HBRC Journal

ISSN: (Print) (Online) Journal homepage: https://www.tandfonline.com/loi/thbr20

Behavior of Concrete Slabs Reinforced by Different

Geosynthetic Materials

Ahmed M. El-Hanafy, Samiha E. Alharthy & Ahmed M. Anwar

To cite this article: Ahmed M. El-Hanafy, Samiha E. Alharthy & Ahmed M. Anwar (2022) Behavior
of Concrete Slabs Reinforced by Different Geosynthetic Materials, HBRC Journal, 18:1, 107-121,
DOI: 10.1080/16874048.2022.2097363

To link to this article: https://doi.org/10.1080/16874048.2022.2097363

© 2022 The Author(s). Published by Informa

UK Limited, trading as Taylor & Francis
Group.

Published online: 26 Jul 2022.

Submit your article to this journal

Article views: 293

View related articles

View Crossmark data

Full Terms & Conditions of access and use can be found at

https://www.tandfonline.com/action/journalInformation?journalCode=thbr20
HBRC JOURNAL
2022, VOL. 18, NO. 1, 107–121
https://doi.org/10.1080/16874048.2022.2097363

Behavior of Concrete Slabs Reinforced by Different

Geosynthetic Materials
Ahmed M. El-Hanafy, Samiha E. Alharthy and Ahmed M. Anwar
Construction Research Institute, National Water Research Center, Cairo, Egypt

ABSTRACT
This research aims to examine experimentally the behavior of concrete slabs
reinforced by different geosynthetic materials, which would help in assessing
the utilization of geogrids and fibers for concrete structures. Therefore, three
different geogrid sorts and polypropylene fibers were used in reinforcing con­
crete slabs. Six concrete slab specimens having dimensions of 1000 × 1000
x 100 mm (Plain, steel, fiber and geogrid reinforced concrete slabs) were
fabricated and tested under a static bending load. The stress-strain, mid span
deflection, crack pattern, and failure mechanism of the slabs were recorded
during loading. Experimental results of this study prove that reinforcement
using geosynthetic improved the load-carrying capacity, displacement, flexural
strength, and delayed the collapse failure of concrete slabs except Geocell
reinforcement as it reduces failure load compared to plain concrete slab due
to debonding failure.

ARTICLE HISTORY Received 10 April 2022; Revised 4 June 2022; Accepted 29 June 2022

KEYWORDS Flexural strength; Load-deflection; Stress-strain; geogrids; debonding; reinforcement;

geosynthetics

Introduction
Geogrids are one of the polymeric materials classified under geosynthetics
materials consisting of parallel arrangements of connected tensile ribs with
openings of satisfactory measure to permit strike-through of surrounding
geotechnical material [1]. Geogrids have been typically utilized in earthen
structures such as pavements, embankments and shallow foundations. The
essential work of geogrids is to supply fortification to earth structures. While
unbound granular geo-materials ordinarily cannot withstand tension, the use
of the geogrid reinforcement gives resistance to particle movement [2].
Geosynthetics have widely been used in geotechnical applications. They are
utilized as reinforcement elements to achieve stabilization of soil. Geogrids
have been successfully utilized to improve delicate subgrades and give

CONTACT Samiha E. Alharthy samiha_emam@hotmail.com Construction Research Institute,

National Water Research Center, Cairo, Egypt
© 2022 The Author(s). Published by Informa UK Limited, trading as Taylor & Francis Group.
This is an Open Access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License (http://
creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/), which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium,
provided the original work is properly cited.
108 A. M. EL-HANAFY ET AL.

