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

net/publication/49281201

Fundamental concepts of soil reinforcement - An overview

Article  in  International Journal of Geotechnical Engineering · July 2009

DOI: 10.3328/IJGE.2009.03.03.329-342 · Source: OAI

CITATIONS READS
28 4,603

3 authors, including:

Sanjay Kumar Shukla Nagaratnam Sivakugan

Edith Cowan University James Cook University
190 PUBLICATIONS   1,713 CITATIONS    205 PUBLICATIONS   2,864 CITATIONS   

SEE PROFILE SEE PROFILE

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

Behaviour of geosynthetic reinforced foundation sand for a strip footing View project

Soil improvement View project

All content following this page was uploaded by Nagaratnam Sivakugan on 28 November 2016.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

 329
Sanjay K. Shukla *, Nagaratnam Sivakugan , Braja M. Das
1 2 3

Fundamental concepts of soil reinforcement

— an overview

Abstract: In most of the practical applications, reinforced soils are obtained by incorporating continuous reinforcement
inclusions (for example, strip, bar, sheet, mat or net) within a soil mass in a definite pattern. The reinforcing mechanisms
for such reinforced soils have been explained in different forms in the literature since the first modern form of soil reinforce-
ment was developed by Henry Vidal in 1966. In the past three decades, randomly distributed fiber-reinforced soil mechanisms
have also been studied extensively suggesting a new emerging market for them in geotechnical engineering applications. It is
timely to critically review the basic concepts of soil reinforcement, considering different types of reinforcement inclusions. In
this review, reinforced soils are classified into two main groups: systematically reinforced soil, and randomly distributed fiber-
reinforced soil. It is emphasized that a single reinforcing mechanism cannot be used to explain the behavior of all reinforced
soils, in fact, it is highly dependent on the type of reinforcement inclusions; however, the basic concept of soil reinforcement
remains the same for all types of reinforcement.

Keywords: Extensible reinforcement, inextensible reinforcement, fibers, geogrid, geosynthetic, geotextile, metal strips,
reinforced soil, unreinforced soil

1. INTRODUCTION be called ‘systematically reinforced soil’, whereas latter one is

Reinforced soil is a composite construction material formed
by combining soil and reinforcement. This material pos-
sesses high compressive and tensile strength similar, in prin-
ciple, to the reinforced cement concrete. It can be obtained
by either incorporating continuous reinforcement inclusions
(for example, strip, bar, sheet, mat or net) within a soil mass
in a definite pattern or mixing discrete fibers randomly with a
soil fill before placement. The term ‘reinforced soil’ generally
refers to the former one, although it may more appropriately
*Corresponding Author
1
Senior Lecturer in Civil Engineering, School of Engineering,
Edith Cowan University, Joondalup, Perth, WA 6027,
Tel: +61 8 6304 2632, Fax: +61 8 6304 5811,
E-mail: s.shukla@ecu.edu.au,
Also as Adjunct Associate Professor, School of Engineering and
Physical Sciences, James Cook University, Townsville, QLD 4811, and
Reader, Department of Civil Engineering, Banaras Hindu University,
Varanasi – 221 005, India
Associate Professor and Head, Discipline of Civil and Environmental
2 cohesionless, characterized by high frictional properties, in
Engineering, School of Engineering and Physical Sciences,
James Cook University, Townsville, Queensland 4811,
Tel: +61 7 4781 4431, Fax: +61 7 4781 6788,
E-mail: siva.sivakugan@jcu.edu.au
Professor and Dean Emeritus, California State University, Sacramento,
3
2505 Anthem Village Drive, # E 208, Henderson, Nevada 89052, USA,
Tel.: 702 616 2161, Cell: 702 686 8024, E-mail: brajamdas@gmail.com
called ‘randomly distributed/oriented fiber-reinforced soil’
or simply ‘fiber-reinforced soil’. Although the reinforced soil
has been in practice in crude form since the ancient times, it
is being used more frequently in the civil engineering appli-
cations since the development of the modern form of soil
reinforcement in 1966 by Henry Vidal, a French architect
and engineer.
In most of the current civil engineering applications,
the reinforcement generally consists of geosynthetic sheets
or strips of galvanized steel, arranged horizontally or in the
directions in which the soil is subject to the undesirable
tensile strains. Compared to the geosynthetic sheets, metal
strips are assumed to be relatively inextensible at the stress
levels experienced in civil engineering applications. In the
early days, the metal strips were used as reinforcement, and
the composite material so obtained was termed ‘Reinforced
Earth’ by Henry Vidal (1966, 1969) who first presented the
concept of improving the strength of a soil mass by inclusion
of reinforcements within it. The soil should preferably be
order to prevent the slip between the soil and the reinforce-
ment. The surface texture of the reinforcement should also
be as rough as possible for similar reasons.
The apparently simple mechanism of reinforced soil and
the economy in cost and time have made it an instant suc-
cess in geotechnical and highway engineering applications
for temporary as well as permanent structures. Reinforcing

