Joint Strength and Wall Deformation Characteristics of a

Single-Cell Geocell Subjected to Uniaxial Compression

A. Hegde1 and T. G. Sitharam2
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by "National Institute of Technology, Karnataka" on 07/31/24. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

Abstract: Geocells are three-dimensional expandable panels with a wide range of applications in geotechnical engineering. A geocell is made
up of many internally connected single cells. The current study discusses the joint strength and the wall deformation characteristics of a single
cell when it is subjected to uniaxial compression. The study helps to understand the causes for the failure of the single cell in a cellular con-
finement system. Experimental studies were conducted on single cells with cell pockets filled up with three different infill materials, namely
silty clay, sand, and the aggregates. The results of the experimental study revealed that the deformation of the geocell wall decreases with the
increase in the friction angle of the infill material. Experimental results were also validated using numerical simulations carried out using La-
grangian analysis software. The experiment and the numerical results were found to be in good agreement with each other. A simple analytical
model based on the theory of thin cylinders is also proposed to calculate the accumulated strain of the geocell wall. This model operates under
a simple elastic solution framework. The proposed model slightly overestimates the strains as compared with experimental and numerical
values. DOI: 10.1061/(ASCE)GM.1943-5622.0000433. © 2014 American Society of Civil Engineers.
Author keywords: Geocells; FLAC3D; Infill material; Hoop stress; Bearing pressure; Settlement.

Introduction influence in deciding the required joint strength and the cell wall
stiffness to avoid the failure. When a vertical load is applied to the
Geocells are engineered construction materials made up of high- geocell-soil composite, the mobilization of horizontal stresses will
density polymers. Geocells are currently used extensively in geotech- take place in the infill material. The horizontal stress thus developed
nical engineering to strengthen weak soil. The various applications imparts the active earth pressure on the cell wall. The active earth
of geocells include embankments, retaining walls, slope protection, pressure on the cell wall generates hoop stress within the wall and
highways, and container yards. The advantages of using geocells in passive earth pressure on the adjacent walls (Emersleben and Meyer
such applications were highlighted by many researchers in the past 2009). Hence, the confinement effect of the geocell is based on three
through their studies (e.g., Madhavi Latha et al. 2006; Latha et al. main mechanisms: active earth pressure within the loaded cell, passive
2009; Zhou and Wen 2008; Sireesh et al. 2009; Dash 2010, 2012; earth pressure in the adjacent cells, and the hoop stress within the cell
Lambert et al. 2011; Han et al. 2011; Tavakoli Mehrjardi et al. 2012; wall. The different stresses developed in the geocell walls under the
Yang et al. 2012; Mehdipour et al. 2013; Leshchinsky and Ling action of compression loads are shown in Fig. 2. The hoop stress will
2013; Sitharam and Hegde 2013; Tanyu et al. 2013; Hegde and lead to the deformation of the cell wall. The cell wall deformations can
Sitharam 2013b). Because geocell applications are increasing at a be measured in terms of hoop strains and volumetric strains.
rapid rate nowadays, it is high time to optimize the design of the The behavior of the infill materials and the wall deformations are
geocell confinement system. The present design methodology of two different aspects of the geocell confinement system that are
the geocell system ignores some of the critical aspects, like joint closely associated with each other. In the past, very few researchers
strength or cell wall deformation. Tensile strength of the geocell have addressed these aspects together in a single framework. How-
material is the only key parameter considered in the present design ever, many such researchers have separately studied geocell wall
methodology. deformation and the effect of infill materials on the performance of
The majority of geocell failures occur at the single-cell level in the geocells. Emersleben and Meyer (2009) conducted radial load
the form of either joint rupture or excessive wall deformation (Fig. 1). tests on single- as well as multiple-cell geocells to evaluate the strain-
The cell walls and the joints are subjected the very large horizontal dependent interaction between hoop stresses in the cell walls and the
stresses attributable to the active earth pressure exerted by the infill passive earth resistance. Wesseloo et al. (2009) studied the stress-
materials. From a performance perspective, infill materials have a strain behavior of multiple-cell geocell packs under uniaxial com-
marginal effect on the geocell system (Hegde and Sitharam 2013a). pression loading. The effects of pocket size and the number of cells
However, from the failure perspective, infill materials have a clear on the stress-strain behavior were studied by the authors. The study
showed that the strength of the geocell composite structure is in-
versely proportional to the size and number of the individual cells.
1
Research Scholar, Dept. of Civil Engineering, Indian Institute of Science, Lambert et al. (2011) studied the response of the cubic-shaped single
Bangalore 560012, India (corresponding author). E-mail: amarnathhegde@ cells under uniaxial compression and examined the effect of infill
gmail.com materials on the axial load-carrying capacity. On the other hand, the
2
Professor, Dept. of Civil Engineering, Indian Institute of Science,
effects of infill materials on the performance of the geocell were
Bangalore 560012, India. E-mail: [email protected]
Note. This manuscript was submitted on November 27, 2013; approved studied by Han et al. (2010) under repeated loading. Hegde and
on June 6, 2014; published online on July 1, 2014. Discussion period open Sitharam (2013a) conducted the laboratory plate load tests on a
until December 1, 2014; separate discussions must be submitted for in- geocell-reinforced soft clay bed with different infill materials and
dividual papers. This paper is part of the International Journal of Geo- observed that the infill materials have a marginal effect on the
mechanics, © ASCE, ISSN 1532-3641/04014080(8)/$25.00. performance of the geocell-reinforced system.

