsquare load borne by geogrid square area through 3D arching
height of arching is applied in the calculations after the subsoil settle- FGRstrips load borne by geogrid strips through 2D arching
ment reaches 5 mm. This may lead to some errors of estimating the pile H construction height of track-bed
efficacy. H additional height of soil
Finally, the calculations using the analytical models are all based on He height of equal settlement plane (height of soil arching)
the weighted parameters of the soils in the soil arching area when the Hi height of soil layer
construction height is more than 0.5 m. To predict the evolution of pile K0 coefficient of static earth pressure
efficacy more accurately, further studies including modified models Kp coefficient of passive earth pressure
containing different soil layers are needed. p surcharge on substructure
s pile cap center spacing
6. Conclusions sd diagonal center spacing between neighboring pile caps
Sw subsoil settlement
A full-scale model of geosynthetic-reinforced pile-supported (GRPS) Wi area of specific section of water bag
railway track-bed was established, with concrete slabs and water bags X grouped variable in van Eekelen et al. (2011).
simulating the pile caps and the subsoil, respectively. A geogrid cushion parameter in Hewlett and Randolph (1988).
layer was set above the piled system in the subsoil. Three testing pro- unit weight of soil
cedures were performed, including model construction, static loading i unit weight of soil layer
and subsoil settlement (discharging of water bag). The soil stresses were weighted unit weight of soil in arching area
monitored during the testing procedures. The testing results allowed weighted unit weight of soil in whole substructure
the effect of the geogrid reinforcement and the evolution of the pile parameter in Hewlett and Randolph (1988).
efficacy to be analyzed. 1 parameter in EBGEO (2010)
The partially mobilized soil arching was generated during the con- 2 parameter in EBGEO (2010)
struction and the static loading procedures, while the fully mobilized a applied static stress
soil arching was developed since sufficient differential settlement be- g stress difference induced by geogrid
tween the pile cap and the surrounding subsoil (additional 5 mm in this g a soil stress above geogrid
study) was reached. g b soil stress below geogrid
The geogrid effectively transferred the load on the water bag to the p soil stress above pile cap
pile cap area. Due to the load transfer process, the soil stress transferred p cen soil stress on center section of pile cap
to the pile cap from the geogrid was higher than that transferred away p cor soil stress on corner section of pile cap
from the water bag during static loading and subsoil settlement pro- p ed soil stress on edge section of pile cap
cedures. After the fully mobilized arching was developed, the area in p mean mean soil stress on pile cap
the center of water bag hardly bore the load from above because of the w soil stress above water bag
inverse triangular distribution of the vertical-directional geogrid tensile wi soil stress on specific section of water bag
force in the water-bag area. z0 normal stress on geogrid reinforcement between pile caps
During the construction and the static loading procedures when the internal friction angle of soil
partially mobilized arching was developed in the model, the pile effi- i internal friction angle of soil layer
cacy increased with the construction height increasing and decreased effective internal friction angle of soil
with the increase of the static loading. The state of partially mobilized weighted internal friction angle of soil
arching also led to the overestimations of the pile efficacy from all the parameter in EBGEO (2010)
four analytical models based on the ultimate analysis. After the devel-
opment of the fully mobilized arching, the pile efficacy stayed relatively References
stable. The testing results were consistent with all the four analytical
models at the fully-mobilized arching state, showing the relative errors ASTM, 2011. Standard Practice for Classification of Soils for Engineering Purposes
within 10% compared to the present test. (Unified Soil Classification System). D2487-11. ASTM International, West
Conshohocken, Pa.
Briançon, L., Simon, B., 2012. Performance of pile-supported embankment over soft soil:
Acknowledgement full-scale experiment. J. Geotech. Geoenviron. Eng. 138 (4), 551–561.
Briançon, L., Simon, B., 2017. Pile-supported embankment over soft soil for a high-speed
line. Geosynth. Int. 24 (3), 293–305.
The present work is supported by the National Natural Science BSI (British Standards Institution), 2010. Code of Practical for Strengthened/reinforced
Foundation of China (Grant Nos. 41472244, 51608188, 751201246). Soils and Other Fills. BS8006, London.
The authors also appreciate Mr. Yan-Wei Wang from Ningbo Jiangong Chen, R.P., Chen, Y.M., Han, J., Xu, Z.Z., 2008. A theoretical solution for pile-supported
embankments on soft soils under one-dimensional compression. Can. Geotech. J. 45,
Jianle Engineering Co. Ltd. (previously Graduate student from Zhejiang
611–623.
University) for his help with the full-scale model tests. Chen, R.P., Xu, Z.Z., Chen, Y.M., Ling, D.S., Zhu, B., 2010. Field tests on pile-supported
embankments over soft ground. J. Geotech. Geoenviron. Eng. 136 (6), 777–785.
Chen, R.P., Chen, J.M., Wang, H.L., 2014. Recent research on the track-subgrade of high-
Notation
speed railways. J. Zhejiang Univ.-Sci. A 15 (12), 1034–1038.
