Geotextiles and Geomembranes 48 (2020) 71–81

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Geotextiles and Geomembranes

journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/geotexmem

Pullout behavior of geocell reinforcement in cohesionless soils T

Adem Isik, Ayhan Gurbuz ∗

Faculty of Engineering, Department of Civil Engineering, Gazi University, Ankara, 06570, Turkey

ARTICLE INFO ABSTRACT

Keywords: Large-scale laboratory equipment was developed to assess interaction between soil and 3-D honeycomb shaped
Geosynthetics geocell reinforcement under normal and interface shear stress. An understanding of this interaction is vital in
Geocell assessing mechanical behavior of geocell-reinforced soil mass. Specifically, the equipment allows evaluation of
Pullout the load transfer mechanism with the measurements of strains, displacements and loads, including friction and
Theoretical analysis
passive resistance on the side surfaces and inside the cells of geocell reinforcement. Additionally, the device
visually presents sequence of movement response of each reinforcing cell in the direction of the pulling force,
thereby showing the contribution of each cell to the total capacity. Overall, it is concluded that the pullout
capacity of geocell reinforcement in cohesionless soils is limited to the seam peel strength at junctions of
longitudinal and transverse of geocell strips, which creates the cells in layout of geocell reinforcement. Finally, a
theoretical approach was established to predict the pullout capacity of geocell-reinforced soil mass.

1. Introduction forming bases for embankments fills and sloped retaining walls. The 3-
D shape of geocell materials have the advantage of accommodating
Soil mass reinforced with geosynthetics materials has been widely large particles inside the cells, as well as providing large anchorage
recognized as an established method in the design of geotechnical capacity in soils.
structures such as; reinforced slopes, channel bed liners, increasing The behavior of reinforced soil structures is mainly governed by
bearing capacity of soft soils or footings and constraining lateral interaction mechanism that develop between the reinforcement addi-
movement of structures. The use of soil reinforced with geosynthetics tions and soils. The load transfer due to the interaction between the
materials has been discussed by many researchers (Dyer, 1985; reinforcement and soil results in making the reinforced soil mass to act
Palmeira and Milligan, 1989; Fannin and Raju, 1993; Alfaro et al., as a composite in resisting the applied loads. However, load transfer
1995; Lopes and Ladeira, 1996; Ochiai et al., 1996; Lopes and Lopes, mechanism of geocell reinforcement as a tensile material in soils has
1999; Dash et al., 2001; Dash et al., 2003; Chen and Chiu, 2008; been quite limited (Kiyota et al., 2009; Mohidin and Alfaro, 2011; Han
Lamberta et al., 2011; Gurbuz and Mertol, 2012; Gurbuz, 2012; Chen et al., 2013; Manju and Latha, 2013; Han, 2014; Haussner et al., 2016;
et al., 2013; Biabani and Indraratna, 2015; Biabani et al., 2016; Isik and Gurbuz, 2018; Mehrjardi and Motarjemi, 2018) due to more
Mehrjardi and Khazaei, 2017; Song et al., 2017; Correia and Zornberg, complex interaction mechanisms between soil and geocell reinforce-
2018; King et al., 2018; Rahimi et al., 2018; Venkateswarlu et al., 2019; ments and is still under consideration unlike other geosynthetic mate-
Rowe and Yu, 2019). rials.
A lack of suitable soils in terms of quality and quantity in urban In evaluating the pullout resistance of geocell reinforcement the
areas has resulted in the design of new reinforcing elements by re- total pullout load is commonly calculated as a sum of friction and
searchers (Zhang et al., 2006; Teixeira et al., 2007; Khedkar and passive resistance developed along the side surfaces and inside the cells
Mandal, 2009; Horpibulsuk et al., 2011; Suksiripattanapong et al., of the geocell reinforcement, respectively. This interaction between
2013; Mosallanezhad et al., 2016; Horpibulsuk et al., 2017; mechanisms not yet well understood nor has it been quantified. Hence,
Mosallanezhad et al., 2017; Shen et al., 2019; Morsy et al., 2019). a large-scale laboratory equipment with instrumentation in this study
Geocell is one such new form of geosynthetic reinforcing materials with was developed to assess the interaction between soil and geocell re-
3-D honeycomb shaped structure. It is made from polymeric strips ul- inforcement under both different vertical normal and horizontal shear
trasonically welded or new polymeric alloy (NPA) materials. It has been stress conditions. Overall, the device allows the visualization of se-
extensively employed in several geotechnical applications such as quence of movement response of each cell in the layout of geocell

∗
Corresponding author.
E-mail address: gurbuzayhan@yahoo.com (A. Gurbuz).

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.geotexmem.2019.103506
Received 17 June 2019; Received in revised form 16 August 2019; Accepted 21 August 2019
Available online 22 September 2019
0266-1144/ © 2019 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
A. Isik and A. Gurbuz Geotextiles and Geomembranes 48 (2020) 71–81

