See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.

net/publication/281562080

Evaluation of a calculation method for embankments reinforced with geocells

over soft soils using finite-element analysis

Article  in  Geosynthetics International · August 2015

DOI: 10.1680/gein.15.00024

CITATION READS

1 779

3 authors, including:

Marcos Massao Futai José Orlando Avesani Neto

University of São Paulo University of São Paulo
69 PUBLICATIONS   260 CITATIONS    20 PUBLICATIONS   35 CITATIONS   

SEE PROFILE SEE PROFILE

Some of the authors of this publication are also working on these related projects:

Computational Modelling of Concrete Structures View project

Tunelcon Project View project

All content following this page was uploaded by Marcos Massao Futai on 25 September 2015.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

 Geosynthetics International

Evaluation of a calculation method for embankments

reinforced with geocells over soft soils using
finite-element analysis
J. O. Avesani Neto1, B. S. Bueno2 and M. M. Futai3
1
Professor, Polytechnic School, University of Sao Paulo – Poli/USP, São Paulo, SP 05508-010,
Brazil, Telephone: + 55 1130915246; Telefax: +55 1130915181; E-mail: avesani@usp.br
(corresponding author)
2
Professor, São Carlos School of Engineering, University of São Paulo – EESC/USP, São Carlos,
SP 13566-590, Brazil, Telephone: +55 1633739501; Telefax: +55 1633739509; E-mail: bsbueno@sc.usp.br
3
Professor, Polytechnic School, University of Sao Paulo – Poli/USP, São Paulo, SP 05508-010, Brazil,
Telephone: +55 1130915246; Telefax: +55 1130915181; E-mail: futai@usp.br

Received 24 July 2014, revised 06 June 2015, accepted 24 June 2015

ABSTRACT: This study addressed the analysis of geocells as basal reinforcement for embankments
on soft soils. The equation proposed for this application is based on a previously developed method for
predicting the bearing capacity of geocell-reinforced soils, which considers the characteristics of the
founding strata, geocell in-fill soil, geometry of the geocell mattress, the slope angle and load from the
embankment. The proposed method considers the factor of safety of the unreinforced system calculated
by two methods, to which a term that is dependent on the geocell reinforcement is added to obtain the
factor of safety for the reinforced system. The application of the method is demonstrated by an example
using two different analytical methods for determining the factor of safety of the unreinforced system.
The results thus obtained were compared with those from a three-dimensional finite element computer
analysis for both unreinforced and reinforced cases.

KEYWORDS: Geosynthetics, Geocells, Soil improvement, Finite-element analyses, Soft soil,

Factor of safety

REFERENCE: Avesani Neto, J. O., Bueno, B. S. and Futai, M. M. (2015). Evaluation of a calculation
method for embankments reinforced with geocells over soft soils using finite-element analysis.
Geosynthetics International. [http://dx.doi.org/10.1680/gein.15.00024]

mass is not likely to occur due to generally flat slopes.

1. INTRODUCTION
Geosynthetic reinforcement as basal reinforcement in em-
bankments over soft soils improves the performance of the
system by increasing the resisting forces and reducing the
activating forces. Such reinforcement also helps to stabilise
the embankment during critical phases of construction
when the shear strength of the founding soil is yet to
develop through consolidation of the sub-soil.
As per BS 8006-1:2010 (Code of practice for strength-
ened/reinforced soils and other fills) (BSI 2010), basal
reinforcements for embankments generally prevent
(a) extrusion of soft sub-soil
(b) lateral sliding of the embankment
(c) general rupture (global slip surface), a particularly
critical issue.
As in the case of conventional embankments, general
rupture is critical. Lateral sliding of the embankment
1072-6349 © 2015 Thomas Telford Ltd
Extrusion of the foundation subsoil should be verified if
the thickness of the soft subsoil soil is small in comparison
with the height of the embankment. In this case, as the
competent material is at a relatively shallow depth, global
stability is not a concern because the slip circle is shallow.
As the general rupture analysis is the most critical
and is used in designs, it is also the most discussed in
the literature. The verification can be performed by limit
equilibrium, theory of the plasticity and numerical
methods, such as finite-element analysis (FEA). In the
limit equilibrium analysis the reinforcement supports the
increase in the resistance moment, improving the overall
stability. Using the limit equilibrium approach, the fol-
lowing studies are noteworthy: Jewell (1982), Milligan
and La Rochelle (1984), Rowe and Soderman (1985),
Low et al. (1990), Bergado et al. (1994) and Palmeira et al.
(1998). In the theory of plasticity approach, Rowe
and Soderman (1987) and Jewell (1996) are significant
publications.
1
2 Avesani Neto, Bueno and Futai
Geogrids have been commonly considered as basal
reinforcement, although other types of geosynthetics have
also been considered for embankments over poor foun-
dation. These include geosynthetic-encased columns
(GEC) (Hong 2012; Yoo and Lee 2012), prefabricated
vertical drains along with basal reinforcement (Li and
Rowe 1999, 2002; Rowe and Li 2005) and geocell mattress
reinforcement.
Geocells have been applied to several areas in geotech-
nical engineering, including flexible retaining walls
(Bathurst and Crowe 1992), slope protection against
erosion (Rimoldi and Ricciuti 1994), channel lining (Wu
and Austin 1992), reinforcement of embankments over
soft soil and bearing capacity improvement (Bathurst and
Jarrett 1988; Koerner 1994; Dash et al. 2001, 2007;
Madhavi Latha and Murthy 2007; Thallak et al. 2007;
Zhou and Wen 2008; Saride et al. 2009; Sireesh et al. 2009;
Wesseloo et al. 2009; Dash 2012; Moghaddas Tafreshi
et al. 2013).
Several authors have demonstrated the acceptable
use of geocells as basal reinforcement for embankments
on soft soils. The present authors have reported bearing
capacity improvement and reduction of settlement by
considering geocells as basal reinforcement. Cowland and
Wong (1993) reported the use of a geocell mattress as
reinforcement of highway embankments over soft soil in
Hong Kong. Krishnaswamy et al. (2000) and Zhang et al.
(2010) performed laboratory tests using a model of an
embankment over soft soil reinforced with a geocell
cushion and reported improvement in the bearing capa-
city and reduction of settlements in the embankment.
Several studies have evaluated the embankments over
soft soils reinforced with geocell mattress using FEA.
Mhaiskar and Mandal (1996), Madhavi Latha and
Rajagopal (2007) and Mehdipour et al. (2013) conducted
numerical and parametric evaluation of the various para-
meters involved. Madhavi Latha and Rajagopal (2007)
varied parameters such as cell size, geocell wall material
stiffness, infill soil properties and reinforcement depth
of placement and validated the simulation results with
laboratory tests. Mehdipour et al. (2013) simulated the
geocell reinforcement as a flexible slab foundation and
carried out parametric evaluations involving the depth of
reinforcement placement, number, spacing, length and
thickness of the geocell layers and stiffness. Leshchinsky
and Ling (2013) also performed numerical simulations of
geocell-reinforced embankments and parametric evalu-
ations of some variables, considering the geocell reinforce-
ment in railway ballast.
According to several authors, use of geosynthetic-
encased columns (GEC) with granular material have
been demonstrated as a viable alternative to improve
bearing capacity in embankments over soft soil (Almeida
et al. 2013; Elsawy 2013; Tanyu et al. 2013). Combining
this system with geocell reinforcement, Zhao et al. (2008,
2009) performed experimental and FEA and proved the
feasibility of combining these two systems.
Despite the large number of experiments, simulations
and applications of geocell-reinforced embankments over
soft soils, few analytical techniques have been developed.
Geosynthetics International
Jenner et al. (1988) proposed a method based on the
theory of plasticity to determine the bearing capacity of
the foundation and considering the geocell reinforcement
as an equivalent layer of granular soil. Madhavi Latha
et al. (2006) performed experiments of embankments over
soft soils reinforced with geocell layer in a laboratory-scale
model and proposed a simplified design method in which
the reinforcement is considered as an equivalent layer of
cohesive soil. Madhavi Latha (2011) have also developed
a calculation method based on FEA and considering
the geocell reinforcement an equivalent layer of the soil.
The development of a technique for analysis of embank-
ments over soft soils reinforced by geocell is described
herein and the method is also evaluated using three-
dimensional FEA.
2. METHODS APPLIED FOR AN
UNREINFORCED SITUATION
The analyses conducted in this study to determine the
factor of safety (FS) of embankments on soft soils em-
ployed a semi-analytical method developed by Low
(1989), and the Bishop’s simplified method (Bishop
1955), both of which are well established in international
literature. These methods are outlined in the following
subsections.
2.1. Low’s method
Low (1989) developed stability numbers to determine the
FSu of an embankment on soft soils, one incorporating
the characteristics of the soil foundation and the other
utilising the strength parameters of the embankment. In
this method, FSu is calculated as per Equation 1 through
iterations for several rupture surfaces at different depths
D′ in soft soil foundation, until the lowest value of FSu,
which indicates the critical surface at each depth of the
rupture surface is derived.
 
