Trans. Tianjin Univ.

2011, 17: 220-228

DOI 10.1007/s12209-011-1528-1

Improved Simulation Method for Soil-Geogrid Interaction

of Reinforced Earth Structure in FEM*
CHEN Rong (陈 榕)1,2,3，LUAN Maotian (栾茂田)1,2，HAO Dongxue (郝冬雪)3
(1. State Key Laboratory of Coastal and Offshore Engineering, Dalian University of Technology, Dalian 116085, China;
2. Institute of Geotechnical Engineering, Dalian University of Technology, Dalian 116085, China;
3. School of Civil and Architecture Engineering, Northeast Dianli University, Jilin 132012, China)

© Tianjin University and Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2011

Abstract：The interaction between geogrid and soil is crucial for the stability of geogrid-reinforced earth structure. In
finite element (FE) analysis, geogrids are usually assumed as beam or truss elements, and the interaction between
geogrid and soil is considered as Coulomb friction resistance, which cannot reflect the true stress and displacement
developed in the reinforcement. And the traditional Lagrangian elements used to simulate soil always become highly
distorted and lose accuracy in high-stress blocks. An improved geogrid model that can produce shear resistance and
passive resistance and a soil model using the Eulerian technique, in combination with the coupled Eulerian-Lagrangian
(CEL) method, are used to analyze the interaction between geogrid and soil of reinforced foundation test in
ABAQUS. The stress in the backfill, resistance of geogrid, and settlement of foundation were computed and the results
of analysis agree well with the experimental results. This simulation method is of referential value for FE analysis of
reinforced earth structure.
Keywords：finite element method; interaction; geogrid; coupled Eulerian-Lagrangian method; reinforced earth struc-
ture

Geogrids have been widely used in geogrid-
reinforced earth structures. The main function of geogrids
is to redistribute stress within the soil mass in order to
enhance the internal stability of reinforced soil structures.
Geogrids are geosynthetic products with comparatively
large apertures, which are characterized by a combination
of transverse and longitudinal ribs. According to different
main tensile directions, geogrids can be defined as two
kinds: uniaxial geogrids and biaxial geogrids. The inter-
action mechanisms between soil and geogrid reinforce-
ments are more complex than those between soil and
strip or sheet reinforcements. This is because the pullout
resistance of geogrids includes two components: the in-
terface shear resistance that takes place along the longi-
tudinal ribs and the passive resistance that develops
against the front of transverse ribs[1]. The prediction of
interaction mechanisms is a difficult problem, and studies
using a variety of geogrid types and mesh densities can
obtain various pullout mechanisms[2-6]. Reinforced soil
structures are commonly designed by the limit equilib-
rium method. But many of the available equations corre-
spond to inextensible inclusions and may not rigorously
apply to polymeric extensible geogrids. Moreover, the
limit equilibrium method does not provide sufficient in-
formation on the pullout force prior to failure or informa-
tion about displacements and strains developed in the
reinforcements[7].
The finite element method (FEM) has been used in
simulating the behavior of geogrid-reinforced soil struc-
tures[8-10]. It is efficient for the prediction of displace-
ments, strains, and forces generated in the reinforcement
at the failure as well as during deformation. Many consti-
tutive models have been proposed to simulate geogrid-
reinforced structures. Most of them only focused on the
improvement of the soil behavior and studies on the in-
teraction of geogrid-soil in FEM are still limited. At pre-
sent, there exist two basic problems in the FE analysis of
geogrid-reinforced structure. Firstly, in the FE model
about geogrid-reinforced structure, geogrid is usually
assumed as beam or truss elements, and the interaction of
soil-geogrid is simply simulated using a Coulomb friction
model[11], which cannot reflect the true stress and dis-

Accepted date: 2010-07-18.