assessment of the interaction between soil and geocell materials. The

soil-geocell interaction device was extensively instrumented to deliver
full evaluation of behavior of the reinforced soil mass, including: (1)
evaluation of the effect of the friction developing along the side surfaces
of cells in the geocell layout; (2) assessment of the effect of the passive
resistance developing inside the cells in the layout of geocell re-
inforcement; (3) visualization of sequence of movement response of
each cell in the layout of geocell reinforcement in the direction of the
pulling force to determine the contribution of each cell to the total
pullout capacity; (4) quantifying the effects of stiffness of geocell-re-
inforced soil mass to the pullout capacity; (5) evaluating the unit ten-
sion in the reinforcement with time; (6) measuring the normal stress on
the top of geocell reinforcement and pullout resistance.
The instrumentations used for the soil-geocell interaction device
include: (1) a compression type load cell to monitor the actual normal
pressure applied on top of the reinforced soil mass throughout testing;
(2) a tensile type load cell to measure the pullout loads; (3) a com-
pression type of mini earth pressure cell to measure the actual normal
pressure on the top of the geocell reinforcement throughout testing; (4)
Fig. 1. General layout of the soil-geocell interaction equipment setup. strain gauges placed on the side surfaces of the cells of geocell re-
inforcement to measure the strains during testing; (5) linear potenti-
reinforcement from frontal face of device throughout the length of the ometers (LDVT) to monitor the displacement of each cell of geocell
geocell reinforcement via help of the measurements of displacements reinforcement in the direction of pullout load; (6) data logger system to
with time in order to measure the contribution of each cell to the total transfer digital data to computer.
pullout capacity (Isik and Gurbuz, 2018). In addition, the pullout tests
in this study focus on assessing the effects of physical dimensions 2.1. Reinforced soil box
(height, length and width), number of the cells, layout configuration of
geocell reinforcement and rigidity of geocell reinforcement on the be- Laboratory pullout tests have been commonly used to assess the
havior of soil-geocell structure interaction. This paper describes the interaction behavior of soil-geosynthetic reinforcements. Many current
testing approach and the newly developed equipment used to assess the pullout test laboratory devices have been developed for planar re-
interaction mechanisms between soil and geocell reinforcement via the inforcements such as; geogrids, geomembranes and geotextiles (ASTM
measurements of strain, displacement and load. Finally, a theoretical D6706-01). The current laboratory pullout tests to evaluate the inter-
approach was established to predict the capacity of soil-mass in terms of action between geocell reinforcement and soil do not have ability to
friction and passive resistance along the side surface and inside the cell fully model the complex behavior of soil-geocell interaction due to the
of geocell reinforcement. Lastly, typical test results are presented to 3-D configuration of geocell reinforcement. Therefore, a special testing
illustrate the capabilities of this proposed testing approach. apparatus is required. The characteristics of soil-geocell material in-
teraction testing equipment developed as a part of this study are mainly
2. Testing equipment, instrumentation and materials based on those of large-scale pullout devices (ASTM D6706-01). Con-
sidering the relevant literature on box dimensions, the newly developed
A schematic layout of the soil-geocell material interaction testing soil-geocell interaction device presented in Fig. 2 was eventually as-
equipment developed as a part of this study is presented in Fig. 1. Its sembled with dimensions of 1500 mm in length, 1000 mm in width, and
characteristics are mainly based on large-scale pullout devices for 750 mm in height to assess the interaction between soil and 3-D hon-
geogrid material (Roodi and Zornberg, 2017; Taghavi and eycomb shaped geocell reinforcement under normal and interface shear
Mosallanezhad, 2017; Shen et al., 2019; Morsy et al., 2019). A unique stress. A more precise general view of the reinforced box is presented in
feature of this experimental system with its large sieve size is its ability Fig. 3. The developed pullout test apparatus consists of a rigid pullout
to both accommodate thicker reinforcement materials and enable box, rigid vertical reaction columns, horizontal load application system,

Fig. 2. Schematic diagram of pullout test equipment with instrumentations.

72
A. Isik and A. Gurbuz Geotextiles and Geomembranes 48 (2020) 71–81

include load cells, mini earth pressure cell, linear potentiometers

(LDVT) and data logger system. Load cells with a capacity of 200 kN for
compression-type and 50 kN for tensile-type were used to measure the
normal applied and pullout load, respectively. A miniature compression
type of pressure cell, that is 1.3 mm thick and 50 mm in diameter with a
capacity of 500 kPa, was placed on the geocell reinforcement to mea-
sure the stress on the top of geocell reinforcement. Linear potenti-
ometers with a stroke capacity of 100 mm were attached to both the
cells of geocell reinforcements and on the clamp system to measure the
magnitude of displacements along the length of geocell reinforcement
in the direction of pullout load and clamp, respectively, during the
testing (Fig. 2).
The strain gauges in the direction of pullout were attached at the
middle part of side surfaces of cells in the layout geocell reinforcement
as shown in Fig. 4 to measure the strain on the side of each cell to
estimate the friction forces along the specimen using the strain-stress
curves of the geocell reinforcements. The surface of the geocell was
rubbed with abrasive paper and cleaned before the attaching strain
gauges to the side surfaces of the geocell reinforcement. An industrial
adhesive, applicable for extendable reinforcement, was applied on the
side surface of each cell before attachment of the strain gauges. The
strain gauges were covered with foam rubber to protect against any
damage in the soil throughout test condition. Hence, based on both
magnitudes of the measured value of strain of each cell and strain-stress
curve of geocell reinforcement friction force developed on the side
surfaces of cells in the direction of pullout were determined. Calibra-
tions of all instrumentations used in the tests were carried out and
Fig. 3. A more precise view of pullout test equipment.
checked before the test program and before each test in order to
maintain uniformity for all tests before the instrumentations were
special clamping system and instrumentation. A 10 mm thick steel plate connected to a computer via an electronic data logger in order to record
with reaction steel bars was used to apply uniform normal stress on the each measurement digitally.
surface of soil. The sides and bottom of box were made of 10 mm thick
steel plates and welded at the edges in order to increase the its rigidity 2.3. Materials
to prevent undesirable deformations. The box was lined with teflon
color to minimize friction inside the sidewalls of reinforced soil box. The infill material used in the test was classified as poorly graded
Normal stress, chosen based on the strength of reinforcement, was sand (SP) according to Unified Soil Classification System (USCS) (ASTM
applied to the stiffened steel cover on the top of the soil until the target D2487-11). The basic measured properties of the sand are summarized
normal stress was reached. The applied normal stress was kept uniform in Table 1. The height of sand raining and hand tamped technique used
and constant throughout testing with a set of hydraulic jacks that react to achieve a uniform relative soil density was determined by performing
against the rigid reaction columns to transfer the vertical load to the a series of trial tests. The infill material in test tank was placed in lifts of
steel plate (Fig. 2). In tests, the normal stress was locked via valve of 100 mm thick and gently hand tamped until satisfying relative density
hydraulic jack before allowing horizontal pullout. According to ASTM (Dr) of 50%, which corresponds to a dry unit weight of 16.11 kN/m3
D6706, the pullout force should be applied at a constant displacement and void ratio of 0.57. The relative density of each compacted layer was
rate of 1 mm/min ± 10%. Therefore, a constant rate of displacement checked via sand cone method (ASTM D1556) in order to assure that a
used in this study conforms ASTM D6706 to minimize the displacement variation in relative density is within a range of ± %1–2. The internal
rate effect (Tzong and Cheng-Kuang, 1987; Fannin and Raju, 1993; friction angle of 39° at relative density of 50% of the infill material in
Farrag et al., 1993). The applied normal stresses of 10.12 kPa, the test tank was measured through a set of direct shear tests on spe-
18.10 kPa and 31.40 kPa were measured via mini compression type of cimens with dimensions of 60 mm in length, 60 mm in width and
earth pressure cell located at the top of geocell reinforcement in the 40 mm in height under normal stress of 50, 100 and 200 kPa. However,
cohesionless soil. the internal friction angle of soil inside the cell of geocell reinforcement
Considering the relevant literature (Farrag et al., 1993; Lopes and was found to be 33° at relative density of 45% of soil, due to difficulty in
Ladeira, 1996; Palmeira and Milligan, 1989; Chang et al., 2000; the compaction near the cell edges.
Moracia and Recalcati, 2006), an opening in the middle of the side of The geocell reinforcement was made from polymeric strips ultra-
reinforced soil box houses a sleeve having a capability of holding the sonically welded to forms a 3-D honeycomb shaped structure. In order
cells of geocell reinforcement was chosen 200 mm with the height and to assess the effect of rigidity of geocell materials, two types of geocell
width of sleeve that is controlled by an adjustable sleeve, ranges from a reinforcements with modulus of 2295 kN/m and 1924 kN/m at yield
120 mm–620 mm, respectively. The pullout device has a clamp to at- named as material 1 and material 2 were used. The strength properties
tach the geocell to the pulling system tightly without slipping, breaking and measured stress-strain relation determined from both the tensile
or weakening, and keeping geocell reinforcement horizontally and peeling test were obtained in accordance with Cancelli et al. (1993)
throughout the testing (Fig. 4). Preserving accurate alignment is im- and are presented in Table 2 and Fig. 5. The cell dimensions of geocell
portant to both permit constant tensile loading on the reinforcement were 170 mm in length and 130 mm in width with heights of 100 mm
layer and to avoid generation of moments in the clamping system. and 150 mm as shown in Fig. 4.
The strain gauges and four linear potentiometers (LDVT) were
2.2. Instrumentations placed in pre-defined positions on the geocell reinforcement before the
geocell reinforcement was positioned in the middle of the box. The rest
The instrumentations used for the soil-geocell interaction device of the box was filled with soil with a relative density of 50%. Finally,

