Geotextiles and Geomembranes 52 (2024) 654–670

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Geotextiles and Geomembranes

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

Regular Paper

Experimental investigation of the geometry of geocell on the performance

of flexible pavement under repeated loading
Sayanti Banerjee , Bappaditya Manna *, J.T. Shahu
Department of Civil Engineering, Indian Institute of Technology Delhi, Hauz Khas, New Delhi, 110016, India

A R T I C L E I N F O A B S T R A C T

Keywords: To evaluate the benefit of geocells of different geometrical configurations for pavement application, full-scale
Rut depth instrumented model tests were performed on pavement sections reinforced with geocells of different geomet­
Stress distribution rical configurations subjected to monotonic and repeated loading. The responses studied were stress distribution
Geocell
in different pavement layers, induced strains in geocell walls, and settlement characteristics. The reinforced
Subgrade
sections exhibited a significant reduction in rut depth as well as localized stress concentration compared to the
Pavements
Repeated load unreinforced section. The reduction in rut depth was found to be influenced by the geocell height as well as weld
Configuration spacing. The geocell reinforcement was found to distribute the stresses in the subgrade and subbase layers more
efficiently, thus reducing the stress concentration in these layers. The strain measurements were found to be
higher at the bottom of the geocell walls indicating a higher confinement effect on a lower part of the geocell. In
the field, mostly geocells of 356 mm weld spacing and 150 mm height (SW356-H150) are used. However, this
study suggests that a geocell of 330 mm weld spacing and 100 mm height (SW330-H100) having approximately
30% lower cost compared to SW356-H150 is as effective in reducing the rut depth and localized vertical stress
distribution.

1. Introduction paved and unpaved roads. Over four decades, different geosynthetic
materials such as geogrid, geotextile and geomembrane have been used
The rapid economic growth needs the development of an extensive to reinforce the base course and reduce the failure of the pavement
road network that provides essential connectivity to remote and isolated (Suku et al., 2017; Zornberg et al., 2017; Deshmukh et al., 2021;
areas. The provision of high-quality aggregate is essential for road Bhowmik et al., 2018; Banerjee et al., 2022). Among these geosynthetic
construction, as it helps to withstand the stress induced by repetitive materials, geocells, a three-dimensional synthetic material composed of
traffic loads on the pavement. When traffic loads exceed the capacity of several interconnected honeycomb-type cells, have recently gained
pavement, it becomes unavoidable that common failure modes, such as popularity in various highway and railway construction projects.
rutting, will manifest in both paved and unpaved roads. Furthermore, it Several researchers have conducted numerous laboratory and numerical
has been reported that around 80% of the global road network consists studies on geocell-reinforced (GR) sections (Zhang et al., 2010; Tanyu
of unpaved roads, mostly characterised as low-volume roads (Tafreshi et al., 2013; Leshchinsky and Ling, 2013; Hegde and Sitharam, 2015a,b;
et al., 2021). The surface course of these roads, which is made of un­ Tafreshi et al., 2018; Mehrjardi and Motarjemi, 2018; Liu et al., 2019;
bound aggregates or soil, experienced rutting failure due to the Önal et al., 2023) to comprehend the application and reinforcement
displacement of unbound granular particles induced by repeated vehicle mechanisms of geocell. To confirm the increased strength of GR soil,
loads (Suku et al., 2016). As a result, the pavement does not serve up to various researchers have conducted triaxial compression tests (Chen
the design life. According to the Indian Roads Congress (IRC) design et al., 2013; Song et al., 2019, 2020, 2022; Ghasemzadeh et al., 2023).
code for flexible pavements (IRC 37, 2018), rutting failure is defined as These investigations demonstrate that the reinforced soil also displays
the occurrence of average rut depths surpassing about 20 mm along the improved cohesion, along with a slight increase in the friction angle. The
wheel path. Based on this criterion, several evolutionary strategies have rutting behaviour of GR pavement sections under repeated loads was
been devised to enhance longevity and reduce the rut depth on both assessed by Mamatha and Dinesh (2019). The study shows that the

* Corresponding author.
E-mail addresses: [email protected] (S. Banerjee), [email protected] (B. Manna), [email protected] (J.T. Shahu).