a development stage over them [3,4]. Khadaii et al. studied using geogrids as
interlayers to relieve intelligent cracking in black top overlays of jointed plain
concrete (JPC).
The utilization of Geosynthetics in concrete sets another way for applying
geogrid in structural engineering [5]. Geogrid reinforcement
increases flexural strength of slabs and beams compared to conventional
reinforcement [6]. Geosynthetic can be also reasonable for reinforcing of the
brick work buildings against out-of-plane bowing amid a seismic tremor
due to low cost and accessibility [7]. Geogrid reinforcement can be used in
thin Portland cement concrete (PCC) members and overlays in pavements
and other structures where steel reinforcement cannot be set due to con­
structability and strength impediments [8]. Such restrictions incorporate
physical limitations of setting the strengthening steel bars in thin sections,
such as concrete overlays, and ultra-thin white-toppings. Subsequently, the
requirement emerges for choices to supplant the reinforcing steel bars,
including the fiber reinforced polymer (FRP) composites that have been
extensively investigated as a viable alternative. The utilization of geogrids in
beams can give post-cracking ductility and increment in load capacity [9].
The utilization of steel rebars and geogrids as a hybrid reinforcing material
for concrete slabs gives a higher first-crack load, a greater ultimate load, and
increase deflection values comparing to steel rebars reinforcement [10].
Geogrids are expected to have better performance if they are a hybrid
with a moderate reinforcing ratio of the steel bars [11]. Mustafa et al.
studied that effect of geogrid layer of the performance of reinforced con­
crete slabs and concluded that geogrids layers lead to increasing in post
cracking stiffness of concrete slabs [12]. Geogrid reinforcement specimen
exhibits significant deformation after the initial cracking and before ulti­
mate failure [13]. The use of biaxial and uniaxial geogrid increases ductility
of concrete member [14]. Geosynthetic can be also suitable for strengthen­
ing of the masonry buildings against out-of-plane bending during an earth­
quake due to low cost, ready availability and high strength [7]. Masonry
buildings can be also well protected by using geosynthetic as base isola­
tion [15].

Aim of Study
Still, there is an effort to be made to understand the behavior of using
alternate reinforcement materials. Therefore, the aim of this research is to
analyze the structural behavior for normal strength concrete slab specimens
subjected to monotonic loading. The experimental program consists of six
simply supported slab reinforced with different types of reinforcement. The
structural response of each is compared to that of plain concrete specimen to
quantify the benefits gained from such reinforcement. Aspects of the
 HBRC JOURNAL 109

behavior evaluated include the maximum load capacity, displacement, stress-

strain, flexural strength, energy dissipation behavior, crack pattern and failure
mechanism.

Experimental Work
Concrete Materials and mix proportioning
Ordinary Portland Cement of CEM I 42.5 N was used. Crushed dolomite with
a maximum nominal size of 10 mm was utilized as coarse aggregate. Natural
sand was utilized as fine aggregate. The water to cement ratio used in this
concrete mixture was 0.50. The concrete mixture has a 28-days compressive
strength of 30 MPa. The proportions of Normal vibrated concrete (NVC)
mixture are shown in Table (1).

Types of used Steel Reinforcement, Geosynthetic, and Fibers

The used concrete reinforcement materials in this research were steel bars,
biaxial geogrids, and Polypropylene Fiber. The reinforcement steel bar’s
diameter was 10 mm. Three different types of biaxial geogrids are shown in
Figure 1, (a) Geocell (GG-9), (b) Biaxial geogrid Tenax type (LB0-440), and (c)
Biaxial geogrid, Secugrid type. In addition, Polypropylene Fiber type with 13
micron diameter and 15 mm length was used as reinforcement for concrete
slabs as shown in Figure 2.

Table 1. Mixture Proportions of NVC.

Crushed dolomite
Cement kg/m3 Water kg/m3 kg/m3 Sand kg/m3 w/c
400 200 1151 577 0.5

(a) Geocell (b) Tenax geogrid (c) Secugrid

Figure 1. Types of Geogrids.

110 A. M. EL-HANAFY ET AL.

Figure 2. Polypropylene Fiber Type.

Figure 3. Testing Geogrid using multi rib tensile method.

Figure 3 shows the geogrid types during testing process using multi
rib tensile method. It can be noticed that, there are variations in the
aperture geometry, dimensions and physical properties between the
three types of geogrids. The ultimate tensile strength for each geogrid
type was experimentally obtained using UTM machine according to [16].
This test strategy includes the determination of the tensile strength of
geogrids by subjecting strips of varying width to tensile loading, as
shown in Figure 4. The physical and mechanical properties for each
geogrid type are summarized in Table 2. The dose of Polypropylene
fiber was 3% by weight of cement content.

Casting and curing specimens

Six slab specimens were cast on the same day. Wooden molds of inner
dimensions 1000 × 1000 x 100 mm were used to cast the specimens.
First, the concrete was poured to a thick layer of 30 mm. Then, for
geogrid slabs, geogrid layer having dimensions of 900 × 900 mm were
 HBRC JOURNAL 111

80

70 Secugrid Type
Tenax Type
60
Force (kN/m) Geocell Type
50

40

30

20

10

0
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80
Strain %

Figure 4. Force-Strain for Tested Three Geogrid Types.

