Effect of Geocell Reinforcement in Sand

and Its Effect on the Bearing Capacity

with Experimental Test; A Review
Aminaton Marto
Professor of Faculty of Civil Engineering, Universiti Teknologi Malaysia
(UTM) 81310 Skudai, Malaysia
e-mail: aminaton@utm.my

Mohsen Oghabi
(Corresponding author) PhD Student of Faculty of Civil Engineering, Universiti
Teknologi Malaysia (UTM) 81310 Skudai, Malaysia
e-mail: mohsenoghabi@gmail.com

Amin Eisazadeh
Lecturer of Faculty of Civil Engineering, Universiti Teknologi Malaysia
(UTM), 81310 Skudai, Malaysia
e-mail: aeisazadeh@utm.my

ABSTRACT
In general, the tensile strength of the soil is poor. For this reason, the soil often needs to be
strengthened. The main objectives of strengthening the soil mass are to improve stability,
increase bearing capacity and reduce settlements and lateral deformation. There are several
methods for improving the soil. One of the approaches is the use of geosynthetic materials.
Geosynthetic is a well known technique in soil reinforcement. The use of geosynthetic three
dimensions , can significantly improve the soil performance and reduce costs in comparison
with conventional designs. In this paper, a review of experimental test carried out by different
researchers on reinforced soil with synthetic materials specially geocell had been made. Test
results indicated that the inclusion of reinforcement in the sand decreased settlements and
leading to an economic design of the footings.
KEYWORDS: Geosynthetic, Geocell, soil reinforcement, experimental test.

INTRODUCTION
In recent decades, due to its economy, ease of construction and performance, reinforced soil
has been widely exploited in geotechnical engineering applications such as in the construction of
roads, railway embankments, retaining walls, stabilization of slopes and improvement of soft
ground (Moghaddas Tafreshi et al., 2012). Soil reinforcement is determined as a process for
improving the engineering chractictstics of soil. The soil can be considered as four basic type
combinations: gravel, sand, clay and silt. The soil usually has the characteristics of low shear and
tensile strength and is highly dependent on environmental conditions (Ling et al. 2003).

- 3501 -
 Vol. 18 [2013], Bund. Q 3502

Reinforcement of the soil is specified as a method for improving the mechanical properties of
the soil such as shear, compression, hydraulic conductivity and density. For soil reinforcement
can consist of stone columns, root cells or micro-piles, soil nailing and reinforced earth. (Hejazi et
al. 2012).
Reinforced earth is a composite material consisting of different layers of compacted backfill
and man-made reinforcing material. The main objective of the soil reinforcement is to improve
stability, increase capacity and reduce settlements and lateral deformation (Yarbasi et al .2007,
Hejazi et al. 2012). Over the past 40 years, innovative approaches to improving soil have been
extended to solve soil problems. These approaches are generally regarded as the most economical
ways to improve the conditions of undesirable sites compared to traditional construction methods.
One of these approaches is the use of polymeric materials, called as geosynthetics. Geosynthetics
have transformed many aspects of geotechnical engineering practice, and some applications have
been replaced building materials entirely conventional. The use of geosynthetic in many cases, it
can significantly improve performance, increase safety, and reduce costs compared to a
conventional design (Boushehrian et al. 2011).
A geosynthetic can be defined as “a planar product manufactured from polymeric material
used with soil, rock, earth, or other geotechnical engineering related material as an integral part of
a man-made project, structure or system” (ASTM D 4439-11, 2011). The main objective of using
a geosynthetic is to improve physical, mechanical, and hydraulic properties of soils. The
geosynthetics that are frequently used in construction are geotextile, geogrid, geomembrane,
geonet, geocell, geosynthetic clay liner, geofoam, and geocomposites. Geosynthetics have been
successfully used in several areas of civil engineering including roadways, airports, railroads,
embankments, retaining structures, reservoirs, dams, landfills, etc. (Han, 2011). Figure 1 shows
the pictures of geosynthetics.

a) b) c)
Figure 1: Various kinds of geosynthetics. a) Geotextile (Pokharel, 2010).
b) Geogrid (Alamshahi and Hataf, 2009). c) Geocell (Yang et al., 2012).

In the recent decades, several experimental investigations have been carried out to determine
the bearing capacity of shallow foundations on different soil types reinforced by a number of
methods. Also, the beneficial effects of using planar reinforcement to increase the bearing
capacity of sand have been clearly demonstrated by several investigators. The most recent
advancement of reinforced soil is to provide three-dimensional confinement to the soil by using
geocells (Dash et al., 2001).
Shallow foundations such as rectangular footings are widely used in transmitting loads from
the superstructure to the supporting soils. After the foundation is constructed, the soil is
 Vol. 18 [2013], Bund. Q 3503

permanently loaded by both the gravity loads and the live loads of the superstructure. In most
constructions such as residential buildings, the live loads are much less than the gravity loads. (El
Sawwaf and Nazir, 2010). In this paper, an overview was done with the experimental test
conducted on reinforced soil with synthetic materials specially geocell. Also the effect of geocell
on bearing capacity and settlement of soil will be discussed.