su c
FSu ¼ N1 þ N2 þ λ tan ϕ ð1Þ
γH γH
where N1 and N2 are stability factors determined in charts
as a function of the relation (D′/H ), where D′ is the depth
of the critical surface of rupture and H is the embankment
height, and of the inclination of the embankment slope,
where su is the equivalent undrained cohesion of the foun-
dation soil, γ is the unit weight of the embankment soil, c is
the cohesion of the embankment soil, λ is the coefficient
(determined in charts and also depending on the relation-
ship between D′, H and the inclination of the embankment
slope), and ϕ is the friction angle of the embankment soil.
With regard to the undrained cohesion of the foun-
dation soil, Low (1989) suggests that the influence of the
variation of cohesion with depth should be considered
so that an equivalent undrained cohesion from the surface
to the depth of the critical surface of rupture can be
obtained. The equivalent cohesion may be evaluated
considering 35% weightage to surface cohesion value and
65% weightage to the cohesion value at the depth of
Evaluation of a calculation method for embankments reinforced with geocells
critical surface of rupture. Hence
su ¼ 0:35suT þ 0:65suD ð2Þ
where suT is the foundation soil undrained cohesion at the
surface, suD is the foundation soil undrained cohesion at
the depth of the critical surface of rupture, determined by
multiplying the increased undrained cohesion with depth
Δsu by the depth of the rupture surface, D′.
2.2. Bishop’s simplified method
To determine FSu using Bishop’s simplified method
(Bishop, 1955), Slide v5.0 Software from Rocscience
Company was used.
3. METHODOLOGY DEVELOPED FOR
THE REINFORCED CASE
Herein an analysis of geocell-reinforced embankments
considering the method recommended by a PhD thesis
(Avesani Neto 2013) and presented by Avesani Neto et al.
(2013) is proposed. Avesani Neto (2013) developed an
analysis procedure for determining the bearing capacity
of geocell-reinforced soils, considering two geocell-
reinforcement mechanisms (Bathurst and Jarret 1988;
Koerner 1994; Mandal and Gupta 1994; Cancelli and
Montanelli 1999; Hufenus et al. 2006; Zhou and Wen
2008; Zhang et al. 2010; Avesani Neto et al. 2013)
(a) stress dispersion effect
(b) confinement effect.
The final equation proposed by the authors considers the
equilibrium of forces in the geocell layer and establishes
that the pressure acting on the foundation (under the
geocell mattress) is equal to that applied at the surface of
the geocell mattress, less the dissipated pressure within the
geocell mattress by confinement and stress dispersion
effects. Finally, the authors state that the bearing capacity
of the geocell-reinforced soil has two components; the
bearing capacity of the unreinforced soil (foundation
contribution) and the additional capacity by virtue of the
geocell. This is reflected by the equation developed by
Avesani Neto (2013) as
h
pr ¼ pu þ 4 k0 pe tan δ þ ð1
eÞp ð3Þ
d α
where pu is the bearing capacity of unreinforced soil, h/d is
the geocell aspect ratio, k0 is the lateral earth pressure at
rest (k0 = 1 − sin ϕ′), p is the load at the top of the geocell
mattress, δ is the interface friction angle between the filling
soil and the geocell wall, and e is the stress redistribution
effect which defines the development of the stress
dispersion effect in the geocell cushion and can be
calculated by the following equation, considering load
spread by the geocell mattress by one cell on either side of
the surcharge of size B × L.
BL
e¼ ð4Þ
ðB þ 2dÞðL þ 2dÞ
Geosynthetics International
3
where B and L are, respectively, the load width and length,
and d is the geocell pocket size.
This method has been evaluated by several laboratory
bearing capacity experiments with different characteristics
such as resistance and type of in-fill and foundation soil,
type, geometry and material of the geocell, shape and size
of the loading (Avesani Neto 2013).
The mechanism of geocell reinforcement for embank-
ments on soft soils has to be slightly changed in com-
parison with the original one proposed by Avesani Neto
(2013). According to several authors (Jakobson 1948;
Costa Nunes and Velloso 1961; Low 1989), a rupture
occurs only in a section of the foundation, usually close to
the embankment slope. Thus, the embankment section
reinforced with the geocell, is not under the total load of
the embankment (γH), but only under part of the total
load, which corresponds to a triangular distribution based
on the inclination of the slope. This reduces the stress
within the geocell pocket leading to a reduction in the
confinement effect and thus a reduction in the additional
capacity due to the geocell. A correction is necessary to
adjust the contribution of the geocell because of reduced
confinement.
As the equation for geocells was originally developed
for a constant surcharge load, the applied load over the
geocell layer that corresponds to the triangular area is
considered as a constant load equivalent to one-half of the
actual embankment load, namely half-height as shown in
Figure 1.
Finally, it is necessary to consider the contribution of
the angle of inclination α of the embankment slope on the
reduction/increase in the efficiency of geocell reinforce-
ment. Where the slope is steep, there is a high reduction
in the infill soil confinement within the geocell with
a consequent reduction in the reinforcement efficiency.
On the other hand, if the slope is flat, geocell confinement
is maintained and the reinforcement efficiency improves.
Therefore, an adjustment of the geocell-confinement
efficiency has been proposed as a function of α.
Considering this and Figure 1, a factor ‘reinforcement
efficiency’, η, was developed, which is the ratio of the
average load of the embankment slope and the maximum
load of the embankment, adjusted by the slope inclination
0·50γ H
H
Embankment
f
Foundation
Figure 1. Schematic illustration of the equivalent load due to
the slope
4 Avesani Neto, Bueno and Futai