International Journal of Geotechnical Engineering (2009) 3: (329-342) J. Ross Publishing, Inc. © 2009
DOI 10.3328/IJGE.2009.03.03.329-342
330  International Journal of Geotechnical Engineering
(a)
(b)
Figure 1.  An example of soil reinforcement application as an alterna-
tive to a conventional geotechnical structure: (a) conventional concrete/
brick masonry/stone masonry wall; (b) reinforced soil retaining wall
soil-like materials such as coal ashes and other waste materi-
als by continuous inclusions is also an economical means of
improving their mechanical properties. One of the common
applications of soil reinforcement is a reinforced soil retain-
ing wall, which is an alternative to a conventional heavy
concrete/brick masonry/stone masonry retaining wall (Fig.
1). Reinforcement improves the mechanical properties of a
soil mass as a result of its inclusion. In fact, any reinforce-
Figure 2.  Basic reinforcement mechanism resulting in increase in the
stability of the soil mass
ment, inextensible or extensible, has the main task of resist-
ing the applied tensile stresses or preventing inadmissible
deformations in geotechnical structures such as retaining
walls, soil slopes, bridge abutments, foundation rafts, etc. In
this process, the reinforcement acts as a tensile member (see
Fig. 2) coupled to the soil/fill material by friction, adhesion,
interlocking or confinement, and thus improves the stability
of the soil mass.
The concept of reinforcing soil with fibers, especially
natural ones, originated in the ancient times. Applications
of reinforced soils using clayey soils and natural fibers can
be seen even today in the rural areas of India for making
containers, ovens, toys, etc. However, randomly distrib-
uted fiber-reinforced soils have recently attracted increas-
ing attention in geotechnical engineering. In comparison
with systematically reinforced soils, randomly distributed
fiber-reinforced soils exhibit some advantages. Preparation
of randomly distributed fiber-reinforced soils mimics soil
stabilization by admixtures. Discrete fibers are simply added
and mixed with soil, much like cement, lime, or other addi-
tives. Randomly distributed fibers offer strength isotropy and
limit potential planes of weakness that can develop parallel
to the oriented reinforcement as included in systematically
reinforced soil.
Since 1966, efforts have been made to present the
basic concept of soil reinforcement in different forms in
the literature considering both inextensible and extensible
types of reinforcement (Vidal 1966, 1969; Long et al., 1972;
Yang, 1972; Schlosser and Long, 1974; Hausmann, 1976;
Hausmann and Vagneron, 1977; McGown and Andrawes,
1977; McGown et al., 1978; Jewell, 1980; Narain, 1985) as well
as fibers (Waldron 1977; Gray and Ohashi, 1983; Mahar and
Gray, 1990; Shewbridge and Sitar, 1990; Ranjan et al., 1994a;
Ranjan et al., 1996). Specific aspects of soil reinforcement
 Fundamental concepts of soil reinforcement — an overview  331
have also been discussed in some of the books (For example,
Hausmann, 1990; Koerner, 2005; Das, 1999; Sawicki, 2000;
Shukla, 2002; Shukla and Yin, 2006). However, in spite of all
these efforts, no review work exists for understanding, in a
simple manner, the concept of soil reinforcement consider-
ing both inextensible and extensible types of reinforcements
as well as the fibers as described above. An attempt is there-
fore made in this paper to present an overview of the funda-
mental concepts of the soil reinforcement.
2. SYSTEMATICALLY REINFORCED SOIL
Systematically reinforced soil is a soil reinforced with geo-
synthetic (woven geotextile/geogrid/geocomposite) sheets
or strips of galvanized steel in desired directions, and is cur-
rently widely used in civil engineering practice. It is mainly
because such a reinforced soil possesses many novel charac-
teristics, which render it eminently suitable for construction
of geotechnical structures. The reinforcement can easily be
handled, stored and installed. The soil that constitutes most
of its bulk may be locally available and can be placed in posi-
tion in limited time in an economical way by modern hauling
and compaction equipment. The flexible nature of reinforced
soil mass enables it to withstand vibrations caused by earth-
quakes and large differential settlements without significant
distress. Systematically reinforced soil thus permits construc-
tion of geotechnical structures over poor and difficult sub-
soil conditions.
The principle of reinforced soil is analogous to that of
reinforced cement concrete; however, their basic reinforc-
ing mechanisms differ significantly. If the reinforced soil
is assumed as a homogeneous but anisotropic material, the
Mohr-Coulomb failure criterion can be applied to explain
the basic mechanism of reinforced soil. Consider a simplified
situation, shown in Figs. 3(a) and (b), where two cylindrical
specimens of a cohesionless soil are subjected to the same
triaxial loading. The first specimen is not reinforced, and the
second is reinforced with horizontal reinforcement layers.
Figure 3(c) shows a magnified view of the reinforced soil
element PQRS as indicated in Fig. 3(b). Assume that that
the Mohr-Coulomb failure criterion has been attained in the
unreinforced specimen. For this case, the stress state in the
soil can be represented, in the normal stress (σ) and shear
stress (τ) space, by a Mohr circle ‘a’ as shown in Fig. 3(d),
which is tangent to the Mohr-Coulomb failure envelope lU for
unreinforced soil. If the reinforced soil specimen is subjected
to the same stress state, then due to friction and/or adhesion
bonding between both constituents, the lateral deformation/
strain of the specimen will be reduced. This lateral deforma-
tion of the composite material will be greater than the lateral
deformation of the reinforcement but smaller than the lateral
deformation of the soil that might occur in the absence of fric-
tion and/or adhesion bonding between both the constituents.
This means that in case of perfect friction and/or adhesion
bonding between reinforcement and soil, the reinforcement
will be extended resulting in a mobilized tensile force T, and
the soil will be compressed by additional compressive lateral
stress as reinforcement restraint σR (= Δσ3), introduced into
it in the direction of the reinforcement as shown in Fig. 3(c).
The stress state in soil represented by the Mohr circle ‘b’ in
Fig. 3(d) is no more tangent to the failure envelope lU, and the
reinforced specimen is able to sustain greater stresses than
those in the case of unreinforced soil.
Consider that the reinforced soil specimen shown in
Figure 3(b) is expanding horizontally due to decrease in
applied horizontal stress σ3 with constant vertical stress σ1
and assume that failure occurs by rupture of the reinforce-
ment, that is, the lateral restraint σR is limited to a maximum
value σRCmax depending on the strength of the reinforcement.
This state of stress is represented by the Mohr circle ‘c’ in
Figure 3(d). The strength increase can be characterized by
a constant cohesion intercept cR as an apparent cohesion.
Most of these early works were carried out in France, and
they include research on the material properties of reinforced
earth and its application in retaining walls and abutments.
These studies indicate that reinforced earth can be consid-
ered as a cohesive material with anisotropic cohesion, intro-
duced due to reinforcement, being a function of strength and
density of reinforcement (Schlosser and Vidal, 1969). Results
of both the triaxial tests and the direct shear tests on sand
specimens reinforced with tensile inclusions have also shown
that the apparent cohesion of the reinforced soil material is
a function of the orientation of the inclusions with respect to
the direction of the maximum extension in the soil (Long et
al., 1972; Schlosser and Long, 1974; Jewell, 1980; Gray and
Refeai, 1986). Thus, the strength envelope for reinforced
cohesionless soil for reinforcement rupture condition can be
interpreted in terms of Mohr-Coulomb failure envelope lRC
for the homogeneous cohesive soil as shown in Figure 3(d).
For Mohr circle ‘a’, the principal stresses σ1 and σ3 are
related to each other as:
σ1 = σ3tan2(45° + ϕ/2) (1)
where ϕ is the angle of shearing resistance (or the friction
angle) of the unreinforced soil.
For Mohr circle ‘c’, representing the stress state of a
reinforced soil at failure, the principal stresses σ1 and σ3 are
related to each other as:
σ1 = σ3mintan2(45° + ϕ/2) + 2cRtan2(45° + ϕ/2) (2)
332  International Journal of Geotechnical Engineering

(a) (b) (c)

(d)

Figure 3.  Basic mechanism of reinforced soil in triaxial loading: (a) unreinforced cylindrical cohesionless soil specimen; (b)
reinforced cylindrical cohesionless soil specimen; (c) magnified view of a reinforced soil element PQRS as indicated in (b); (d)
Mohr circles for reinforced and unreinforced cases [Note: σ1 is the major principal stress and σ3 is the minor principal stress.]