GEOSYNTHETIC REINFORCEMENT
The types of soil improvement methods, including grouting, vertical drains, soil replacement,
complete, piling and geosynthetic reinforcement has developed to solve the problems (Liu et al.,
2008, Rowe and Taechakumthorn, 2008). Among these methods, geosynthetic reinforcement has
been used. (Rowe and Li, 2005).
Li et al. (2012) reported the work in this field of research. Geosynthetic produced from
polymers is widely used to reinforce soils. The reinforced soil structures are under to stress or
creep. (Leshchinsky et al., 2010, Liu et al., 2009). Geogrid is used in layers with aggregate fills or
other suitable soils to create a strong layer. So the bearing capacity of soil under the load of the
foundation will be improved. Many experiments have shown sand usually has used as backfill
material. (Rowe and Taechakumthorn, 2011, Karimpour and Lade and Yeo and Hsuan,
Kongkitkul et al., 2010, Lade et al., 2009, Kim et al., Lade, Pham Van Bang et al., 2007) and
geogrid reinforcement material (Bathurst et al., 2009, Jones and Clarke, 2007; Hufenus et al.,
2005, Shinoda and Bathurst, 2004, Kuwano and Jardine, 2002, Li and Rowe, 2001, Perkins, 2000,
Sawicki and Kazimierowicz, Frankowska, 1998).

Geocell
Geocell is honeycomb three-dimensional cell structures that provided containment of
compacted fill soils. Decreased the lateral movement of the soil particles and form a mat or rigid
for the distribution of loads applied to a wider area slab movement. Geocells were used in the
construction of canals, embankments, retaining walls, railways and roads (Dash et al., 2003 and
Bathurst and Jarrett, 1998).
New types geocell are made of a new polymer structure characterized by low temperature
flexibility similar to high density polyethylene (HDPE). (Pokharel, 2010, Yang, 2010). The base
layer reinforced geocell mattress In road construction, acts as a rigid slab or a mattress for
distribution the traffic load vertically on a broader subgrade. Therefore, the vertical forces applied
to the subgrade was decreased and the capacity was increased. (Marto et al., 2013). Pokharel et
al. (2010) stated that the concept of lateral confinement cell structures dating back to 1970.
Geocells come in different shapes and sizes. In Figure 2. As is shown in this figure, the typical
configurations of geocell reinforcing elements: (1) Vertical perforated elements prepared as a
cellular, honeycomb-like structure. (2) Vertical geogrid elements prepared by cutting geogrids.
This type of geocell is hand made from geogrid chevron or diamond pattern.
 Vol. 18 [2013], Bund. Q 3504

a) b)

c) d)
Figure 2: The typical configurations of geocell reinforcement elements.
a) Perforated geocell (Bathurst and Jarrett, 1998).
b) Hand made geocell (Dash et al., 2003).
c) Hand made geocell diamond pattern (Dash et al., 2003).
d) Hand made geocell chevron pattern (Dash et al., 2003).

REINFORCEMENT MECHANISMS
As compared with the unreinforced base, the geocell-reinforced base can provide lateral and
vertical confinement, tensioned membrane effect, and wider stress distribution. According to
Giroud and Noiray, (1981) lateral confinement, increased bearing capacity, and tensioned
membrane effect was identified as the major reinforcement mechanisms for geotextile
reinforcement. Understanding of these mechanisms originated from static plate load tests, but
later research has focused on these mechanisms under cyclic loading (Zhou and Wen, 2008).
Boushehrian et al. (2011) studied experimentally and numerically the effect of the depth of
the first reinforcement layer (u), spacing between reinforcements (h), and reinforcement stiffness
on the bearing capacity of circular and ring foundations of sand. Using footing width, B, Chung
and Cascante (2006) have shown that a zone between 0.3B and 0.5B is identified to maximize the
benefits of soil reinforcement. They noticed that the accommodation of reinforcements within one
footing width below the foundation can lead to an increase in bearing capacity ratio (BCR) and
the low strain stiffness of the reinforced system. This increase is due to the transferring of the
foundation loading to deeper soil layers, as well as a reduction in the stresses and strains
underneath the foundation. Mosallanezhad et al. (2007) dealt with the influence of a new
generation of reinforcement (named as Grid-Anchor) on the increase of the square foundation
bearing capacity. It was found that the critical value of u/B, h/B and b/B were equal to 0.25, 0.25
and 4.5, respectively. They also showed that BCR for this system was greater than ordinary
geogrid. Shin et al. (2008) showed that within the soil-reinforcement system the shear modulus of
soil increases with the number of layers in depth under cyclic loading. The geometry of the test
 Vol. 18 [2013], Bund. Q 3505

configurations for both the geocell and the Planar geotextile considered in these investigations is
shown in Figure 3.

(a)

(b)
Figure 3: Geometry of the geosynthetic- reinforced foundation bed.
a) Geocell- reinforced (Moghaddas & Dawson, 2012).
b) Planar geotextile- reinforced (Moghaddas & Dawson, 2010).