73
A. Isik and A. Gurbuz Geotextiles and Geomembranes 48 (2020) 71–81

Fig. 4. A general view of clamp system and position of strain gauge on the side surfaces of cells of geocell reinforcement.

Table 1
The basic properties of sand.
Average particle size, D50 (mm) 1.6
Coefficient of gradation, Cc 1.1
Coefficient of uniformity, Cu 3.2
Particle diameter corresponding to 85% finer, D85 (mm) 3.3
Maximum particle size, Dmax (mm) 5.0
Specific gravity, Gs (ASTM D854-14) 2.64
Dry unit weight at Dr of 50% 16.11
Maximum dry unit weights (kN/m3) (ASTM D4254–16) 18.10
Minimum dry unit weights (kN/m3) (ASTM D4254–16) 14.52
Internal friction angle (φ') at Dr of 50% 390
Internal friction angle (φ′) at Dr of 45% 330
Maximum void, emax 0.79
Minimum void, emin 0.43

Table 2
Properties of geocell reinforcements.
Geocell Material 1 Material 2

Pocket width (bi) 130 mm 130 mm

Pocket length (li) 170 mm 170 mm
Pocket height (h) 100, 150 mm 100 mm
Density of polymer 0.965 g/cm3 0.965 g/cm3
Thickness 1.5 mm 1.0 mm Fig. 5. Stress-strain curves of two types of geocell materials obtained from
Tensile strength (at strain %8) > 18 kN/m > 16 kN/m tensile tests in air.
Seam peal strength > 18 kN/m > 13 kN/m
Modulus of elasticity (at yield strain of 8%) 2295 kN/m 1924 kN/m
Modulus of elasticity (at strain of 3%) 448 kN/m 321 kN/m effects of specimen size (height, length and width), number of the cells
in the geocell layout, rigidity of geocell reinforcements and configura-
tion of layout of geocell reinforcement on the assessment of soil-geocell
uniform normal stress was applied to the top layer of compacted soil structure interaction. A total of 55 experimental pullout tests conducted
with a help of hydraulic jack that transfer the load from reaction beam in this study are summarized in Table 3 including in terms of specimen
to the rigid steel plate. Soil thickness above and below the reinforce- height (B), length (L), normal stress, total number of cells (S) in geocell
ment meets the requirements of ASTM D6706, soil thickness greater layout and the pullout load.
than 150 mm, six times 85%-passing particle size (D85) of sand material, The selected results of pullout tests obtained on polymeric geocell
and three times maximum particle size (Dmax) of the soil used in testing. material with a height of 100 and 150 mm in cohesionless soil under the
normal stresses are illustrated in Fig. 6 in terms of pullout loads and
3. Test results and analysis frontal displacement. It was determined that the geocell reinforcement
with height of 150 mm has a higher pullout capacity as compared to the
The study aims to assess the interaction between soil and geocell capacity of the geocell reinforcement with height of 100 mm because of
reinforcement under the vertical normal stresses of 10.12, 18.10 and more passive and friction resistance developed inside and along the side
31.4 kPa measured at the top of geocell reinforcement in cohesionless surfaces of the cells in geocell reinforcement. Generally, the load-dis-
soil, and interface shear stress by conducting the pullout tests. placement curves for all geocell samples from the pullout tests do not
Furthermore, the focus of pullout testing in this study is to evaluate the exhibit a significant peak load capacity due to elongation of the geocell

74
A. Isik and A. Gurbuz Geotextiles and Geomembranes 48 (2020) 71–81

Table 3
Experimental testing program carried out in the study.
Test No Configuration of Height, h, Specimen Specimen Normal Number of cells in Number of cells in Total of cells Measured
specimen (nbxnl) (mm) width, B, (mm) length, L, (mm) Stress (kPa) direction of geocell direction of geocell numbers in geocell pullout load
width (nb) length (nl) (S = nbanl) (kN)