Chen, R.P., Wang, H.L., Hong, P.Y., Cui, Y.J., Qi, S., Cheng, W., 2018a. Effects of degree of
a pile cap length compaction and fines content of the subgrade bottom layer on moisture migration in
A parameter in Hewlett and Randolph (1988). the substructure of high-speed railways. Proc. Inst. Mech. Eng. - Part F J. Rail Rapid
Transit 232 (4), 1197–1210.
B parameter in Hewlett and Randolph (1988). Chen, R.P., Wang, Y.W., Ye, X.W., Bian, X.C., Dong, X.P., 2016. Tensile force of geogrids
c cohesion embedded in pile-supported reinforced embankment: a full-scale experimental study.
C parameter in Hewlett and Randolph (1988). Geotext. Geomembranes 44, 157–169.
Chen, W.B., Yin, J.H., Feng, W.Q., Borana, L., Chen, R.P., 2018b. Accumulated permanent
E deformation modulus of soil axial strain of a subgrade fill under cyclic high-speed railway loading. Int. J.
Ep pile efficacy

765
H.-L. Wang, et al.
Geomech. 18 (5), 04018018.
DGGT (German Geotechnical Society), 2010. Recommendations for Design and Analysis
of Earth Structures Using Geosynthetic Reinforcements. EBGEO, Berlin.
Han, J., Gabr, M.A., 2002. Numerical analysis of geosynthetic-reinforced and pile-sup-
ported earth platforms over soft soil. J. Geotech. Geoenviron. Eng. 128 (1), 44–53.
Heitz, C., Lüking, J., Kempfert, H.G., 2008. Geosynthetic reinforced and pile supported
embankments under static and cyclic loading. In: Proceedings of the 4th European
Geosynthetics Conference, Edinburgh, UK, pp. 1–8.
Hewlett, W.J., Randolph, M.F., 1988. Analysis of piled embankments. Gr. Eng. 21, 12–18.
Huckert, A., Briançon, L., Villard, P., Garcin, P., 2016. Load transfer mechanisms in
geotextile-reinforced embankments overlying voids: experimental and analytical
approaches. Geotext. Geomembranes 44, 442–456.
Jones, B.M., Plaut, R.H., Filz, G.M., 2010. Analysis of geosynthetic reinforcement in pile-
supported embankments. Part I: 3D plate model. Geosynth. Int. 17 (2), 59–67.
King, D.J., Bouazza, A., Gniel, J.R., Rowe, R.K., Bui, H.H., 2017a. Serviceability limit state
design for geosynthetic reinforced column supported embankment. Geotext.
Geomembranes 45 (4), 261–279.
King, D.J., Bouazza, A., Gniel, J.R., Rowe, R.K., Bui, H.H., 2017b. Load-transfer platform
behaviour in embankments supported on semi-rigid columns: implications of the
ground reaction curve. Can. Geotech. J. 54, 1158–1175.
Lai, H.J., Zheng, J.J., Zhang, J., Zhang, R.J., Cui, L., 2014. DEM analysis of ‘‘soil’’-arching
within geogrid-reinforced and unreinforced pile-supported embankments. Comput.
Geotech. 61, 13–23.
Le Hello, B., Villard, P., 2009. Embankments reinforced by piles and geosynthetics-
Numerical and experimental studies dealing with the transfer of load on the soil
embankment. Eng. Geol. 106 (1–2), 78–91.
Low, B.K., Tang, S.K., Choa, V., 1994. Arching in piled embankments. J. Geotech. Eng.
120 (11), 1917–1938.
Ministry of Railways, 2009. Code for Design of High Speed Railway. TB10621-2009,
Beijing.
Nunez, M.A., Briançon, L., Dias, D., 2013. Analyses of a pile-supported embankment over
soft clay: full-scale experiment, analytical and numerical approaches. Eng. Geol. 153,
53–67.
Rowe, R.K., Liu, K.-W., 2015. Three-dimensional finite element modelling of a full-scale
geosynthetic-reinforced, pile-supported embankment. Can. Geotech. J. 52,
2041–2054.
Rui, R., Han, J., van Eekelen, S.J.M., Wan, Y., 2019. Experimental investigation of soil-
arching development in unreinforced and geosynthetic-reinforced pile-supported
embankments. J. Geotech. Geoenviron. Eng. 145 (1), 04018103.
Terzaghi, K., 1943. Theoretical Soil Mechanics. John Wiley & Sons, New York.
van Eekelen, S.J.M., 2015. Basal Reinforced Piled Embankments. Ph.D. thesis. Univ. of
Delft, Delft, Netherlands Excel file with the calculation model see. www.
piledembankments.com.
van Eekelen, S.J.M., Bezuijen, A., Lodder, H.J., van Tol, A.F., 2012a. Model experiments
on piled embankments. Part I. Geotext. Geomembranes 32, 69–81.
van Eekelen, S.J.M., Bezuijen, A., Lodder, H.J., van Tol, A.F., 2012b. Model experiments
on piled embankments. Part II. Geotext. Geomembranes 32, 82–94.
van Eekelen, S.J.M., Bezuijen, A., van Tol, A.F., 2011. Analysis and modification of the
British Standard BS8006 for the design of piled embankments. Geotext.