CONFINEMENT EFFECT
According to Pokharel et al., (2010), due to the three-dimensional structure, the geocell can
provide lateral confinement to soil particles within cells as shown in Figure 4. The geocell
provides the vertical confinement in two ways:
1. The friction between the infill material and the geocell wall.
2. The geocell-reinforced base acts as a mattress to restrain the soil from moving upward
outside the loading area.
 Vol. 18 [2013], Bund. Q 3506

Han et al. (2008a, b) investigated the load transfer mechanism between infill and geocell by
carrying out both experimental and numerical studies on the behavior of geocell-reinforced sand
under a vertical load. The studies showed that geocells could increase the bearing capacity and
elastic modulus of the reinforced sand by providing confinement for the infill material.
The tensioned membrane or beam effect is referred as the tension developed in the curved
geocell-reinforced mattress to resist the vertical load (Rajagopal et al., 1999, Dash et al., 2004,
Zhou and Wen, 2008). However, to mobilize the tensioned membrane effect, the pavement
structure must deform significantly (Giroud and Han, 2004a). As the geocell reinforced section is
stiffer than the surrounding soil, the curved surface exerts upward reaction and reduces the net
stress applied to the subgrade.

Figure 4: Unreinforced and geocell-reinforced soil behavior (Pokharel et al.,

2010)

LABORATORY TESTS CONDUCTED ON GEOCELL

REINFORCED SOIL
Researchers (Moghaddas and Dawson, 2012, Sitharam and Sireesh, 2012, Ling Zhang et al.,
2010, Madhavi et.al,. 2009, Dash et al., 2001, Mhaiskar and Mandal, 1992, Bush et al., 1990)
mentioned the load spreading action of the reinforced layer and a subsequent reduction in the
vertical stress in the layer underlying the geocell layer. They showed that there is an increased
performance on the footing over a buried geocell layer even with the geocell mattress width equal
to the width of the footing. The geocell mattress transfers the footing load to a deeper depth
through the geocell layer. An increase in the bearing capacity of the geocell mattress with an
increase in the ratio of cell height to cell width was observed by Rea and Mitchell (1978) and
Mhaiskar and Mandal (1992). Dash et al. (2001) found that the load carrying capacity of the
foundation bed increased with a rise in the cell height to diameter ratio, up to a ratio of 1.67,
beyond which further improvements were marginal. The optimum ratio reported by Rea and
 Vol. 18 [2013], Bund. Q 3507

Mitchell (1978) was around 2.25. Krishnaswamy et al. (2000) reported an optimum ratio of about
1 for geocell supported embankments constructed over soft clays. Table 1 summarizes several
previous research about the effect of geocell optimum parameters of soil reinforcement
illustrated.
Several researchers have found an improvement in the load bearing capacity of the
foundation with an increase in the mattress thickness, up to a geocell height of twice the width of
the footing. Figure 5. Shows the variety of (q) with (S/B) for different number of layer geogrid.
Figure 6. Shows the bearing pressure-settlement behavior of both unreinforced and reinforced
foundation beds. Figure 7. Shows the variation of bearing pressure with settlement for the geocell
and planar reinforcement with long width. (Moghaddas and Dawson, 2012, Mostafa and Ashraf,
2011).

Figure 5: Variation of (q) with (S/B) for different number of layers (Mostafa &
Ashraf, 2011).
Table 1: Summary of previous studies on geocell reinforced soil
1. Model test Result
2. Load
3. Reinforcement
Sitharam and 1. Physical 1- Better performance of the footing can be obtained if the depth of
Sireesh 2. Static placement of cellular mattress is 0.05D from the base of the footing in the
(2012) 3. Grid - cell case of sand beds.
2- The optimum width of the cellular mattress is around (b/D = 5.0) in
sand.
3- At 40 % footing settlement values, 30 % improvement is observed in
load carrying capacity in the case of reinforced sand beds .
Moghaddas and 1. Numerical & 1-The reinforcement reduces the magnitude of the final settlement.
Dawson Physical
(2012) 2. Cyclic (HF)
3. Geocell
 Vol. 18 [2013], Bund. Q 3508