© ASCE 04014080-1 Int. J. Geomech.

Int. J. Geomech., 2015, 15(5): 04014080

 The geocell consists of many interconnected single cells. Under Test Details
the uniformly distributed loads, the behaviors of all the connected
Tests were conducted in a steel tank of size 0.9 m long, 0.9 m wide,
cells are similar. Hence, in the current study, only single cell is
and 0.6 m high. A metallic solid base was fixed at the center of the
considered. In addition to the results of the uniaxial compression
tank to elevate the base so as to place the geocell within the reach of
tests conducted on single cells, the numerical and analytical mod-
the hydraulic jack. The idea behind placing the solid base was to
eling efforts are presented in this paper.
eliminate the compression of the foundation bed, which would have
affected the lateral deformation and the hoop stresses in the geocell
Experimental Study wall. Infill materials were filled inside geocell pocket in three layers
and compacted with equal compaction effort in all three cases. A
manually operated plate compactor was used for this purpose.
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by "National Institute of Technology, Karnataka" on 07/31/24. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

Materials Used Figs. 5(a and b) show the geocells with and without the infill ma-
Silty clay, sand, and the aggregates were the three infill material used terial. The infill material, which was used to fill the geocell pocket,
in the study. Silty clay used in the study had liquid and plastic limit was also used to fill the area surrounding the geocell inside the tank.
values of 40 and 19%, respectively. As per the Unified Soil Clas- The surrounding soil experiences the passive earth pressure under
sification System (USCS), the clay was classified as the clay with imposed load. The sides of the tank were coated with thin poly-
medium compressibility (CI). The sand used in the study was natural ethylene sheets to minimize the friction between the soil and the
river sand with a friction angle (w) of 35°. As per USCS, sand was tank. A circular steel plate with 150-mm diameter and 20-mm
classified as poorly graded sand with symbol SP. Similarly, uni- thickness was placed at the center of the geocell pocket. The vertical
formly graded aggregates with grain sizes in between 10 and 40 mm load was applied using a manually operated hydraulic jack. The
were also used. Fig. 3 represents the grain-size distributions of the schematic view of the test setup is shown in Fig. 6. The load applied
different infill materials used. Commercially available geocell made was measured through a precalibrated proving ring placed between
of polyethylene was used in the study. Ultimate tensile strength of the hydraulic jack and the footing with a ball-bearing arrangement.
the geocell was 20 kN=m. The test sample of width 2.5 cm, cut from Footing settlement was measured using the dial gauges. Strain gauges
seam to seam, was used for tensile testing. The strain rate applied was were pasted on the outer surface of the geocell at the midheight.
20%/min. Fig. 4 represents the tensile load-strain behavior of the A half-bridge circuit arrangement was used to connect the strain
geocell. The properties of the geocell as provided by the manu- gauges. At each gauge location, the cell surface was rubbed with
facturer are summarized in Table 1. sand paper before it was wiped clean. Strain gauges had a normal
resistance of 120 V with a maximum measuring capacity up to 1.5%
strain (15,000 microstrains). A data-acquisition system was used to
record the strain readings.

