ARTICLE IN PRESS

Geotextiles and Geomembranes 26 (2008) 231–238

www.elsevier.com/locate/geotexmem

Model studies on geogrid- or geocell-reinforced sand cushion on soft soil

Huabao Zhou, Xuejun Wen
Shanghai Municipal Engineering Design General Institute, Shanghai 200434, China
Received 1 November 2006; received in revised form 6 October 2007; accepted 18 October 2007
Available online 3 December 2007

Abstract

One or two layers of geosynthetic materials were placed in a sand cushion to create composite layers with improved bearing capacity
over a soft-soil foundation. Four test groups are reported. The results indicate that with the provision of a geocell-reinforced sand
cushion, there is a substantial reduction in settlement of the underlying soft soil. The subgrade reaction coefficient K30 is improved by
3000%, and the deformation is reduced by 44%. The surface earth pressure of the non-reinforced sand cushion is larger than that of the
reinforced groups, especially for the geocell-reinforced sand cushion.
r 2007 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

Keywords: Reinforced sand cushion; Soft soil; Settlement

1. Introduction carried out using a geogrid- or geocell-reinforced

Construction of buildings and other civil engineering
structures on weak or soft soil involves some risk because
these soils are susceptible to differential settlement and
exhibit poor shear strength and high compressibility
(Prabakar et al., 2004; Tang et al., 2007). The improvement
of the pressure-bearing capacity of the soil may be
undertaken by a variety of ground-improvement techni-
ques, including stabilization of soil or the introduction of
reinforcement (Hinchberger and Rowe, 2003; Zhao et al.,
1997). Incorporating reinforcement inclusions within soil is
an effective and reliable technique in order to improve the
engineering properties of soil (Dash et al., 2003; El Sawwaf,
2007; Fannin and Sigurdsson, 1996; Hufenus et al., 2006;
Latha and Murthy, 2007; Maharaj, 2003; Zia et al., 2001;
Mhaiskar and Mandalt, 1996; Park and Tan, 2005; Patra
et al., 2005; Rowe and Li, 1999; Watts et al., 2004;
Yetimoglu et al., 2005).
The present study was based on the problem of the soft
soil foundation of the Qin-shen Railway (from Qinhuang-
dao to Shenyang). The laboratory model tests were
designed to analyze the effects of different types of
geosynthetic-reinforced sand cushions. The tests were
Corresponding author. Tel.: +86 21 51298460; fax: +86 21 51298917.
E-mail address: 051023069@fudan.edu.cn (H. Zhou).
sand cushion overlying soft soil. Settlements were mea-
sured at different locations on the cross-section, and the
earth pressure on the surface of the soft soil and the tension
of the geogrid under different applied pressures were
inferred.
2. Similarity-condition analysis of the laboratory model test
The laboratory model test was designed according to the
similarity theory.
(1) Materials similarity: The same media (soft soil,
geogrid, and geocell) were used in the model test as
in the prototype.
(2) Pressure similarity: A pressurized air bag was used to
simulate the embankment load. A flexible air bag was
used to provide a relatively uniform applied-pressure
distribution over the whole area and, consequently, a
more uniform distribution of the effective stress on the
surface of the reinforced sand cushion. The pressure
increment was applied to simulate the embankment fill.
The applied-pressure intensity was the same as that of
the prototype.
(3) Flexible lateral boundary: In the model test a flexible
lateral boundary was used. For the flexible boundary
(obtained by means of filling bags with water between