Since σ3min = (σ3 – σRCmax) as seen in Fig. 3(d), Eq. (2) Ka = tan2(45° – ϕ/2) (5)
becomes:
and
σ1 = (σ3 – σRCmax)tan (45° + ϕ/2) + 2cRtan(45° + ϕ/2) (3)
2
KP = tan2(45° + ϕ/2) (6)
Combining Eqs. (1) and (3) leads to: are the Rankine’s coefficients of active and passive lateral
earth pressures respectively. Thus, it is found that the aniso-
 RC max tan( 450   / 2)  RC max K p  RC max tropic cohesion is produced in the direction of reinforce-
cR    (4)
2 2 2 Ka ment, and this concept is based on the behavior of laboratory
tests (shear tests) on reinforced soil samples. It has, however,
where
not been possible to define this cohesion in a way as to enable
its use in the design of reinforced earth structures.
 Fundamental concepts of soil reinforcement — an overview  333

Now, consider that the reinforced soil specimen shown

in Figure 3(b) is expanding horizontally due to decrease in
applied horizontal stress σ3 = σ30 with constant vertical stress
σ1 = σ10 as represented by the Mohr circle ‘d’, and assume
that failure occurs by slippage between the reinforcement
and soil, that is, lateral restraint σR is limited to σRF, which is
proportional to σ10, that is,
σRF = σ10F (7)
where F is a friction factor that depends on the cohesionless
(a)
soil – reinforcement interface characteristics. This concept is
based on the Yang’s experimental results (Yang, 1972) as pre-
sented by Hausmann and Vagneron (1977). The failure state
of stress is represented by the Mohr circle ‘e’ in Figure 3(d).
The strength increase can be characterized by an increased
friction angle ϕR. Thus, the strength envelope for reinforced
cohesionless soil for reinforcement slippage condition can
be interpreted in terms of Mohr-Coulomb failure envelope
lRF for the homogeneous cohesionless soil as shown in Figure
3(d).
For Mohr circle ‘d’, the principal stresses σ10 and σ30 are
related by:
σ10 = σ30tan2(45° + ϕ/2) (8)
Substituting Eq. (5) in Eq. (8) yields:
(b)
σ
σ10 = 30 (9)
Ka
For Mohr circle ‘e’, the principal stresses σ10 and σ30 are
related by:
σ10 = σ30mintan2(45° + ϕR/2) (10)
Since σ30min= σ30 – σRF as seen in Fig. 3(d), Eq. (10)
becomes:
σ10 = (σ30 – σRF)tan2(45° + ϕR/2) (11)
Substituting Eq. (7) in Eq. (11) yields:
σ10 = (σ30 – σ10F)tan2(45° + ϕR/2) (12)
Combining Eqs. (8) and (12) leads to: (c)

1 = (Ka – F)
� �
1 + ϕR
1 – ϕR
Figure 4.  Postulated behavior of a unit cell in plane strain conditions
with and without inclusions: (a) unit cell; (b) dense sand with inclusions;
(c) loose sand with inclusions (adapted from McGown et al., 1978)
or
1 + F – Ka (13) by rupture of the reinforcement or reinforcement slippage.
sin ϕR=
1 – F + Ka These failure states of stress are represented by the Mohr
Now, consider that the reinforced soil specimen shown circles ‘f’ or ‘g’ in Fig. 3(d) respectively. It can be noted that
in Figure 3(b) is expanding horizontally due to increase in the reinforcement increases the compressive strength of the
applied σ1 with constant σ3 and assume that failure occurs
334  International Journal of Geotechnical Engineering
(a)
(b)
Figure 5.  Reinforcement function: (a) tensile member; (b) tensioned
member (adapted from Fluet, 1988)
soil by Δσ1 or Δσ10 depending on the type of failure mode of
the reinforced soil.
A different concept of the influence of reinforcement
on the behavior of reinforced soil mass was described by
Basset and Last (1978). It is suggested that introduction of
reinforcement modifies the dilatancy characteristics of soil
with possible rotation of principal strain directions. This
concept is based on the fact that if the dilation of the soil is
restricted, the shear strength mobilized will be higher than
for the case of no restriction. The presence of reinforcement
in soil imposes a condition of restricted dilatancy. It also pre-
determines the principal incremental strain directions and
rotates them relative to the unreinforced case, resulting in a
redistribution of stresses.
The behavior of the soil reinforced with extensible
reinforcements, such as geosynthetics, does not fall entirely
within the concepts as described above. The difference,
between the influences of inextensible and extensible rein-
forcements, is significant in terms of the load-settlement
behavior of the reinforced soil system as shown in Fig. 4
(McGown et al., 1978). The soil reinforced with extensible
reinforcement, termed ply-soil by McGown and Andrawes
(1977), has greater extensibility and smaller losses of post
peak strength compared to soil alone or soil reinforced with
inextensible reinforcement, termed reinforced earth by Vidal
(1966, 1969). In spite of some differences in the behavior
of ply soil and reinforced earth, a similarity between them
exists in that both inhibit the development of internal and
boundary deformations of the soil mass by developing ten-
sile stresses in the reinforcement. In other words, both the
ply soil and the reinforced earth are tensile strain inclusion
systems.
Fluet (1988) subdivided the reinforcement, based on its
function, into the following two categories:
1. A tensile member, which supports a planar load, as
shown in Figure 5(a).
2. A tensioned member, which supports not only a
planar load but also a normal load, as shown in
Figure 5(b).
Jewell (1996) and Koerner (2005) consider not two but
three mechanisms for soil reinforcement, because when the
geosynthetic works as a tensile member it might be due to
two different mechanisms: shear and anchorage. Therefore,
the three reinforcing mechanisms, concerned simply with
the types of load that are supported by the geosynthetic, are
the following:
1. Shear, also called sliding: The geosynthetic sup-
ports a planar load due to slide of the soil over it.
2. Anchorage, also called pullout: The geosynthetic
supports a planar load due to its pullout from the
soil.
3. Membrane: The geosynthetic supports both a pla-
nar and a normal load when placed on a deform-
able soil.
Shukla (2002, 2004) and Shukla and Yin (2006) describe
reinforcing mechanisms that take into account the reinforce-
ment action of the geosynthetic, in other words, how the
geosynthetic reinforcement takes the stresses from the soil
and which type of stresses are taken by it. This concept can
be observed broadly in terms of the following roles of geo-
synthetics:
1. A geosynthetic layer reduces the outward hori-
zontal stresses (shear stresses) transmitted from
the overlying soil/fill to the top of the underlying
foundation soil. This action of geosynthetics is
known as shear stress reduction effect. This effect
results in a general-shear, rather than a local-shear
failure (Figure 6(a)), thereby causing an increase
in the load-bearing capacity of the foundation soil
(Bourdeau et al., 1982; Guido et al., 1985; Love et
al., 1987; Espinoza, 1994; Espinoza and Bray, 1995;
Adams and Collin, 1997). Through the shear inter-
action mechanism the geosynthetic can therefore
improve the performance of the system with very
little or no rutting. In fact, the change in the failure
335  International Journal of Geotechnical Engineering
2. A geosynthetic layer redistributes the applied sur-
(a)
3. The deformed geosynthetic, sustaining normal and
(b)
(c)
(d)
Figure 6.  Roles of a geosynthetic reinforcement: (a) causing change
of failure mode (shear stress reduction effect); (b) redistribution of the
applied surface load (confinement effect); (c) providing vertical support
(membrane effect) (adapted from Bourdeau et al., 1982 & Espinoza,
1994); (d) providing passive resistance through interlocking of the soil
4. The use of geogrids has another benefit owing to
particles (interlocking effect)
mode as a result of reduction in shear stress is the
primary benefit of the geosynthetic layer at small
deformations.
face load by providing restraint of the granular
fill if embedded in it, or by providing restraint
of the granular fill and the soft foundation soil, if
placed at their interface, resulting in reduction of
applied normal stress on the underlying founda-
tion soil (Fig. 6(b)). This is referred to as slab effect
or confinement effect of geosynthetics (Bourdeau
et al., 1982; Giroud et al., 1984; Madhav and
Poorooshasb, 1989; Sellmeijer, 1990; Hausmann,
1990). The friction mobilized between the soil and
the geosynthetic layer plays an important role in
confining the soil.
shear stresses, has a membrane force with a verti-
cal component that resists applied loads, i.e. the
deformed geosynthetic provides a vertical support
to the overlying soil mass subject to loading. This
action of geosynthetics is popularly known as its
membrane effect (Figure 6(c)) (Giroud and Noiray,
1981; Bourdeau et al., 1982; Sellmeijer et al.,
1982; Love et al., 1987; Madhav and Poorooshasb,
1988; Bourdeau, 1989; Sellmeijer, 1990; Shukla and
Chandra 1994, 1995). Depending upon the type
of stresses — normal stress and shear stress, sus-
tained by the geosynthetic during their action, the
membrane support may be classified as ‘normal
stress membrane support’, and ‘interfacial shear
stress membrane support’ respectively (Espinoza
and Bray, 1995). Edges of the geosynthetic layer
are required to be anchored in order to develop
the membrane support contribution resulting
from normal stresses, whereas membrane support
contribution resulting from mobilized interfacial
membrane shear stresses does not require any
anchorage. The membrane effect of geosynthetics
causes an increase in the load-bearing capacity of
the foundation soil below the loaded area with a
downward loading on its surface to either side of
the loaded area, thus reducing its heave potential.
It is to be noted that both the woven geotextile and
the geogrid can be effective in membrane action in
case of high-deformation systems.
the interlocking of the soil through the apertures
(openings between the longitudinal and transverse
ribs, generally greater than 6.35 mm of the grid
known as interlocking effect (Guido et al., 1986)
336  International Journal of Geotechnical Engineering