1 1×1 100 130 170 10.12 1 1 1 1.04

2 1×1 100 130 170 18.10 1 1 1 1.64
3 1×1 100 130 170 31.40 1 1 1 2.37
4 1×2 100 130 340 10.12 1 2 2 2.30
5 1×2 100 130 340 18.10 1 2 2 3.40
6 1×2 100 130 340 31.40 1 2 2 4.20
7 1×3 100 130 510 10.12 1 3 3 4.00
8 1×5 100 130 850 10.12 1 5 5 4.10
9 2×1 100 260 170 10.12 2 1 2 1.49
10 2×1 100 260 170 18.10 2 1 2 2.30
11 2×1 100 260 170 31.40 2 1 2 3.40
12 2×2 100 260 340 10.12 2 2 4 3.25
13 2×2 100 260 340 18.10 2 2 4 4.60
14 2×2 100 260 340 31.40 2 2 4 6.00
15 2×3 100 260 510 10.12 2 3 6 5.50
16 2×5 100 260 850 10.12 2 5 10 6.00
17 3×1 100 390 170 10.12 3 1 3 1.77
18 3×1 100 390 170 18.10 3 1 3 2.41
19 3×1 100 390 170 31.40 3 1 3 4.10
20 3×2 100 390 340 10.12 3 2 6 4.32
21 3×2 100 390 340 18.10 3 2 6 5.90
22 3×2 100 390 340 31.40 3 2 6 7.90
23 3×3 100 390 510 10.12 3 3 9 6.00
24 3×5 100 390 850 10.12 3 5 15 7.60
25 1×1 150 130 170 10.12 1 1 1 1.60
26 1×1 150 130 170 18.10 1 1 1 2.40
27 1×1 150 130 170 31.40 1 1 1 3.45
28 1×2 150 130 340 10.12 1 2 2 3.20
29 1×2 150 130 340 18.10 1 2 2 4.60
30 1×2 150 130 340 31.40 1 2 2 6.00
31 1×3 150 130 510 10.12 1 3 3 5.80
32 1×5 150 130 850 10.12 1 5 5 6.00
33 2×1 150 260 170 10.12 2 1 2 2.10
34 2×1 150 260 170 18.10 2 1 2 3.20
35 2×1 150 260 170 31.40 2 1 2 4.86
36 2×2 150 260 340 10.12 2 2 4 4.25
37 2×2 150 260 340 18.10 2 2 4 6.00
38 2×2 150 260 340 31.40 2 2 4 8.40
39 2×3 150 260 510 10.12 2 3 6 8.15
40 2×3 150 260 510 18.10 2 3 6 9.00
41 2×5 150 260 850 10.12 2 5 10 9.00
42 3×1 150 390 170 10.12 3 1 3 2.32
43 3×1 150 390 170 18.10 3 1 3 3.60
44 3×1 150 390 170 31.40 3 1 3 5.76
45 3×2 150 390 340 10.12 3 2 6 6.00
46 3×2 150 390 340 18.10 3 2 6 7.80
47 3×2 150 390 340 31.40 3 2 6 10.40
48 3×3 150 390 510 10.12 3 3 9 9.50
49 3×3 150 390 510 18.10 3 3 9 11.10
50 3×5 150 390 850 10.12 3 5 15 10.00
51a 1×2 100 130 340 10.12 1 2 2 2.50
52a 1×2 100 130 340 18.10 1 2 2 4.25
53a 2×2 100 260 340 10.12 2 2 4 3.40
54a 2×2 100 260 340 18.10 2 2 4 6.00
55a 2×3 100 260 510 10.12 2 3 6 4.50

a
Material 2.

reinforcement itself during the pullout tests (Palmeira, 2004). Ad- Bergado et al., 1996; Palmeira, 2009; Horpibulsuk and
ditionally, it is observed that as normal stress exceeds 18.10 kPa, the Niramitkornburee, 2010; Isik and Gurbuz, 2018). The pullout re-
pullout capacity-displacement curves show a strain hardening behavior, sistances in this study are normalized by ratio of the total number (S) of
with a progressive increase of pullout resistance with a rise in the dis- cells, indication of size of the tested geocell layout, to length (L) times
placement (Moracia and Recalcati, 2006). Moreover, the pullout be- width (B) of geocell layout in order to detect the effect of size of the
havior of geocell reinforced soil is strongly influenced with the appli- geocell reinforcement on the pullout capacity of geocell reinforced soil
cation of normal stress (Fig. 6). (Fig. 7). It is seen from the tests that the pullout capacity of geocell
The 3D honeycomb shaped geocell reinforcement is formed by reinforcement in cohesionless soil, under a low normal stress of
connecting the longitudinal and transverse strips to each other. 10.12 kPa, reaches a peak and then remains constant when number of
Consequently, the pullout resistance of reinforced soil geocell increases cells in the direction of pullout exceeds three (Fig. 7a). However, a
with an increase in the height of geocell and with increase in the rupture is observed throughout testing at the intersection of long-
number of transverse and longitudinal strips (Bergado and Chai, 1994; itudinal and transverse strips welded to create the 3D structure of

75
A. Isik and A. Gurbuz Geotextiles and Geomembranes 48 (2020) 71–81

Fig. 6. Typical pullout load displacement curves of geocell with height of

100 mm 150 mm under normal stress of 10.12, 18.10 and 31.40 kPa.

geocell reinforcement as the pullout capacity of geocell reinforcements

in cohesionless soils is limited to the seam peel strength at intersections
of longitudinal and transverse of geocell strips under the values of
normal stress of 18.10 and 31.40 kPa (Fig. 7a and b). In the case of test
16, 23, 24, 31, 32, 41 and 50 under the normal stresses of 18.10 kPa and
31.40 kPa were not performed due to the rupture at the junctions of the
longitudinal and transverse strips of geocell reinforcement.
One parameter influencing the pullout capacity is the layout con-
figuration of the geocell reinforcement in cohesionless soils. In this
study, the geocell reinforcements were embedded into the predefined
depth of soil while number of geocell cells (S) was kept constant. The
orientation of the geocell reinforcement was flipped with the width of
geocell reinforcement such as 3 × 2 configuration (nbxnl) of cells was
changed to 2 × 3 configuration (Fig. 8). It is concluded that higher
pullout capacity is reached as the dimension of geocell reinforcement
increases in the direction of pullout force resulting in more passive and
friction resistance inside the cells and along the side face of geocell
reinforcement. This finding is confirmed with both the test results
summarized in Table 3 and developed theoretical formulation.
The effects of stiffness of two types of geocell reinforcements on the
pullout capacity were investigated (Table 2 and Fig. 5). The stiffer
material with a modulus of 2295 kN/m, named as a material 1 in this
study reaches a peak pullout capacity at a lower strain earlier as
compared to material 2 with modulus of 1924 kN/m at yield (Fig. 9).
This behavior is very consistent with the strain-stress curve of the Fig. 7. Effects of number of cells on the pullout capacity geocell reinforced soil
materials as presented in Fig. 5. Furthermore, larger volume of infill soil under normal stress of: (a) 10.12 kPa, (b) 18.10 kPa, (c) 31.40 kPa.
in the stiffer cells, which forms almost a non-deformable block, is pu-
shed forward and results in an increased passive resistance due to the
large ratio of wall movement (Δl) to the wall height (h) for development
of passive resistance such as in case of retaining wall. contribution of each cell to the total pullout capacity. It was observed
The total pullout load of geocell reinforced soil is calculated as a that the first frontal transverse member was mobilized earlier than the
sum of the friction and passive resistance emerging along the side other, and then the degree of mobilization of pullout capacity remained
surfaces and inside the cells of geocell reinforcement. The interaction almost constant with time along the length of geocell reinforcement as
between the friction and passive resistance are not yet well understood illustrated in Fig. 10. Therefore, the development of passive resistance
nor quantified (Palmeira, 2004). The device used to assess the inter- and friction resistance in cohesionless soils is totally based on both the
action between soil and geocell reinforcement under both different sequence of number of mobilized cells in the geocell layout from the
vertical normal and horizontal shear stress conditions permits the se- frontal face of device throughout the length of the geocell reinforce-
quence of visualization of movement response of each cell in the geocell ment with time. Therefore, the calculation of pullout load in terms of
layout in the direction of pullout force by measuring of displacements, the passive and friction resistance is determined separately.
pullout capacity and strain along with time, in order to evaluate the A development of friction between soil and geocell reinforcement