0266-1144/$ - see front matter r 2007 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
doi:10.1016/j.geotexmem.2007.10.002
 ARTICLE IN PRESS
232 H. Zhou, X. Wen / Geotextiles and Geomembranes 26 (2008) 231–238
the soil and the lateral wall of the box), free movement
was possible (Moraci and Recalcati, 2006).
(4) Physico-mechanical parameter similarity: The geo-
metric similarity parameter in the model test was
C L ¼ 5. The materials used in the model test were the
same as for the prototype. Therefore, the similarity
parameters were obtained as follows:
gp Cp fp
Cg ¼ ¼ 1; Cc ¼ ¼ 1; Cf ¼ ¼ 1,
gm Cm fm
where C g , C c , C f are the similarity parameters of the
unit weight, cohesion, and internal friction angle,
respectively; gp , C p , fp are the unit weight, cohesion,
and internal friction angle of the prototype materials,
respectively; gm , C m , fm are the unit weight, cohesion,
and internal friction angle of the model materials,
respectively. According to the method of dimensional
analysis:
qp CqCL
C q ¼ C L C g ¼ 5; Cq ¼ ; CS ¼ ¼ C L ¼ 5,
qm CE
where q, C q , qp , qm are the applied pressure, the
similarity parameter of the applied pressure, the
prototype applied pressure, and the model applied
pressure, respectively. C S , C E are the similarity
parameters of the settlement and the Young’s modulus
of the soil.
Therefore, qm ¼ qp =C q ¼ 1=5qp , that is, the model
gravity pressure of the embankment should be reduced to
20% of the prototype gravity pressure. Theoretically, it is
not suitable to adopt the prototype materials in the model
test. Herein, the influence of gravity is not considered, and
thus the external pressure of the model test equal to that of
the prototype is applicable.
3. Mechanisms of geosynthetic reinforcement
3.1. Confinement (Hufenus et al., 2006)
The frictional interaction and interlocking between the
fill and the geosynthetic material restrained the aggregate
particles at the interface between subgrade and fill. The
reinforcement can absorb additional shear stresses between
subgrade and fill, which would otherwise be applied to the
soft subgrade. This improves the pressure distribution on
the subgrade and thus reduces the settlement.
3.2. Pocket effect (Dash et al., 2001; Rajagopal et al.,
1999)
The pocket effect develops as a result of vertical
deformation, which creates a concave shape in the
tensioned geosynthetic material. Owing to its stiffness,
the curved reinforced material exerts an upward force that
supports the applied pressure and thus improves the
bearing capacity (Perkins et al., 1999). This material acts
as a tensioned membrane, with the pressure on the soft
subgrade being smaller than the pressure applied to the fill
on the upper, concave side.
3.3. Raft foundation effect and stress dispersion effect
(Bathurst and Knight, 1998; Cowland and Wong, 1993)
Geocells, which form a three-dimensional, polymeric,
honeycomb-like structure of cells interconnected by joints,
interact with the fill, constituting a geocell–soil composite
that exhibits bending resistance, tensile strength, and shear
strength. The composite could be considered as a flexible
raft foundation. It intercepts the potential failure planes
because of its rigidity and forces them deeper into the
foundation soil, thereby increasing the bearing capacity of
the subgrade.
4. Test apparatus
The model test was conducted in a large-scale testing
apparatus. A schematic diagram is shown in Fig. 1.
Additional vertical stress was assumed decay exponentially
along with the subgrade depth, which became smaller as
the depth increased. Herein, 170 cm was adopted as the
subgrade height.
The test box was made of steel plates with dimensions of
306 cm (length)  118 cm (width)  200 cm (depth). The
soft soil subgrade was placed in six layers evenly. The
wet density, dry density, and water content were deter-
mined by the nucleus-density gauge to control the quality
of filling. The air bag was placed over the subgrade.
Pressure was applied by an oil jack. Water bags were filled
between the soil and the lateral wall of the box. The value
of the subgrade reaction coefficient K30 for evaluating
compaction quality was measured at the surface of the soft
soil or at the surface of the sand cushion.
15 cm 35 cm 200 cm 35 cm15 cm
applied pressure
sand
air bag
geogrid, geocell
30 cm
water bag
170 cm
steel plate
Fig. 1. Schematic of the test apparatus.