*Supported by National Natural Science Foundation of China (No. 50678032).
CHEN Rong, born in 1979, male, doctorate student.
Correspondence to CHEN Rong, E-mail: rongchen@yahoo.cn.
 CHEN Rong et al: Improved Simulation Method for Soil-Geogrid Interaction of Reinforced Earth Structure in FEM
placement developed in reinforced structure. Secondly,
soils are known to exhibit more or less strong deforma-
tion behavior due to their viscous properties. And this
behavior is more obvious for high-stress zones between
the backfill and geogrids in reinforced structure. The
elements in these zones could be extremely distorted and
lose accuracy in FE analysis.
This paper proposes a new method in two-
dimensional (2D) FEM model to simulate the geogrid-
soil interaction, which can simulate friction resistance
and passive resistance at the same time. Moreover, it can
quantify not only the contributions of interface shear and
passive resistance to the overall resistance of geogrids
respectively, but also the synergism between interface
shear and passive resistance mechanisms.
1 Simulation method
1.1 Geogrid
Geogrid has a locally 3D structure, which cannot be
modeled directly by a 2D plane strain FEM model.
Therefore, an equivalent 2D model approximating the
locally 3D structure was employed.
Several failure mechanisms have been proposed to
estimate the passive resistance that develops against
transverse ribs, including the bearing capacity failure
mechanism[12], and the punching failure mechanism[13]. It
can be seen from Fig.1 that transverse ribs push the soil
(a) Bearing capacity failure
(b) Punching failure
Fig.1 Failure mechanism of passive resistance
in front of them away and take less soil moving together,
just like small horizontal moving foundation. In this pa-
per, the deformable solid ball, the shape of which is simi-
lar to Fig.1(a), is used to simulate the transverse rib of
geogrid in 2D plane strain FEM model. How to get accu-
rate height of the balls is the key to the simulation for
geogrid-reinforced structure.
The height of balls which is mainly determined by
the area of the interface orthogonal to movement, cannot
be acquired directly due to the irregular shape of aper-
tures. But it can be deduced by the maximum and mini-
mum cross sectional areas of geogrids. The maximum
cross sectional area (represented by Amax) is usually lo-
cated at the transverse ribs, and the minimum cross sec-
tional area (represented by Amin) is always located at the
longitudinal ribs. The difference of two areas
(Amax−Amin) can be considered as the area of the interface
orthogonal to movement.
The whole view of geogrids model is shown in
Fig.2. The height of solid element used to simulate the
longitudinal ribs, HL, is equal to Amin, the total cross sec-
tional area of all longitudinal members in a meter width
of the geogrid, while the height of balls used to simulate
the transverse ribs, HB, should be equal to Amax, the
maximum cross sectional area of geogrids in a meter
width of the geogrid. So the difference of these two
heights (HB−HL) just equals the area of orthogonal inter-
face (Amax−Amin) where the passive resistance generates.
Fig.2 View of geogrids model with the balls
The height of balls HB can be deduced according to
the actual size of geogrid. All of notations in the equa-
tions about geogrids are shown in Fig.3, where AL is lon-
gitudinal value of aperture.
Uniaxial geogrids have the fixed-value thickness of
transverse ribs. The height of balls is always as follows:
H BU = tB (1)
where tB is the thickness of transverse ribs (uniaxial
geogrids).
Biaxial geogrids have special joints on the intersec-
tion of transverse and longitudinal ribs, so the height of
balls can be deduced as
H BB = nWLR tJ + (n − 1)tTR AT (2)
—221—
 Transactions of Tianjin University Vol.17 No.3 2011

Eulerian analysis is a finite element technique in

which materials are allowed to flow across element
boundaries in a rigid mesh. Eulerian elements may not
always be 100% full of material, i.e., many may be par-
tially or completely void, as shown in Fig.4. The Eulerian
material boundary must therefore be computed during
(a) Uniaxial geogrids each increment and generally does not correspond to an
element boundary. The Eulerian mesh is typically a sim-
ple rectangular grid of elements constructed to extend
well beyond the Eulerian material boundaries, allowing
the material space to move and deform. If any Eulerian
material moves outside the Eulerian mesh, it is lost from
the simulation. In contrast to Lagrangian, in Eulerian
analysis nodes are fixed in space, and material flows
through elements that do not deform. Because the ele-
(b) Biaxial geogrids ment quality issues associated with a deformable mesh
Fig.3 Two kinds of geogrids are not presented in Eulerian analysis, Eulerian technique
can be very effective in solving problems involving very
where WLR is the width of longitudinal ribs (biaxial large deformation, material damage, or fluid materials. In
geogrids); tJ is the thickness of joints (biaxial geogrids); this paper, Eulerian technique is employed for soil in FE
tTR is the thickness of transverse ribs (biaxial geogrids); analysis of geogrid-reinforced structure.
AT is transverse value of aperture; n is the number of
transverse ribs per meter, n ≈ 1/( AT + FWL ) or
n ≈ 1/( AT + WLR ) , and FWL is the width of longitudinal
ribs (uniaxial geogrids).
Furthermore, the height of longitudinal ribs can be
deduced by the same principle as follows:
H LU = nFWLtF (3)