(Fig. 6(d)). The transfer of stress from the soil

to the geogrid reinforcement is made through
bearing (passive resistance) at the soil to the grid
cross-bar interface. It is important to underline
that because of the small surface area and large
apertures of geogrids, the interaction is due mainly
to interlocking rather than to friction. However, an
exception occurs when the soil particles are small.
In this situation the interlocking effect is negligible
because no passive strength is developed against
the geogrid (Pinto, 2004).

3. RANDOMLY DISTRIBUTED FIBRE-

REINFORCED SOIL
Concept of the randomly distributed fiber-reinforced soil
has been reported in the literature in the past few decades.
A large number of experimental studies have been carried
out to observe the characteristics of fiber-reinforced soils
(Hoare, 1979; Gray and Ohashi, 1983; Freitag, 1986; Gray
and Al-Refeai, 1986; Lindh and Eriksson, 1990; Maher and
Gray, 1989; Shewbridge and Sitar, 1990; Al-Refeai, 1991;
Ranjan et al., 1994b; Bauer and Oancea, 1996; Michalowski
and Zhao, 1996; Consoli et al., 1998; Kumar et al., 1999;
Santoni et al., 2001; Tingle et al., 2002; Consoli et al., 2002;
Michalowski and Cermak 2003; Yetimoglu and Salbas, 2003;
Gosavi et al., 2004; Heineck et al., 2005; Gupta et al., 2006;
Kumar and Singh, 2008). Most of the basic characteristics of
fiber-reinforced soils can be found in the experimental works
described below.
Gray and Ohashi (1983) conducted direct shear tests on
a dry sand reinforced with different types of fibers in speci-
fied orientation. Both natural and synthetic fibers including
metal fibers were tested for purposes of comparison. Test
results show that relatively low modulus, fiber reinforce-
ments behave as “ideally extensible” inclusions. They do
not rupture during shear. Their main role is to increase
peak shear strength and to limit the magnitude of post peak
reduction in shear resistance in dense sand. The experimen-
tal behavior was compared with the theoretical predictions
by presenting a force equilibrium model of fiber reinforced
sand as shown in Fig. 7, which has been explained later in
detail in this paper. The developed model predicts correctly
the influence of various soil-fiber parameters, namely: (1)
Shear strength increases are directly proportional to fiber
area ratios, at least up to 1.7%, which is a probable upper
limit for fiber concentrations across potential shear planes
in a root permeated soil; (2) Shear strength increases are
greatest for initial fiber orientations of 60° with respect to the
shear surface. This orientation coincides with the direction
Figure 7.  Model for flexible, elastic reinforcement extending across the
shear zone of thickness z (adapted from Gray and Ohashi, 1983)
of maximum principal tensile strain in a direct shear test;
and (3) Shear strength increases as a result of fiber reinforce-
ment are approximately the same for loose and dense sand.
However, larger strains were required to reach the peak shear
resistance in the loose case. Shear strength envelopes for fiber
reinforced sand clearly showed the existence of a threshold
confining stress below which the fibers tended to slip or pull
out. The strength envelop also indicates that the fibers do not
affect the angle of internal friction of the sand. Increasing the
length of fiber reinforcements increased the shear strength of
the fiber-reinforced composite but only up to a point. A lim-
iting or asymptotic shear strength was soon reached beyond
which any further increase in fiber length had no effect. The
same or higher shear strength increases could be achieved
with a modest increase in the number of fibers or area ratio
of relatively low modulus reed fibers compared to stiffer and
stronger copper wires with the same initial area ratio.
Gray and Al-Refeai (1986) conducted triaxial compres-
sion tests on a dry sand reinforced with randomly distrib-
uted, discrete fibers and oriented, continuous fabric layers.
The sand was a clean, uniform, medium-grained sand with
the following properties: specific gravity of solids, Gs = 2.65;
effective grain size, D10 = 0.28 mm; median grain diameter,
D50 = 0.41 mm; coefficient of uniformity, Cu = 1.50; minimum
 Fundamental concepts of soil reinforcement — an overview  337
void ratio, emin = 0.50; maximum void ratio, emax = 0.78; and
angle of shearing resistance (triaxial tests), ϕ = 39° and 32° at
relative density, Dr = 86 and 21% respectively. Both natural
and synthetic glass fibers varying from 13 to 38 mm in length
and from 0.3 to 1.75 mm in diameter were used. The results
showed that both types of reinforcement systems increased
strength and modified the stress-deformation behavior of the
sand. It was observed that continuous, oriented fabric inclu-
sions markedly increased the ultimate strength, increased
the axial strain at failure, and in most cases limited reduc-
tions in post-peak loss of strength. The discrete, randomly
distributed fibers increased both the ultimate strength and
the stiffness of reinforced sand. The decrease in stiffness
at low strains (less than 1%), observed with oriented, con-
tinuous fabric inclusions, did not occur with the fibers. The
increase in strength with fiber content varied linearly up to a
fiber content of 2% by weight, and thereafter approached an
asymptotic upper limit. The rate of increase was roughly pro-
portional to the fiber aspect ratio (length to diameter ratio).
At the same aspect ratio, confining pressure, and weight frac-
tion and roughness (not stiffness) of fibers tended to be more
effective in increasing strength.
Ranjan et al. (1994b) conducted a series of triaxial com-
pression tests to study the stress-strain behavior of plastic-
fiber-reinforced sand and increase in shear strength of sand
due to fiber inclusions. The sand used was poorly graded fine
sand (SP-SM) as per the Unified Soil Classification system.
Plastic fibers were cut to length from continuous fibers. Their
study shows that the inclusion of fibers causes an increase in
peak shear strength and reduction in the loss of post-peak
strength. Thus, the residual strength of fiber-reinforced sand
is higher as compared to that of unreinforced sand. The prin-
cipal stress envelopes for fiber-reinforced sand are bilinear
having a break at a confining stress, called critical confining
stress, below which the fibers tend to slip or pull out. An
increase in fiber aspect ratio results in a lower critical confin-
ing stress and higher contribution to shear strength. Shear
strength increases approximately linearly with increasing
fiber content up to 2% by weight, beyond which the gain in
strength is not appreciable.
Santoni et al. (2001) conducted laboratory unconfined
compression tests on sand specimens reinforced with ran-
domly oriented discrete fibers to isolate the effect of each
variable on the performance of the fiber-reinforced material.
The test involved six different sands ranging from a fine sand
to a coarse sand. Four different types of fibers as synthetic
monofilament, fibrillated, tape and mesh fibers used in this
investigation were made of polypropylene. Five primary
conclusions were obtained from this investigation. First, the
inclusion of randomly oriented discrete fibers significantly
improved the unconfined compressive strength of sands.
Second, an optimum fiber length of 51 mm was identified for
the reinforcement of sand specimens. Third, a maximum per-
formance was achieved at a fiber dosage rate between 0.6 and
1% dry weight. Fourth, specimen performance was enhanced
in both wet and dry of optimum conditions. Finally, the
inclusion of up to 8% of silt does not affect the performance
of the fiber reinforcement. These data do not appear reliable
to authors because how can one think to conduct unconfined
compression tests, especially on dry sands.
Consoli et al. (2002) described an experimental study of
the utilization of polyethylene terephthalate (PET) fibers in