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.geotexmem.2024.03.007
Received 9 January 2024; Received in revised form 22 February 2024; Accepted 18 March 2024
Available online 27 March 2024
0266-1144/© 2024 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
S. Banerjee et al. Geotextiles and Geomembranes 52 (2024) 654–670

rutting was decreased by 13–71% with the addition of geocell rein­ Table 1
forcement at the subgrade and base interface. According to George et al. Mechanical properties of the material used in subgrade.
(2021), the addition of geocell increased the resilient modulus of the Properties Values Standards
base layer by 2.5–3.3 times and reduced permanent deformation by
Specific gravity 2.65 ASTM D854 (2014)
70–80% when compared to unreinforced bases. IS classification SP ASTM D2478 (2003)
Hegde (2017) and Banerjee et al. (2023) provided a thorough over­ Maximum dry density (kN/m3) 16.6 IS 2720-Part 14 (2006)
view of the current and previous research on geocell, presenting sig­ Minimum dry density (kN/m3) 13.5 IS 2720-Part 14 (2006)
nificant findings and limitations of the past studies. The study Relative density (%) 60 –
CBR (soaked) (%) 8 ASTM D1883 (2016)
highlighted that previous research (Latha et al., 2006; Tafreshi et al., CBR (unsoaked) (%) 10 ASTM D1883 (2016)
2021) has mostly focused on investigating the impact of geometric pa­
rameters on GR sections using artificially created geocells composed of
geogrids or geotextiles. However, in the literature, limited studies on 2.2. Base and subbase layers
industry-manufactured geocells have been identified (Gedela and Kar­
purapu, 2021a, 2021b; Baadiga et al., 2022). Also, the existing literature The subbase and base layers were constructed using aggregates
lacks consideration of multi-layered pavement systems (Pokharel et al., sourced from a local quarry. A trial and error approach was employed to
2018; Siabil et al., 2020; Sheikh et al., 2021). With the increasing sus­ blend the various sizes of aggregates to achieve the desired gradation for
tainable infrastructure solution, it is very important to understand the the particular GSB (Granular Sub-Base) and WMM (Wet Mix Macadam)
effect of geometrical properties (i.e., height, weld spacings) of geocells specifications outlined in the Ministry of Road Transport and Highways
under a large number of loading cycles. Although a few researchers (MORTH, 2013) guidelines. The particle size distribution curves of the
(Thakur et al., 2012; Gedela et al., 2021) have explored the effect of GSB and WMM layers were determined by sieve analysis, as depicted in
geocell height, these studies typically considered a fixed weld spacing of Fig. 1b and c, respectively. The D60, D50, D30, D10, Cu and Cc values of
356 mm. Consequently, geocells of 356 mm weld spacing and 150 mm WMM and GSB layers are given in Fig. 1b and c, respectively (see inset).
height (SW356-H150) have become prevalent in the construction of As per the Indian soil classification system outlined by the Bureau of
reinforced pavement based on previous studies. Currently, there have Indian Standards (BIS, 1970), the GSB and WMM layers were catego­
been no systematic investigations carried out that vary both the weld rized as well-graded gravel (GW) with a Cu greater than 6 and Cc ranging
spacing and height of geocells. A combined effect of these parameters on between 1 and 3. The well-graded GSB and WMM layer is needed for the
multi-layered flexible pavements is not clearly addressed in the litera­ construction of a well-compacted pavement in practical application (Pai
ture. There has been a lack of systematic studies on stress distribution et al., 2022). Furthermore, the material properties of the subbase and
across different pavement layers, induced strains in geocell walls, and base layers have been established through laboratory tests conducted
settlement characteristics. Addressing these research gaps can improve following Indian standards and the results are shown in Table 2. Table 2
the understanding of geocell-reinforced pavements and provide useful demonstrates that the laboratory-obtained values of various parameters
insights for optimising pavement performance. are within the prescribed limit of MORTH specifications.
Therefore, in the present study, systematic full-scale instrumented
model tests under monotonic and repeated loading conditions on the 2.3. Geocell
multi-layered flexible pavement by varying both the weld spacings (SW
= 330 mm, 356 mm, and 445 mm) and the heights of the geocells (H = In the present study, the geometric configurations of geocells varied
75 mm, 100 mm, 150 mm, and 200 mm) have been carried out. The weld spacings (SW = 330, 356, and 445 mm) and heights (H = 75, 100,
outcomes of such studies offer researchers a potential alternative for 150, and 200 mm). The photographs of different geocells are given in
pavement reinforcement, allowing for the replacement of the commonly Fig. 2.
used SW356-H150 configuration. Also, in this study, stress distribution Twelve different geocell types utilized in this study are classified as
in pavement layers, induced strains in geocell walls, and settlement follows: SW330-H75, SW330-H100, SW330-H150, SW330-H200,
characteristics have been analyzed. The beneficial effect of geocell is SW356-H75, SW356-H100, SW356-H150, SW356-H200, SW445-H75,
quantified in terms of rut depth reduction ratio (RDRR) and subgrade SW445-H100, SW445-H150, SW445-H200. The wide-width tensile test
stress distribution angle. The findings aim to provide insights into was performed according to ASTM D 4595 (2009). Since the tensile
optimal geocell configurations for economical pavement design. strength is not influenced by material size, Fig. 3 represents the tensile
strength versus strain value for all geocell layers. Fig. 3 illustrates that
2. Materials the tensile strength at 10% axial strain is 19.04 kN/m for the geocell.
Furthermore, Table 3 presents the properties of different geocells.
This section provides a detailed description of the materials utilized
in large-scale pavement testing. 3. Experimental set-up and instrumentation