α characterised by (1/tan α). Hence the geocell reinforcement layer is positioned under the
loaded zone, namely at the base of the embankment.
Embankment slope load 1 Other geometries may not be valid for this formulation.
η¼
Embankment load Slope inclination

or 4. THE NUMERICAL MODEL

4.1. Introduction
0:5γH 1
η¼ For the evaluation of the analysis method for reinforced
γH tan α
and unreinforced conditions, a hypothetical case of
embankments on a foundation in soft soil was considered.
or The analysis was conducted for different embankment
heights and the foundation soil was considered to be a
f
η ¼ 0:5 ð5Þ very soft clay with increasing shear strength with depth.
H The embankment was considered as constructed with a
silty sand soil. Similar silty sand in-fill was considered for
where f is the embankment slope length (Figure 1) and the geocells. The characteristics of the model are given in
H is the embankment height. the following subsections.
Incorporating the reinforcement efficiency in
Equation 3, the bearing capacity for the geocell-reinforced
4.2. Geometry, calculation steps and parameters adopted
embankment over soft soil is
for the soils
  The foundation sub-soil was considered to be very soft
h
pr ¼ pu þ 4 k0 pe tan δ þ ð1
eÞp η ð6Þ clay with undrained cohesion near the surface equal to
d
15 kPa. The shear strength of the soil was assumed to
increase with depth at a rate of 2 kPa/m. The thickness
or of the soft clay layer was assumed to be 5 m. The ground
  water table was considered to be located at the surface.
h The internal angle of friction of the material of the
pr ¼ pu þ 4 k0 e tan δ þ ð1
eÞ pη ð7Þ
d embankment was assumed to be 35°, with cohesion of
5 kPa. The unit weight was assumed to be 18 kN/m3. The
The term [4(h/d )k0e tan δ + (1 − e)] is dimensionless. embankment heights considered for analyses range from
Hence Equation 7 may be re-written as 1 to 5 m. The gradient of the embankment slope was
assumed to be 1 V:2 H.
pr ¼ pu þ IG pη ð8Þ Figure 2 shows a schematic cross-section and Table 1
gives the geotechnical parameters for embankment and
where IG is the dimensionless factor called the factor of sub-soil.
geocell reinforcement. According to several authors (Rea and Mitchell 1978;
The factor of safety is obtained by dividing the available Mitchell et al. 1979; Dash et al. 2001, 2007; Avesani
bearing capacity with reinforcement pr by the applied load Neto 2013), the efficiency of the geocell reinforcement was
p. In Equation 8, dividing both terms by p, a relation high as the aspect ratio (h/d ) of the geocell tended
between the factor of safety in the condition with rein- to 1. Both height and width of the individual cell were
forcement, FSr, and unreinforced case, FSu, is obtained. equal to 800 mm. The geocell was made of geogrid strips
Hence with a tensile strength equal to 70 kN/m and a stiffness of
660 kN/m at 5% strain. Such geocell was placed directly
pr pu IG pη over the founding surface and filled with the same sandy
¼ þ
p p p soil as that used in the embankment. The geocell rein-
forcement extends beyond the slope by two cells, namely
or 1600 mm beyond the toe (Avesani Neto et al. 2013).

FSr ¼ FSu þ ηIG ð9Þ 2

1
H
Embankment
The complete equation is obtained by substituting the
terms for η and IG Geocell
 
f h 5m
FSr ¼ FSu þ 0:5 4 k0 e tan δ þ ð1
eÞ ð10Þ
H d
Foundation

Note that the equation proposed by Avesani Neto (2013)

and the correction described in this section assumes that Figure 2. Schematic cross-section of the problem
Geosynthetics International
Evaluation of a calculation method for embankments reinforced with geocells 5