76
A. Isik and A. Gurbuz Geotextiles and Geomembranes 48 (2020) 71–81

Fig. 8. Effect of layout configuration of the geocell reinforcement on the pullout capacity geocell reinforced soil.

under normal and pullout force usually is inevitable when a geocell 4. Theoretical considerations
reinforcement is embedded into a soil. The strain gauges for purpose of
measurement of friction forces were attached on the midpoint of side The pullout capacity of a grid reinforcement such as geogrid and
surfaces of cells along the length of geocell reinforcement. The averaged wire mesh can be obtained from the sum of the friction and passive
and generalized distributions of strains measured with help of strain resistance (Jewell et al., 1984; Roodi and Zornberg, 2017; Shen et al.,
gauges located on cells along the length of geocell reinforcement are 2019; Morsy et al., 2019). The passive resistance is formed on trans-
illustrated in Fig. 11 for samples with layout of length of 170, 340, 510 verse members, while the friction resistance is formed on longitudinal
and 850 mm of geocell reinforcement under the normal and measured members in the direction of pullout. The passive resistance on trans-
pullout forces. It is determined that the strain increases up to 8–9% with verse members depends on internal friction angle, normal stress, stiff-
increasing the normal stress (Fig. 11). Moreover, the strains on the ness of material and reinforcement geometry in relation to the sizes of
geocell height of 150 mm are comparatively larger than those of geocell the transverse members. The friction resistance on longitudinal mem-
height of 100 mm. Additionally, large amount of strain develops around bers depends on roughness of reinforcement and interface friction angle
the front of wall and it decreases gradually thorough the length of the with soil and stiffness of reinforcement (Ingold, 1982; O'Rourke et al.,
geocell reinforcement due to a decrease in load distribution along the 1990; Jewell, 1996; Milligan and Tei, 1998). However, the pullout
length of geocell reinforcement. behavior of geocell reinforcement in soils is still under development

77
A. Isik and A. Gurbuz Geotextiles and Geomembranes 48 (2020) 71–81

Fig. 9. Effects of stiffness of geocell reinforcements on the pullout capacity.

and theoretical aspect is also complicated due to 3D shape of cells in

geocell reinforcement. The geometry of surface area of transverse and
longitudinal members of geocell reinforcement for both the passive and
friction resistance are presented in Fig. 12 for the purpose of calculation
of the ultimate total pullout load (Pu) with help of equation (1), con-
sidering 3D structure of geocell reinforcement.

Pu = Ppi + Pfi nTu (1)

where Pu is the ultimate pullout load, Ppi is the passive resistance de-
veloping inside a cell and Pfi is the friction resistance emerging on a side
face of cell, n is the number of longitudinal member in the direction of
pullout and Tu is the seam peel strength at a junction of longitudinal and
transverse of geocell strip. In this study, the measured pullout loads of
tests for geocell reinforcement under the normal stresses were mea-
sured and compared with theoretical approach proposed here.

4.1. Pullout passive resistance of geocell reinforced soil

The calculation of the passive resistance occurring inside the cells in

layout of geocell reinforcement is complicated by the fact that the cell-
forming structure has a 3D shape and that the materials that make up
the cell have a structure that flexes and extends under loads (Bergado
and Chai, 1994). Therefore, a factor of area contributing to passive
resistance ( pi ) and mobilization factor of passive resistance ratio (mpi )
have been proposed in this study considering the flexible and extend-
able property of the cells under the loads. pi and mpi are function of
normal stress, stiffness and location of cell in the layout of geocell re-
Fig. 10. A sequence of mobilization pockets of geocell for: a) displacement of
inforcement. Both deformation (d) at on a transverse member and
the cells with time and b) variation in pullout load with time.
displacement (Δ) at a junction of transverse and longitudinal member of
geocell take place due to elongation of the reinforcement during the
pullout test as illustrated in Fig. 13. Hence, a cell of geocell under the amount of strain affects Δl and results in reduction in passive re-
normal stress and shear stress has a deformed shape as illustrated in sistance along the length of geocell reinforcement. Hence, the mobilized
Fig. 14. This situation might yield to nonuniform distribution of passive passive resistance in a cell, depending on the ratio of Δl/h, decreases as
resistance proceeding in the cells of the geocell reinforcements (Wilson- the location of cell is away from the frontal surface of the geocell re-
Fahmy and Koerner, 1993). Hence, a factor of area contributing to inforcement. Therefore, it is vital to calculate the mobilization factor of
passive resistance ( pi ) , defined as a ratio of the area of undeformed passive resistance ratio (mp) that be determined by using nature of
shape to the area of deformed shape (Fig. 14), is calculated with help of variation of (Δl/h) of each cell in any row on transverse members.
the photos taken during the tests. Calculated factor of area contributing Consequently, the mobilization factor of passive resistance ratio (mp )
to passive resistance ( p) yields to 0.33 for all tests. was easily calculated via equation of 2.
The full coefficient (kp) of passive earth pressure in case of retaining
walls develops as the ratio of wall movement (Δl) to the wall height (h) mp = ( ) 0.01
h
l
1 (2)
is equal to 0.01 for loose sand (Das, 2007). In case of geocell re-
inforcement, amount of elongation of a cell named as wall movement where l is amount of elongation of a cell side surface, based on strain
(Δl) is calculated from the strain measurements on the side surfaces of measurements, and h is geocell height. The calculated average values of
cells. It is determined that strain in the direction of pullout decreases mp are around 1.0, 0.7 and 0.3 for first, second and third row along the
throughout length of geocell reinforcement (Fig. 11). The decrease in length of geocell reinforcement in the direction of pullout,

