The Effect of Geogrid Reinforcement

on Bearing Capacity Properties of Soil

Under Static Load; 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
Faculty of Civil Engineering, Universiti Teknologi Malaysia (UTM)
81310 Skudai, Malaysia
e-mail: aeisazadeh@utm.my

ABSTRACT
In general, soils possess a low tensile strength. The main objective of strengthening the soil
mass is to increase bearing capacity improve stability and decreased settlements and lateral
deformations. One of the approaches is the use of polymeric materials. Geosynthetic is a well
known technique in soil reinforcement. The use of it, can significantly improve the soil
performance and reduce costs in comparison with conventional designs. In this paper, a
review of experimental and numerical tests carried out by different previous researchers on
reinforced soil with synthetic materials specially geogrid under static loading had been made.
The studies indicate that the inclusion of planar reinforcement in the sand decreased much
both the monotonic and cumulative settlements leading to an economic design of the footings.

KEYWORDS:

Geosynthetic, geogrid, experimental, bearing capacity.

INTRODUCTION
The use of reinforcement materials in the soil is determined as a process for improving the
soil engineering characteristics. The soil can be considered as four basic type combinations:
gravel, sand, clay and silt. The soil usually has the characteristics of low tensile strength and is
highly dependent on environmental conditions (Ling et al. 2003). 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 used of stone columns,
soil nailing, micro piles and reinforced soil (Hejazi et al., 2012).
- 1881 -

Vol. 18 [2013], Bund. J

1882

During the past four decades, Innovative methods to improving soil have been extended to
solve soil problems. These methods are generally regarded as the most economical ways to
improve the conditions of undesirable sites compared to traditional construction methods. For
example rope fibers, metal strips, tire shreds, metal bars and geotextiles as reported by Ghosh et
al. (2005), Hataf and Rahimi (2006), Liu et al., Rowe and Taechakumthorn, Ghazavi and
Lavasan, Boushehrian and Hataf (2008), Liu et al., Lade et al., Bathurst et al., Madhavi Latha and
Amit Somwanshi (2009), Pokharel et al., Yang, Karimpour and Lade, Leshchinsky et al.,
Kongkitkul et al., Lade et al., Yeo and Hsuan, Noorzad and Mirmoradi, El Sawwaf and Nazir
(2010), Rowe and Taechakumthorn and Boushehrian et al. (2011), Li, Peng et al. and Moghadas
et al. (2012). One of the best methods was the use of synthetic materials, it called as the
geosynthetics. Geosynthetics have transformed many features of the geotechnical engineering
process, and some of the 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 is 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 for use of
a geosynthetic is to improve hydraulic, mechanical and physical Characteristics of soils.

a)

b)

c)

d)
e)
f)
Figure 1: Various kinds of geosynthetics. a) Geotextile (Pokharel, 2010). b) The jute Geotextiles
fabric (Bera et al., 2009). c) Geogrid (Alamshahi and Hataf, 2009). d) Geogrid (Tg and Sireesh,
2012). e) Perforated geocell (Bathurst and Jarrett, 1998). f) Geocell (Yang et al., 2012).
The geosynthetics that are often used in construction are geofoam, geotextile, geomembrane,
geogrid, geonet, geocomposites and geocell. Geosynthetics have been successfully used in several
areas of civil engineering including railroads, roadways, airports, retaining structures,
- 1882 -

Vol. 18 [2013], Bund. J

1883

embankments, landfills, dams, etc. (Han, 2011). Figure 1 shows the pictures of different types
geosynthetics.
Nowadays geosynthetics are being used for many methods not only in the geotechnical
engineering. Many construction projects in the world have not used of geosynthetic
reinforcement so they have not succeeded. (Lackner, Bergado, & Semprich, 2013). According
reported Zidan (2012) both experimental and numerical studies have been done by previous
researchers to evaluate the advantages of reinforced soil. In this paper, an overview was done
with the experimental test and numerical test conducted on reinforced soil with synthetic
materials specially geogrid under static loading. Also the effect of geogrid 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).