Table 1. Geotechnical parameters for embankment and
foundation soil
Foundation sub-soil
Soil type
Drainage condition
Unit weight γ (kN/m3)
Shear parameters su (kPa); ϕ′
Increase in shear strength with depth Δsu (kPa/m)
Elastic modulus E (MPa)
Poisson’s ratio μ
Embankment soil
Soil type
Drainage condition
Unit weight γ (kN/m3)
Shear parameters: cu (kPa); ϕ′
Elastic modulus E (MPa)
Poisson’s ratio μ
Details of the geocell reinforcement construction with
geogrid strips can be found in Bush et al. (1990).
The geocell was modelled in Plaxis 3D Foundation as
a wall. In this way it was possible to individually model
each cell of the geocell reinforcement layer. The general
properties of the geocell were material thickness 0.03 m,
specific weight 3.1 kN/m3 (NTPEP 2013) and cited
stiffness properties.
Plaxis 3D Foundation finite-element software was used
for numerical analyses. The computational model was
built to represent a range of hypothetical sections. The
model dimensions were 2.5 m width, 15 m length and 11 m
height. The boundary conditions reflected continuity.
The generated finite-element mesh contained 6428
elements and 19 400 nodes and the average size of the
grid elements was approximately 10 cm. An interface
element between the soil and the geocell fill was con-
sidered with strength reduction of 0.7.
Computations were carried out in steps as listed here.
• Initial step: The initial geometry of the problem con-
sists only of a layer of soft soil in which the in situ
stresses were generated.
• Reinforcement layer: Insertion of geocell reinforcement
layer, considered only for the geocell reinforcement
case.
• Embankment layers: Inserting successive layers of
embankment, 1 m increment at a time.
• General rupture evaluation: factor of safety calculation
for each increment using the phi-c reduction
technique.
Figures 3 and 4 show the computational numerical
models used for the unreinforced and reinforced situ-
ations, respectively.
intermediate steps and the value of FSu determined by the
method proposed in Low (1989) for the different embank-
ment heights in the unreinforced condition. It may be
noted that there was no rupture up to an embankment
Clay
Undrained height of 5 m.
16 Slide v5.0 software was used to determine the FSu by
15; 0° Bishop’s simplified method. The values of FSu for differ-
2 ent embankment heights computed by Bishop’s method
1.5
are shown in Figure 9 below.
0.45
Three-dimensional numerical simulations were carried
Silty sand out using Plaxis 3D Foundation for comparison of the
Drained factors of safety calculated by Bishop’s simplified method
18 and Low’s method. The factors of safety obtained by
5; 35°
the FEA using the phi-c reduction technique for different
40
0.35 embankment heights in the unreinforced case are shown
in Table 3, which also illustrates the ratio between factors
of safety FSu as calculated by Low’s method and FEA,
and also between FSu calculated by Bishop’s simplified
method and FEA. Figure 5 shows the total displacement
obtained in the computational model for the embankment
with a height of 5 m and indicates a displacement of
160 mm at the embankment top and a well-formed surface
of rupture.
The factor of safety reduction was inversely propor-
tional to the embankment height in a non-linear relation-
ship as shown in Figure 9 below. On increasing the height
of the embankment from 1 to 2 m, the value of FSu was
reduced by approximately 50%, from 5.1 to 2.7. However,
on raising the embankment height from 4 to 5 m, FSu
reduced from 1.6 to 1.3, a reduction of 20%.
Comparing the analytical methods for the determi-
nation of the factor of safety, the results were close to
the values obtained by the FEA, particularly for the case
where the embankment height is 2 m. For 1 m embank-
ment height, Low’s method indicated a value of FSu which
was 15% less than that obtained by the FEA. However,
for larger heights, the difference was less than 3%. Low’s
method shows results closest to FEA results (Figure 9 and
Table 3).
The Bishop’s simplified method indicates a factor of
safety value practically equal to the FEA value for a 4 m
high embankment. The largest differential ratio between
FSu by Bishop’s simplified method and the FEA was 8%
for both 1 and 2 m embankment heights. For embank-
ment heights of 4 and 5 m, the ratio comparing the FEA
results was higher than 5% which was worse when
compared with Low’s method.
The calibration of analytical methods by the FEA for
the unreinforced case was evaluated using these results,
confirming the possibility of its use for the reinforced case
analysis.

5.2. Case with reinforcement

5. ANALYSIS AND DISCUSSION OF As described in Section 4.2, the parameters considered,
RESULTS as recommended by Avesani Neto et al (2013), are

5.1. Case without reinforcement (a) geocell aspect ratio, h/d = 1

Factors of safety were calculated for the different embank- (b) inter-face friction angle between the filling soil
ment heights ranging from 1 to 5 m. Table 2 shows the (ϕ = 35°) and the geocell wall, δ = 2/3 ϕ = 23°
Geosynthetics International
6 Avesani Neto, Bueno and Futai

Foundation Embankment

Water table 1m

10 m

5m

(a) (b)

(c) (d)

(e) (f)

Figure 3. Computational numerical model in the unreinforced case: (a) initial step; (b) 1 m embankment; (c) 2 m embankment; (d) 3 m
embankment; (e) 4 m embankment; (f) 5 m embankment

(c) coefficient of earth pressure at rest, k0 = 0.43
(d) stress redistribution effect, e is considered as 1, taking
into account the small size of a geocell unit d, as
compared to the width of the embankment B,
(e) influence of embankment slope inclination, ( f/H ) = 2
(for a gradient of 2 H:1 V).
The equation proposed by Avesani Neto (2013) was
adapted for an embankment (Equation 10), the factor
of safety for the reinforced situation (FSr) is a function
of the factor of safety of the unreinforced situation
(FSu) for the given geometry and features of both
embankment and geocell reinforcement. It is assumed in
the proposed method that the improvement in factor of
safety due the reinforcement is considered constant
regardless of the embankment height. Commencing with
Equation 10
 
f h
FSr ¼ FSu þ 0:5 4 k0 e tan δ þ ð1
eÞ
H d
Geosynthetics International
Substituting the values above in this equation
2
FSr ¼ FSu þ 0:5 ½410:431tan 23°þ ð1
1Þ
1
or
FSr ¼ FSu þ 0:73 ð11Þ
Using the factors of safety from the case without
reinforcement calculated in the previous section, it was
possible to determine the FSr using the above equation.
Figure 9 below shows the factor of safetyvalues for
the different embankment heights for the case with
reinforcement.
Computational analyses were performed using the FEA
software for the reinforced case. Figure 6 shows the total
displacement on the basis of this analysis for an embank-
ment with a height of 5 m. Figure 7 shows the tensile stress
calculated by FEA in a longitudinal reinforcement strip
Evaluation of a calculation method for embankments reinforced with geocells 7

Foundation
Geocell layer
Water table

(a) (b)

Embankment

1m

12 m

3m

(c) (d)

(e) (f)

(g)

