Malaysian Journal of Civil Engineering 27 Special Issue (1):224-234 (2015)

REVIEW PAPER

EFFECT OF PLACEMENT DEPTH OF GEOCELL REINFORCEMENT IN

SAND DEPOSIT: A REVIEW

Aminaton Marto, Mohsen Oghabi* & Nor Zurairahetty Mohd Yunus

Department of Geotechnics & Transportation, Faculty of Civil Engineering, Universiti Teknologi

Malaysia, 81310, Skudai, Johor Bahru, Malaysia

*Corresponding Author: mohsenoghabi@gmail.com

Abstract: In general, the tensile strength of the soil is poor. For this reason, the soil will need to
be strengthened. The main objective of strengthening the soil mass is 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 for optimum depth of geocell in the sand had been made. The test results indicated
that the inclusion of reinforcement in optimum depth of sand, decreased settlements and leading
to an economic design of the footings.

Keywords: Bearing capacity, geocell, soil reinforcement, sand

1.0 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 characteristics 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).

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

All rights reserved. No part of contents of this paper may be reproduced or transmitted in any form or by any means
without the written permission of Faculty of Civil Engineering, Universiti Teknologi Malaysia
 Malaysian Journal of Civil Engineering 27 Special Issue (1): 224-234 (2015) 225

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 et al. 2011). Figure 1 shows the pictures of various
kinds 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 are widely used in transmitting loads from the superstructure to the
supporting soils. After the foundation is constructed, the soil is permanently loaded by
both the gravity loads and the live loads of the superstructure. (El Sawwaf and Nazir,
2010). In this paper, an overview with the experimental test on the effect of optimum
depth of geocell in sand on bearing capacity and settlement of soil is discussed.
 226 Malaysian Journal of Civil Engineering 27 Special Issue (1): 224-234 (2015)

2.0 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 been 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, Shinoda and Bathurst, 2004, Kuwano
and Jardine, 2002, Li and Rowe, 2001, Perkins, 2000, Sawicki, 1998).

3.0 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).

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. Figure 2 shows 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.
 Malaysian Journal of Civil Engineering 27 Special Issue (1): 224-234 (2015) 227

(a) (b)

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

4.0 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. 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. (2008) 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 was equal to 0.25. 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
 228 Malaysian Journal of Civil Engineering 27 Special Issue (1): 224-234 (2015)

loading. The geometry of the test configurations for the geocell considered in the
investigation is shown in Figure 3.

Figure 3: Geometry of the Geocell- reinforced foundation bed (Moghaddas & Dawson, 2012).

5.0 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) 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 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
researches on the effect of geocell optimum parameters of soil reinforcement.
 Malaysian Journal of Civil Engineering 27 Special Issue (1): 224-234 (2015) 229

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 4 shows the corresponding improvement in bearing pressure
factor (IF) with u/B at different values of settlement. Figure 5 shows the variation of
improvement factors with settlement for various depths of placement of geocell
(Moghaddas and Dawson, 2012, Dash et.al, 2001). In Figure 5 shown the influence of
the depth of placement of geocell layer (defined by u/B ratio) on the bearing capacity
improvement factor (If). This is reflected in the reduction of If for higher u/B ratios.
These results suggest that to get maximum benefit, the top of the geocell mattress
should be at a depth of 0.1B from the bottom of the footing. Up to u/B ratio of 0.25, the
footings have not shown evidence of failure even at large settlements. When u/B is 0.50,
the footing had an initial failure at a settlement of about 0.2B and later starts taking
higher loads and finally reachs its ultimate load at settlement of about 0.4B. When the
u/B ratio is increased beyond 0.5, the footings have reached ultimate pressures at much
smaller settlements of about 0.15B.

Figure 4: Variation of bearing pressure with settlement for static loading of unreinforced and
reinforced foundation beds (Moghaddas & Dawson 2012).
230 Malaysian Journal of Civil Engineering 27 Special Issue (1): 224-234 (2015)

Table 1: Summary of previous studies on geocell reinforced soil

Name of researcher Result
(Year)
Sitharam and 1- Better performance of the footing can be obtained if the depth of
Sireesh placement of cellular mattress is 0.05D from the base of the footing
(2012) in the case of sand beds.
2- At 40 % footing settlement values, 30 % improvement is
observed in load carrying capacity in the case of reinforced sand
beds.
Boushehrian, Hataf 1- The large-scale results show that by using the grid-anchors, the
and Ghahramani amount of permanent settlement decreases to 30%, as compared
(2012) with the unreinforced condition.