Geotextile
Geotextile is one form of geosynthetic. Khatib (2010) has reported the use of geotextiles
during the past two decades has been extensive. These are textiles in the traditional concept, but
consist of synthetic fibers instead natural ones such as silk, wool, or cotton . This environmental
degradation is not a problem. This synthetic fiber is made into flexible, non-woven or is matted
together in random or porous fabric by the standard weaving machine, manner. Some of them are
also knit. As reported by Koerner (1990), the application areas for geotextile includes separation,
reinforcement, filtration, drainage.

Geogrid
Geogrid is usually made from polymer materials, such as polypropylene, polyethylene or
polyester."They may be woven or knitted from yarns, heat-welded from strips of material, or
produced by punching a regular pattern of holes in sheets of material, then stretched into a grid.
The development of methods of preparing relatively rigid polymeric materials by tensile drawing,
raised the possibility that such materials could be used in the reinforcement of soils for walls,
steep slopes, roadway bases and foundation soils" (Capaccio and Ward, 1974).

- 1883 -

Vol. 18 [2013], Bund. J

1884

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.

PREVIOUS RESEARCH STUDIES ON GEOGRID

REINFORCEMENT
Ghazavi and Mirzaeifar (2010) have stated in the past few decades uses of geosynthetics
reinforcement to increase bearing capacity and reduced settlement of the soil. Many analytical,
numerical and experimental studies have performed to evaluate the behavior of reinforced soil
foundations built in various soil types. Binquet and Lee (1975a) were first who investigated the
effect of soil reinforcement on the improvement of bearing capacity of shallow foundations and
then were continued by many researchers. (e.g., Madhavi and Somwanshi, 2009, Ghazavi and
Lavasan and Sharma et al., 2008, Adams and Collin, 1997, Yetimoglu et al., 1994, Omar et al.,
1993, Takemura et al., 1992, Huang and Tatsuoka, 1990, Guido et al., 1986). All previous studies
show the bearing capacity of shallow foundations were increased that when the soils were
reinforced.
Mosallanezhad and Hataf (2010), Mosallanezhad et al. (2008), Chung and Cascante (2006),
Hataf and Baziar (2000), Ismail and Raymond (1995), yetimoglu et al. (1994), Omar et al.
(1993), Guido et al. (1985) and Akinmusuru and Akinbolade (1981) have done several
experimental comprehensive tests on a laboratory small scale on reinforced soils. They used
different geogrids for reinforcement. In all the studies cited, it was found that the bearing capacity
ratio (BCR) greater than the unreinforced soil. Figure 2 shown variations bearing capacity
shallow foundation and settlement under static load without reinforcement material. The
geometry of the soil, model of footing and geogrid layers are shown in Figure3. Table 1
summarizes several previous research about the effect of geogrid optimum parameters of soil
reinforcement illustrated.

- 1884 -

Vol. 18 [2013], Bund. J

1885

Figure 2. Pressure-settlement data obtained from test Yetimoglu et al. (1994) and present
numerical analysis for unreinforced sand Ghazavi and Mirzaeifar (2010).

Figure 3: Geometry of the geogrid- reinforced foundation bed (El Sawwaf and Nazir 2011).

- 1885 -

Vol. 18 [2013], Bund. J

1886

Table 1: Result previous research of optimum parameters geogrid.

Researcher
Akinmusuru and
Akinbolade
Guido et al.