Results and Discussions

Fig. 7 represents the bearing pressure-settlement response of the

footing. The footing settlement (S) was normalized by footing width
(B) to express them in nondimensional form as S=B (percentage) for
convenience. A test with a particular infill material was repeated at
least once to ascertain the consistency in the obtained results. Trial 1
and Trial 2, represented in Fig. 7, indicate the results of such repeated
tests. Because the rigid base was placed at the bottom of the cell, no
clear-cut failure was observed in the pressure-settlement curve, even
Fig. 1. Schematic representation of cell wall deformation and joint up to S=B 5 25%. Out of the three different infill materials tested,
rupture in geocells the performance of the aggregates was found to be better as com-
pared with the other two in terms of increase in bearing pressure.

Fig. 2. Stresses in expanded geocells under compression loading

© ASCE 04014080-2 Int. J. Geomech.

Int. J. Geomech., 2015, 15(5): 04014080

Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by "National Institute of Technology, Karnataka" on 07/31/24. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

Fig. 3. Grain size distribution of different infill materials

Fig. 4. Tensile load-strain behavior of geocell

Fig. 5. Geocells: (a) without infill material; (b) with infill material
Table 1. Properties of Geocell
Parameters Quantity At 338 kPa, the cut reached the midheight of the geocell. At this
Polymer Polyethylene stage, the test was stopped. By knowing the foundation pressure at
Cell size (mm) 250 3 210 failure, cross-sectional area of the footing, and coefficient of active
Number of cells ðm2 Þ 40 earth pressure, the lateral load exerted on the joint was evaluated for a
Cell depth (mm) 150 given infill material. In the present case, the friction angle (w) of the
Strip thickness (mm) 1.53 silty clay was 27°, and the corresponding coefficient of active earth
Cell seam strength (N) 2,150 (65%) pressure (Ka ) calculated was found to be 0.38. The cross-sectional
Density (g=cm3 ) 0.95 (61:5%) area of the footing was calculated as 0:017 m2 . The vertical load
Short-term yield strength (kN=m) 20 exerted by the footing corresponding to bearing pressure of 290 kPa
turns out to be 5.1 kN. Hence, the lateral load exerted on the joint
corresponding to the applied vertical footing load of 5.1 kN is
Aggregate possesses better interlocking properties than the other two calculated as 1.94 kN. The obtained value is very near to the joint
infill materials. The inner surface of the geocell is made up of unique strength value provided by the manufacturer, i.e., 2.1 kN. However,
textures. When aggregates come into contact with these textures, in case of the sand and aggregate infill materials, there was no hint of
friction force will be developed between aggregate and the geocell joint failure at the applied footing pressure of 290 kPa. This is
inner surface. The developed friction force not only helps to resist the because at the same pressure (290 kPa), the horizontal load exerted
imposed load, but also ensures the bonding between the geocell and on the joint is lesser in the case of sand and much less in the case of
the aggregate matrix. The higher the friction angle of the material, aggregates as compared with silty clay. Because the friction angle of
the better the bonding. Interlocked aggregates form the composite the sand and aggregates are higher as compared with silty clay, the
mass with the geocell, which acts as a rigid slab and resists the load coefficient of active earth pressure (Ka ) and corresponding lateral
by conceding the minimal footing settlement. load on the geocell joint reduces. Thus, infill materials have a clear
Fig. 8 represents the posttest exhumed geocell for the silty clay influence on the initiation of the failure of the geocell joint.
infill material. At higher loads, geocell joints were damaged, and cuts The variation of the measured strain on the geocell surface with
can be clearly seen in the figure. The joint failure was initiated at respect to applied bearing pressure is shown in Fig. 9. Measured
the top portion of the cell at an applied bearing pressure of 290 kPa. strain values vary in the range of 0.64–1.34% (Trial 1) for different

© ASCE 04014080-3 Int. J. Geomech.