Figure 4. Computational numerical model in the reinforced case: (a) initial step; (b) geocell layer; (c) 1 m embankment; (d) 2 m
embankment; (e) 3 m embankment; (f) 4 m embankment; (g) 5 m embankment

for the situation in which the embankment is 5 m high.
Figure 8 shows the tensile stress variation in the geocell for
all embankment heights obtained by FEA. Table 3 and
Figure 9 show the factor of safety values obtained by the
phi-c reduction technique for all embankment heights
with basal reinforcement.
Comparing the total displacement values for the two
cases of reinforced section (Figure 6) and unreinforced
section (Figure 5), the maximum displacement was
100 mm in the case with reinforcement in comparison
Geosynthetics International
with 160 mm in the unreinforced case. This represents
a considerable reduction of approximately 60%, in the
maximum displacement at the embankment top when
the embankment base was reinforced. For the unrein-
forced embankment of 5 m height, there was a tendency
towards a rupture surface. However, in the case of the
reinforced embankment, there was only a trace of such a
rupture surface at a deeper level. Vertical displacements
were uniformly distributed in the reinforced embankment
case.
8 Avesani Neto, Bueno and Futai

Comparing factors of safety (Figure 9 and Table 3) for reinforcement. When the height of the embankment
both cases based on the numerical analyses, it was found was 2 m, the factor of safety was increased by 0.40,
that the increase in factor of safety was greater with (14%) and for further increases in height from 3 to 5 m,
geocell reinforcement for greater embankment heights. the improvement in the factors of safety was 0.60 (30%)
For an embankment with a height of 1 m, the improve- and 0.75 (50%). The improvement obtained for 5 m was in
ment in factor of safety was only 0.20 (4%) with the use of accordance with the value obtained using the proposed
calculation method (0.73).
As shown in Figure 8, the reinforcement contribution
Table 2. Unreinforced case: factors of safety for various
was directly proportional to the embankment height due
embankment heights by Low’s method (for cot β = 2) the increase in loads from the embankment. For an em-
bankment with low height the applied loading was small
H (m) D′/H N1 N2 λ su (kPa) FSu and mobilised only a fraction of reinforcement resistance
leading to a reduced contribution in factor of safety im-
1 0.50 4.35 1.88 0.28 15.7 4.67 provement (The increase in FSr was only 0.4 over FSu
2 0.60 4.46 1.61 0.26 16.6 2.57
for a 2 m embankment). For greater embankment heights
3 0.60 4.46 1.61 0.26 17.3 1.88
4 0.55 4.41 1.73 0.27 17.9 1.54 the applied loading was greater, generating a higher
5 0.60 4.46 1.61 0.26 18.9 1.32 reinforcement mobilisation (Figure 8) and leading to a
larger geocell layer contribution (The increase in FSr

Table 3. Comparison of factors of safety of reinforced and unreinforced cases

Embankment FSu FEA FSr FEA ΔFS FEA FSr/FSu FEA FSu methods/FSu FEA FSr methods/FSr FEA
height (m)
Low (1989) Bishop Low–Avesani Neto Bishop–Avesani Neto

1 5.10 5.30 0.20 1.04 0.92 0.85 1.02 0.96

2 2.80 3.20 0.40 1.14 0.92 0.96 1.03 1.07
3 2.00 2.63 0.63 1.32 0.94 0.98 0.99 1.02
4 1.55 2.30 0.75 1.48 0.99 1.02 0.98 1.00
5 1.38 1.95 0.57 1.41 0.96 0.98 1.05 1.06

(*10–3 m)

170.000
160.000
150.000
140.000
130.000
120.000
110.000
100.000
90.000
80.000
70.000
60.000
50.000
40.000

Y 30.000
20.000
10.000
0.000
Z –10.000

Total displacements (u)

Maximum value = 160.76 × 10–3 m
Minimum value = 0.00 m

Figure 5. Total displacements obtained for 5 m embankment height (unreinforced case); scale: red = 170 mm; green = 80 mm; dark blue =
0 mm; dark blue line indicates the water table
Geosynthetics International
Evaluation of a calculation method for embankments reinforced with geocells 9

(*10–3 m)

95.000
90.000
85.000
80.000
75.000
70.000
65.000
60.000
55.000
50.000
45.000
40.000
35.000
30.000
25.000
20.000
Y
15.000
10.000
5.000
0.000
Z
–5.000

Total displacements (u)

Maximum value = 94.90 × 10–3 m
Minimum value = 0.00 m

Figure 6. Total displacements obtained for 5 m embankment height with basal reinforcement. Scale: red = 9 cm, green = 4 cm and dark
blue = 0 cm; dark blue line indicates the water table

(kN/m)

6.000
4.000
2.000
0.000
–2.000
–4.000
–6.000
–8.000
–10.000
–12.000
–14.000
–16.000
–18.000
–20.000

Axial forces N1
Maximum value = 4.68 kN/m (element 153 at node 5991)
Minimum value = 18.92 kN/m (element 134 at node 5078)

Figure 7. Tensile stress in a longitudinal reinforcement strip for 5 m high embankment. Scale: red = 20 kN/m, green = 5 kN/m and dark
blue = −5.0 kN/m (slope not in scale)