Boushehrian , 1. Numerical and 1- The large-scale results show that by using the grid-anchors, the amount
Hataf and Physical of permanent settlement decreases to 30%, as compared with the
Ghahramani 2. Cyclic (HF) unreinforced condition.
(2012) 3. Geogrid -Anchor 2- The number of loading cycles reaching the constant dimensionless
settlement value decreases to 31%, compared with the unreinforced
condition.
El Sawwaf and 1. Physical 1- The cumulative settlement increased with the number of load cycles
Nazir 2. Cyclic (LF) with a gradually decreasing rate.
(2011) 3. Geogrid
Hataf , 1. Numerical and 1- The amount of dimensions settlement needed to reach its constant value
Boushehrian Physical decreases up to 17% relative to ordinary reinforcements and up to 50%
and 2. Cyclic (HF) relative to an unreinforced condition.
Ghahramani 3. Geogrid -Anchor
(2011)
Ahmed Hosny 1. Physical 1- Geogrids of higher stiffness exhibits a higher number of load cycles
Abdel. et al 2. Cyclic (HF) than geogrids of lower stiffness before experiencing slippage failure.
(2011) 3. Geogrid
Moghaddas 1. Numerical and 1- With an increase in the number of planar reinforcement layers, the
(2010) Physical height of geocell reinforcement and the reinforcement width, the bearing
2. Static pressure of the foundation bed increases and the footing settlement
3. Geocell decreases.
2- The optimum depth of the topmost layer of planar reinforcement is
u/B=0.35 while the depth to the top of the geocell should be
approximately u/B=0.1.
3- For bearing capacity greater than 200% and reductions in settlement by
75% can be achieved with the application of geocell reinforcement,
whereas planar reinforcement arrangements can only deliver 150% and
64% for these two quantities, respectively.
Moghaddas 1. Physical 1- The optimum depth of planar reinforcement is u/B=0.35 and the 3D
and Dawson 2. Cyclic (HF) geotextile should be u/B= 0.1.
(2010) 3. Geotextile 3D 2- For a given value of amplitude of repeated load, with increase in the
number of planar reinforcement layers and in the height of 3D
reinforcement, the footing settlement decreases.
3- With increase in the amplitude of repeated load, the value of footing
settlement increases in a broadly linear manner.
Nayeri and 1. Physical 1- Displacement increments are high during the first few cycles but they
Fakharian 2. Cyclic (HF) rapidly reduce with increasing the number of cycles.
(2009) 3. Geogrid
Dash et al. 1. Physical 1- Chevron pattern for the formation of geocells is more beneficial than
(2001) 2. Static the geocells in diamond pattern.
3. Geocell 2- The optimum width of the geocell layer is around 4 times the footing
width.
3- To obtain maximum benefit, the top of geocell mattress should be
u/B=0.1 from the bottom of the footing.
4- The optimum aspect ratio of geocell pockets for supporting strip
footings was found to be around 1.67.
Note: HF Is high frequency.
LF is low frequency.
Vol. 18 [2013], Bund. Q 3509

Figure 6: Variation of bearing pressure with settlement for static loading of

unreinforced and reinforced foundation beds. (Moghaddas & Dawson 2012).

Figure 7: Variation of bearing pressure with settlement for the geocell and planar
reinforcement with long width (bg/B = 4.2 & bp/B = 5.5) (Moghaddas & Dawson
2010).
g: is geocell
p: is planar grid (geogrid)
 Vol. 18 [2013], Bund. Q 3510

CONCLUSIONS
Experimental study results obtained by previous researchers on reinforced soil with synthetic
material can be concluded as follows:
1. The presence of geogrid in the soil makes the relationship between the settlement and
applied pressure of the reinforced soil almost linear until the reaching to the failure stage.
2. The reinforcement reduces the magnitude of the final settlement.
3. The reinforcement’s efficiency in reducing the maximum footing settlement decreased as
the height and width of geocell were increased.
4. In case of sand beds, the increased performance of the footing is observed to increase in
footing settlement.
5. The better performance of the footing can be obtained if the depth of placement of
cellular mattress is 0.05B from the base of the footing in the case of sand beds.
6. The optimum width of the cellular mattress is around (b/B = 5.0) in the sand.
7. The optimum depth of planar reinforcement is (u/B) = 0.35 and for 3D geotextile it is
(u/B) = 0.1.
8. With increase in the number of planar reinforcement layers, the height of geocell
reinforcement and the reinforcement width, the bearing pressure of the foundation bed
increases and the footing settlement decreases.
9. For bearing capacity greater than 200% and reductions in settlement by 75% can be
achieved with the application of geocell reinforcement, where as planar reinforcement
arrangements can only deliver 150% and 64% for these two quantities, respectively.
10. With the provision of a geocell layer, indicating that the geocell mattress transmits the
footing load to a deeper depth, thereby bringing about a higher load carrying capacity.
11. The value of the mobilized shear stress ratio for geocell supported footings are only 0.35–
0.5 unlike the unreinforced footing where it reaches 1.
12. The cumulative settlement increased with the number of load cycles with a gradually
decreasing rate.
13. For the same number of load cycles, the cyclic load induced settlement increases with
increasing initial monotonic load.
14. The displacement per load cycle increases with decreasing the load frequency.

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
The author wishes to thank the University Technology Malaysia (UTM) for the financial
support provided for this research.

REFERENCES
1. Adams, M.T. and Collin, J.G. (1997) "Large Model Spread Footing Load Tests on
Geosynthetic. Reinforced Soil Foundations", Journal of Geotechnical and
Vol. 18 [2013], Bund. Q 3511

Geoenvironmental Engineering, 123 (1), pp. 66~72.