the reinforcement of uncemented and artificially cemented
sand. The sand was classified as non-plastic uniform fine
sand (SP) according to the Unified Soil Classification System,
and was having the following properties: specific gravity of
solids, Gs = 2.62; effective grain size, D10 = 0.16 mm; coef-
ficient of uniformity, Cu = 1.9; coefficient of curvature, Cc =
1.2; minimum void ratio = 0.57; maximum void ratio = 0.85.
PET fibers of cylindrical shape with different lengths were
obtained buy chopping long filaments that produces recycled
PET plastic waste (specific gravity = 1.06; tensile strength =
207 – 230 MN/m2; elastic modulus = 7 GN/m2, linear strain
at failure = 20 – 30%). The cement was rapid-hardening
Portland cement. The stress-strain-strength response, under
axisymmetric loading, was evaluated by a comprehensive
experimental program, which included unconfined com-
pression tests, splitting tensile tests, and drained triaxial
compression tests with local strain measurement. For the
uncemented sand, the inclusion of PET fiber increased the
peak strength, ultimate strength, and energy absorption
capacity. The cohesive intercept did not change whereas the
friction angle increased with the inclusion of fiber and fiber
length. Reinforcement did not affect the initial stiffness or
ductility of the uncemented sand. As expected, the addition
of cement to the sand significantly increased the stiffness and
peak strength, and changed the soil behavior from ductile
to a noticeable brittle one. The cement content increased
both the peak friction angle and the cohesive intercept. For
an intermediate cement content of 5%, an increase in fiber
content from 0.1 to 0.9% caused average increases in uncon-
fined compressive strength and in tensile strength of about
40 and 78% respectively. The initial stiffness of the cemented
sand was not affected by fiber inclusion, since it is basically
a function of cementation. The efficiency of the fiber rein-
forcement when applied to cemented sand was found to be
dependent on the fiber length. The greatest improvements
in triaxial strength, ductility, and energy absorption capacity
were observed for the longer, 36 mm fiber. The positive effect
of fiber length was not detected by either the unconfined
compression tests or the split cylinder tests, clearly indicating
the major influence of confining pressure and the necessity
338  International Journal of Geotechnical Engineering
of carrying out triaxial tests to fully show fiber reinforced soil
behavior.
Yetimoglu and Salbas (2003) studied the shear strength
of a clean, oven dried, uniform quartz river sand (specific
gravity = 2.64; maximum dry unit weight = 17.48 kN/m3;
minimum dry unit weight = 14.92 kN/m3; effective grain
size, D10 = 0.2 mm; coefficient of uniformity, Cu = 1.65; coef-
ficient of curvature, Cc = 1.02; angle of shearing resistance at
relative density of 70% = 42°) reinforced with randomly dis-
tributed polypropylene fibers (diameter = 0.05 mm, length
= 20 mm; specific surface = 8.5 m2/N, density = 9.1 kN/
m3, tensile strength = 320 – 400 MPa, modulus of elasticity
= 3500 – 3900 MPa) by carrying out direct shear tests. The
fiber content was varied from 0.10 to 1.0% of the weight of
the dry sand. The results of the tests indicate that the peak
shear strength and initial stiffness of the sand are not affected
significantly by the fiber reinforcements. Hence, the values
of peak shear strength angle can be considered identical for
reinforced and unreinforced sand. Thus, Mohr-Coulomb
shear envelopes for fiber-reinforced sands are similar to that
for unreinforced sand, and are linear with a zero cohesion
intercept. The horizontal displacements at failure are also
found comparable for reinforced and unreinforced sands
under the same vertical normal stress. It was explained that
the horizontal displacement, that is, strain level at failure
seemed to be not high enough to mobilize operative tensile
stresses in the reinforcement inclusions. Most likely, due to
this limited strain compatibility, fiber contributions to peak
strength and strain at failure were insignificant in the tests.
Fiber reinforcements, however, can reduce soil brittleness
providing smaller loss of post-peak strength. Thus, there
appears to be an increase in residual shear strength angle of
the sand by adding fiber reinforcements.
A large number of experimental studies as mentioned
above have been reported in literature to observe the char-
acteristics of fiber-reinforced soils, and it has now been
established that the strength and deformation behavior of the
fiber-reinforced soils is governed by the soil characteristics
(e.g., gradation and particle size and shape) and the fiber
properties (weight ratio, aspect ratio, and modulus). In spite
of this fact, a limited number of basic models (Waldron 1977;
Gray and Ohashi, 1983; Mahar and Gray, 1990; Shewbridge
and Sitar, 1990; Ranjan et al., 1996) have been suggested to
explain the mechanism of fiber reinforcements in soils. It
is probably because the modeling of the states of stress and
strain in fiber-reinforced soil during deformation and failure
is complex and difficult.
Waldron (1977) proposed a force-equilibrium model to
estimate the increase in strength of soil reinforced with plant
roots, taking into account the tensile force developed in the
reinforcement. The root-reinforced soil mass was considered
as a composite material in which roots of relatively high
tensile strength were embedded in a matrix of lower tensile
strength. The model consists of vertical flexible, elastic roots
of uniform diameter extending an equal distance on either
side of horizontal sheer plane. This model considers only
partial mobilization of fiber tensile strength depending upon
the amount of fiber elongation during shear. The model does
not place any constraint on the distribution or location of the
reinforcing fibers.
The concept of the Waldron’s model was extended by
Gray and Ohashi (1983) to describe the deformation and fail-
ure mechanism of systematically distributed fiber-reinforced
soil and to estimate the contribution of fiber reinforcement
in increasing the shear strength of soil. The model consists of
a long, elastic fiber extending an equal length over either side
of a potential shear plane in sand (Fig. 7). The fiber may be
oriented initially perpendicular to the shear plane or at some
arbitrary angle, i. Shearing causes the fiber to distort, thereby
mobilizing tensile resistance in the fiber. The tensile force in
the fiber can be divided into components normal and tan-
gential to the shear plane. The normal component increases
the confining stress on the failure plane thereby mobilizing
additional shear resistance in the sand, whereas the tangen-
tial component directly resists shear. The fiber is assumed to
be thin enough that it offers little if any resistance to shear
displacement from bending stiffness. If many fibers are pres-
ent, their cross-sectional areas are computed, and the total
fiber concentration is expressed in terms of a fiber area ratio
(AR/A), where AR is the total cross-sectional area of fibers in
the shear plane, and A is the total area of the shear plane. The
shear strength increase ΔSR from the fiber reinforcement in
sand thus can be estimated from the following expressions:
ΔSR = tR(sinθ + cosθtanϕ) (14)
for fibers oriented initially perpendicular to shear plane, and
ΔSR = tR[(sin(90° – ψ) + cos(90° – ψ)tanϕ)] (15a)
for fibers oriented initially at some arbitrary angle i, where
1
ψ = tan–1 −1 (15b)
(
k + tan −1 i )
and tR is the mobilized tensile strength of fibers per unit area
of soil; ϕ is the angle of internal friction of the soil; θ is the
angle of shear distortion; x is the horizontal shear displace-
ment; z is the thickness of shear zone; and k (= x/z) is shear
distortion ratio.
The mobilized tensile strength per unit area of soil (tR)
can be estimated as:
� �
AR
tR = σR (16)
A
 Fundamental concepts of soil reinforcement — an overview  339