was approximately 0.75 over the FSu for a 4 m high embankment height. Although the proposed method
embankment). calculates the appropriate reinforcement contribution to
The equation proposed in this paper does not capture the factor of safety for higher embankment heights, for
the proportional increase because the formulation de- reduced heights the proposed equation overestimates the
veloped by Avesani Neto (2013) considers the entire contribution of the geocell. However, this discrepancy for
geocell reinforcement contribution regardless of the small embankment heights does not lead to significant
Geosynthetics International
10
25
Axial force in the reinforcement (kN/m)
20
15
10
5
0 less sensitive than that in the case of unreinforced em-
1 2
Embankment height, H (m)
Figure 8. Variation of tensile stress within the geocell as a
function of embankment height (FEA)
7.0
6.0
5.0
Factor of safety
4.0
3.0
2.0
1.0
0.0
1 2
Embankment height, H (m)
Figure 9. Factors of safety obtained by different methods for the
unreinforced and reinforced situation
errors in the evaluation of the factor of safety for the
reinforced case.
As shown in Figure 7, the maximum tensile force
imposed on the reinforcement for an embankment with a
height of 5 m was 19 kN/m. The magnitude of this mobi-
lised force was relatively small because the mechanism of a
geocell mattress reinforcement under load is different
from that for planar reinforcement. Primarily, the geocell
does not behave like a planar tensioned membrane, but
rather as a beam or raft, redistributing the loading over a
larger area of the underlying soil (Avesani Neto et al.
2013; Leshchinsky and Ling 2013; Mehdipour et al.
2013).
The constituent geocell material (not considering the
in-fill) in these simulations had a stiffness of 660 kN/m at
5% strain and had a nominal tensile strength of 70 kN/m.
Therefore, under this application, the tensile force mobi-
lised in the reinforcement was only 27% of the nominal
strength of the constituent material. For example, using
partial reduction factors on the nominal reinforcement
Avesani Neto, Bueno and Futai
resistance (creep = 2.5; installation damage = 1.3; biologi-
cal and chemical degradation = 1.1; Koerner (1994)), the
allowable (design) tensile strength was 19.6 kN/m, which
is compatible with the tensile force that would occur in
the geocell for the 5 m high embankment case, namely
19 kN/m.
Figure 9 shows the factors of safety determined for the
reinforced situation calculated by the proposed method
using Low’s method (Low 1989) and Bishop’s simplified
methods with the factors obtained in the FEA. It can be
seen that for reinforced embankments, the reduction in
factor of safety with increasing embankment height was
3 4 5
bankments. The increase in the height of the embankment
from 1 to 2 m led to a decrease in the FSr from 5.3 to 3.2,
which was a 40% decrease, whereas in the unreinforced
case, the reduction was 50%. When the reinforced embank-
ment height was increased from 4 to 5 m, the reduction in
the factor of safety was 15%; whereas in the case of the
unreinforced embankment, the reduction with increase in
Low (1989) height from 4 to 5 m was 20%.
Bishop simplified Regarding the comparison between the proposed
FEA-unreinforced equation using the analytical methods for the factor of
Low–Avesani Neto safety determination, in general, it was found that the
Bishop–Avesani Neto
results for the reinforced embankment were closer to the
FEA-reinforced
values obtained by the FEA, than the results for the case
of unreinforced embankments.
As may be seen in Table 3, considering Equation 10 and
using the Low’s method to determine FSr, the largest
difference when compared with Plaxis FEA results was 5%
for an embankment of 5 m height. For all other heights,
the difference between Low’s method and FEA was
up to 3%.
Likewise, considering Bishop’s simplified method
3 4 5
to determine FSr in the recommended Equation 10, the
maximum difference when compared with the FEA
analysis was 7% for an embankment with a height of
2 m. For other heights the average difference was 1%.
6. CONCLUSIONS
This study proposes a method of analysis for embank-
ments over soft soil with basal geocell reinforcement. This
was based on the method of analysis recommended earlier
by Avesani Neto (2013) to evaluate the bearing capacity of
the geocell reinforcement soils, which and has now been
extended to embankments. The proposed method is
illustrated with typical applications using two analytical
methods, Low’s method (Low 1989) and Bishop’s simpli-
fied method. These were further evaluated by comparing
with computational analysis using three-dimensional
finite-element software (Plaxis 3D Foundation). Based
on the results of the above, the following conclusions can
be drawn.
(a) The analytical methods applied to the unreinforced
case indicated factor of safety values that were very
close to those obtained by the FEA for different
embankment heights ranging from 1 to 5 m.
Geosynthetics International
Evaluation of a calculation method for embankments reinforced with geocells
(b) The FEA indicated that the tensile force mobilised in
the geocell layer was relatively small in magnitude,
approximately 19 kN/m for an embankment with a
height of 5 m. The reason for such low tensile force is
that the reinforcement mechanism generated by the
three-dimensional geocell mattress distributed the
imposed load over a larger area like a raft foundation
and, and not as a planar inclusion.
(c) When compared with the results of the FEA, the
proposed Equation 10 is effective in determining the
factor of safety of geocell-reinforced embankments
over soft soil foundations.
(d) Using the proposed method with the Bishop’s
simplified method for determining the unreinforced
component of factor of safety, the largest difference
obtained in comparison with the FEA results was 7%
for a 2 m high embankment. The average difference
considering all heights from 1 to 5 m was 4%.
(e) Considering the method proposed by Low (1989) for
the unreinforced component, the largest difference
compared with the FEA results was 5% for a 5 m high
embankment. The average difference considering all
heights from 1 to 5 m was 2%.
(f) The finite-element simulations showed that improve-
ment in factors of safety with geocell reinforcement
were greater for higher embankment heights. As the
embankment height was increased, greater loads were
imposed on the geocell layer, thereby mobilising a
greater contribution due to the geocell mechanism.
The equation proposed does not capture this effect
because it considers the total contribution of the
geocell reinforcement regardless of the embankment
height. However, this discrepancy does not lend any
significant error in the factor of safety results for
lower embankment heights. The authors conducted
further analysis by varying slope inclination and
foundation and embankment soil parameters and
also observed for the FSr a maximum difference of
5% when compared with Plaxis FEA results.
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
The authors would to like to acknowledge the São Carlos
School of Engineering and the Polytechnic School, both at
the University of São Paulo (EESC/Poli – USP) for the
study opportunity, the Geo Soluções Company and Strata
Systems, Inc. for the support and the engineers and friends
S. Bagli and P. McGoldrick, from Strata Geosystems
(India and Europe), for assistance with the paper.
NOTATION
Basic SI units are given in parentheses.
B load width (m)
b geocell reinforcement width (m)
c cohesion of the soil (Pa)
D′ depth of the critical surface of rupture (m)
d pocket size of the geocell (m)
Geosynthetics International
11
E Young’s modulus (Pa)
e stress redistribution effect (–)
FSr factor of safety in the reinforced situation (–)
FSu factor of safety in the unreinforced situation (–)
H height of the embankment (m)
h geocell height (m)
h/d aspect ratio of the geocell (–)
IG factor of geocell reinforcement (–)
k0 coefficient of lateral earth pressure at rest (–)
L load length (m)
N1, N2 stability factors for Low’s method (Low
1989) (–)
p load at the top of the geocell mattress (Pa)
pr bearing capacity of the geocell-reinforced soil
(Pa)
pu bearing capacity of unreinforced soil (Pa)
su equivalent undrained cohesion of the
foundation soil (Pa)
suD undrained cohesion at the depth of the critical
surface of rupture in the foundation soil (Pa)
suT undrained cohesion at foundation soil surface
(Pa)
Δsu increased undrained cohesion with depth (Pa/m)
α inclination of the slope (°)
δ interface friction angle between the filling
soil and the geocell wall (°)
ϕ friction angle of the soil (°)
γ unit weight of the soil (N/m3)
η efficiency of the geocell-reinforcement (–)
λ coefficient from method of Low (1989) (–)
ν Poisson’s ratio (–)
REFERENCES
Almeida, M. S. S., Hosseinpour, I. & Riccio, M. (2013). Performance of a
geosynthetic-encased column (GEC) in soft ground: numerical
and analytical studies. Geosynthetics International, 20, No. 4,
252–262.
Avesani Neto, J. O. (2013). Design of a Calculation Methodology and