Year

Type of
reinforcement

Type of
footing

(u/B)Opt

1981

woven strips

Square

0.5- 1

1985

Geotextil

Square

0.5

Singh

1988

Geogrid

Square

Omar et al.
Yetimoglu et al.
Ismail and
Raymond

1993
1994

Geogrid
Geogrid
Geogrid
FEM

Square
Square

1
0.25

Strip

0.31

Adams and Collin

1997

Geogrid

Hataf and Baziar

2000

Waste tires
materials

2003

Boushehrian and
Hataf
Boushehrian and
Hataf
Patra, Das and
Atalar
Chang and
Cascante
Hataf and Baziar
Mosallanezhad et
al.
Alamshahi and
Hataf
Mosallanezhad
and Hataf
Ghazavi and
Mirzaeifar
El Sawwaf and
Nazir
El Sawwaf and
Nazir
Zidan

1995

(b/B)Opt

(h/B)Opt

NOpt
3

2.5

4.5
4.5

3
0.150.25
0.33
0.2

3
2

0.48

0.251.5

Square

0.315

0.46

Geogrid

Circular

0.47

0.2

2003

Geogrid
FEM

Circular

0.56

0.33

2005

Geogrid

Strip

0.35

2006

Geogrid
FEM

Square

0.3 - 0.5

2007
2008
2009
2010

Square
Grid- Anchor
Geogrid
FEM
Grid- Anchor
FEM

0.25

0.46

Square
Strip

0.75

0.75

Square

0.25

1.5

0.25

2010

Geogrid

Square

0.3

0.3

2010

Geogrid

Strip

0.3

0.6

2011

Geogrid

Strip

0.5

2012

Geogrid
FEM

Circular

0.2

Note: B is width of the shallow foundation.

D is the diameter of circular footing.
U is the depth of the first layer of reinforcement.
h or x is the vertical distance between the layers.
b is the length of reinforcement.
N is the number of reinforcement layers.
BCRr is bearing capacity ratio of reinforced soil.
BCRu is bearing capacity ratio of unreinforced soil.
Opt is optimum.
FEM is finite element method (Numerical model).
- 1886 -

0.19

Vol. 18 [2013], Bund. J

1887

PARAMETRIC STUDIES
Several factors that can affect the efficiency a geogrid reinforced soil foundation (RSF),
including: (1) The Depth of first layer reinforcement under shallow foundation (2) Spacing
between layers of reinforcement (3) Number of reinforcing layers and (4) Reinforcement width
(Alamshahi and Hataf, 2009). The effect of geogrid reinforcement parameters on improving the
soil has been investigated by previous researchers was presented below:

Effect of the depth of the first layer reinforcement under

shallow foundation (u)
The effects of depth to the first reinforcement layer have been studied by many researchers.
The depth ratio is defined as the ratio between u and B (u/B). In Figure 4 has shown variation
between BCR and the depth ratio for multi-layer reinforcement (Mosallanezhad and Hataf, 2010).
The effect of (u/B) that has been studied by previous researchers shown in Table 1. In the Figure
4 can be seen, that the inclusion of geogrid reinforcements has increased the amount of the
footing bearing capacity and the settlement of the soil has decreased. (Alamshahi and Hataf,
2009)
In Figure 5 has shown the Variations of load settlement relationship for different values of the
depth of the top layer (u/d). It can be observed that the ultimate bearing capacity of shallow
foundation increases with decreasing (u/d ) value (Zidan, 2012).

Figure 4: Variation of BCR with depth in multi-layer reinforced sand (Square footing), (N= 5,
h/B =0. 25, b/B=5) (Mosallanezhad & Hataf, 2010).

- 1887 -

Vol. 18 [2013], Bund. J

1888

Figure 5: Variation of circular footing settlement as a function of depth to top layer value for
case of (x/d) = 0.3 and N = 2 compared to unreinforced sand (Zidan, 2012).

Effect of Spacing between layers of reinforcement (h or x)

The previous studies have shown that the optimum value is 0.25B for the vertical spacing of
reinforcement layers (Mosallanezhad & Hataf, 2010). The BCR increased with (h/B) or (x/d) up
to 0.75B after which it decreases (Alamshahi and Hataf, 2009). The effect of the vertical spacing
between geogrid layers in Figure 6 has shown, the variation of load settlement for different
values of (x/d). Figure 7 presents the results When the value of (u/d) is 0.2, it can be observed that
the BCR improved with increasing number of reinforcement layers and by reduction vertical
spacing between layers (Zidan, 2012).