 ARTICLE IN PRESS
H. Zhou, X. Wen / Geotextiles and Geomembranes 26 (2008) 231–238
water-injection system
recorder
central line
applied pressure
test box
hydrostatic-pressure sensor settlement pipe
Fig. 2. Schematic of the hydraulic settlement gauge.
5. Material and instrumentation
Cohesive soft soil obtained from the Qin-shen Railway
was used in the test. Two types of commercially available
geosynthetics were used in the test series, i.e., geogrid SDL-
25 and geocell TGL-340-150.
The hydraulic settlement gauge consisted of a water-
injection system, a hydrostatic-pressure sensor, and a
settlement pipe. The working mechanism is shown in
Fig. 2. The main part of the monitor was the hydrostatic-
pressure sensor. The settlement value was obtained
according to the hydrostatic pressure, which was different
when the sensor was at different positions.
The deformation in the geogrid was measured with
electrical resistance strain gauges. The earth-pressure cell
was a JXY-4 earth-pressure transducer with a range of
0.6 MPa (transducer manufacturer, Dandong Qionglong).
The pressure cells were placed at the interface of the sand
cushion and the soft soil underneath the center of the
pressure area. The cells were used to measure the vertical
stress between them.
6. Experimental design
Four groups (shown in Fig. 3) were designed to examine
the influence of geosynthetic materials on the settlement of
soft soil.
(1) First group: 30 cm sand cushion, overlying the soft soil.
(2) Second group: one layer of geogrids placed within the
sand cushion.
(3) Third group: two layers of geogrids, evenly placed
within the sand cushion.
(4) Fourth group: one layer of geocells, placed within the
sand cushion.
6.1. Installment of checkpoints
Checkpoints were installed for the surface settlement,
tension of geogrids, and earth pressure, as shown in Fig. 3.
7. Testing procedure
(1) The soil was prepared and pulverized and then mixed
with a predetermined amount of water. This mix was
233
cultured for 2 days, and a steel box was prepared.
Lateral water bags were placed in the steel box.
(2) The first layer of soft soil was placed in the steel box for
determination of the wet and dry densities, and the
water content by means of the nucleus-density gauge.
(3) The second procedure was repeated, and the steel box
was filled evenly with the second to sixth layers of soft
soil; the surface K30 of the sixth layer of soil was
measured.
(4) After completion of subgrade preparation, earth-
pressure cells and geosynthetic materials were installed,
according to the design. The settlement pipe was placed
on the sand cushion.
(5) Air bag was installed, and the two lateral water bags
were filled with water.
(6) The earth-pressure cells were connected with the
frequency recorder to read the initial data.
(7) Pressure was mostly applied in 0.02 MPa increments.
The resulting settlements and the frequency of the
earth-pressure cells were measured under different
pressures.
(8) Another group was repeated. For the second and third
groups the strain gauges were attached to a piece of
copper, which was connected with the geogrid.
(9) The earth-pressure cells and strain gauges that were
used were calibrated, and the data were comprehen-
sively analyzed.
8. Results and discussion
The physical and mechanical properties of the soft soil
and sand cushion are shown in Tables 1 and 2. Their
particle size distributions are shown in Fig. 4.
8.1. Physical and mechanical properties of the geogrid and
geocell
The width of the testing geogrid was 50 mm. The geocell
had a width of 40 mm and a length of 200 mm. Here the
shear rate was 5072 mm/min, the tensile strength of the
geogrid was 29.2 kN/m, and that of the geocell was
21.4 kN/m. The elongation ratio of the geogrid was
17.8%. The tensile stress was 20 kN/m at 5% strain
and 10 kN/m at 2% strain. The breaking strength was
280 kN/m.
8.2. Filling test
Table 3 shows the compaction of four groups. The K30
values, after laying the sand cushion, one layer of a
geogrid-reinforced sand cushion, and a geocell-reinforced
sand cushion, were improved by 1600%, 2600%, and
3000%, respectively, in comparison with that of the soft-
soil surface. The increased K30 of the geogrid-reinforced
sand cushion might be due to the improvement of
the apparent cohesion (Rajagopal et al., 1999). For the
 ARTICLE IN PRESS
234 H. Zhou, X. Wen / Geotextiles and Geomembranes 26 (2008) 231–238