Numerical Simulations Applied in Bearing Capacity Improvement
of Geocell-Reinforced Soils, PhD thesis, São Carlos School
of Engineering, University of São Paulo, São Carlos, Brazil,
(in Portuguese).
Avesani Neto, J. O., Bueno, B. S. & Futai, M. M. (2013). A bearing
capacity calculation method for soil reinforced with a geocell.
Geosynthetics International, 20, No. 3, 129–142.
Bathurst, R. J. & Crowe, E. R. (1992). Recent case histories of flexible
geocell retaining walls in North America. Recent Case Histories of
Permanent Geosynthetic-Reinforced Soil Retaining Walls, Tokyo,
Japan, November 1992, pp. 3–20.
Bathurst, R. J. & Jarrett, P. M. (1988). Large-scale model tests
of geocomposite mattresses over peat subgrades. Transportation
Research Record, 1188, 28–36.
Bergado, D. T., Long, P. V., Lee, C. H., Loke, K. H. & Werner, G.
(1994). Performance of reinforced embankment on soft Bangkok
clay with high-strength geotextile reinforcement. Geotextiles and
Geomembranes, 13, No. 6–7, 403–420.
Bishop, A. W. (1955). The use of the slip circle in the stability analysis of
slopes. Geotechnique, 5, No. 1, 7–17.
BSI (British Standards Institution) (2010). BS 8006: Code of Practice
for Strengthened/Reinforced Soils and Other Fills, BSI, London,
UK.
Bush, D. I., Jenner, C. G. & Bassett, R. H. (1990). The design and
construction of geocell foundation mattress supporting
12
embankments over soft ground. Geotextiles and Geomembranes, 9,
No. 1, 83–98.
Cancelli, A. & Montanelli, F. (1999). In-ground test for geosynthetic
reinforced flexible paved roads. In Geosynthetics ’99: Specifying
Geosynthetics and Developing Design Details, Industrial Fabrics
Association International, Roseville, MN, USA, vol. 2,
pp. 863–878.
Costa Nunes, A. J. & Velloso, D. A. (1961). Problèmes géotechniques
de la traversée du Guaiba. Proceedings of the 5th International
Conference on Soil Mechanics and Foundation Engineering, Paris,
France, pp. 207–216 (in French).
Cowland, J. W. & Wong, S. C. K. (1993). Performance of a road em-
bankment on soft clay supported on a geocell mattress foundation.
Geotextiles and Geomembranes, 12, No. 8, 687–705.
Dash, S. (2012). Effect of geocell type on load-carrying mechanisms of
geocell-reinforced sand foundations. International Journal of
Geomechanics, 12, No. 5, 537–548.
Dash, S. K., Krishnaswamy, N. R. & Rajagopal, K. (2001). Bearing
capacity of strip footings supported on geocell-reinforced sand.
Geotextiles and Geomembranes 19, No. 4, 235–256.
Dash, S. K., Rajagopal, K. & Krishnaswamy, N. R. (2007). Behaviour of
geocell reinforced sand beds under strip loading. Canadian
Geotechnical Journal, 44, No. 7, 905–916.
Elsawy, M. B. D. (2013). Behaviour of soft ground improved by
conventional and geogrid-encased stone columns based on FEM
study. Geosynthetics International, 20, No. 4, 276–285.
Hong, Y. S. (2012). Performance of encased granular columns consider-
ing shear-induced volumetric dilation of the fill material.
Geosynthetics International, 19, No. 6, 438–452.
Hufenus, R., Rueegger, R., Banjac, R., Mayor, P., Springman, S. M. &
Bronnimann, R. (2006). Full-scale field tests on geosynthetic
reinforced unpaved roads on soft subgrade. Geotextiles and
Geomembranes, 24, No. 1, 21–37.
Jakobson, B. (1948). The design of embankments on soft clays.
Géotéchnique, 1, No. 2, 80–89.
Jenner, C. G., Bush, D. I. & Bassett, R. H. (1988). The use
of slip line fields to assess the improvement in bearing
capacity of soft ground given by a cellular foundation
mattress installed at the base of an embankment. Proceedings
of the International Geotechnical Symposium, Theory and
Practice of Earth Reinforcement, Rotterdam, the Netherlands,
pp. 209–214.
Jewell, R. A. (1982). A limit equilibrium design method for
reinforced embankments on soft foundations. Proceedings of
the 2nd International Conference on Geotextiles, Las Vegas, NV,
USA, Industrial Fabrics Association International, Roseville, MN,
USA, vol 2, pp. 671–676.
Jewell, R. A. (1996). Soil Reinforcement with Geotextiles, CIRIA and
Thomas Telford, London, UK.
Koerner, R. M. (1994). Designing with Geosynthetics, 3rd edn, Prentice
Hall, Englewood Cliffs, NJ, USA.
Krishnaswamy, N. R., Rajagopal, K. & Madhavi Latha, G. (2000).
Model studies on geocell supported embankments constructed over
a soft clay foundation. Geotechnical Testing Journal, 23, No. 2,
45–54.
Leshchinsky, B. & Ling, H. I. (2013). Numerical modeling of behavior of
railway ballasted structure with geocell confinement. Geotextiles
and Geomembranes, 36, 33–43.
Li, A. & Rowe, R. (1999). Reinforced embankments and the effect of
consolidation on soft cohesive soil deposits. In Geosynthetics ’99:
Specifying Geosynthetics and Developing Design Details, Industrial
Fabrics Association International, Roseville, MN, USA.
pp. 477–490.
Li, A. & Rowe, R. (2002). Some design considerations for
embankments on rate sensitive soils. Journal of Geotechnical and
Geoenvironmental Engineering, 128, No. 11, 885–897.
Low, B. (1989). Stability analysis of embankments on soft ground.
Journal of Geotechnical Engineering, 115, No. 2, 211–227.
Low, B. K., Wong, K. S., Lin, C. & Brons, B. B. (1990). Circle analysis of
reinforced embankment on soft ground. Geotextiles and
Geomembranes, 9, No. 2, 165–181.
Geosynthetics International
Avesani Neto, Bueno and Futai
Madhavi Latha, G. & Murthy, V. S. (2007). Effects of reinforcement form
on the behavior of geosynthetic reinforced sand. Geotextiles and
Geomembranes, 25, No. 1, 23–32.
Madhavi Latha, G. & Rajagopal, K. (2007). Parametric finite
element analyses of geocell-supported embankments. Canadian
Geotechnical Journal, 44, No. 8, 917–927.
Madhavi Latha, G. (2011). Design of geocell reinforcement for
supporting embankments on soft ground. Geomechanics and
Engineering, 3, No. 2, 117–130.
Madhavi Latha, G., Rajagopal, K. & Krishnaswamy, N. R. (2006).
Experimental and theoretical investigations on geocell-supported
embankments. International Journal of Geomechanics, 6, No. 1,
30–35.
Mandal, J. N. & Gupta, P. (1994). Stability of geocell-reinforced soil.
Construction and Building Materials, 8, No. 1, 55–62.
Mehdipour, I., Ghazavi, M. & Moayed, R. Z. (2013). Numerical
study on stability analysis of geocell reinforced slopes by con-
sidering the bending effect. Geotextiles and Geomembranes, 37,
23–34.
Mhaiskar, S. Y. & Mandal, J. N. (1996). Investigations on soft clay
subgrade strengthening using geocells. Construction and Building
Materials, 10, No. 4, 281–286.
Milligan, V. & La Rochelle, P. (1984). Design methods for
embankments over week soils. Proceedings of the Symposium on
Polymer Grid Reinforcement in Civil Engineering, London, UK,
pp. 95–102.
Mitchell, J. K., Kao, T. C. & Kavazanjian, E. (1979). Analysis of Grid
Cell Reinforced Pavement Bases, Report GL-79-8. Geotechnical
Laboratory, U.S. Army Engineer Waterways Experiment Station,
Vicksburg, MS, USA.
Moghaddas Tafreshi, S. N., Khalaj, O. & Dawson, A. R. (2013).
Pilot-scale load tests of a combined multilayered geocell and
rubber-reinforced foundation. Geosynthetics International, 20,
No. 3, 143–161.
NTPEP (National Transportation Product Evaluation Program) (2013).
Laboratory Evaluation of Geosynthetic Reinforcement – Final
Product Quality Assurance Report for Synteen sf Geogrid Product
Line, Report 2012-01-003. NTPEP, American Association of
State Highway and Transportation Officials, Washington, DC,
USA.
Palmeira, E. M., Pereira, J. H. F. & Silva, A. R. L. (1998). Backanalyses
of geosynthetic reinforced embankments on soft soils. Geotextiles
and Geomembranes, 16, No. 5, 273–292.
Rea, C. & Mitchell, K. (1978). Sand reinforcement using paper grid
cells. Proceedings of the Symposium on Earth Reinforcement,
Pittsburgh, PA, USA, pp. 644–663.
Rimoldi, P. & Ricciuti, A. (1994). Design method for three-dimensional
geocells on slopes. Proceedings of the 5th International Conference
on Geotextile, Geomembrane and Related Products, Singapore,
pp. 999–1002.
Rowe, R. H. & Soderman, K. L. (1985). An approximate method for
estimating the stability of geotextile reinforced embankments.
Canadian Geotechnical Journal, 22, No. 3, 392–398.
Rowe, R. H. & Soderman, K. L. (1987). Reinforcement of embank-
ments on soils whose strength increases with depth. Proceedings
of Geosynthetics ’87, New Orleans, LA, USA, Industrial
Fabrics Association International, Roseville, MN, USA,
pp. 266–277.
Rowe, R. K. & Li, A. L. (2005). Geosynthetic-reinforced embank-
ments over soft foundations. Geosynthetics International, 12, No. 1,
50–85.
Saride, S., Gowrisetti, S., Sitharam, T. G. & Puppala, A. J. (2009).
Numerical simulation of geocell-reinforced sand and clay.
Proceedings of the Institution of Civil Engineers – Ground
Improvement, 162, No. 4, 185–198.
Sireesh, S., Sitharam, T. G. & Dash, S. K. (2009). Bearing
capacity of circular footing on geocell–sand mattress overlying
clay bed with void. Geotextiles and Geomembranes, 27, No. 2,
89–98.
Tanyu, B. F., Aydilek, A. H., Lau, A. W., Edil, T. B. & Benson, C. H.
(2013). Laboratory evaluation of geocell-reinforced gravel
Evaluation of a calculation method for embankments reinforced with geocells 13