78
A. Isik and A. Gurbuz Geotextiles and Geomembranes 48 (2020) 71–81

correspondingly. Consequently, it is possible to calculate the passive

resistance forming in a cell with the help of the formulas of 3, 4 and 5
presented in this study.

p = ( h + q ) Kp (3)

Kp = tan2 45 +
2 (4)

Ppi = p. Ap . pi. mpi (5)

where p is the passive earth pressure inside a cell, is the unit weight
of compacted soil, q is the surcharge stress on the top of the geocell
reinforcement, Kp is the full coefficient passive earth pressure de-
pending on the internal friction angle of soil( ) , the passive resistance
(Ppi ) in a single cell of layout of geocell reinforcement and Ap is an
available surface area of transverse member of a single cell (Fig. 12).
The total passive load (Pp ) of geocell might be evaluated considering the
number of transverse members (m) along the length and number of
longitudinal members (n) along width may be evaluated via equation of
6 (Fig. 12).
m
Pp = p Ap (n 1) pi mpi
i=1 (6)

4.2. Pullout friction resistance

The strain gauges were attached on the midpoint of side surfaces of

cells in the direction of pullout force to measure the strain (εi) taking
place on the side face of each cell in the layout of geocell reinforcement.
The friction resistance (Ffi) appearing on the side surface of cell could
be derived easily from the stress values (σi) (Fig. 5), which is corre-
sponding to the strain value (εi) obtained from strain gauges on the side
faces of cells (Fig. 11), on the strain-stress curve of geocell material.
Therefore, the total friction force (Pf) can be determined with help of
equation of 7 (Fig. 12).
n
Pf = m Ffi = i h
i=1 (7)
In this study, a theoretical background of pullout capacity of the
geocell reinforcement materials in cohesionless soils are developed and
compared with the measured values. The pullout resistance capacity of
the geocell reinforcement in cohesionless soils has two components
namely passive resistance and frictional resistance. Hence, passive and
frictional resistance were calculated with help of equations of 6 and 7,
respectively. The total calculated versus measured pullout capacity
from 55 tests are plotted in Fig. 15. It is found that there is very good
agreement between the predicted and the measured values. The validly
of theoretical background were validated statically in terms of mean of
average, standard deviation and coefficient of variation. It is de-
termined that mean of average, and standard deviation with very low
coefficient of variation are 0.94, 0.14 and 0.15 correspondingly. The
regression model with the square of deviation (R2) of 0.96 should be
considered acceptable.

5. Conclusions

This paper presented a theoretical and experimental approach on

pullout behavior of geocells by using the large-scale pullout test box.
Laboratory pullout tests were performed under normal stresses with
height of 100 mm and 150 mm geocell reinforcements. The results of
experimental pullout tests were compared with the calculated pullout
loads from theoretical analysis. The conclusions of this study are fol-
Fig. 11. Strain distributions along the side surface of cell for 170, 340, 510 and lows:
850 mm in length of geocell.
• The device used in this study allows evaluation of the load transfer
79
A. Isik and A. Gurbuz Geotextiles and Geomembranes 48 (2020) 71–81

Fig. 14. A plan view of cells for determination of factor of area contributing to
passive resistance.( p)

Fig. 12. A view of passive and friction resistance of geocell reinforcement areas.

mechanism including both quantification of friction along the side

surfaces and passive resistance inside the cell of geocell reinforce-
ment by measuring strain, displacement and load.
• The device permits to visualize the sequence of cells mobilized from
the front face of device and going through throughout the length of
the geocell reinforcement by measuring displacements with time in
order to detect the contribution of each cell to the total pullout
capacity.
• Interaction including the friction and passive resistance developing
under normal and interface shear stresses is limited to the seam peel
strength at junctions of longitudinal and transverse of geocell strips.
• Higher pullout capacity is observed as the length of geocell re-
inforcement in the direction of pullout increases, due to the more
passive and friction resistance developed in the cells of geocell re-
inforcement along the length of geocell reinforcement. However, the
effect on pullout capacity due to increase in number of cells in the
direction of pullout puts a limitation on the pullout capacity. The
pullout capacity of geocell reinforcement becomes almost constant
as number of cells exceeds 3 rows in the direction pullout force.
• A large amount of strain develops around the front of wall, and it
Fig. 15. Anticipated and measured pullout load of geocell with height of
decreases gradually thorough the end of geocell. The strain increases
100 mm and 150 mm.
up to 8–9% by increasing the normal stress from 10 kPa to 30 kPa.
• Increased stiffness of geocell reinforcement increases the pullout
design of mechanically stabilized walls (MSE) in the future.
capacity of geocell reinforcement in cohesionless soils. Furthermore,
the pullout behavior of geocell reinforced soil is strongly influenced
with the application of normal stress and size (height, width) of the
Acknowledgements
geocell reinforcement.
• A theoretical approach was established to predict of the capacity of
The work presented in this paper was conducted while the first
interaction between cohesionless soils and geocell reinforcement in
author pursues his doctoral degree at the Gazi University-Ankara-
terms of both the friction and passive resistance developing along
Turkey, under the supervision of the second author. The authors would
the side surfaces and inside the cells of geocell, respectively. The
like to thank Dr. Ozgur Anil, Sadik Serefoglu, Dr. Mustafa Sahmaran,
calculated pullout load and experimental pullout load display good
Kaan Yunkul, Tahsin Budak, Ayca Taskent, Aydin Gokce and Gun
agreement. Therefore, the theoretical analysis can be useful in the
Ayhan Utkan for their contributions to the work presented in this paper.

Fig. 13. A plan view of cells in geocell reinforcement before and after pullout test.

80
A. Isik and A. Gurbuz Geotextiles and Geomembranes 48 (2020) 71–81

References Geomembranes 27 (4), 262–271.