Figure 6: Variation of footing settlement as a function of the layer spacing x/d value in case of
(N = 4) and (u/d = 0.2) compared to unreinforced sand (Zidan, 2012).
- 1888 -

Vol. 18 [2013], Bund. J

1889

Figure 7: Effect of x/d ratio on bearing capacity ratio as a function of variation of number of
layers number and depth to topmost layer (Zidan, 2012).

Effect of N umber of Reinforcement Layer (N)

Several researchers have found an improvement in the load bearing capacity of the shallow
foundation with an increase in the number of layers, up to 3 layers and a vertical space layer up to
0.25 widths of the footing. Figure 8 shown the variation of (q) with (S/B) for different number of
layer geogrid. The analysis showed that the bearing capacity ratio (BCR) value changes more
dependent with the number of the reinforcement layers than the other parameters. With Increasing
the number of reinforcement layers were increased the BCR value. Moreover the rate of increase
in BCR was less significant beyond this depth. Placing geogrid reinforcement more than the
depth of 1.5B cannot significantly increase the bearing capacity. Several previous researchers
have reported that increasing the number of reinforcement layers more than a certain amount
would not increase the BCR significantly (Mosallanezhad and Hataf, 2010).
Alamshahi and Hataf, (2009) have reported that the inclusion of geogrid layers Causes
increased in the load bearing capacity of the model shallow foundation. As well as, for the same
size footing, the settlement ratio reduced significantly with increasing the number of geogrid
layers, but the behavior continued until N = 2. Also for N = 3 there was not the variation in BCR.
The Figure 9 clearly has indicated that the BCR much improved with the number of geogrid
layers. Although, the rate of bearing capacity ratio (BCR) increased with the increasing number
of geogrid layers until N= 3 and then the rate of load improvement becomes much less. As shown
in Figure 10 the BCR, increases with increasing number of layers, especially when the amount of
(u/d) is relatively small. When the amount of (u/d) greater than 0.2, the bearing capacity shallow
foundation a little increase with increasing number of geogrid layers. (Zidan, 2012)

- 1889 -

Vol. 18 [2013], Bund. J

1890

Figure 8: Variation of (q) with (S/B) for different number of layers (El Sawwaf and Nazir, 2011).

Figure 9: Variations of bearing capacity ratio with number of geogrid layers (El Sawwaf and
Nazir, 2011).

- 1890 -

Vol. 18 [2013], Bund. J

1891

Figure 10: The effect of the number of geogrid layers on bearing capacity ratio a function of
number variation of the depth of the topmost layer (Zidan, 2012).

Effect of reinforcement width

In Figure 11 shown the variety of bearing capacity ratio (BCR) and (b/B) for circular footings
on supported different sand densities. The BCR increased with increasing geogrid layer width.
This improvement in the ultimate bearing capacity with an increasing layer width has been
significant until an amount of (b/B = 5). Further increase in layer width of geogrid did not show
important contributions in increasing the ultimate load of the footing (El Sawwaf and Nazir,
2010).

Figure 11: Variations of BCR with b/B (El Sawwaf and Nazir, 2010).

- 1891 -

Vol. 18 [2013], Bund. J

1892

COMPARISON BETWEEN THE NUMERICAL TEST AND

EXPERIMENTAL TEST RESULTS
The load and displacement curves for some cases have obtained the experimental test and
numerical test were compared in Figure 12 for a circular footing. The values of bearing capacity
obtained numerical test were greater than those obtained experimental tests. This can be due to
the soil parameters such as friction angle, cohesion and modulus of elasticity have used in the
analysis. The changes of bearing capacity ratio (BCR) with (N) obtained experimental test and
numerical test were shown in Figure 13 a circular footing. The agreement between the numerical
test and experimental test results, in terms of load and displacement behavior, was good.
(Boushehrian, 2003)

Figure 12: Comparison of loaddisplacement curves obtained experimentally and numerically

for a circular footing (Boushehrian, 2003).