subbase over poor subgrades. Geosynthetics International, 20,
No. 2, 47–61.
Thallak, S. G., Saride, S. & Dash, S. K. (2007). Performance of surface
footing on geocell-reinforced soft clay beds. Geotechnical and
Geological Engineering, 25, No. 5, 509–524.
Wesseloo, J., Visser, A. T. & Rust, E. (2009). The stress-strain behavior
of multiple cell geocell packs. Geotextiles and Geomembranes, 27,
No. 1, 31–38.
Wu, K. J. & Austin, D. N. (1992). Three-dimensional polyethylene
geocells for erosion control and channel linings. Geotextiles and
Geomembranes, 11, No. 4–6, 611–620.
Yoo, C. & Lee, D. (2012). Performance of geogrid-encased stone columns
in soft ground: full-scale load tests. Geosynthetics International, 19,
No. 6, 480–490.
Zhang, L., Zhao, M., Shi, C. & Zhao, H. (2010). Bearing capacity of
geocell reinforcement in embankment engineering. Geotextiles and
Geomembranes, 28, No. 5, 475–482.
Zhao, M., Zhang, L. & Jiang, D. (2008). Design calculation method for
soft foundation treatment by geocell mattress and stone column.
Journal of Highway and Transportation Research and Development,
3, No. 2, 59–64.
Zhao, M., Zhang, L., Zou, X. & Zhao, H. (2009). Research progress in
two-direction reinforced composite foundation formed by geocell
reinforced mattress and gravel piles. China Journal of Highway and
Transport, 22, No. 1, 1–10.
Zhou, H. & Wen, X. (2008). Model studies on geogrid- or
geocell-reinforced sand cushion on soft soil. Geotextiles and
Geomembranes, 26, No. 3, 231–238.

The Editor welcomes discussion on all papers published in Geosynthetics International. Please email your contribution to
discussion@geosynthetics-international.com.

Geosynthetics International

View publication stats