The design guideline basal reinforced piled embankments; The Dutch CUR226:2016 and the German EBGEO:2010; A comparison of design models and safety approaches

The Dutch Design for geosynthetic-reinforced pile-supported embankments had a major revise before publishing its second version in 2016 (van Eekelen and Brugman, 2016, hereafter called CUR226). This paper compares this new design guideline and the German design guideline EBGEO 2010. The following is compared: (1) the design models that calculate the tensile force in the geosynthetic reinforcement (GR), without using partial factors, and (2) the safety approaches, while using the same GR design model. CUR226 uses the Concentric Arches model for the design the geosynthetic reinforcement (GR, van Eekelen et al., 2012a, 2012b, 2013, 2015), which is a modification and extension of EBGEO’s model (Zaeske, 2001). It is concluded that the EBGEO model calculates on average 2.5 times the GR strain measured in many projects, while the CUR226 model calculates on average 1.1 times that measured strain: a nearly perfect fit. CUR226 uses partial safety factors for load and material parameters that were determined using a probabilistic study (van Duijnen et al., 2015). EBGEO uses partial factors on load ef-fect and GR resistance. It is concluded that the most strict reliability class of EBGEO, Lastfall 1, equals or exceeds the least strict reliability class of CUR226 (RC1, applied for roads) for most geometries that are applied frequently, as long as the subgrade reaction is less than 100 kN/m3, for the considered cases. However, Lastfall 1 is in most cases less safe than the most strict reliability class of CUR226: RC3, which is applied for railways.