- 1892 -

Vol. 18 [2013], Bund. J

1893

Figure 13: Comparison of variation of BCR with N obtained experimentally and numerically for
a circular footing (Boushehrian, 2003).

CONCLUSIONS
Experimental study results obtained by previous researchers on reinforced soil with geogrid
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. When the circle, square or strip footing are subjected to static load, the improvement in
ultimate bearing capacity increases with the increase number of reinforcement layers. The
number of layers was not significant difference when the ratio of the depth of the topmost
layer to footing dimension was greater than 0.2. With an increase in the number of planar
reinforcement layers and the reinforcement width, the bearing capacity of the foundation
increases and the shallow foundation settlement decreases.
3. The depth of topmost layer is very effective in the performance of the reinforced system.
The influence of geogrid becomes practically negligible when the ratio of depth of the
first layer to the footing dimension is equal to 0.5.
4. The improvement in bearing capacity shallow foundation increases with decreases of
vertical space between geogrid layers when the amount of (u/B) was less than 0.2. In
addition, no significant effect of vertical space between geogrid layers was seen when the
ratio of depth of the first layer to footing dimension greater than 0.3.
5. The reinforcements efficiency in reducing the maximum footing settlement reduced as
the width of geogrid were increased.

- 1893 -

Vol. 18 [2013], Bund. J

1894

6. The values of bearing capacity obtained numerical test were greater than those obtained
experimental test. This can be due to the soil parameters such as friction angle, cohesion
and modulus of elasticity have used in the analysis.

ACKNOWLEDGMENT
The author wishes to thank the Universiti Technologi 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
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),
217226. 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), 391398. 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), 242248. 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), 241256. 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. Chung, W. and Cascante, G., (2006), "Experimental and numerical study of soilreinforcement effects on the low-strain stiffness and bearing capacity of shallow
foundations", Journal of Geotechnical and Geological Engineering, Original Paper.
12. Dash, S. K. et.al. (2007) "Behaviour of geocell-reinforced sand beds under strip
- 1894 -

Vol. 18 [2013], Bund. J

1895

loading", 916, 905916. doi:10.1139/T07-035.

13. Dash, S. (2003) "Model studies on circular footing supported on geocell reinforced
sand underlain by soft clay", Geotextiles and Geomembranes, 21(4), 197219.
doi:10.1016/S0266-1144(03)00017-7.
14. Dash, S. K. et.al . (2001) "Strip footing on geocell reinforced sand beds with
additional planar reinforcement", Geotextiles and Geomembranes, 19(8), 529538.
doi:10.1016/S0266-1144(01)00022-X.
15. 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.
16. 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.
17. Ghazavi, M., & Mirzaeifar, H. (2010) "Bearing Capacity of Multi-Edge Shallow
Foundations on Geogrid-Reinforced Sand", 600, 19.
18. Ghazavi, M., Lavasan, A.A. (2008) "Interference effect of shallow foundations
constructed on sand reinforced with geosynthetics", Geotextiles and Geomembranes
26 (5), 404415.
19. Ghosh, A., Bera, A.K. (2005) "Bearing capacity of square footing on pond ash
reinforced with jute-geotextile", Geotextiles and Geomembranes 23 (2), 144e173.
20. 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.
21. 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.
22. 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), 110.
23. 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.
24. 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.
25. Hejazi, S. M. et. al(2012) "A simple review of soil reinforcement by using natural
and synthetic fibers. Construction and Building Materials", 30, 100116.
26. Ismail, I. and Raymond, G.P., (1995) "Geosynthetic reinforcement of granular
layered soils", Int. Proceedings of geosynthetics, pp. 317~330.
27. Kongkitkul, W., Tatsuoka, F., Hirakawa, D., Sugimoto, T., Kawahata, S., Ito, M.
- 1895 -