Int. J. Geomech., 2015, 15(5): 04014080

Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by "National Institute of Technology, Karnataka" on 07/31/24. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

Fig. 8. Posttest geocell showing joint failure for silty clay infill

Fig. 6. Schematic view of test setup: (a) elevation; (b) plan

Fig. 9. Variations of cell wall strain with bearing pressure

geocell is modeled using the quarter symmetry, assuming the shape

of the geocell is cylindrical. Fig. 10 represents the skeleton view of
the FLAC3D model. Preliminary analyses confirmed that the
Fig. 7. Variation of bearing pressure with footing settlement boundary distances did not have any bearing on the results because
the stresses and the deformations were confined within the chosen
boundary. Elastic–perfectly plastic Mohr-Coulomb criterion was
used to model the behavior of the soil. Geocell material was modeled
infill materials corresponding to the maximum applied bearing using the simplistic linear-elastic model. The geogrid element
pressure of 290 kPa. It was found that the cell wall was subjected to available in FLAC3D was used to model the geocells. Sensitivity
the least strain (0.64%) with the aggregate infill. On the other hand, analyses were carried out to determine the mesh density, and on this
the maximum strain was observed when the geocell was infilled with basis, the coarse mesh was chosen for the analysis. The displace-
silty clay (1.34%). The recorded strain values clearly indicate that the ments along the bottom and the side boundaries (which represent the
strain (or deformation) on the geocell wall reduces as the friction tank sides) were restrained in both horizontal and vertical directions.
angle of the infill material increases. The side boundary (which represents the soil surface) was restrained
only in the horizontal direction, such that the displacements were
allowed to occur in the vertical direction.
Numerical Studies The shear strength properties of the sand and clay were obtained
from the direct shear test and the undrained triaxial compression test,
A three-dimensional (3D) finite-difference package Fast Lagrangian respectively. However, the shear strength properties of the aggre-
Analysis of Continua (FLAC3D 4.00) was used to carry out the nu- gates were taken from the box shear test results provided by the
merical analysis. Generally, FLAC3D is intended for 3D analysis of supplier. The different material properties used in the analysis for
deformation and stability problems pertaining to geotechnical engi- the different infill materials are summarized in Table 2. The elastic
neering. In the present analysis, the mesh dimension was maintained modulus of the sand and the silty clay were determined from the
as the same as that of the dimension of the test tank. The expanded consolidated undrained triaxial compression test. Initial tangent
geocell resembles the shape of a cylinder. Hence, the shape of the modulus was determined from the stress-strain curve corresponding

© ASCE 04014080-4 Int. J. Geomech.

Int. J. Geomech., 2015, 15(5): 04014080

Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by "National Institute of Technology, Karnataka" on 07/31/24. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

Fig. 10. Skeleton view of FLAC3D model

Table 2. Material Properties Used in Analysis

Properties Silty clay Sand Aggregate
Friction angle, w (degrees) 27 35 40
Cohesion, c (kPa) 20 0 0
Bulk modulus, K (MPa) 5 6 7.2
Shear modulus, G (MPa) 2.3 2.9 3.3
Poisson’s ratio, m 0.3 0.3 0.3