H LB = nWLR tLR (4)

where tF is the thickness of longitudinal ribs (uniaxial (a) Whole element filling
geogrids) and tLR is the thickness of longitudinal ribs
(biaxial geogrids).
1.2 Soil
Lagrangian elements are widely used to simulate de-
formation or damage of soil in FE analysis. In the La-
grangian FE formulation, materials are closely associated
with an element, and the materials move only with the
deformation of the mesh. In other words, nodes are fixed
within the material, and elements deform as the material
(b) Partial filling
deforms. But soil has the characteristics of lower strength
Fig.4 Eulerian material shape
and higher strain compared with other engineering mate-
rials because it is made up of plenty of particles. In FE 1.3 Coupled Eulerian-Lagrangian analysis
analysis about geogrid-reinforced earth structure, large Eulerian analysis technique can be coupled with tra-
displacement and strong deformation always happen in ditional Lagrangian technique to extend the simulation
the vicinity of geogrid, as shown in Fig.1. The traditional functionality[14]. Coupled Eulerian-Lagrangian (CEL)
Lagrangian elements in these zones could be extremely analysis allows Eulerian and Lagrangian bodies within
distorted and lose accuracy. the same model to interact, and it is typically used to

—222—
 CHEN Rong et al: Improved Simulation Method for Soil-Geogrid Interaction of Reinforced Earth Structure in FEM
model the interactions between a solid body and a yield-
ing or fluid material.
The FEM model about geogrid-reinforced earth
structure is computed with CEL analysis in ABAQUS. It
uses Eulerian meshes to avoid strong mesh distortion in
the zones of strong deformation (like soil in the vicinity
of geogrid) and defines Lagrangian nodes in other zones
to follow the shape of the deformed domain (like
geogrid). The convective terms in Eulerian zones are
taken into account when the meshes are updated. New
elements are generated or some elements are deleted to
couple the two kinds of meshes. CEL analysis costs more
time to compute additional data per increment than other
analysis methods. However, the rapid development of
computer technology has made it feasible to compute
with CEL analysis.
1.4 Interaction
In ABAQUS, Eulerian material can interact with
Lagrangian elements through general contact algorithm.
This algorithm automatically compensates for mesh size
discrepancies to prevent penetration of Eulerian material
through Lagrangian surface. The general contact defini-
tion allows interactions between all Lagrangian surfaces
and all Eulerian material instances in the model. Contact
interactions between Eulerian materials and interactions
due to Eulerian material self-contact are handled natu-
rally by Eulerian formulation; these interactions do not
require a general contact definition.
The contact property between the soil and geogrid is
assumed to be “penalty” friction formulation in tangential
behavior. The friction coefficient between Eulerian and
Lagrangian is chosen as μ , which corresponds to the fric-
tion angle obtained from shear test or pullout test. In the
normal behavior, the contact state can be judged by pres-
sure. When surfaces are in contact, any contact pressure
can be transmitted between them. The surfaces separate if
the contact pressure reduces to zero. And separated sur-
faces come into contact when the clearance between them
reduces to zero.
In 2D plane strain FE analysis, geogrid is modeled
as solid element part, as shown in Fig.2. That means
geogrids are assumed to be a full plane and the area of
interface is enlarged with respect to the fact. So the fric-
tion coefficient μ needs scaling down by the ratio of
area change, which is represented by a and can be ap-
proximated as follows:
aU = nFWL (uniaxial geogrids) (5)
aB = nWLR (biaxial geogrids) (6)
2 Examples of application
One 2D FE model about reinforced foundation tests
based on improved method and CEL analysis mentioned
above is established to verify its effectiveness and ration-
ality in dealing with geogrids-reinforced earth structure.
And the results of FE analysis are compared with the ex-
periment performed in Dalian University of Technology.
2.1 Physical models
Fig.5 shows the schematic of a bearing capacity test
apparatus[15]. The dimensions of the box are 2.00 m long,
0.33 m wide, and 0.80 m high. The test apparatus was
mainly made of 8 mm-thick steel except for one longitu-
dinal sidewall, which was made of 10 mm-thick PMMA
plates to observe the deformation clearly and reduce fric-
tion on the sidewalls. This box can be regarded as rigid,
which was reinforced with U-shaped steel beams at back
side and four corners. A lot of grids were printed on the
PMMA to mainly scale the deformation. One 20 mm-
long steel plate with enough rigidity was used to simulate
the foundation to avoid bending in loading process. One
jack was provided at the top to maintain normal stress
conditions (0—833 kPa). And one load cell was placed
under the foundation to read and control normal pressure.
The details of all tests are shown in Tab.1. To investigate
the influence of geogrid on bearing capacity of reinforced
foundation, a series of experiments were conducted in the
laboratory under various layers of geogrid N and lengths
of geogrid b. Case A is pure sand without geogrids. In
Cases B and C, biaxial Tensar SS20 geogrid was utilized
for reinforcement. The distance between each geogrid
layer in these sections was 10 cm. In Case B, 40 cm long
geogrid was laid in sand at different layers of geogrid. In
Case C, two-layer geogrids of 20—80 cm long were em-
bedded.
Fig.5 Schematic of reinforced foundation test(unit: cm)
—223—
 Transactions of Tianjin University Vol.17 No.3 2011