2. Akinmusuru and Akinbolade (1981) "Stability of Loaded Footing on Reinforced
Soil", Journal of Geotechnical Engineering, 107 (GT6), pp. 819~827.
3. Alamshahi, S., & Hataf, N. (2009) "Bearing capacity of strip footings on sand slopes
reinforced with geogrid and grid-anchor", Geotextiles and Geomembranes, 27 (3),
217–226. doi:10.1016/j.geotexmem.2008.11.011.
4. American Society for Testing and Materials (ASTM D4439-11), (2011). Standard
Test Methods for Standard Terminology for Geosynthetics.
5. Bathurst, R.J., Nernheim, A.,Walters, D.L., Allen, T.M., Burgess, P., Saunders, D.D.
(2009) "Influence of reinforcement stiffness and compaction on the performance of
four geosynthetic-reinforced soil walls", Geosynthetics International 16 (1), 43e49.
6. Bera, A. K., Chandra, S. N., Ghosh, A., & Ghosh, A. (2009) "Unconfined
compressive strength of fly ash reinforced with jute geotextiles", Geotextiles and
Geomembranes, 27(5), 391–398. doi:10.1016/j.geotexmem.2008.12.004
7. Boushehrian, et.al. (2011) "Modeling of the cyclic behavior of shallow foundations
resting on geomesh and grid-anchor reinforced sand", Geotextiles and
Geomembranes, 29(3), 242–248. doi:10.1016/j.geotexmem.2010.11.008.
8. Boushehrian, A.H. and Hataf, N. (2008) "Bearing capacity of ring footings on
reinforced clay", in Proc. 12th. Conf. of Int. Assoc. for Computer Methods and
Advances in Geomechanics (IACMAG), Goa, India, pp. 3546-3551.
9. Boushehrian, J. (2003) "Experimental and numerical investigation of the bearing
capacity of model circular and ring footings on reinforced sand", Geotextiles and
Geomembranes, 21 (4), 241–256. Do: 10.1016/S0266-1144 (03)00029-3.
10. Brinkgreve, R.B.J. and Vermeer, P.A., (2005), "PLAXIS 3D Tunnel ver.2 manuals",
A. A. Balkema Publisher.
11. Capaccio, G. and Ward, I. M.,(1974). “Properties of Ultra-High Modulus Linear
Polypropylene,” Nature Physical Sciences, Vol. 243, pp. 130–143.
12. Choudharyet.al. (2010). Laboratory investigation of bearing capacity behaviour of
strip footing on reinforced flyash slope. Geotextiles and Geomembranes, 28(4), 393–
402. doi:10.1016/j.geotexmem.2009.09.007.
13. Chung, W. and Cascante, G., (2006), "Experimental and numerical study of soil-
reinforcement effects on the low-strain stiffness and bearing capacity of shallow
foundations", Journal of Geotechnical and Geological Engineering, Original Paper.
14. Dash, S. K. et.al. (2007) "Behaviour of geocell-reinforced sand beds under strip
loading", 916, 905–916. doi:10.1139/T07-035.
15. Dash, S. (2003) "Model studies on circular footing supported on geocell reinforced
sand underlain by soft clay", Geotextiles and Geomembranes, 21(4), 197–219.
doi:10.1016/S0266-1144(03)00017-7.
16. Dash, S. Ket.al. (2001a). Bearing capacity of strip footings supported on, 19, 235–
256.
17. Dash, S. K. et. al. (2001b). Bearing capacity of strip footings supported on, 19, 235–
Vol. 18 [2013], Bund. Q 3512

256.
18. Dash, S. K. et.al . (2001). Strip footing on geocell reinforced sand beds with
additional planar reinforcement. Geotextiles and Geomembranes, 19(8), 529–538.
doi:10.1016/S0266-1144(01)00022-X.
19. Dash, S. K. et.al. (2007). NOTE / NOTE Behaviour of geocell-reinforced sand beds
under strip loading, 916, 905–916. doi:10.1139/T07-035.
20. DeJaeger, J. (1994). “Influence of grain size and shape on the dry sand shear
behaviour.” Proc., 13th Int. Conf. on Soil Mechanics and Foundation Engineering,
Vol. 1, New Delhi, India, 13–16.
21. El Sawwaf, M., & Nazir, A. K. (2012). "Cyclic settlement behavior of strip footings
resting on reinforced layered sand slope", Journal of Advanced Research, 3(4), 315–
324. doi:10.1016/j.jare.2011.10.002.
22. El Sawwaf, M., & Nazir, A. K. (2010). "Behavior of repeatedly loaded rectangular
footings resting on reinforced sand", Alexandria Engineering Journal, 49(4), 349–
356. doi:10.1016/j.aej.2010.07.002.
23. Ghazavi, M., & Mirzaeifar, H. (2010). "Bearing Capacity of Multi-Edge Shallow
Foundations on Geogrid-Reinforced Sand", 600, 1–9.
24. Ghazavi, M., Lavasan, A.A. (2008). "Interference effect of shallow foundations
constructed on sand reinforced with geosynthetics", Geotextiles and Geomembranes
26 (5), 404–415.
25. Ghosh, A., Bera, A.K. (2005). "Bearing capacity of square footing on pond ash
reinforced with jute-geotextile", Geotextiles and Geomembranes 23 (2), 144e173.
26. Guido, V.A., Biesiadecki, G.L. and Sullivan, M.J., (1985). "Bearing Capacity of a
Geotextile Reinforced Foundation", Proc. 11th Int. Conf. Soil Mech. And Found.
Eng., San Francisco, Calif., pp. 1777~1780.
27. Han, J., S. K. Pokharel, X. Yang, C. Manandhar, D. Leshchinsky, I. Halahmi, and R.
L. Parsons. (2011). “Performance of geocell-reinforced RAP bases over weak
subgrade under fullscale moving heel loads”, ASCE Journal of Materials in Civil
Engineering, 23, no.11:1525-1535.
28. Han, J., Yang, X.M., Leshchinsky, D., Parsons, R.L., (2008a). Behavior of geocell-
reinforced sand under a vertical load. Journal of Transportation Research Board
2045, 95–101.
29. Hataf, N. et. al (2010). "Experimental and Numerical Behavior of Shallow
Foundations on Sand Reinforced with Geogrid and Grid Anchor Under Cyclic
Loading", 17(1), 1–10.
30. Hataf, N., Rahimi, M. (2006). "Experimental investigation of bearing capacity of
sand reinforced with randomly distributed tire shreds", Construction and Building
Materials 20 (10), 910e916.
31. Hataf, N. and Baziar, A., (2000). "Use of Tire Shreds for Bearing Capacity
Improvement of Shallow Footing on Sand", Proc. Of the 3rd Int. Conf. On Ground
Improvement Techniques, Singapore, pp. 189~194.
32. Hejazi, S. M. et. al(2012). "A simple review of soil reinforcement by using natural
Vol. 18 [2013], Bund. Q 3513