King, D.J., Bouazza, A., Gniel, J.R., Rowe, R.K., Buib, H.H., 2018. Geosynthetic reinforced
column supported embankments and the role of ground improvement installation
Alfaro, M.C., Hayashi, S., Miura, N., Watanabe, K., 1995. Pullout interaction mechanism effects. Can. Geotech. J. 55 (6), 792–809.
of geogrid strip reinforcement. Geosynth. Int. 2 (4), 679–698. Kiyota, T., Soma, R., Munoz, H., Kuroda, T., Ohta, J., Harata, M., Tatsuoka, F., 2009.
American Society for Testing and Materials (ASTM), 2001. Standard Test Method for Pullout behaviour of geo-cell placed as reinforcement in backfill. Geosynth. Eng. J. 24
Measuring Geosynthetic Pullout Resistance in Soil. ASTM D6706-01. (0), 75–82 (In Japanese).
American Society for Testing and Materials (ASTM), 2007. Standard Test Method for Lamberta, S., Nicota, F., Gotteland, P., 2011. Uniaxial compressive behavior of scrapped
Density and Unit Weight of Soil in Place by the Sand-Cone Method. ASTM D1556. tire and sand-filled wirenetted geocell with a geotextile envelope. Geotext.
American Society for Testing and Materials (ASTM), 2011. Standard Practice for Geomembranes 29, 483–490.
Classification of Soils for Engineering Purposes (Unified Soil Classification System). Lopes, M.L., Ladeira, M., 1996. Role of specimen geometry, soil height and sleeve length
ASTM D2487–11. on the pull-out behaviour of geogrids. Geosynth. Int. 3 (6), 701–719.
American Society for Testing and Materials (ASTM), 2014. Standard Test Method for Lopes, M.J., Lopes, M.L., 1999. Soil-geosynthetic interaction—influence of soil particle
Specific Gravity of Soil Solids by Water Pycnometer. ASTM D854–14. size and geosynthetic structure. Geosynth. Int. 6 (4), 261–282.
Bergado, D.T., Chai, J.C., 1994. Pullout force–displacement relationship of extensible grid Manju, G.S., Latha, Gali, 2013. Internal friction properties of geocell reinforced sand. In:
reinforcement. Geotext. Geomembranes 13 (5), 295–316. Proceedings of International Conference on Energy and Environment, Kerala, India,
Bergado, D.T., Chai, J.C., Miura, N., 1996. Prediction of pullout resistance and pullout pp. 25–31.
forceedisplacement relationship for inextensible grid reinforcements. Soils Found. 36 Mehrjardi, G.T., Khazaei, M., 2017. Scale effect on the behaviour of geogrid-reinforced
(4), 11–22. soil under repeated loads. Geotext. Geomembranes 45 (6), 603–615.
Biabani, M.M., Indraratna, B., 2015. An evaluation of the interface behaviour of rail Mehrjardi, G.T., Motarjemi, F., 2018. Interfacial properties of geocell-reinforced granular
subballast stabilisedwith geogrids and geomembranes. Geotext. Geomembranes 43, soils. Geotext. Geomembranes 46 (4), 384–395.
240–249. Milligan, G.W.E., Tei, K., 1998. The pull-out resistance of soil nails. Soils Found. 38 (2),
Biabani, M.M., Indraratna, B., Ngo, N.T., 2016. Modelling of geocell-reinforced sub bal- 179–190.
last subjected to cyclic loading. Geotext. Geomembranes 44, 489–503. Mohidin, N., Alfaro, M.C., 2011. Soil-geocell Reinforcement Interaction by Pullout and
Cancelli, A., Rimoldi, A., Montanelli, F., 1993. Index and performance tests for geocells in Direct Shear Tests, 2011. Pan-Am CGS Geotechnical Conference, Toronto, Ontario,
different applications. Geosynth. Soil Test. Proced. ASTM STP 1190, 64–75. Canada.
Chang, D.T.T., Chang, F.C., Yang, G.S., Yan, C.Y., 2000. The influence factors study for Moracia, N., Recalcati, P., 2006. Factors affecting the pullout behaviour of extruded
geogrid pullout test. In: Stevenson, P.E. (Ed.), Grips, Clamps, Clamping Techniques, geogrids embedded in a compacted granular soil. Geotext. Geomembranes 24 (4),
and Strain Measurement for Testing of Geosynthetics, ASTM STP 1379. American 220–242.
Society for Testing and Materials, pp. 129–142. Morsy, A.M., Zornberg, J.G., Han, J., Leshchinsky, D., 2019. A new generation of soil-
Chen, R.H., Chiu, Y.M., 2008. Model tests of geocell retaining structures. Geotext. geosynthetic interaction experimentation.(in press) Geotextiles and Geomembrane.
Geomembranes 25 (1), 56–70. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.geotexmem.2019.04.001.
Chen, R.H., Wu, C.P., Huang, F.C., Shen, C.W., 2013. Numerical analysis of geocell-re- Mosallanezhad, M., Alfaro, M.C., Hataf, N., Sadat Taghavi, S.H., 2016. Performance of the
inforced retaining structures. Geotext. Geomembranes 39, 51–62. new reinforcement system in the increase of shear strength of typical geogrid inter-
Correia, N.S., Zornberg, J.G., 2018. Strain distribution along geogrid-reinforced asphalt face with soil. Geotext. Geomembranes 44, 457–462.
overlays under traffic loading. Geotext. Geomembranes 46 (1), 111–120. Mosallanezhad, M., Taghavi, S.H., Sarvestani, M.K., 2017. Large-scale pullout testing of a
Das, B.M., 2007. Principles of Foundation Engineering, sixth ed. PWS, Pacific Grove, new ‘rooted’ geogrid. Geosynth. Int. 17 (3), 195–203.
California. Ochiai, H., Otani, J., Hayashi, S., Hirai, T., 1996. The pull-out resistance of geogrids in
Dash, S.K., Krishnaswamy, N.R., Rajagopal, K., 2001. Bearing capacity of strip footings reinforced soil. Geotext. Geomembranes 14 (1), 19–42.
supported on geocell reinforced sand. Geotext. Geomembranes 19, 235–256. O'Rourke, T.D., Druschel, S.J., Netravali, A.N., 1990. Shear strength characteristics of