where σR is the tensile stress developed in the fiber at the shear

plane, which depends upon a number of parameters and test
variables. The fibers must be long enough and frictional
enough to avoid pullout; conversely the confining stress
must be high enough so that pullout forces do not exceed
skin friction (shear forces) along the fiber. It is also necessary
to assume some sort of tensile stress distribution along the
length of the fiber. Two likely or reasonable possibilities are
a linear or parabolic distribution, respectively, with tensile
stress a maximum at the shear plane and decreasing to zero
at the fiber ends. The resulting tensile stress at the shear plane
for these two distributions is given (Waldron, 1977) by the
following expressions:

� �
4ERτR 1/2
σR = {z(secθ – 1)}1/2 (17) Figure 8.  Effect of the fiber inclusion in sand on its principal stress
DR envelope obtained from triaxial compression tests (adapted from Maher
and Gray, 1990) [Note: Below critical confining stress, the stress enve-
for linear distribution, and lopes are either linear or nonlinear depending on the types of sand and
reinforcement.]

� �
1/2
8ERτR
σR = {z(secθ – 1)}1/2 (18)
3DR
for parabolic distribution, where ER is the modulus or longi-
tudinal stiffness of the fiber; τR is the skin friction stress along
the fiber; DR is the diameter of fiber; and z is the thickness of
the shear zone.
Direct shear tests conducted by Shewbridge and Sitar
(1989) on the dry sand reinforced with oriented fibers show
that the thickness z and shape of a shear zone is altered by the
reinforcement concentration, stiffness, and reinforcement-
soil bond strength. The actual deformation pattern of the
reinforcement-soil composite can be described by a smooth
asymptotic curve of the form as:
x1 = B(1 – e–b|x2|) (19)
soils, Mahar and Gray (1990) have reported that the failure
surfaces in triaxial compression tests are planer and oriented
in the same manner as predicted by the Mohr-Coulomb
theory. This finding suggests an isotropic reinforcing action
with no development of preferred planes of weakness or
strength. The principal stress envelops have been found to be
either curved-linear or bilinear, with the transition or break
occurring at a confining stress, called the critical confining
stress, σ3crit (Fig. 8). The increase in shear strength from the
fiber reinforcement can be estimated form the following
expressions:
ΔSR = Ns
� �
πD2R
4
(2σ3av tanδ)(sinθ + cosθ tanϕ)k (20a)

where B is one-half of the shear displacement (= x/2); x1 and

for 0 <σ3av <σ3crit, and
x2 are the coordinate directions parallel and perpendicular
to the direction of shear respectively; and b is a curve fitting
parameter describing the shape of the curve. This defor-
mation pattern differs substantially from the simple shear
ΔSR = Ns
� �
πD2R
4
(2σ3crit tanδ)(sinθ + cosθ tanϕ)k (20b)