Table 2. Physical and Mechanical Properties of Geogrids.

Geogrid type
Properties Secugrid Tenax Geocell
Material Polypropylene Polypropylene HDPE
Unit weight, MD (kg/m2) 0.48 0.25 1.18
Aperture size, MD (mm) 36 32 250x210
Aperture size, TD (mm) 34 32 250x210
Ultimate tensile strength, MD (kN/m2) 46 49 14.50
Strength at 2% strain, MD (kN/m2) 15 16 5
Strength at 5% strain, MD (kN/m2) 31 32 10
Note: MD is the machine direction; TD is the transverse direction. HDPE is high density polyethylene

(a) Tenax geogrid (b) Geocell (c) Secugrid

Figure 5. Slabs reinforcement with different geogrid types.

112 A. M. EL-HANAFY ET AL.

Table 3. List of Investigated slabs.

Slab Reinforcement Case #
Plain Concrete (S1)
Steel bars 5 Φ 12 /m (S2)
Tenax geogrid (S3)
BI-1-2
BI-1-3
Secugrid (S4)
BI-2-2
BI-2-3
Geocell (S5)
Polypropylene Fiber (S6)

put on the top of concrete layer, followed by pouring more concrete to

completely fill the mold, Figure 5. The specimens were cured after 24 hrs
from the casting and continued for 28 days. The curing process was
conducted by gathering all the specimens at the same place in the
laboratory. This was to guarantee that the specimens were being
exposed to the same environmental curing conditions. During the curing
process, the specimens were covered with one hessian blanket to prevent
or reduce losing moisture from the concrete. Specimens with the hessian
cover were wetted using clean water until the curing time finished. After
the curing process stopped the samples continued for one month before
testing for more bonds between the materials. Table (3) represents the
list of the designed slabs.

Testing setup and measurement procedure

The 28 days average compressive strength of testing 3 standard cubes (150
x 150 × 150 mm) for NVC mixture was 30 MPa, while the average indirect tensile
strength (splitting strength) for 3 cylinders (150 x 300 mm) was 2.30 MPa. The
concrete slabs were subjected to flexural testing according to [17]. The slabs were
supported on two sides to be simulated the behavior of one-way slab based on
the test setup shown in Figure 6. The slab dimensions were determinate to be
according to ECP-203 (2018), (item (6-2-5-3). A loading frame was utilized to
apply loads on a simple slab with a configuration of monotonic loading. Three
vertical LVDTs were fixed on the slab to measure vertical displacement. Two

Figure 6. Typical Section Showing Geogrid, Load, and LVDTs Locations.

 HBRC JOURNAL 113

Figure 7. Strain Gauge Locations of Slabs Specimens.

LVDTs were fixed on the upper face of the slab just over the supports while the
third was fixed at mid-span of the slab, Figure 6. Strain gauge attached directly on
top surface of concrete slab specimens at the mid span at compression zone as
shown in Figure 7. The contact area between the load cell and the slab was
300 mm × 300 mm steel plate applied directly in the center of each slab. In order
to record the reading for load cell, strain gauge and LVDT readings were taken at
the same time during loading; all the measurement devices were connected to
data logger then to the digital strain meter. Figure 8 shows a photo of specimen
describing test setup with different measurement devices.

Results and Analysis

Load – deflection Behavior
The load versus vertical mid span deflection curves, for the tested slabs with
different configurations are shown in Figures 9–13. The PC slab failed sud­
denly in a brittle way immediately after the maximum load was reached as

Piston
LVDT

LVDT
Load cell

Figure 8. Photo Describing Testing and Instrumentations Setup of slabs.

114 A. M. EL-HANAFY ET AL.

45
40
35
30
Load (kN) 25
20
15
10
Plain concrete
5
0
0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1 1.2 1.4 1.6 1.8 2
Displacment (mm)

Figure 9. Load-Deflection for PC slab.