Tab.1 Test program (4), n ≈ 1/( AT + WLR ) = 45 , H BB = nWLR tJ + (n − 1)tTR AT =

Parameter 1.1 mm , H LB = nWLR tLR = 0.11 mm . The geogrids show an
Test cases
N b/cm approximately linear load-displacement response before
A — —
the strain reaches 10%. So elastic behavior is chosen to
B-1 1 40
define the geogrids with density ρ = 950 kg/m3 , Poisson’s
B-2 2 40
B-3 3 40 ratio υ = 0.4 , and Young’s modulus E=1 836 MPa de-
B-4 4 40 duced by tensile strength at 5% strain in Tab.3.
C-1 2 20 The friction coefficient of soil-geogrid interface
C-2 2 40
( μ = 0.38 ) obtained from shear test should scale down
C-3 2 60
C-4 2 80
approximately by the ratio of area change from Eq.(6),
which results in aB = nWLR = 0.1 . Thus the final value
Soil used in this test was taken from an engineering μ * ≈ 0.038 .
site located in Dalian, China. The physical characteris- Reinforced foundation tests were modeled as 2D
tics, shear strength parameters of the soil are listed in plane strain problems and the results were later converted
Tab.2. One geogrid, identified as EG50, was used in the to 0.33 m width as used in the test. Due to the symmetric
test. Specifically, the geogrid products were biaxial structure of foundation test, half of the longitudinal cross
geogrids made of PP polymer. They were manufactured sectional area of the box (1.0 m×0.8 m) was established
by BOSTD Geosynthetics Qingdao Ltd. The main in- as shown in Fig.6. The FEM mesh has smaller elements
dexes of the geogrids are listed in Tab.3. near the front of the geogrid and larger ones further away.
Tab.2 Properties of test soil Sand was represented by eight-node Eulerian elements
Parameter Value
(EC3D8R) while the geogrid was modeled with eight-
Specific gravity, Gs 2.7 node Lagrangian elements (C3D8R) considering bend-
Unit weight, γ /(kN·m−3) 17.746 ing stiffness. Vertical roller supports were provided along
Average grain size, d 50 /mm 1.22 the left boundaries, horizontal roller supports were pro-
Coefficient of uniformity, cu 5.824 vided along the bottom boundaries and the right bounda-
Coefficient of curvature, cc 1.094 ries were provided with symmetric boundary condition.
Water content, w /% 13 Displacement load was applied linearly incrementally on
Friction angle, φ /(°) 30
the top of steel boundaries.
Cohesion, C /kPa 9.6