Vol. 18 [2013], Bund. J

1896

(2010) "Time histories of tensile force in geogrid arranged in two full-scale high
walls", Geosynthetics International 17 (1), 12e33.
28. Karimpour, H., Lade, P.V. (2010) "Time effects relate to crushing in sand", ASCE
Journal of Geotechnical and Geoenvironmental Engineering 136 (9), 1209e1219.
29. Lackner, C., Bergado, D. T., & Semprich, S. (2013) "Prestressed reinforced soil by
geosynthetics Concept and experimental investigations", Geotextiles and
Geomembranes, 37, 109123. doi:10.1016/j.geotexmem.2013.02.002
30. 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.
31. 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.
32. 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.
33. 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, 7280. doi:10.1016/j.geotexmem.2011.09.005.
34. Ling I, Leshchinsky D, Tatsuoka F.( 2003) "Reinforced soil engineering: advances in
research and practice", Marcel Dekker Inc.
35. 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.
36. 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), 4354.
37. Madhavi Latha, G., Amit Somwanshi, S. (2009) "Bearing capacity of square footings
on geosynthetic reinforced sand", Geotextiles and Geomembranes 27 (4), 281e294.
38. Madhavi L. G., & Rajagopal, K. (2007) "Parametric finite element analyses of
geocell-supported embankments", Canadian Geotechnical Journal, 44(8), 917927.
doi:10.1139/T07-039.
39. Mosallanezhad, M., & Hataf, N. (2010) "Numerical Analysis of Granular Soils
Bearing Capacity , Reinforced with Innovative Grid-Anchor System", 555(1), 18.
40. 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.
41. Noorzad, R., MIrmoradi, S.H. (2010) "Laboratory evaluation of the behavior of a
geotextile reinforced clay", Geotextile and Geomembranes 28 (4), 386e392.
42. 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.
- 1896 -

Vol. 18 [2013], Bund. J

1897

43. 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.
44. Pokharel, S. K. et .al. (2010) "Investigation of factors influencing behavior of single
geocell-reinforced bases under static loading", Geotextiles and Geomembranes,
28(6), 570578. doi:10.1016/j.geotexmem.2010.06.002.
45. 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.
46. Rowe, R.K., Taechakumthorn, C. (2008) "Combined effect of PVDs and
reinforcement on embankments over rate-sensitive soils", Geotextiles and
Geomembranes 26 (3), 239249.
47. 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, 5568. doi:10.1016/j.geotexmem.2011.12.003.
48. Tafreshi, S N Moghaddas. et.al. (2011) "Experimental and numerical investigation on
circular footing subjected to incremental cyclic loads", 9(4).
49. 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), 7284. doi:10.1016/j.geotexmem.2009.09.003.
50. 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
Geomembranes, 28(5), 434447. doi:10.1016/j.geotexmem.2009.12.007.
51. 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), 145163. doi:10.1016/j.geotexmem.2007.06.002.
52. Tg, S., & Sireesh, S. (2012) "Behavior of Embedded Footings Supported on Geogrid
Cell Reinforced Foundation Beds", 28(5), 112.
53. Yang, X. et.al. (2012) "Accelerated pavement testing of unpaved roads with geocellreinforced sand bases", Geotextiles and Geomembranes, 32, 95103.
doi:10.1016/j.geotexmem.2011.10.004.
54. 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.
55. Yarbasi N, Kalkan E, Akbulut S. (2007) "Modification of freezingthawing
properties of granular soils with waste additives", Col Reg Sci Technol;48:4454.
56. 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.
57. Yetimoglu, T., WU, S.T.H. and Saglamer, A. (1994) "Bearing Capacity of
Rectangular Footing on Geogrid Reinforced Sand", Journal of Geotechnical
- 1897 -

Vol. 18 [2013], Bund. J

1898

Engineering, 120 (12), pp. 2083 ~2099.

58. Zidan, a. F. (2012) "Numerical Study of Behavior of Circular Footing on GeogridReinforced Sand Under Static and Dynamic Loading", Geotechnical and Geological
Engineering, 30(2), 499510. doi:10.1007/s10706-011-9483-0

2013, EJGE

- 1898 -