45
40
35
30
25
Load (kN)

20
15
10 Plain concrete
5 Fiber concrete
0
0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1 1.2 1.4 1.6 1.8 2
Displacment (mm)

Figure 10. Load-Deflection for PC and Fiber concrete slabs.

shown in Figure 9. For the fiber reinforced slab, the failure load was slightly
increased by 7.7% as indicated in Figure 10. The incorporation of geogrids
(Tenax and Secugrid) in the slab allowed for developing a secondary crack
after the primary crack, which in return increased the failure load of the slabs
by 16.67% and 66.6% respectively as indicated in Figure 11. Also, embedding
geogrids in the plain concrete delays the collapse failure of the concrete. The
inclusion of Geocell leads to a sudden drop in the load which is mainly
attributed to the weak bond at geocell-concrete interface as the cracks
expand horizontally, leading to debonding, and extend vertically to the
compression zone causing the total failure, Figure 12. There is a great differ­
ence in behavior and failure load between steel and geogrid reinforcement as
illustrated in Figure 13. The load-displacement curves for the plain concrete,
 HBRC JOURNAL 115

60

50

40
Load (kN)
30

20
Plain concrete
10 Tenax geogrid concrete
Secugrid concrete
0
0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14
Displacment (mm)

Figure 11. Load-Deflection for PC, Tenax, and Secugrid concrete slabs.

45
40
35
30
Load (kN)

25
20
15
10
Plain concrete
5 Geocell concrete
0
0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1 1.2 1.4 1.6 1.8 2
Displacment (mm)

Figure 12. Load-Deflection for PC and Geocell concrete slabs.

fiber concrete, geogrid reinforced concrete, and steel rebars reinforced con­
crete are shown in Figure 14. It can be also noticed that geocell concrete give
the least failure load. There is no great difference in failure load noticed in
fiber and plain concrete.

Stress-strain Behavior
The characteristic stress–strain curves for the plain concrete, fiber concrete,
geogrid reinforced concrete, and steel rebars reinforced concrete are shown
in Figure 15.
It could be noticed that the plain concrete, fiber concrete, and
geocell reinforced concrete slabs reached their yield strain approxi­
mately at the post-peak load, while the secugrid, tenax, and steel rebars
reinforced concrete slabs reached their yield strain after the post-peak
116 A. M. EL-HANAFY ET AL.

140

120

100

80
Load (kN)

60
Tenax geogrid concrete
40
Secugrid concrete
20 Geocell concrete
Reinforced concrete
0
0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40
Displacment (mm)

Figure 13. Load-Deflection for RC and different types of geogrid reinforced concrete
slabs.

140

120

100

80
Load (KN)

60 Plain concrete
Tenax geogrid concrete
40 Secugrid concrete
Geocell concrete
Steel reinforced concrete
20
Fiber concrete
0
0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40
Displacment (mm)

Figure 14. Load-Deflection for PC, RC, and fiber concrete and different types of geogrid
reinforced concrete slabs.

load. The examination of the created strain behavior will offer assistance
in understanding the flexural behavior and the viability of fiber and
geogrids as reinforcement for concrete slabs. For geogrid (tenax and
secugrid) and steel rebars reinforcement, after applying the flexural load
before the first crack, the tensile force is carried by concrete and steel.
The strain values for all slabs increased step by step until the load
comes to the first-crack load (initial-peak load). After the first-crack
(load-drop), a rapid increase of the strain values occurred till the failure
load. The use of geogrids (Tenax and Secugrid) in the slab increases the
strain value by 35.7% and 57% respectively compared with plain con­
crete as indicated in Figure 12. Embedding Geocell leads to a decrease
 HBRC JOURNAL 117

140

120
plain concrete
100 Tenax geogrid concrete
Secugrid concrete
Reinforced concrete
80 Geocell concrete
Stress (kN/m2)

Fiber concrete
60

40

20

0
0 20 40 60 80 100 120 140 160
Strain x 10^6

Figure 15. Stress-strain for PC, RC, and fiber concrete and different types of geogrid
reinforced concrete slabs.

in the strain by 20% compared with plain concrete. Using fiber in the
concrete mixture increases the strain by 11% compared with plain
concrete.