Hataf, Boushehrian 1- The amount of dimensions settlement needed to reach its constant
and Ghahramani value decreases up to 17% relative to ordinary reinforcements and
(2011) up to 50% relative to an unreinforced condition.
Moghaddas 1- The optimum depth of the topmost layer of planar reinforcement
(2010) 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 and 1- The optimum depth of planar reinforcement is u/B=0.35 and the
Dawson 3D geotextile should be u/B= 0.1.
(2010)
Dash et al. 1- To obtain maximum benefit, the top of geocell mattress should be
(2001) u/B=0.1 from the bottom of the footing.
2- The optimum aspect ratio of geocell pockets for supporting strip
footings was found to be around 1.67.
 Malaysian Journal of Civil Engineering 27 Special Issue (1): 224-234 (2015) 231

Figure 5: Variation of improvement factors with settlement for different depths of placement of
geocell (Dash et.al, 2001).

6.0 Conclusions

Experimental study results obtained by previous researchers on reinforced soil with

synthetic material can be concluded as follows:

1. The reinforcement reduces the magnitude of the final settlement.

2. In case of sand beds, the increased performance of the footing is observed to
increase in footing settlement.
3. The optimum depth of geocell reinforcement is about (u/B) = 0.1.
4. 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.
5. The value of the mobilized shear stress ratio for geocell supported footings is
only 0.35–0.5, unlike the unreinforced footing where it reaches 1.
 232 Malaysian Journal of Civil Engineering 27 Special Issue (1): 224-234 (2015)

7.0 Acknowledgements

The authors acknowledge the research grants provided by Universiti Teknologi

Malaysia (UTM) under short term research grant Scheme, No. (PY/2013/00870).

References

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.
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.
American Society for Testing and Materials (ASTM D4439-11), (2011). Standard Test Methods
for Standard Terminology for Geosynthetics.
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), 43- 49.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
 Malaysian Journal of Civil Engineering 27 Special Issue (1): 224-234 (2015) 233

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.
Hejazi, S. M. et. al(2012). A simple review of soil reinforcement by using natural and synthetic
fibers. Construction and Building Materials, 30, 100–116.
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), 155- 169.
Karimpour, H., Lade, P.V. (2010). Time effects relate to crushing in sand, ASCE Journal of
Geotechnical and Geoenvironmental Engineering 136 (9), 1209- 1219.
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.
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), 1162- 1166.
Koerner, R. M, (1990). Designing with Geosynthetics. (2nd Edition) Englewood Cliffs, N.J.:
Prentice Hall.
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), 12- 33.
Kuwano, R., Jardine, R.J., (2002). On measuring creep behaviour in granular materials through
triaxial testing. Canadian Geotechnical Journal 39 (5), 1061- 1074.
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
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), 500- 509.
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), 941- 953.
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.
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.
Li, A.L., Rowe, R.K., (2001). Influence of creep and stress-relaxation of geosynthetic
reinforcement on embankment behaviour. Geosynthetics International 8 (3), 233- 270.
Ling I, Leshchinsky D, Tatsuoka F. ( 2003). Reinforced soil engineering: advances in research
and practice, Marcel Dekker Inc.
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), 295- 307.
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.
Madhavi Latha, G., Amit Somwanshi, S. (2009). Bearing capacity of square footings on
geosynthetic reinforced sand, Geotextiles and Geomembranes 27 (4), 281- 294.
 234 Malaysian Journal of Civil Engineering 27 Special Issue (1): 224-234 (2015)

Marto, 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.
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.
Noorzad, R., MIrmoradi, S.H. (2010). Laboratory evaluation of the behavior of a geotextile
reinforced clay, Geotextile and Geomembranes 28 (4), 386- 392.
Perkins, S.W., (2000). Constitutive modeling of geosynthetics. Geotextiles and Geomembranes
18 (5), 273- 292.
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.
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.
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.
Sawicki, A., (1999). Creep of geosynthetic reinforced soil retaining walls. Geotextiles and
Geomembranes 17 (1), 51e65.
Shinoda, M., Bathurst, R.J., (2004). Lateral and axial deformation of PP, HDPE and PET
geogrids under tensile load. Geotextiles and Geomembranes 22 (4), 205- 222.
Sitharam, T.G, Sireesh, S. (2012). Behavior of Embedded Footings Supported on Geogrid Cell
Reinforced Foundation Beds, 28(5), 1–12.
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.
Tg, S., & Sireesh, S. (2012). Behavior of Embedded Footings Supported on Geogrid Cell
Reinforced Foundation Beds, 28(5), 1–12.
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.
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.
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.
Yeo, S.S., Hsuan, Y.G. (2010). Evaluation of creep behavior of high density polyethylene and
polyethylene-terephthalate geogrids. Geotextiles and Geomembranes 28 (5), 409- 421.
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.
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.
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