50 cm 50 cm 50 cm 50 cm 50 cm 50 cm
5 4 3 2 1
settlement pipe

sand cushion
soft soil

50 cm 50 cm 50 cm 50 cm 50 cm 50 cm
5 4 3 2 1
settlement pipe
4# 3# 1# geogrid
sand cushion
soft soil
50 cm 65 cm

50 cm 50 cm 50 cm 50 cm 50 cm 50 cm
5 4 3 2 1
settlement pipe
4# 3# 1#
geogrid
2#
sand cushion
soft soil
50 cm 65 cm

50 cm 50 cm 50 cm 50 cm 50 cm 50 cm

5 4 3 2 1
settlement pipe
geocell
sand cushion
soft soil

Fig. 3. Scheme of experimental design: (a) first group; (b) second group; (c) third group; (d) fourth group. Earth-pressure cell (K). Location for
measuring: settlement (m) and tension (’).

Table 1
Physical and mechanical properties of the soft soil

Material Unit weight g Water content o Compressing Compression Average soil Unconfined
(kN/m3) (%) coefficient av12 modulus Es relative density compressive
(MPa1) (MPa) strength q0u (kPa)

Soft soil 19.5 27.1 0.44 3.675 2.71 24.0

Liquid limit WL Plastic limit WP Plasticity index Optimum water Maximum dry Cohesion c (kPa) Angle of internal
(%) (%) IP content Wopt (%) density gdmax friction (deg)
(kN/m3)

30.4 20.3 10.1 14.5 18.27 3.0 6.7

 ARTICLE IN PRESS
H. Zhou, X. Wen / Geotextiles and Geomembranes 26 (2008) 231–238 235

Table 2
Physical and mechanical properties of the sand

Material Relative Minimum void Maximum void Minimum dry density Maximum dry density
density ratio emin ratio emax rdmin (g/cm3) rdmax (g/cm3)

Sand 2.67 0.417 0.724 1.549 1.884

100 8.3.2. Settlement of geogrid-reinforced sand-cushion groups

Figs. 6 and 7 show that settlements at different points
80
tend to be equal and to be reduced with the inclusion of
60 geogrid reinforcement. One reason for this is that the
% finer

geogrid-reinforced sand cushion could adjust the stress

40 field of soft soil to reduce its shear stress. Another reason
was that the pocket effect caused a part of the applied
20
pressure to transform to shear friction at the interface,
0 which led to reduction of the vertical applied pressure and
0.3 0.03 0.003 the settlement (Hufenus et al., 2006; Perkins and Ismeik,
Particle size (mm) 1997).
100
8.3.3. Settlement of the geocell-reinforced sand-cushion
80 group
60
Fig. 8 shows that settlements at different points tend to
% finer