Flexural strength
Flexural strength is expressed as Modulus of Rupture R, and it is calculated
according to ASTM C 78 using the following formula:
R = 3PL/2bd2
Where P is the max load measured in kN; L is the span length of 1000 mm;
b is the specimen width of 1000 mm; and d is the specimen height of 100 mm.
The results are shown in Figure 16.
It can be noticed that using fiber and geogrid for reinforcing slabs
compared with plain concrete enhanced the flexural strength gradually
by 7.7%, 16.67% and 66.6% when using fiber, tenax and secugrid,
respectively. Fiber and geogrid are not suitable as an alternative to
reinforced concrete because there is a high difference in result values.
The obtained results, Table 4 reported that, using fiber and geogrid
except geocell type reinforcement as an elective to plain concrete
provides a ductile post cracking behavior, high fracture energy, high
flexural strength, and large deflection values. The flexural strength
results were confirmed with the results of displacement.
118 A. M. EL-HANAFY ET AL.

20000
18000

Flexural Strength (kpa)

16000
14000
12000
10000
8000
6000
4000
2000
0
S1 S2 S3 S4 S5 S6
Slab Code

Figure 16. Flexural strength of the tested slabs.

Table 4. Flexural Test Results for slabs.

Slab Results S1 S2 S3 S4 S5 S6
First crack load (kN) 36 43.5 25 29 38 20
Post peak load (kN) 35 129.4 39.50 58 37.255 15
Failure (Max.) Load (kN) 36 132 42 60 38 20
Min. Load (kN) 6.64 16.6 13.23 12 7 4
Max. Deflection (mm) 1 34 10 13 0.7 2.5
Strain *10^6 72 140 95 110 80 60
Flexural Strength (kPa) 5400 19,950 6300 9000 5700 3000.

Energy Dissipation Behavior

Energy dissipation was calculated based on the area enclosed by the
load-deflection curve [18]. The behavior of the tested slabs under flex­
ure has also been compared in the form of energy dissipation capacity,
which was calculated as the area under its load-deflection curves in
Figure 14. The energy dissipation capacities increased by 50%, 142%,
and 210% for fiber, tenax and secugrid concrete slabs respectively,
compared to the concrete control slab with a positive correlation to
the tensile strength of biaxial geogrids, while it decreased by a percent
equal to 60% for geocell concrete slab compared to the concrete
control slab. It should be highlighted that: secugrid reinforcement pro­
vided a higher increase of the energy dissipation capacity compared
with plain concrete, tenax and geocell reinforcement and fiber concrete
but still there is a big difference between it and steel rebar’s
reinforcement.
 HBRC JOURNAL 119

Figure17. Crack Patterns and Failure Mode of the Tested Slabs.

Crack Pattern and Failure mechanism

In all concrete slabs tested in this research, flexural cracks were formed, and
no shear cracks were noticed. Figure 17 shows the slabs’ crack patterns. For
geogrid slabs, no cutting occurred in the geogrids’ ribs and the tensile forces
were created firstly at the bottom chord within the concrete in the tension
zone and these need to be exchanged to the internal bonded geogrid
reinforcement. Consequently, Tenax and secugrid slabs showed initially flex­
ural cracks occurred at the maximum negative moment region, parallel to the
120 A. M. EL-HANAFY ET AL.

support line. As the load was expanded, extra flexural cracks formed and
became wider. The main cracks occur at the center. Mostly, the failure
initiated by the development of crack from tension zone, and extended up
to compression zone before reaching to failure. These cracks usually start
from the bottom of applied load, which indicates flexural failure. Therefore, it
is noticed that the application of geogrid in the tension zone of concrete slabs
enhanced its flexure strength. For Geocell slab, failure was slightly sudden
and a premature debonding failure is noticed. For the PC slab and fiber
concrete, only one crack was formed and increased gradually until the failure
occurred. It can be also noticed, during the monitoring of the test that the
formation of cracks in geogrid (Tenax and secugrid) reinforced concrete
specimen took a long time. This increase in the testing time illustrates the
feasibility of using the geogrid as a crack-propagation resisting layer.
From the above results it can be concluded that geogrid and fibers can
only be used as an improvement to PC not as RC replacement. The concrete
structures that would have an improved behavior by using geogrid are slab
on grade, road pavements, and runoff of airports.