and synthetic fibers. Construction and Building Materials", 30, 100–116.

33. Ismail, I. and Raymond, G.P., (1995). "Geosynthetic reinforcement of granular
layered soils", Int. Proceedings of geosynthetics, pp. 317~330.
34. Jones, C.J.F.P., Clarke, D., (2007). The residual strength of geosynthetic
reinforcement subjected to accelerated creep testing and simulated seismic events.
Geotextiles and Geomembranes 25 (3), 155e169.
35. Karimpour, H., Lade, P.V. (2010). "Time effects relate to crushing in sand", ASCE
Journal of Geotechnical and Geoenvironmental Engineering 136 (9), 1209e1219.
36. Khatib, A. (2010). “Bearing Capacity Of Granular Soil Overlying Soft Clay
Reinforced with Bamboo-Geotextile Composite at the Interface”. PhD. Thesis,
Department of Geotechnics and Transportation, Faculty of Civil Engineering,
Universiti Teknologi Malaysia, Johor Bahru.
37. Kholdebarin, A. R. et.al. (2008). influence of soil improvement on seismic bearing
capacity of shallow foundation.
38. Kim, J.R., Kang, H., Kim, D., Lee, Y., Hwang, S.W., (2007). Viscoelastic analysis of
constant creep tests on silicate-grouted sands at low stress levels. ASCE Journal of
Geotechnical and Geoenvironmental Engineering 133 (9), 1162e1166.
39. Koerner, R. M, (1990). Designing with Geosynthetics. (2nd Edition) Englewood
Cliffs, N.J.: Prentice Hall.
40. Kolbuszewski, J., and Frederick, M.R. (1963). "The significance of particle shape
and size on the mechanical behavior of granular materials," European Conference on
Soil Mechanics and Foundation Engineering.
41. Kongkitkul, W., Tatsuoka, F., Hirakawa, D., Sugimoto, T., Kawahata, S., Ito, M.,
(2010). Time histories of tensile force in geogrid arranged in two full-scale high
walls. Geosynthetics International 17 (1), 12e33.
42. Kuwano, R., Jardine, R.J., (2002). On measuring creep behaviour in granular
materials through triaxial testing. Canadian Geotechnical Journal 39 (5), 1061e1074.
43. Lackner, C., Bergado, D. T., & Semprich, S. (2013). "Prestressed reinforced soil by
geosynthetics – Concept and experimental investigations", Geotextiles and
Geomembranes, 37, 109–123. doi:10.1016/j.geotexmem.2013.02.002
44. Lade, P.V., Nam, J., Liggio Jr., C.D. (2010). "Effects of particle crushing in stress
droprelaxation experiments on crushed coral sand", ASCE Journal of Geotechnical
and Geoenvironmental Engineering 136 (3), 500e509.
45. Lade, P.V., Liggio Jr., C.D., Nam, J. (2009). "Strain rate, creep, and stress drop-creep
experiments on crushed coral sand", ASCE Journal of Geotechnical and
Geoenvironmental Engineering 135 (7), 941e953.
46. Lade, P.V., (2007). Experimental study and analysis of creep and stress relaxation in
granular materials. In: DeGroot, D.J., Vipulanandan, C., Yamamuro, J.A., Kaliakin,
V.N., Lade, P.V., Zeghal, M., Shamy, U.E., Lu, N., Song, C.R. (Eds.), Advances in
Measurement and Modeling of Soil Behavior, Proceedings of Sessions of Geo-
Denver 2007. GSP No.173. ASCE, Reston, pp. 1e11.
47. Latha, G. M. et.al (2010). Numerical Simulation of the Behavior of Geocell
Vol. 18 [2013], Bund. Q 3514

Reinforced Sand in Foundations, 9(4), 143–152.