be relatively more even in comparison with those of the

40
20
0 arrested the lateral spreading of soil. The encapsulated
2 0.2
Particle size (mm)
Fig. 4. Gradation curve for the soft soil (a) and sand (b).
geocell-reinforced sand cushion, both the apparent cohe-
sion of the soil and the angle of internal friction increased
remarkably, leading to improvement in the strength and
stiffness properties of the soft soil (Tang et al., 2007; Zhang
et al., 2006).
However, K30, after two layers of the geogrid-reinforced
sand cushion were placed, was improved by 0.1% in
comparison with that after one layer of the geogrid-
reinforced sand cushion was placed. This indicated a slight
difference in improvement of the compaction of the
subgrade by adding one or two layers of geogrids, and
a decrease in the efficiency with an increase in the layers
(El Sawwaf, 2007; Yoon et al., 2004).
8.3. Settlement of four groups
8.3.1. Settlement of the first group
The relationships between applied pressure and settle-
ments at different points are shown in Fig. 5. Settlement
trends were similar between the second and fourth points,
and between the first and fifth points, owing to their
symmetrical positions. The settlement at the third point (in
the center) was the biggest, and it increased quickly with an
increase in applied pressure.
geogrid-reinforced sand cushion.
The geocell improved strength by friction and all-around
confinement of soil within its pockets, which completely
0.02 sand within the geocell pocket behaved as a relatively rigid
mattress. This rigid mattress redistributed the applied
pressure over a wider area and supported the applied
pressure through mobilization of frictional resistance that
reduced pressure on the underlying soft soil, thereby giving
rise to an increase in the performance (Kazimierowicz-
Frankowska, 2007; Rajagopal et al., 1999).
8.3.4. Deformation resistance
Deformation of the second to fourth groups was
decreased by about 39%, 40%, and 44%, respectively, in
comparison with that of the first group, when the applied
pressure was 0.08 MPa (Fig. 9).
8.4. Geogrid tension
Relationships between tensions of geogrids and applied
pressure are shown in Figs. 10 and 11. The tension of the
fourth point was the smallest, and that of the center point
was relatively large. The tension of the third point was in
the middle. Results also showed that the tension would
distribute evenly with an increase of geogrid layers. At
0.06 MPa, the increasing tension showed that the interface
shear friction between geogrid and sand significantly
strengthened, and the reinforcement also correspondingly
increased. The reinforcement fully indicated when the
geogrid deformation increased greatly. At the initial stage
of applied pressure the vertical-compression deformation
occurred owing to the low compaction of the fill. During
 ARTICLE IN PRESS
236 H. Zhou, X. Wen / Geotextiles and Geomembranes 26 (2008) 231–238

Table 3
Subgrade reaction coefficient, K30, for the soft soil and reinforced cushions, based on a 0.3 m diameter plate applied-pressure test

Type of test Soft soil Sand Adding one layer of geogrid Adding two layers of geogrid Adding one layer of geocell
cushion reinforced sand cushion reinforced sand cushion reinforced sand cushion

K30 value (MPa/m) 0.935 16.2 25.4 25.4 29.6

The applied pressure sS (MPa), corresponding to the displacement of 1.25  103 m, is calibrated according to the first measured stress–displacement curve
with K30 (MPa/m) ¼ ðsS =1:25  103 Þ.

Applied pressure (MPa) Applied pressure (MPa)

0.02 0.03 0.04 0.05 0.06 0.07 0.08 0.09 0.02 0.03 0.04 0.05 0.06 0.07 0.08 0.09
0 0

50 50

Settlement (mm)
Settlement (mm)

100 100
the first point

150 the second point

150 the first point
the third point
the second point
the fourth point
200 the third point 200
the fourth point the fifth point
the fifth point 250
250
Fig. 7. Applied pressure–settlement curves for the third group.
Fig. 5. Applied pressure–settlement curves for the first group.

Applied pressure (MPa) Applied pressure (MPa)

0.02 0.03 0.04 0.05 0.06 0.07 0.08 0.09 0.02 0.03 0.04 0.05 0.06 0.07 0.08 0.09
0 0

50
50
Settlement (mm)
Settlement (mm)

100
100
the first point
150 the second point
the first point
150 the third point
the second point
200 the fourth point
the third point the fifth point
200 the fourth point
250
the fifth point
Fig. 8. Applied pressure–settlement curves for the fourth group.
250

Fig. 6. Applied pressure–settlement curves for the second group. Applied pressure (MPa)
0.00 0.02 0.04 0.06 0.08
0
this course the geogrid could not interact well with the fill,
and the structure of the geogrid–soil composite did not 50
work well. Therefore, the reinforcement effect was not
Deformation (mm)

obvious. As the applied pressure increased, the subgrade 100

was increasingly compacted, and the structure of the
composite became strong enough to restrict deformation of the first group
150
the subgrade. the second group
the third group
200
8.5. Relationship between earth pressure and applied the fourth group
pressure
250
Fig. 12 shows that the surface earth pressure of the first Fig. 9. Relationship between maximum deformation and applied pres-
group was larger than that of the reinforced groups, sure.
 ARTICLE IN PRESS
H. Zhou, X. Wen / Geotextiles and Geomembranes 26 (2008) 231–238 237

reduction in stress intensity resulted in a decrease in the

the first point settlement of the subgrade.
2500 the third point
the fourth point
2000 9. Conclusion
Tension (N)