deformation assumed in Fig. 7. The shear zone thickness z is
greater in reinforced soil than in soil alone, and it increases
with increasing stiffness of the reinforced soil due to increased
reinforcement concentration, stiffness, or bond strength.
Though the reinforcement concentration and type affect the
strength of the reinforced soil, but a non-linear relationship
between reinforcement concentration and increased strength
was observed by Shewbridge and Sitar (1989). This observa-
tion contradicts the findings reported by Gray and Ohashi
(1983), Mahar and Gray (1990), and Ranjan et al. (1996).
Based on the observations made in triaxial tests and
statistical analysis of randomly distributed fiber-reinforced
for σ3av >σ3crit, where Ns is the average number of fibers
intersecting a unit area; σ3av is the average confining stress
in triaxial chamber; δ is the fiber skin friction angle, and k
is an empirical coefficient depending on soil characteristics
(median grain size, D50, particle sphericity, S, and coefficient
of uniformity, CU) and fiber parameters (aspect ratio and skin
friction). The value of σ3crit in Eqs. 20(a & b) can be deter-
mined empirically from the experimental measurements,
thus depending on soil characteristics and fiber properties.
The theoretical model proposed by Maher and Gray
(1990) have predicted reasonably well the increase in the
strength of randomly distributed fiber reinforced soil.
However, the width of shear zone, z, which significantly
340  International Journal of Geotechnical Engineering
affects the increase in strength (Shewbridge and Sitar, 1989,
1990) has not been determined for reinforced soil. Also, the
average expected orientation of fibers is statistically predicted
to be perpendicular to the plane of shear failure. But it is dif-
ficult to determine experimentally the orientation of fibers.
Keeping these limitations in view, Ranjan et al. (1996) pre-
sented a regression analysis of a large number of triaxial tests
on randomly distributed fiber reinforced soil, and reported
that their analysis is accurate in predicting the increase in
shear strength due to inclusions of fibers in cohesionless
soils.
CONCLUSIONS
The concept of reinforcing soils by introducing tension-
resisting elements such as strips, bars, sheets, meshes, fibers,
etc. has become a common practice in geotechnical engineer-
ing lately. The flexible nature of reinforced soil mass enables
it to withstand a large differential settlement without any
major distress. In certain difficult situations, the concept of
reinforced soil is the only valid technical solution. Although
the soil reinforcing mechanism differs for different types of
reinforcements, the soil-reinforcement friction/adhesion is
fundamental to the concept of all types of the reinforced soil
described in this paper. The inclusion of reinforcement in a
soil mass inhibits the tensile strains and develops the strength
of the soil. The strength increase of the soil due to presence
of reinforcement is reflected either by an apparent cohesion
intercept cR (failure due to rupture of reinforcement) or by
increased friction angle ϕR (failure due to slippage). The
increase in strength is a function of shear strength of soil, and
the tensile strength and distribution of reinforcement in the
soil mass. If geosynthetics are used as reinforcement in a soil
mass, they improve the strength and settlement characteristic
of the soil mass by showing the following effects: shear stress
reduction effect, confinement effect, membrane effect, and
interlocking effect. The previous studies indicate that the
stress-strain properties of randomly distributed fiber-rein-
forced soils are functions of fiber content, aspect ratio and
skin friction along with the soil and fiber index and strength
characteristics. For field applications of fiber-reinforced soils,
much care is required to obtain reasonably uniform distribu-
tion of the fibers within the soil mass. Since the influences of
engineering properties of soil and fiber, and the scale effects
on the stress-strain characteristics of fiber-reinforced soils
have not been investigated fully on a large scale, the actual
behavior of fiber-reinforced soils is not yet well known. It is
expected that further studies including especially large-scale
tests with fiber of larger diameter can explain in better way
the behavior of fiber-reinforced soils. It is noted that because
of major influence of confining pressure, the necessity of
carrying out more triaxial tests, especially on large-size speci-
mens, is felt to fully show the fiber reinforced soil behavior.
REFERENCES
Al-Refeai, T.O. (1991). “Behaviour of granular soils rein-
forced with discrete randomly oriented inclusions.”
Geotextiles and Geomembranes, 10, 319-333.
Adams, M.T. and Collin, J.G. (1997). “Large model spread
footing load tests on geosynthetic reinforced soil foun-
dations.” Journal of Geotechnical and Geoenvironmental
Engineering, 123(1), 66-72.
Bassett, R.H. and Last, N.C. (1978). “Reinforcing earth
below footings and embankments.” Proceedings of the
Symposium on Earth Reinforcement, ASCE, Pittsburgh,
202-231
Bauer, G.E., Oancea, A. (1996). “Triaxial testing of granular
soils reinforced with discrete polypropylene fibers.”
Proc., First European Geosynthetics Conference on
Geosynthetics: Applications, Design and Construction,
A.A. Balkema, Rotterdam, The Netherlands, 407-410.
Bourdeau, P.L. (1989). “Modeling of membrane action in
a two-layer reinforced soil system.” Computers and
Geotechnics, 7, 19-36.
Bourdeau, P.L., Harr, M.E., and Holtz, R.D. (1982). “Soil-
fabric interaction — an analytical model.” Proc., 2nd
International Conference on Geotextiles. Las Vegas,
U.S.A., 387-391.
Consoli, N.C. Prietto, P.D.M., and Ulbrich, L.A. (1998).
“Influence of fiber and cement addition on behavior of
sandy soil.” Journal of Geotechnical and Geoenvironmental
Engineering, ASCE, 124(12), 1211-1214.
Consoli, N.C., Montardo, J.P., Prietto, P.D.M. and Pasa,
G.S. (2002). “Engineering behavior of a sand rein-
forced with plastic waste.” Journal of Geotechnical and
Geoenvironmental Engineering, ASCE, 128(6), pp. 462-
472.
Das, B.M. (1999). Principles of Foundation Engineering,
Fourth Edition, PWS Publishing Company, Boston.
Espinoza, R.D. (1994). “Soil-geotextile interaction: evaluation
of membrane support.” Geotextiles and Geomembranes,
13, 281-293.
Espinoza, R.D. and Bray, J.D. (1995). “An integrated approach
to evaluating single-layer reinforced soils.” Geosynthetics
International, 2(4), 723-739.
Fluet, J.E. (1988). “Geosynthetics for soil improvement: a
general report and keynote address.” Proc., Symposium
on Geosynthetics for Soil Improvement, Tennessee,
U.S.A., 1-21.
 Fundamental concepts of soil reinforcement — an overview  341
Freitag, D.R. (1986). Soil randomly reinforced with fibers.
Journal of Geotechnical Engineering, ASCE, 112(8), 823-
826.
Giroud, J. P. and Noiray, L. (1981). “Geotextile-reinforced
unpaved road design.” Journal of Geotechnical
Engineering, ASCE, 107(9), 1233-1254.
Giroud, J.P., Ah-Line, A. and Bonaparte, R. (1984). “Design of
unpaved roads and trafficked areas with geogrids.” Proc.,
Symposium on Polymer Grid Reinforcement, London,
116-127.
Gosavi, M., Patil, K.A., Mittal, S. and Saran, S. (2004).
“Improvement of properties of black cotton soil sub-
grade through synthetic reinforcement.” Journal of the
Institution of Engineers (India), 84, 257-262.
Gray, D.H. and Ohashi, H. (1983). Mechanics of fiber rein-
forcement in sand. Journal of Geotechnical Engineering,
ASCE, 109(3), pp. 335-353.
Gray, D.H. and Al-Refeai, T. (1986). “Behaviour of fabric
versus fiber reinforced sand.” Journal of Geotechnical
Engineering, ASCE, 112(8), 804-820.
Guido, V.A., Dong, K.G. and Sweeny, A. (1986). “Comparison
of geogrid and geotextile reinforced earth slabs.”
Canadian Geotechnical Journal, 23(1), 435-440.
Gupta, P.K., Saran, S. and Mittal, R.K. (2006). “Behaviour of
fiber reinforced sand in different test conditions.” Indian
Geotechnical Journal, 36(3), 272-282.
Hausmann, M.R. (1976). “Strength of reinforced soil.” Proc.
Australian Road Research Board Conference, 8, 1-8.
Hausmann, M.R. (1990). Engineering Principles of Ground
Modification. McGraw-Hill, New York.
Hausmann, M.R. and Vagneron, J. (1977). “Analysis of soil-
fabric interaction.” Proc., Int. Conf. on the Use of Fabrics
in Geotechnics, Paris, 139-144.
Heineck, C.S., Consoli, N.C. and Coop, M.R. (2005). “Effect of
microreinforcement of soils from very small to large shear
strains.” Journal of Geotechnical and Geoenvironmental
Engineering, ASCE, 127(3), 258-268.
Hoare, D.J. (1979). “Laboratory study of granular soils rein-
forced with randomly oriented discrete fibers.” Proc.,
International Conference on Soil Reinforcement, Paris,
47-52.
Jewell, R.A. (1980). Some effects of reinforcement on the
mechanical behavior of soils. Ph.D. thesis, University of
Cambridge, England.
Jewell, R.A. (1996). Soil Reinforcement with Geotextiles.
Construction Industry Research and Information
Association, London, CIRIA, Special Publication 123.
Koerner, R. M. (2005). Designing with geosynthetics. 5th edi-
tion, Prentice Hall, New Jersey, USA.
Kumar, P. and Singh, S.P. (2008). “Fibre-reinforced fly ash
subbases in rural roads.” Journal of Transportation
Engineering, ASCE, 134(4), 171-180.
Kumar, R., Kanaujia, V.K., and Chandra, D. (1999).
“Engineering behavior of fiber-reinforced pond ash and
silty sand.” Geosynthetics International, 6(6), 509-518.
Lindh, E. and Eriksson, L. (1990). “Sand reinforced with
plastic fibers: a field experiment.” Proc., International
Reinforced Soil Conference, Glasgow, U.K., 471-474.
Long, N.T., Guegan, Y. and Legeay, G. (1972). Etude de la
terre armee a l’appareil triaxial. Rapport de Recherche No.
17, Laboratoire Central des Ponts et Chaussees, Paris,
France.
Love, J.P., Burd, H.J., Milligan, G.W.E. and Houlsby (1987).
“Analytical and model studies of reinforcement of a
layer of granular fill on soft clay subgrade.” Canadian
Geotechnical Journal, 24, 611-622.
Madhav, M.R. and Poorooshasb, H.B. (1988). “A new
model for geosynthetic-reinforced soil.” Computers and
Geotechnics, 6, 277-290.
Madhav, M.R. and Poorooshasb, H.B. (1989). “Modified
Pasternak model for reinforced soil.” Mathematical and
Computational Modelling, 12, 1505-1509.
Maher, M.H. and Gray, D.H. (1990). “Static response of sands
reinforced with randomly distributed fibers.” Journal of
Geotechnical Engineering, ASCE, 116(11), 1661-1677.
McGown, A. and Andrawes, K.Z. (1977). “The influence of
nonwoven fabric inclusions on the stress-strain behavior
of a soil mass.” Proc., International Conference on the Use
of Fabrics in Geotechnics, Paris, 161-166.
McGown, A., Andrawes, K.Z. and Al-Hasani, M.M. (1978).
“Effect of inclusion properties on the behavior of sand.”
Geotechnique, 28(3), 327-346.
Michalowski, R.L. and Cermak, J. (2003). “Triaxial com-
pression of sand reinforced with fibers.” Journal of
Geotechnical and Geoenvironmental Engineering, ASCE,
129(2), 125-135.
Michalowski, R.L. and Zhao, A. (1996). “Failure of fiber-
reinforced granular soils.” Journal of Geotechnical
Engineering, ASCE, 122(3), 226-234.
Narain, J. (1985). “Reinforced earth.” Indian Geotechnical
Journal, 15(1), 1-25.
Pinto, M.I.M. (2004). Reply to the discussion of “Applications
of geosynthetics for soil reinforcement” by M.I.M. Pinto,
Ground Improvement, 7(2), 2003, 61–72 by S.K. Shukla.
Ground Improvement, UK, 8, 180-181.
Ranjan, G., Vasan, R.M. and Charan, H.D. (1994a).
“Mechanism of fiber-reinforced soil – State of-the-
art.” Behaviour of plastic-fiber reinforced sand. Indian
Geotechnical Journal, 24(3), 241-262.
342  International Journal of Geotechnical Engineering