Tab.3 Main indexes of the geogrids in test

Parameter Value
Transverse value of aperture, AT /mm 20
Longitudinal value of aperture, AL /mm 20
Width of longitudinal ribs, WLR /mm 2.2
Width of transverse ribs, WTR /mm 2.4
Thickness of transverse ribs, tTR /mm 0.8
Thickness of longitudinal ribs, tLR /mm 1.1
Thickness of joints, tJ /mm 4.1
Tensile strength (at 5% strain )/ (kN·m−1) 10.0
Fig.6 Finite element model
2.2 FE models
The soil is assumed to be an elasto-perfect plastic
material obeying the Drucker-Prager yield criterion with 3 Results and discussion
a nonassociated flow rule. The parameters used to model
the behavior of sand in FEM analyses mainly include: 3.1 Failure mechanism
density ρ = 1 774.6 kg/m3 , Young’s modulus E=20 MPa, It is a shortcoming that FEM analysis about geogrid-
Poisson’s ratio υ = 0.3 and internal friction angle φ =30°. reinforced foundation has no data about displacement of
Based on the main indexes of geogrids in Tab.3, the Eulerian elements because all the nodes are fixed in space
size of geogrids model can be deduced by Eqs.(2) and and elements do not deform. But the velocity field of

—224—
 CHEN Rong et al: Improved Simulation Method for Soil-Geogrid Interaction of Reinforced Earth Structure in FEM
nodes, which is the derivative of displacement with re-
spect to time similar to the deformation field, can be ob-
tained from the results of FE analysis.
Movement of the balls located at the end of geogrids
can be regarded approximately as horizontal movement
in pullout test. A series of velocity vector graphics of
nodes around the last ball are shown in Fig.7. It was ob-
served that a punching failure seemed to develop in front
of the transverse ribs at low deformations in early stage,
which became a bearing capacity failure at larger defor-
mations. This phenomenon coincides with the results of
X-ray monitored pullout tests by Ospina[16].
(a)Early stage
(b)Later stage
Fig.7 Velocity vector graphics around the last ball
3.2 Local stress around geogrids
The local stress contour under foundation is chosen
as shown in Fig.8. It can be seen that the high-stress
block under foundation (dark block) reaches the first
layer of geogrids, and then the main function of geogrids
is to redistribute stress. The range of high-stress block
gradually widens along the geogrids, and the integrity of
reinforced foundation is enhanced greatly.
Further observation shows a phenomenon: some tiny
high-stress blocks produced by the passive resistance
clearly appear around most of the transverse ribs. And
relative movement direction between soil and geogrid can
be found according to the relative position of stress
blocks and transverse ribs, as shown in Fig.8. These high-
stress areas under the foundation have almost the same
size but then become smaller further away before disap-
pear at the end of geogrids. It is concluded that the stress
is gradually transferring along the longitudinal ribs, and
the stress blocks are growing with the increment of rela-
tive displacement between soil and geogrid; when the
stress reaches a limit value, the areas of stress block will
not enlarge.
Fig.8 Local stress contour under foundation
3.3 Layer effects of geogrids
In 2D plane strain condition, the stress contours of
Case B at s=20 mm are shown in Fig.9. The shape of
high-stress blocks for different layered (1—4 layers)
geogrid-reinforced foundations is remarkably different. It
can be seen from Fig.9(c) and 9(d) that the third and
fourth layers of geogrids do not completely play a role in
reinforcing the bearing capacity because a part of
geogrids are out of the high-stress blocks. Compared with
the non-geogrids foundation A, the bearing capacity of B-
1, B-2, B-3 and B-4 increases by about 16.8%, 32.6%,
43.5%, and 50.1%, respectively at the same settlement
s=20 mm, and the maximum settlement of B-1, B-2, B-3
and B-4 decreases by about 34.1%, 49.7%, 53.6%, and
57.0%, respectively at the pressure p=800 kPa.
The bearing capacity of foundation is improved with
the increasing layer number of geogrids. But the FE re-
sults of B-2 and B-4 are not obviously different. The set-
tlement of B-4 is only reduced by 7% compared with B-2,
but the geogrids cost of B-4 will increase twice. It is clear
that the improvement of bearing capacity does not vary at
a constant ratio with the increase of geogrid layer, and
reinforcement by only continuously increasing the num-
ber of geogrid layer is not cost-effective. Moreover, the
geogrids do not display their reinforced ability due to less
relative displacement between geogrid and soil when low
pressure is applied to foundation (p<300 kPa).
—225—
 Transactions of Tianjin University Vol.17 No.3 2011

foundation A, the bearing capacity of C-1, C-2, C-3 and

C-4 increases by about 20.1%, 35.4%, 43.1%, and 52.6%,
respectively at the settlement s=20 mm, and the maxi-
mum settlement of C-1, C-2, C-3 and C-4 decreases by
about 33.0%, 48.0%, 52.7%, and 56.6%, respectively at
the pressure p=800 kPa. The bearing capacity of founda-
tion is improved as the length of geogrids increases,
whereas its effectiveness corresponds to that subjected to
(a)B-1 layer change of geogrids.