1500 The results of four tests to examine the improvement of

the bearing capacity of soft soil due to geosynthetic
1000
materials placed in a sand cushion to create composite
500
layers have been reported. The results indicate that with the
provision of a geocell-reinforced sand cushion, there is a
0 substantial reduction in settlement of the underlying soft
0.00 0.02 0.04 0.06 0.08 soil. The subgrade reaction coefficient K30 is improved by
Applied pressure (MPa) 3000%, and the deformation is reduced by 44%. The
Fig. 10. Applied pressure–tension curves for the second group. surface earth pressure of the non-reinforced sand cushion
was larger than that of the reinforced groups, especially for
the geocell-reinforced sand cushion.
3500
the fourth point the first point
3000 References
the third point the second point
2500
Tension (N)

Bathurst, R.J., Knight, M.A., 1998. Analysis of geocell reinforced-soil

2000 covers over large span conduits. Computers and Geotechnics 22 (3/4),
1500 205–219.
Cowland, J.W., Wong, S.C.K., 1993. Performance of a road embankment
1000 on soft clay supported on a geocell mattress foundation. Geotextiles
500 and Geomembranes 12 (8), 687–705.
Dash, S.K., Krishnaswamy, N.R., Rajagopal, K., 2001. Bearing capacity
0 of strip footings supported on geocell-reinforced sand. Geotextiles and
0.00 0.02 0.04 0.06 0.08 Geomembranes 19, 235–256.
Applied pressure (MPa) Dash, S.K., Sireesh, S., Sitharam, T.G., 2003. Model studies on circular
footing supported on geocell reinforced sand underlain by soft clay.
Fig. 11. Applied pressure–tension curves for the third group. Geotextiles and Geomembranes 21, 197–219.
El Sawwaf, M.A., 2007. Behavior of strip footing on geogrid-reinforced
sand over a soft clay slope. Geotextiles and Geomembranes 25, 50–60.
Applied pressure (MPa) Fannin, R.J., Sigurdsson, O., 1996. Field observations on stabilization of
0.00 0.02 0.04 0.06 0.08 unpaved roads with geosynthetics. Journal of Geotechnical Engineer-
ing, ASCE 122 (7), 544–553.
0.00 Hinchberger, S.D., Rowe, R.K., 2003. Geosynthetic reinforced embank-
ments on soft clay foundations: predicting reinforcement strains at
0.01
Earth pressure (MPa)

failure. Geotextiles and Geomembranes 21, 151–175.