Ranjan, G., Vasan, R.M. and Charan, H.D. (1994b). Vidal, H. (1966). La terre Armée. Annales de l’Institut
“Behaviour of plastic-fiber reinforced sand.” Geotextiles Technique de Batiment et de Travaux Publics, France.
and Geomembranes, 13, 555-565. Vidal, H. (1969). “The principle of reinforced earth.” Highway
Ranjan, G. Vasan, R.M. and Charan, H.D. (1996). Research Record 282, 1-16.
“Probabilistic analysis of randomly distributed fiber- Waldron, L.J. (1977). “Shear resistance of root-permeated
reinforced soil.” Journal of Geotechnical Engineering, homogeneous and stratified soil.” Proc., Soil Science
ASCE, 122(6), 419-426. Society of America, 41(5), 843 – 849.
Sanatoni, R.L., Tingle, J.S. and Webster, S.L. (2001). Yang, Z. (1972). Strength and deformation characteristics of
“Engineering properties of sand –fiber mixtures reinforced sand. Ph.D. thesis, University of California,
for road construction.” Journal of Geotechnical and Los Angeles.
Geoenvironmental Engineering, ASCE, 127(3), 258-268. Yetimoglu, T. and Salbas, O. (2003). “A study on shear
Sawicki, A. (2000). Mechanics of Reinforced Soil. A.A. strength of sands reinforced with randomly distributed
Balkema, Rotterdam discrete fibers.” Geotextiles and Geomembranes, 21, 103-
Schlosser, F. and Long, N.-T. (1974). “Recent results in 110.
French research on reinforced earth.” Journal of the
Construction Division, ASCE, 100(3), 223-237.
Schlosser, F. and Vidal, H. (1969). “Reinforced earth.” Bulletin
de Liaison des Laboratoires des Ponts et Chaussees, 41,
France.
Sellmeijer, J.B., Kenter, C.J. and Van den Berg, C. (1982).
“Calculation method for fabric reinforced road.” Proc.,
2nd International Conference on Geotextiles. Las Vegas,
USA, 393-398.
Sellmeijer, J.B. (1990). “Design of geotextile reinforced
unpaved roads and parking areas.” Proc., 4th International
Conference on Geotextiles, Geomembranes and Related
Products. The Hague, Netherlands, 177-182
Shewbridge, S.E. and Sitar, N. (1989). “Deformation char-
acteristics of reinforced sand in direct shear.” Journal of
Geotechnical Engineering, 115(8), 1134-1147.
Shewbridge, S.E. and Sitar, N. (1990). “Deformation based
model for reinforced sand.” Journal of Geotechnical
Engineering, 116(7), 1153-1170.
Shukla, S.K. (ed.) (2002). Geosynthetics and Their Applications.
Thomas Telford, London.
Shukla, S.K. (2004). Discussion of “Applications of geosyn-
thetics for soil reinforcement” by M.I.M. Pinto, Ground
Improvement, 7(2), 2003, 61 – 72. Ground Improvement,
UK, 8, 179-181
Shukla, S.K. and Yin, J.-H. (2006). Fundamentals of
Geosynthetic Engineering. Taylor and Francis, London.
Shukla, S.K. and Chandra, S. (1994). “A generalized mechan-
ical model for geosynthetic-reinforced foundation soil.”
Geotextiles and Geomembranes, 13, 813-825.
Shukla, S.K. and Chandra, S. (1995). “Modelling of geosyn-
thetic-reinforced engineered granular fill on soft soil”.
Geosynthetics International, USA, 2(3), 603-618.
Tingle, J.S., Sanatoni, R.S. and Webster, S.L. (2002). “Full
scale field tests on discrete fiber reinforced sand.” Journal
of Transportation Engineering, ASCE, 128(1), 9-16.

View publication stats