48. Leshchinsky, D., Zhu, F., Meehan, C.L. (2010). "Required unfactored strength of
geosynthetic in reinforced earth structures", Journal of Geotechnical and
Geoenvironmental Engineering, ASCE 136 (2), 281e289.
49. Li, F.-L. et.al. (2012). "FE simulation of viscous behavior of geogrid-reinforced sand
under laboratory-scale plane-strain-compression testing", Geotextiles and
Geomembranes, 31, 72–80. doi:10.1016/j.geotexmem.2011.09.005.
50. Li, A.L., Rowe, R.K., (2001). Influence of creep and stress-relaxation of geosynthetic
reinforcement on embankment behaviour. Geosynthetics International 8 (3),
233e270.
51. Ling, H. I. et .al. (2009). Seismic Response of Geocell Retaining Walls :
Experimental Studies, (April), 515–524.
52. Ling I, Leshchinsky D, Tatsuoka F. ( 2003). "Reinforced soil engineering: advances
in research and practice", Marcel Dekker Inc.
53. Liu, H.B., Wang, X.Y., Song, E.X. (2009). "Long-term behavior of GRS retaining
walls with marginal backfill soils", Geotextiles and Geomembranes 27 (4), 295e307.
54. Liu, S.Y., Han, J., Zhang, D.W., Hong, Z.S. (2008). "A combined DJM-PVD method
for soft ground improvement", Geosynthetics International 15 (1), 43–54.
55. Madhavi Latha, G., Amit Somwanshi, S. (2009). "Bearing capacity of square
footings on geosynthetic reinforced sand", Geotextiles and Geomembranes 27 (4),
281e294.
56. Madhavi L. G., & Rajagopal, K. (2007). "Parametric finite element analyses of
geocell-supported embankments", Canadian Geotechnical Journal, 44(8), 917–927.
doi:10.1139/T07-039.
57. Matro, A., Oghabi, M., Eisazadeh, A. (2013). "The Effect of Geogrid Reinforcement
on Bearing Capacity Properties of Soil Under Static Load ; A Review", The
Electronic Journal of Geotechnical Engineering 18 (J), 1881–1898.
58. Mosallanezhad, M., & Hataf, N. (2010). "Numerical Analysis of Granular Soils
Bearing Capacity , Reinforced with Innovative Grid-Anchor System", 555(1), 1–8.
59. Mosallanezhad, M., Hataf, N. and Ghahramani, A. (2008). "Experimental Study of
Bearing Capacity of Granular Soils, Reinforced with Innovative Grid-Anchor
System", Journal of geotechnical and geological engineering, Vol. 26(3), pp.
299~312.
60. Noorzad, R., MIrmoradi, S.H. (2010). "Laboratory evaluation of the behavior of a
geotextile reinforced clay", Geotextile and Geomembranes 28 (4), 386e392.
61. Omar, M.T, Das, B.M, Puri, V.K. and Yen, S.C. (1993). "Ultimate Bearing Capacity
of Shallow Foundations on Sand with Geogrid Reinforcement", Canadian
Geotechnical Journal, 30, pp. 545 ~549.
62. Patra, C. R., Das, B. M., & Atalar, C. (2005). "Bearing capacity of embedded strip
foundation on geogrid-reinforced sand", Geotextiles and Geomembranes, 23(5), 454–
462. doi:10.1016/j.geotexmem.2005.02.001.
Vol. 18 [2013], Bund. Q 3515