the confining pressure of 200 kPa. The aggregate used in the ex-
periment was relatively softer in nature. Crushing of the aggregates
was observed during the experiments at higher loads. Hence, an
elastic modulus value similar to soft weathered rock was chosen for Fig. 11. Comparison of experimental and numerical pressure-settlement
the aggregates. The elastic modulus of the geocell material was behavior
obtained from the tensile load-strain behavior as represented in Fig. 4.
The interface behavior of the geogrid element used in FLAC3D
can be numerically represented at each geogrid node by a rigid were stopped when the footing settlement value was equal to 10%
attachment in the normal direction and a spring slider in the tangent of the footing width in all the cases. At higher settlements it was
plane to the geogrid surface. The orientation of the spring-slider observed that the FLAC3D results deviated from the experimental
changes with respect to relative shear displacement between the results. Similar observations and approach were also adopted by
geogrid and the soil. However, the shear behavior of the geogrid-soil Lovisa et al. (2010) in the numerical simulations of the geosynthetic-
interface is cohesive and frictional in nature and controlled by the reinforced foundation bed supporting the circular footing.
parameters, namely interface shear modulus (ki ), interface cohesive
strength (c), and interface friction angle (w). A partially rigid in- Prediction of Stresses and Strains Using Theory
terface with interface coefficient Rinter 5 0:7 was assumed between of Thin Cylinders
the soil and the geocell material. The interface coefficient relates the
strength of the soil to the strength of the interfaces. Assuming the The theory of thin cylinders as explained by Budynas and Nisbett
Rinter value equal to 0.7 indicates that the interface strength para- (2006) was used to predict the stresses and strains on the geocell
meters (cohesion and interface friction) are 0.7 times that of the wall. A cylinder is classified as a thin cylinder if the diameter (d) is
respective parameters of the soil with which it is interacting. The 20 times more than its thickness (t). Expanded single cell resembles
interface shear modulus value (ki ) of 2:3 MN=m3 was used in all the shape of a cylinder, and the stresses acting on the cell are also
analyses (FLAC3D). identical to the stresses in the thin cylinder. The d=t ratio of the
Fig. 11 represents the comparison of the experimentally and geocell (used in the current study) also turns out to be 135, which is
numerically obtained pressure settlement curve for different infill greater than the d=t 5 20. Fig. 12 represents the stresses acting on the
materials. Only experimental results of Trial 1 are compared in surface of the deformed geocell. Only the half-portion of the geocell
Fig. 10 to avoid overlapping of the curves. Predicted pressure- is considered in the formulation because of the symmetry.
settlement behavior from FLAC3D follows the same trend as that of
the experiment up to S=B 5 10%. At lower settlements (up to
Hoop Stress on Geocell Wall
S=B 5 2%), FLAC3D was found to be underestimating the bearing
capacity. However, beyond S=B 5 2%, the bearing capacity values The P is the active earth pressure exerted by the infill soil on the
were overestimated by the FLAC3D by 15–20%. The simulations geocell wall. The pressure acting on the curved surface acts normal

© ASCE 04014080-5 Int. J. Geomech.

Int. J. Geomech., 2015, 15(5): 04014080

 Hoop Strain on Geocell Wall
Hoop strain is nothing but the strain developed in the geocell ma-
terial in the circumferential direction attributable to the action of
hoop stress (sh ) and longitudinal stress (sl ). Using the principle of
superposition of strains along the circumferential directions, the
expression for hoop strain can be obtained as follows:
sh s
ɛh ¼ 2m l (9)
E E

where E and m 5 Young’s modulus and Poisson’s ratio of the geo-

Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by "National Institute of Technology, Karnataka" on 07/31/24. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

cell material, respectively; and sl 5 stress along the longitudinal

direction and is equal to half of the hoop stress
Pd
Fig. 12. Stress on geocell wall sl ¼ (10)
4tE