Dash, S.K., Sireesh, S., Sitharam, T.G., 2003. Model studies on circular footing supported sand-polymer interfaces. J. Geotech. Eng. 116 (3), 451–469.
on geocell reinforced sand underlain by soft clay. Geotext. Geomembranes 21 (4), Palmeira, E.M., 2004. Bearing force mobilization in pull-out tests on geogrids. Geotext.
197–219. Geomembranes 22 (6), 481–509.
Dyer, M.R., 1985. Observations of the Stress Distribution in Crushed Glass with Palmeira, E.M., 2009. Soilegeosynthetic interaction: modelling and analysis. Geotext.
Applications to Soil Reinforcement. D.Phil. Thesis, University of Oxford, Oxford, UK. Geomembranes 27, 368–390.
Fannin, R.J., Raju, D.M., 1993. On the pullout resistance of geosynthetics. Can. Geotech. Palmeira, E.M., Milligan, G.W.E., 1989. Scale and other factors affecting the results of
J. 30 (3), 409–417. pull-out tests of grids buried in sand. Geotechnique 39 (3), 511–524.
Farrag, K., Acar, Y.B., Juran, I., 1993. Pull-out resistance of geogrid reinforcements. Rahimi, M., Leshchinsky, B., Tafreshi, S.N.M., 2018. Assessing the ultimate uplift capacity
Geotext. Geomembranes 12 (2), 133–159. of plate anchors in geocell-reinforced sand. Geosynth. Int. 25 (6), 612–629.
Gurbuz, A., 2012. Discussion of “bearing capacity of geocell reinforcement in embank- Roodi, G.H., Zornberg, J.G., 2017. Stiffness of soil-geosynthetic composite under small
ment engineering” by ling Zhang, Minghua Zhao, Caijun Shi and Heng Zhao 2010. displacements. II: experimental evaluation. J. Geotech. Geoenviron. Eng. 143 (10)
Geotext. Geomembranes 31, 69. ASCE.
Gurbuz, A., Mertol, H.C., 2012. Interaction between assembled 3-D honeycomb cells Rowe, R.K., Yu, Yan, 2019. Magnitude and significance of tensile strains in geomembrane
produced from high density polyethylene and a cohesionless soil. J. Reinf. Plast. landfill liners. Geotext. Geomembranes 47, 439–458.
Compos. 31, 828–836. Shen, P., Han, J., Zornberg, J.G., Morsy, A.M., Leshchinsky, D., Tanyu, B.F., Xu, C., June,
Han, Xinye, 2014. Development of a New Type of Geocell as Tensile Reinforcement for 2019. Two- and three-dimensional numerical analyses of geosynthetic-reinforced soil
GRS RWs, Doctor of Philosophy. Department of Civil Engineering University of (GRS) piers. Geotext. Geomembranes 47 (3), 352–368. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
Tokyo, Tokyo, Japan. geotexmem.2019.01.010.
Han, X., Kiyota, T., Tatsuoka, F., 2013. Interaction mechanism between geocell re- Song, F., Liu, H., Chai, H., Chen, J., 2017. Stability analysis of geocell-reinforced retaining
inforcement and gravelly soil by pullout tests. Bull. Earth Resist. Struct. 46, 53–62. walls. Geosynth. Int. 24 (5), 442–450.
Haussner, C., Kiyota, T., Xu, Z., 2016. Effect of Spacing of Transverse Members on Pullout Suksiripattanapong, C., Horpibulsuk, S., Chinkulkijniwat, A., Chai, J.C., 2013. Pullout
Resistance of a Square-Shaped Geocell Embedded in Sandy and Gravelly Backfill resistance of bearing reinforcement embedded in coarse-grained soils. Geotext.
Materials. The 6th Japan-Korea Geotechnical Workshop, pp. 109–114. Geomembranes 36, 44–54.
Horpibulsuk, S., Niramitkornburee, A., 2010. Pullout resistance of bearing reinforcement Taghavi, S.H., Mosallanezhad, M., 2017. Experimental analysis of large-scale pullout tests
embedded in sand. Soils Found. 50 (2), 215–226. conducted on polyester anchored geogrid reinforcement systems. Can. Geotech. J. 54
Horpibulsuk, S., Suksiripattanapong, C., Niramitkornburee, A., Chinkulkijniwat, A., (5), 621–630.
Tangsutthinon, T., 2011. Performance of an earth wall stabilized with bearing re- Teixeira, S.H.C., Bueno, B.S., Zornberg, J.G., 2007. Pullout resistance of individual
inforcements. Geotext. Geomembranes 29, 514–524. longitudinal and transverse geogrid ribs. J. Geotech. Geoenviron. Eng. 133 (1),
Horpibulsuk, S., Udomchai, A., Joongklang, A., Chinkulkijniwat, A., Mavong, N., 37–50.
Suddeepong, A., Arulrajah, A., 2017. Pullout resistance mechanism of bearing re- Tzong, W.H., Cheng-Kuang, S., 1987. Soil-geotextile interaction mechanism in pullout
inforcement embedded in residual clayey soils. Geosynth. Int. 24 (3), 255–263. test. In: Proceedings of Geosynthetics 1987, vol. 1. pp. 250–259 New Orleans, LA.
Ingold, T.S., 1982. Reinforced Earth. Thomas Telford, Inc., London. Venkateswarlu, H., Ujjawal, K.N., Hegde, A., 2019. Laboratory and numerical in-
Isik, A., Gurbuz, A., 2018. Assessment of behavior of soil-geocell pullout capacity. In: 11th vestigation of machine foundations reinforced with geogrids and geocells. Geotext.
International Conference on Geosynthetics, 16-21 September, Seoul, Kore. Geomembranes 46 (6), 882–896.
Jewell, R.A., 1996. Soil Reinforcement with Geotextiles. Ciria Special Publication 123. Wilson-Fahmy, R.F., Koerner, R.M., 1993. Finite element modelling of soil-geogrid in-
Thomas Telford Ltd., UK, pp. 332. teraction with application to the behavior of geogrids in a pullout loading condition.
Jewell, R., Milligan, G., Dubois, D., 1984. Interaction between soil and geogrids. In: In: Geotext. Geomembranes 12, 479–501.
Ford, S.H. (Ed.), Polymer Grid Reinforcement Thomas Telford Publishing, London, Zhang, M.X., Javadi, A.A., Min, X., 2006. Triaxial tests of sand reinforced with 3D in-
UK, pp. 18–30. clusions. Geotext. Geomembranes 24 (4), 201–209.
Khedkar, M.S., Mandal, J.N., 2009. Pullout behaviour of cellular reinforcements. Geotext.

81