63. Perkins, S.W., 2000. Constitutive modeling of geosynthetics. Geotextiles and

Geomembranes 18 (5), 273e292.
64. Pham Van Bang, D., Di Benedetto, H., Duttine, A., Ezaoui, A., (2007). Viscous
behaviour of dry sand. International Journal for Numerical and Analytical Methods in
Geomechanics 31 (15), 1631e1658.
65. Pokharel, S. K. et .al. (2010). "Investigation of factors influencing behavior of single
geocell-reinforced bases under static loading", Geotextiles and Geomembranes,
28(6), 570–578. doi:10.1016/j.geotexmem.2010.06.002.
66. Raymond, G. P. (2002). Reinforced ballast behaviour subjected to repeated load.
Geotextiles and Geomembranes, 20(1), 39–61. doi:10.1016/S0266-1144(01)00024-3.
67. Rowe, R.K., Taechakumthorn, C. (2011). "Design of reinforced embankments on soft
clay deposits considering the viscosity of both foundation and reinforcement",
Geotextiles and Geomembranes 29 (5), 448e461.
68. Rowe, R.K., Taechakumthorn, C. (2008). "Combined effect of PVDs and
reinforcement on embankments over rate-sensitive soils", Geotextiles and
Geomembranes 26 (3), 239–249.
69. Sawicki, A., (1999). Creep of geosynthetic reinforced soil retaining walls.
Geotextiles and Geomembranes 17 (1), 51e65.
70. Sawicki, A., Kazimierowicz-Frankowska, K., (1998). Creep behaviour of
geosynthetics. Geotextiles and Geomembranes 16 (6), 365e382.
71. Shin, E.C., Das, B.M., Atalar, C., (2008). Cyclic plate load test on geogrid-reinforced
granular pad Unpublished Material.
72. Shinoda, M., Bathurst, R.J., (2004). Lateral and axial deformation of PP, HDPE and
PET geogrids under tensile load. Geotextiles and Geomembranes 22 (4), 205e222.
73. Sireesh, S. et .al (2009). Bearing capacity of circular footing on geocell–sand
mattress overlying clay bed with void. Geotextiles and Geomembranes, 27(2), 89–98.
doi:10.1016/j.geotexmem.2008.09.005.
74. Sitharam, T.G, Sireesh, S. (2012). Behavior of Embedded Footings Supported on
Geogrid Cell Reinforced Foundation Beds, 28(5), 1–12.
75. Sitharam, T. G. et. al. (2005). NOTE / NOTE Model studies of a circular footing
supported on geocell-reinforced clay, 703, 693–703. doi:10.1139/T04-117.
76. Tafreshi, S. N., & Dawson, a. R. (2012). "A comparison of static and cyclic loading
responses of foundations on geocell-reinforced sand", Geotextiles and
Geomembranes, 32, 55–68. doi:10.1016/j.geotexmem.2011.12.003.
77. Tafreshi, S N Moghaddas. et.al. (2011). "Experimental and numerical investigation
on circular footing subjected to incremental cyclic loads", 9(4).
78. Tafreshi, S.N. et.al. (2010a). "Comparison of bearing capacity of a strip footing on
sand with geocell and with planar forms of geotextile reinforcement", Geotextiles and
Geomembranes, 28(1), 72–84. doi:10.1016/j.geotexmem.2009.09.003.
79. Tafreshi, S.N. et.al. (2010b). "Behaviour of footings on reinforced sand subjected to
repeated loading – Comparing use of 3D and planar geotextile", Geotextiles and
Vol. 18 [2013], Bund. Q 3516

Geomembranes, 28(5), 434–447. doi:10.1016/j.geotexmem.2009.12.007.

80. Tafreshi, S. N., & Khalaj, O. (2008). "Laboratory tests of small-diameter HDPE pipes
buried in reinforced sand under repeated-load", Geotextiles and Geomembranes,
26(2), 145–163. doi:10.1016/j.geotexmem.2007.06.002.
81. Tavakoli Mehrjardi, G. et.al. (2012). Combined use of geocell reinforcement and
rubber–soil mixtures to improve performance of buried pipes. Geotextiles and
Geomembranes, 34, 116–130. doi:10.1016/j.geotexmem.2012.05.004.
82. Terzaghi, K. _1943_. Theoretical soil mechanics, Wiley, New York.
83. Tg, S., & Sireesh, S. (2012). "Behavior of Embedded Footings Supported on Geogrid
Cell Reinforced Foundation Beds", 28(5), 1–12.
84. Yang, X. et.al. (2012). "Accelerated pavement testing of unpaved roads with geocell-
reinforced sand bases", Geotextiles and Geomembranes, 32, 95–103.
doi:10.1016/j.geotexmem.2011.10.004.
85. Yang, X.M. (2010). "Numerical Analyses of Geocell-Reinforced Granular Soils
under Static and Repeated Loads", Ph.D. dissertation, CEAE Department, the
University of Kansas.
86. Yarbasi N, Kalkan E, Akbulut S. (2007). "Modification of freezing–thawing
properties of granular soils with waste additives", Col Reg Sci Technol;48:44–54.
87. Yeo, S.S., Hsuan, Y.G. (2010). "Evaluation of creep behavior of high density
polyethylene and polyethylene-terephthalate geogrids", Geotextiles and
Geomembranes 28 (5), 409e421.
88. Yetimoglu, T., WU, S.T.H. and Saglamer, A. (1994). "Bearing Capacity of
Rectangular Footing on Geogrid –Reinforced Sand", Journal of Geotechnical
Engineering, 120 (12), pp. 2083 ~2099.
89. Zhang, L. et.al. (2010a). Bearing capacity of geocell reinforcement in embankment
engineering. Geotextiles and Geomembranes, 28(5), 475–482.
doi:10.1016/j.geotexmem.2009.12.011.
90. Zhang, L. et.al.(2010b). Bearing capacity of geocell reinforcement in embankment
engineering. Geotextiles and Geomembranes, 28(5), 475–482.
doi:10.1016/j.geotexmem.2009.12.011.
91. Zhou, & Wen, X. (2008). Model studies on geogrid- or geocell-reinforced sand
cushion on soft soil, 26, 231–238. doi:10.1016/j.geotexmem.2007.10.002.
92. Zidan, a. F. (2012). "Numerical Study of Behavior of Circular Footing on Geogrid-
Reinforced Sand Under Static and Dynamic Loading", Geotechnical and Geological
Engineering, 30(2), 499–510. doi:10.1007/s10706-011-9483-0

© 2013 ejge