Substituting Eqs. (7) and (10) into Eq. (9)

to the surface, and it will act in a different direction at different points
along the surface. Hence, it is suitable to express the radial forces Pd Pd
ɛh ¼ 2m (11)
acting on an element on the curved surface in terms of angle u, which 2tE 4tE
is the only variable specifying the different point along the surface.
Consider a small element of length l on the periphery of the geocell, P  d  ð2 2 mÞ
making an angle du with the center. Then, the radial force acting on ɛh ¼ (12)
4tE
the element is given by

d Volumetric Strain on Geocell Wall

P   du  l (1)
2
The theory of thin cylinder can be further extended to determine
where P 5 active earth pressure exerted by the infill soil on the the change in volume of the geocell in terms of the volumetric strain.
geocell wall; and d 5 equivalent diameter of the geocell pocket. Let V be the volume of the geocell
The normal component of the elemental force is
p  d2
d V¼ l (13)
P   du  l  sin u (2) 4
2
where d 5 equivalent diameter of the geocell pocket. On differ-
Hence, the total normal component (Pn ) of the radial active earth entiating, the change in volume can be obtained as
force will be
p  d2 p
ðp dV ¼  dl þ  l  2  d  dd (14)
d 4 4
Pn ¼ P   du  l  sin u (3)
2
0 dV
Volumetric strain ¼ (15)
V
Pn ¼ P  d  l (4)
  
dV p  d2 4  dl þ ðp=4Þ  l  2  d  dd
Because the resultant normal component is acting outward, the in- ¼ (16)
V ½ðp  d 2 Þ=4  l
ternal stress on the horizontal strip will be acting inward, indicating
that the nature of this stress is tensile
dV dl dd
¼ þ2 (17)
Resisting force ¼ sh  l  t  2 (5) V l d

The sh is known as the hoop stress and acts in the circumferential ɛv ¼ ɛl þ 2  ɛh (18)
direction; it will be tensile in nature. At equilibrium, the active earth
force must be equal to the resisting force. Equating Eqs. (4) and (5)
Pd Pd
ɛv ¼ ð1 2 2mÞ þ 2   ð2 2 mÞ (19)
P  d  l ¼ sh  l  t  2 (6) 4tE 4tE

Pd Pd
sh ¼ ɛv ¼ ð5 2 4mÞ (20)
2t
(7) 4tE

where Figs. 13(a–c) represent the variation of hoop stress with the hoop
strain on the cell wall as calculated from the proposed methodology
P ¼ Ka  q (8) for different infill materials. The material properties of the geocell
used in the calculation are listed in Table 3. The stresses and strains
where Ka 5 active earth pressure coefficient; and q 5 applied footing are found to vary linearly with each other. It is well known that
pressure. the theory of thin cylinders works under simple elastic solution

© ASCE 04014080-6 Int. J. Geomech.

Int. J. Geomech., 2015, 15(5): 04014080

Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by "National Institute of Technology, Karnataka" on 07/31/24. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

Fig. 14. Comparison of experimental, numerical, and analytically

predicted stress-strain curves

match between the experimental and numerical results. However,

strain values predicted using the analytical model are slightly on the
higher side. A reason for this could be that the proposed method fails
to consider the stress discontinuities on the cell wall in the form of
drainage holes. Generally, the cell wall is perforated in nature, with
the presence of drainage holes. These drainage holes occupy ap-
proximately 12% of the surface area of the geocell. The stresses and
strains developed in the cell wall (hoop strain) get released through
these discontinuities. Hence, the stress and strain values obtained
from the experimental studies are less than the analytical studies.