Geomembranes 29, 345–359.
van Eekelen, S.J.M., Bezuijen, A., van Tol, A.F., 2013. An analytical model for arching in
766
Geotextiles and Geomembranes 47 (2019) 755–766
piled embankments. Geotext. Geomembranes 39, 78–102.
van Eekelen, S.J.M., Bezuijen, A., van Tol, A.F., 2015. Validation of analytical models for
the design of basal reinforced piled embankments. Geotext. Geomembranes 43,
56–81.
Villard, P., Huckert, A., Briançon, L., 2016. Load transfer mechanisms in geotextile-re-
inforced embankments overlying voids: numerical approach and design. Geotext.
Geomembranes 44, 381–395.
Wang, Y.W., 2015. Full Scale Experimental Study on Pile Supported Reinforced
Embankment of Ballastless Track in High Speed Railway. Master thesis. Zhejiang
Univ., Hangzhou, China.
Wang, H.L., Chen, R.P., 2019. Estimating static and dynamic stresses in geosynthetic-
reinforced pile-supported track-bed under train moving loads. J. Geotech.
Geoenviron. Eng. 145 (7), 04019029.
Wang, H.L., Chen, R.P., Cheng, W., Qi, S., Cui, Y.J., 2019a. Full-scale model study on
variations of soil stress in geosynthetic-reinforced pile-supported track-bed with
water level change and cyclic loading. Can. Geotech. J. 56 (1), 60–68.
Wang, H.L., Chen, R.P., Liu, Q.W., Kang, X., Wang, Y.W., 2019b. Soil-geogrid interaction
at various influencing factors by pullout tests with applications of FBG sensors. J.
Mater. Civ. Eng. 31 (1), 04018342.
Wang, H.L., Chen, R.P., Qi, S., Cheng, W., Cui, Y.J., 2018a. Long-term performance of
pile-supported ballastless track-bed at various water levels. J. Geotech. Geoenviron.
Eng. 144 (6), 04018035.
Wang, H.L., Cui, Y.J., Lamas-Lopez, F., Dupla, J.C., Canou, J., Calon, N., Saussine, G.,
Aimedieu, P., Chen, R.P., 2017. Effects of inclusion contents on the resilient modulus
and damping ratio of unsaturated track-bed materials. Can. Geotech. J. 54 (12),
1672–1681.
Wang, H.L., Cui, Y.J., Lamas-Lopez, F., Dupla, J.C., Canou, J., Calon, N., Saussine, G.,
Aimedieu, P., Chen, R.P., 2018c. Permanent deformation of track-bed materials at
various inclusion contents under large number of loading cycles. J. Geotech.
Geoenviron. Eng. 144 (8), 04018044.
Wang, H.L., Cui, Y.J., Lamas-Lopez, F., Dupla, J.C., Canou, J., Calon, N., Saussine, G.,
Aimedieu, P., Chen, R.P., 2018b. Investigation on the mechanical behavior of track-
bed materials at various contents of coarse grains. Constr. Build. Mater. 164,
228–237.
Xing, H.F., Zhang, Z., Liu, H.B., Wei, H., 2014. Large-scale tests of pile-supported earth
platform with and without geogrid. Geotext. Geomembranes 42, 586–598.
Zhang, C., Jiang, G., Liu, X., Buzzi, O., 2016. Arching in geogrid-reinforced pile-supported
embankments over silty clay of medium compressibility: field data and analytical
solution. Comput. Geotech. 77, 11–25.
Zhao, L.S., Zhou, W.H., Fatahi, B., Li, X.B., Yuen, K.V., 2016. A dual beam model for
geosynthetic-reinforced granular fill on an elastic foundation. Appl. Math. Model. 40,
9254–9268.
Zhao, L.S., Zhou, W.H., Yuen, K.V., 2017. A simplified axisymmetric model for column
supported embankment systems. Comput. Geotech. 92, 96–107.
Zhou, W.H., Chen, R.P., Zhao, L.S., Xu, Z.Z., Chen, Y.M., 2012. A semi-analytical method
for the analysis of pile-supported embankments. J. Zhejiang Univ.-Sci. A 13 (11),
888–894.
Zhuang, Y., Wang, K.Y., Liu, H.L., 2014. A simplified model to analyze the reinforced
piled embankments. Geotext. Geomembranes 42, 154–165.
Zhuang, Y., Ellis, E.A., 2016. Finite-element analysis of a piled embankment with re-
inforcement and subsoil. Geotechnique 66 (7), 596–601.