Conclusion
Six concrete slabs were tested under static loads. Based on the obtained
results, the following conclusions are drawn:

(1) The experimental results insure that the geogrid reinforcement can
delay the initiation and propagation of cracks in the concrete; more­
over, modes of failure are clearly affected by the geogrid before the
failure takes place.
(2) Geogrid reinforcement improved the ductility of the studied samples
compared to plain concrete.
(3) Geocell material is not recommended for slab reinforcement as it
reduced the ductility and the failure load of concrete due to the
observed debonding failure mode.
(4) From visual inspection during the test, it can be noticed that the plain
concrete slab’s failure load is equal to the first crack load while the failure
load of the geogrid slabs is greater than its first crack load as shown in
Table 4, as a result the geogrid engaged a larger portion of the concrete
slab in carrying and redistributing the load after cracks initiated.
(5) Compared to a single crack in the plain concrete slab in this study,
a secondary crack was produced in the geogrid slabs.
(6) Fiber reinforcement slab slightly improves the failure load compared to
the plain concrete.
 HBRC JOURNAL 121

Disclosure statement
No potential conflict of interest was reported by the author(s).

References
1. Koerner RM. Designing With Geosynthetics. Fourth ed. Upper Saddle River New
Jersey: Prentice Hall; 1998.
2. Tang X, Palomino AM, Stoffels SM. Reinforcement tensile behavior under cyclic
moving wheel loads. Transp Res Rec. 2013;2363(1):113–121.
3. Santoni RL, Smith CJ, Tingle JS, et al. Expedient road construction over soft soils.
Technical Report TR-01-7. Vicksburg, MS: U.S. Army Engineer Research and
Development Center, Waterways Experiment Station; 2001
4. Khodaii A, Fallah S, Nejad FM. Effects of geosynthetics on reduction of reflection
cracking in asphalt overlay. Geotext Geomembr. 2009;27(1):1–8.
5. Maxwell S, Kim W, Edil TB, et al. Effectiveness of geosynthetics in stabilizing soft
subgrades. Final Rep. No. 0092- 45-15. Madison,WI: Dept. of Civil and
Environmental Engineering, Univ. of Wisconsin-Madison; 2005.
6. Kakade AK, Patil KS. Experimental studies on response of geogrid in concrete
structure. Ijsart. 2019;5(11):1052–2395.
7. Ali Khan H, Prasad Nanda R. Out-of-plane bending of masonry wallette
strengthened with geosynthetic. Constr Build Mater. 2020;231:117198.
8. Tang X, Chehab GR, Kim S. Laboratory study of geogrid reinforcement in
Portland cement concrete. 6th RILEM Conf. on Cracking in Pavements,
Pavement Cracking Mechanisms, Modeling, Detection, Testing, and Case
Histories. London: RILEM, Taylor and Francis Group; 2008:769–778.
9. Chidambaram RS, Agarwal P. Flexural and shear behavior of geo-grid confined RC
beams with steel fiber reinforced concrete. Constr Build Mater. 2015;78:271–280.
10. Mohamed RNA, El Sebai AM, Gabr ASA-H. Flexural behavior of reinforced
concrete slabs reinforced with innovative hybrid reinforcement of geogrids
and steel bars. Buildings. 2020;10(9):161.
11. Mohamed RNA, El Sebai AM, Gabr ASA-H. Simple design methodology for R.
C. slabs by hybrid reinforcing of steel rebars and uniaxial or triaxial geogrids.
Inventions. 2021;6(2):32.
12. Ahmed Yousif M, Shahada Mahmoud K, Abd Hacheem Z, et al., “Effect of geogrid
on the structural behavior of reinforced concrete beams”, 2nd International
Conference for Civil Engineering Science (ICCES 2021), March 2021.
13. Tang X, Higgins I, Jlilati Mohamad N. Behavior of geogrid-reinforced portland
cement concrete under static flexural loading. Infrastruct J. 2018;3(4).
14. Shobana S, Yalamesh G. Experimental study of concrete beams reinforced with
uniaxial and biaxial geogrids. Int J Chem Tech Res. 2015;8(3):1290–1295.
15. Nanda RP, Agarwal P, Shrikhande M. Base isolation by geosynthetic for brick
masonry buildings. J Vib Control. 2012;18(6):903–910.
16. American Society for Testing and Materials (ASTM D 6637). Standard Test
Method for Determining Tensile Properties of Geogrids, by the Multi-Rib
Tensile Meth; 2011.
17. ASTM. Standard test method for flexural strength of concrete (using simple
prism with third-point loading); 2009:C78–09.
18. Sivakamasundari S, Daniel AJ, Kumar. A Study on flexural behavior of steel fiber
RC beams confined with biaxial geo-grid. Procedia Eng. 2017;173:1431.