Discussion

The present methodology, which is being used to design the geocell

foundation system, focuses only on the performance criteria, with
the tensile strength of the geocell being the key design factor.
However, it is also very essential to carry out the design from the
point of view of the failure. In addition to the tensile strength, the
joint strength of the geocell, stresses, and strains in the cell wall
should also be considered in the design. In this direction, the pro-
Fig. 13. Variation of predicted stresses and strains: (a) silty clay; posed formulation can be used to evaluate the stresses and strains on
(b) sand; (c) aggregates the geocell. By knowing the possible load from the superstructure,
basic physical parameters (d and t) and elastic parameters (E and m)
of the geocell, the stresses and strains on the geocell can be eval-
Table 3. Material Properties of Geocell uated. The geocell design can then be optimized to keep these
Parameter Value stresses and strains within desired limits of failure. In the present
case, this limiting strain value was found to be in the range of 1.3%.
Thickness, t (mm) 1.53 The proposed analytical method has its own limitations. This
Equivalent diameter, d (m) 0.258 method fails to take an account of the strain discontinuities present
Poisson’s ratio, m 0.45 on the geocell walls in the form of drainage holes. Hence, the pre-
Young’s modulus, E (MPa) 275 dicted results from this method are always on the higher side as
compared with experimental and numerical studies. However, by
framework. From Figs. 13(a–c), it is evident that the strain on the cell carrying out a minimum number of experiments and comparing
wall reduces as the friction angle of the infill material increases. those experimental results with the analytically predicted results,
Minimum strain was observed for aggregate infill. Similar trends a reduction factor can be established for a particular type of geocell.
were also observed in experimental and numerical results. General This reduction factor is then multiplied with predicted results to
practice is to plot stresses as the ordinate and strains as the abscissa. obtain reliable values of strain.
However, in the present case, the stresses have been deliberately
plotted as the abscissa to avoid the overlapping of the curves.
Conclusions

Comparison of Results Uniaxial compression tests were conducted on a single cell filled up
with different infill materials. It is evident from the experimental
Fig. 14 represents the comparison of experimental, numerical, and studies that the infill materials have a clear influence on the initiation
analytically obtained stress-strain behavior. There exists a very good of the wall deformation and joint failure of the geocell. The infill

© ASCE 04014080-7 Int. J. Geomech.

Int. J. Geomech., 2015, 15(5): 04014080

 material with higher friction angle will cause the lesser deformation Hegde, A., and Sitharam, T. G. (2013a). “Effect of infill materials on the
in the geocells. Measured strain values were found to be in the range performance of the geocell reinforced clay beds.” Proc., 4th Indian
of 0.64–1.34% for different infill materials corresponding to the Young Geotechnical Engineers Conf., Indian Geotechnical Society,
maximum applied bearing pressure of 290 kPa. Experimental results Chennai, India, 99–102.
Hegde, A., and Sitharam, T. G. (2013b). “Experimental and numerical
were also validated using numerical modeling (FLAC3D). Findings
studies on footings supported on geocell reinforced sand and clay beds.”
from the numerical studies are in accordance with the experimental Int. J. Geotech. Eng., 7(4), 346–354.
results. A simple analytical model has been proposed to estimate the Lambert, S., Nicot, F., and Gotteland, P. (2011). “Uniaxial compressive
stresses and strains on the walls of the geocells. Using this method, behavior of scrapped tire and sand-filled wire netted geocell with
the possible stresses and strains on the cell wall can be obtained by a geotextile envelop.” Geotextiles Geomembr., 29(5), 483–490.
knowing the load from the superstructure and elastic properties Latha, G. M., Dash, S. K., and Rajagopal, K. (2009). “Numerical simula-
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by "National Institute of Technology, Karnataka" on 07/31/24. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