0.02
0.03
0.04
0.05 the first group
the second group
0.06
Fig. 12. Applied pressure–earth pressure curves for the four groups.
especially for the geocell-reinforced sand cushion. On the
other hand, the distribution of earth pressure tended to be
equal with an increase of the applied pressure. This is
because the raft foundation effect and the stress-dispersion
effect of the geocell-reinforced sand cushion allow the
reinforcement system to distribute localized stresses within
a large body of soil. Therefore, the zone of distribution of
stress at a certain depth below the sand cushion was
increased by the inclusion of reinforcement, thereby
reducing the intensity of the transmitted stress. The
Hufenus, R., Rueegger, R., Banjac, R., Mayor, P., Springman, S.M.,
Brönnimann, R., 2006. Full-scale field tests on geosynthetic reinforced
unpaved roads on soft subgrade. Geotextiles and Geomembranes 24,
21–37.
Kazimierowicz-Frankowska, K., 2007. Influence of geosynthetic reinfor-
the third group
cement on the load-settlement characteristics of two-layer subgrade.
the fourth group Geotextiles and Geomembranes 25, 366–376.
Latha, G.M., Murthy, V.S., 2007. Effects of reinforcement form on the
behavior of geosynthetic reinforced sand. Geotextiles and Geomem-
branes 25, 23–32.
Maharaj, D., 2003. Nonlinear finite element analysis of strip footing on
reinforced clay. Electronic Journal of Geotechnical Engineering
8(Bundle C).
Mhaiskar, S.Y., Mandalt, J.N., 1996. Investigations on soft clay subgrade
strengthening using geocells. Construction and Building Materials 10,
281–286.
Moraci, N., Recalcati, P., 2006. Factors affecting the pullout behaviour of
extruded geogrids embedded in a compacted granular soil. Geotextiles
and Geomembranes 24, 220–242.
Park, T., Tan, S.A., 2005. Enhanced performance of reinforced soil walls
by the inclusion of short fiber. Geotextiles and Geomembranes 23 (4),
348–361.
Patra, C.R., Das, B.M., Atalar, C., 2005. Bearing capacity of embedded
strip foundation on geogrid-reinforced sand. Geotextiles and Geo-
membranes 23 (5), 454–462.
 ARTICLE IN PRESS
238 H. Zhou, X. Wen / Geotextiles and Geomembranes 26 (2008) 231–238
Perkins, S.W., Ismeik, M., 1997. A synthesis and evaluation of
geosynthetic-reinforced base layers in flexible pavements: part I.
Geosynthetics International 4 (6), 549–604.
Perkins, S.W., Ismeik, M., Fogelsong, M.L., 1999. Influence of
geosynthetic placement position on the performance of reinforced
flexible pavement systems. In: Proceedings of the Geosynthetics
Conference, Boston, vol. 1, pp. 253–264.
Prabakar, J., Dendorkar, N., Morchhale, R.K., 2004. Influence of fly ash
on strength behavior of typical soils. Construction and Building
Materials 18, 263–267.
Rajagopal, K., Krishnaswamy, N.R., Latha, G.M., 1999. Behaviour of
sand confined with single and multiple geocells. Geotextiles and
Geomembranes 17, 171–184.
Rowe, R.K., Li, A.L., 1999. Reinforced embankments over soft
foundations under undrained and partially drained conditions.
Geotextiles and Geomembranes 17, 129–146.
Tang, C.S., Shi, B., Gao, W., Chen, F.J., Cai, Y., 2007. Strength and
mechanical behavior of short polypropylene fiber reinforced and cement
stabilized clayey soil. Geotextiles and Geomembranes 25, 194–202.
Watts, G.R.A., Blackman, D.I., Jenner, C.G., 2004. The performance of
reinforced unpaved sub-bases subjected to trafficking. In: Proceedings
of the Third European Geosynthetics Conference, Munich, vol. 1, pp.
261–266.
Yetimoglu, T., Inanir, M., Inanir, O.E., 2005. A study on bearing capacity
of randomly distributed fiber-reinforced sand fills overlying soft clay.
Geotextiles and Geomembranes 23, 174–183.
Yoon, Y.W., Cheon, S.H., Kang, D.S., 2004. Bearing capacity and
settlement of tire-reinforced sands. Geotextiles and Geomembranes 22,
439–453.
Zhang, M.X., Javadi, A.A., Min, X., 2006. Triaxial tests of sand
reinforced with 3D inclusions. Geotextiles and Geomembranes 24,
201–209.
Zhao, A., Williams, G.S., Waxse, J.A., 1997. Field performance of weak
subgrade stabilization with multilayer geogrids. Geotextiles and
Geomembranes 15, 183–195.
Zia, N., Khan, A., Fox, P.J., 2001. Pavement subgrade stabilization using
geogrid reinforcement. In: Proceedings of Geosynthetics 01, IFAI,
Portland, OR, pp. 437–450.