(b)B-2 (a)C-1

(c)B-3 (b)C-2

(d)B-4
Fig.9 Stress contours of Case B at s=20 mm (c)C-3

3.4 Length effects of geogrids

The stress contours in 2D plane strain condition for
various lengths of the geogrids are shown in Fig.10. The
shapes of high-stress blocks in the foundations reinforced
by geogrids with different lengths (20—80 mm) are re-
markably different. It can be seen from Fig.10(c) and
10(d) that the end of geogrids is not useful for rein-
forcement capacity because it is out of the high-stress
blocks. It can work only if the settlement of foundation (d)C-4

continues developing. Compared with the non-geogrids Fig.10 Stress contours of Case C at s=20 mm

—226—
 CHEN Rong et al: Improved Simulation Method for Soil-Geogrid Interaction of Reinforced Earth Structure in FEM
The effect of geogrids length varies by using a vari-
ety of foundation types, construction methods and soil. It
is suggested that b=2.5B (B is foundation width) is better
for the square foundation[17]. And the results of test show
that b=6B is the best for sand to improve the bearing ca-
pacity of foundation, but it is not obviously different
from b=4B[18]. In this paper, the curves of pressure-
settlement hardly change when the length of geogrids b is
greater than 3B, as shown in Fig.10(b). Reasonable
length of geogrids is a useful research to increase bearing
capacity of foundation.
3.5 Comparison between FEM results and test
The FEM results of bearing capacity of geogrid-
reinforced foundation for different lengths and layers of
geogrids are shown in Fig.11, together with the rein-
forced foundation test results for geogrids SS-20. In
Cases B and C, it can be seen that there is good agree-
ment between the FEM results and test results for the
curves of pressure and settlement. The foundation pres-
sure by FEM analysis is larger than that in the test for the
same settlement. But similar tendency can be seen in
these curves at different layers and lengths of geogrids.
The differences between FEM results and the pullout test
results can be explained as follows. In the case of geogrid
SS-20, the Young’s modulus was simply deduced from
the tensile strength at 5% strain, which would cause some
errors during the deformation processes. The curves of
(a)Case B
(b)Case C
Fig.11 Foundation pressure versus settlement
foundation pressure versus settlement in the FEM analy-
sis exhibit some deviations from the reinforced founda-
tion test results because the elasto-perfect plastic material
model used here cannot simulate soil behavior in the
whole transitional state.
4 Conclusions
An improved simulation method about geogrid-soil
interaction was proposed, which used balls to simulate
the transverse ribs of geogrids, Eulerian elements to
simulate large deformation of soil, and CEL technique.
Then the geogrid-reinforced foundation tests were mod-
eled by this simulation method in ABAQUS. The follow-
ing conclusions are drawn.
(1)Some balls, the height of which can be deduced
by physical sizes and kinds of geogrids, are set at the
place of transverse ribs in the finite element model. It can
successfully produce the same passive resistance as
transverse ribs. And the failure mechanism coincides with
other researchers’ conclusions.
(2)The bearing capacity of foundation can be im-
proved by increasing the layers and length of geogrids.
But it does not obviously increase when the layer number
is greater than 3 and the length of geogrids is greater than
3B (B is foundation width).
(3)The results of FE analysis for reinforced founda-
tion model agree well with the experimental results ob-
tained from geogrid-reinforced foundation test performed
in the laboratory of Dalian University of Technology. It is
shown that this improved method and CEL technique can