of the geocell. However, the model needs to be calibrated with the tion of the behavior of geocell reinforced sand in foundations.” Int. J.
minimum number of experiments to take account of the strain dis- Geomech., 10.1061/(ASCE)1532-3641(2009)9:4(143), 143–152.
continuities and to obtain realistic results. Leshchinsky, B., and Ling, H. (2013). “Effects of geocell confinement on
Among the three different infill material tested, the performance strength and deformation behavior of gravel.” J. Geotech. Geoenviron.
Eng., 10.1061/(ASCE)GT.1943-5606.0000757, 340–352.
of the aggregate was found to be better than the other two with re-
Lovisa, J., Shukla, S. K., and Sivakugan, N. (2010). “Behaviour of pre-
spect to an increase in the load-carrying capacity and reduction in the stressed geotextile-reinforced sand bed supporting a loaded circular
deformation of the geocells. However, the use of the aggregates for footing.” Geotextiles Geomembr., 28(1), 23–32.
the larger sites may not be that economical. In addition to perfor- Madhavi Latha, G., Rajagopal, K., and Krishnaswamy, N. R. (2006).
mance and failure, a consideration of the cost also plays a very “Experimental and theoretical investigations on geocell-supported em-
important role in the design. For this reason, sand may be preferred bankments.” Int. J. Geomech., 10.1061/(ASCE)1532-3641(2006)6:1(30),
as the infill material in field cases. 30–35.
Mehdipour, I., Ghazavi, M., and Moayed, R. Z. (2013). “Numerical study
on stability analysis of geocell reinforced slopes by considering the
References bending effect.” Geotextiles Geomembr., 37(Apr), 23–34.
Sireesh, S., Sitharam, T. G., and Dash, S. K. (2009). “Bearing capacity of
Budynas, R., and Nisbett, S. (2006). Mechanical engineering design, 8th Ed., circular footing on geocell–sand mattress overlying clay bed with void.”
McGraw Hill, New York. Geotextiles Geomembr., 27(2), 89–98.
Dash, S. K. (2010). “Influence of relative density of soil on performance Sitharam, T. G., and Hegde, A. (2013). “Design and construction of geocell
of geocell-reinforced sand foundations.” J. Mater. Civ. Eng., 10.1061/ foundation to support embankment on soft settled red mud.” Geotextiles
(ASCE)MT.1943-5533.0000040, 533–538. Geomembr., 41(Nov), 55–63.
Dash, S. K. (2012). “Effect of geocell type on load-carrying mechanisms Tanyu, B. F., Aydilek, A. H., Lau, A. W., Edil, T. B., and Benson, C. H.
of geocell-reinforced sand foundations.” Int. J. Geomech., 10.1061/ (2013). “Laboratory evaluation of geocell-reinforced gravel subbase
(ASCE)GM.1943-5622.0000162, 537–548. over poor subgrades.” Geosynth. Int., 20(2), 47–61.
Emersleben, A., and Meyer, N. (2009). “Interaction between hoop stresses Tavakoli Mehrjardi, G., Moghaddas Tafreshi, S. N., and Dawson, A. R.
and passive earth resistance in single and multiple geocell structure.” (2012). “Combined use of geocell reinforcement and rubber–soil mix-
Proc., GeoAfrica: 1st African Regional Conf. on Geosynthetics, Geo- tures to improve performance of buried pipes.” Geotextiles Geomembr.,
synthetic Interest Group of South Africa (GIGSA), Edenglen, South 34(Oct), 116–130.
Africa, 1–10. Wesseloo, J., Visser, A. T., and Rust, E. (2009). “The stress–strain be-
FLAC3D 4.00 [Computer software]. Minneapolis, Itasca Consulting Group. haviour of multiple cell geocell packs.” Geotextiles Geomembr., 27(1),
Han, J., et al. (2011). “Performance of geocell-reinforced RAP bases over 31–38.
weak subgrade under full-scale moving wheel loads.” J. Mater. Civ. Yang, X., et al. (2012). “Accelerated pavement testing of unpaved roads
Eng., 10.1061/(ASCE)MT.1943-5533.0000286, 1525–1534. with geocell-reinforced sand bases.” Geotextiles Geomembr., 32(Jun),
Han, J., Pokharel, S. K., Parsons, R. L., Leshchinsky, D., and Halahmi, I. 95–103.
(2010). “Effect of infill material on the performance of geocell-reinforced Zhou, H., and Wen, X. (2008). “Model studies on geogrid- or geocell-
bases.” Proc., 9th Int. Conf. on Geosynthetics, International Geosynthetics reinforced sand cushion on soft soil.” Geotextiles Geomembr., 26(3),
Society, São Paulo, Brazil, 1503–1506. 231–238.

© ASCE 04014080-8 Int. J. Geomech.

Int. J. Geomech., 2015, 15(5): 04014080