be used to simulate the interaction between geogrids and
soil. And the results from analysis can serve as reference
for the design and construction of geogrid-reinforced
earth structure.
References
［1］ Jewell R A, Milligan G W E, Sarsby R W et al. Interaction
between soil and geogrids[C]. In: Proc Symp on Polymer
Grid Reinforcement in Civil Engineering. London, UK,
1985. 18-29.
［2］ Teixeira S H C, Bueno B S, Zornberg J G. Pullout resis-
tance of individual longitudinal and transverse geogrid ribs
[J]. Journal of Geotechnical and Geoenvironmental Engi-
neering, 2007, 133(1): 37-50.
［3］ Chen Rong, Luan Maotian, Zhao Wei et al. Research on
pull-out test and frictional resistance characteristic of
—227—
 Transactions of Tianjin University Vol.17 No.3 2011
geogrids[J]. Rock and Soil Mechanics, 2009, 30(4): 960-
964 (in Chinese).
［4］ Chen R, Luan M T, Zhao W. Experimental study on the
interfacial friction behavior of geogrids in silt mixing rub-
ble[C]. In: Proceedings of the 2nd International Confer-
ence on Geotechnical Engineering for Disaster Mitigation
and Rehabilitation. Nanjing, China, 2008. 1034-1041.
［5］ Phanikumar B R, Prasad Ram, Singh Abhishek.
Compressive load response of geogrid-reinforced fine,
medium and coarse sands[J]. Geotextiles and Geomem-
branes, 2009, 27(3): 183-186.
［6］ Sugimoto M, Alagiyawanna A M N, Kadoguchi K. Influ-
ence of rigid and flexible face on geogrid pullout tests[J].
Geotextiles and Geomembranes, 2001, 19(5): 257-277.
［7］ Rowe R K, Mylleville B L J. Analysis and design of rein-
forced embankments on soft or weak foundations[G]. Bull
J W. Soil-Structure Interaction: Numerical Analysis and
Modeling. 1994. 231-260.
［8］ Moayedi H, Kazemian S, Prasad A et al. Effect of geogrid
reinforcement location in paved road improvement[J].
Electronic Journal of Geotechnical Engineering, 2009, 14.
http://www. ejge. com/2009/Ppr09130/Ppr09130. pdf.
［9］ Laman M, Yildiz A. Numerical studies of ring foundations
on geogrid-reinforced sand[J]. Geosynthetics Interna-
tional, 2007, 14(2): 52-64.
［10］ Miyata Y, Shigehisa S I, Sugano T. Finite element analysis
implemented with particle discretization for dynamic
analysis of reinforced stabilized soil with geogrid[J].
Journal of Geotechnical and Geoenvironmental Engineer-
ing, 2008, 64(4): 746-755.
—228—
［11］ Peng F L, Kotake N, Tatsuoka F et al. Plane strain com-
pression behavior of geogrid-reinforced sand and its nu-
merical analysis[J]. Soils and Foundations, 2000, 40(3):
55-74.
［12］ Peterson L M, Anderson L R. Pullout Resistance of Welded
Wire Mesh Embedded in Soil [R]. Department of Civil
Engineering, University of Utah, Logan, USA, 1980.
［13］ Jewell R A. Soil Reinforcement with Geotextiles[M].
CIRIA and Thomas Telford , London, UK, 1996.
［14］ Tong Longchang. FE Simulation of Bulk Forming Proc-
esses with a Mixed Eulerian-Lagrangian Formulation[D].
Institute of Forming Technology, Swiss Federal Institute of
Technology, Zurich, Switzerland, 1995.
［15］ Yang Qing, Zhang Ke, Luan Maotian et al. Study of model
test on performance of soil foundation reinforced by
geogrids[J]. Journal of Dalian University of Technology,
2006, 46(3): 390-394(in Chinese).
［16］ Ospina R I. An Investigation on the Fundamental Interac-
tion Mechanism of Non-extensible Reinforcement Embed-
ded in Sand[D]. Georgia Institute of Technology, Atlanta,
USA, 1988.
［17］ Guido V A, Biesiadecki G L, Sullivan M J. Bearing capac-
ity of a geotextile reinforced foundation[C]. In: Proceed-
ings of the 11th International Conference SMFE. San Fran-
cisco, USA, 1985. 1777-1780.
［18］ Ju J W. Bearing capacity of sand foundation reinforced by
geonet[C]. In: Proceedings of International Symposium on
Earth Reinforcement. Rotterdam, Netherlands, 1996. 603-
608.