2.1. Subgrade 3.1. Model testing tank

In the current study, Yamuna sand, which is riverbed sand, is used as The full-scale instrumented model tests utilise a mild steel tank with
a subgrade soil. The characteristics of this material were assessed in the dimensions of 2.0 m × 2.0 m × 1.8 m (as shown in Fig. 4b). Several
laboratory by several tests conducted following both Indian and ASTM researchers (Selig and Mckee, 1961; Chummar, 1972; Saride et al., 2009;
standards, as shown in Table 1. The sieve analysis was conducted to Gedela and Karpurapu, 2021b; Tafreshi et al., 2021) have found that the
ascertain the particle size distribution curve of the sand, as depicted in effect of confining pressure due to tank boundaries is negligible when
Fig. 1a. The mean particle diameter (D50), effective particle diameter the tank boundaries are sufficiently away (i.e., more than 2.5 times)
(D10), Coefficient of uniformity (Cu), Coefficient of curvature (Cc), par­ from the loading plate. Thus, the lateral boundaries of the tank exceed
ticle diameter corresponding to percent finer than 60 (D60) and 30 (D30) 2.5 times that of the loading plate in both lateral directions. The bottom
values of sand are given in Fig. 1a (see inset). Following the Unified Soil and both sides of the tank have been covered with a layer of foam sheet
Classification System (USCS), the sand is categorized as poorly graded that is 50 mm thick to absorb wave-induced vibrations effectively (as
sand (SP). shown in Fig. 5a).

655
S. Banerjee et al. Geotextiles and Geomembranes 52 (2024) 654–670

Fig. 1. Grain size distribution: (a) Subgrade, (b) Subbase, (c) Base.

Table 2
Mechanical properties of material used in subbase and base layer.
Parameters Subbase Base MORTH limitation

Type of material 40 mm 20 mm Stone Dust 40 mm 20 mm 10 mm Stone Dust –

Design mix (%) 39 40 21 32 23 12 33 –
SG 2.93 2.913 2.738 2.93 2.913 2.833 2.738 –
WA (%) 0.32 0.40 1.785 0.32 0.40 0.61 1.785 Max 2%
MDD (gm/cc) 2.165 2.285 –
OMC (%) 6.02 5.95 –
LL (%) 17 16 Max 25%
PI Non-plastic Non-plastic Max 6%
AIV (%) 18.60 18.86 Max 30%
CFEI (%) 21.22 21.17 Max 35%
CBR (soaked) (%) 85 98.6 Min 30%

Note: SG = Specific gravity; WA = Water absorption; MDD = Maximum Dry Density; OMC = Optimum Moisture Content; LL = Liquid Limit; PI = Plasticity Index; AIV
= Aggregate Impact Value; CFEI = Combined Flakiness & Elongation Index; CBR = California Bearing Ratio value at 98% dry density.

Fig. 2. Photograph of geocell: (a) SW445-H75, (b) SW445-H100, (c) SW356-H150, (d) SW330-H200.

3.2. Test set-up maintenance of an appropriate temperature for the hydraulic fluid. The
hydraulic service manifold (HSM), which operates through a single
The schematic illustration of the test setup, along with its compo­ hydraulic power unit (HPU), offers the overall and independent control
nents, including a testing tank, loading system, and data measurement of the hydraulic pressure provided to separate stations. Additionally, a
system, is depicted in Fig. 4a. A robust loading frame, constructed from computer is available for connecting data cards and a data logger,
mild steel, is securely positioned on a stable floor to support the hy­ facilitating the collection of data from various sensors and providing the
draulic actuator. A servo-controlled hydraulic actuator with a capacity necessary instructions to control the actuator as needed.
of 100 kN and a stroke length of 150 mm (±75 mm double amplitude) is
affixed to the crossbeam within the loading frame. A hydraulic jack
mounted on a rigid loading frame to apply load on a loading plate 3.3. Preparation of different pavement layers and geocell installation
positioned on a pavement surface. The loading amplitude and rate are
controlled by a 100-kN-capacity load cell, ensuring precise control with According to the Indian Roads Congress (IRC) design standards for
an accuracy of ±0.01%. Additionally, LVDTs (Linear Variable Differ­ flexible pavement (IRC-37, 2018), the thicknesses of the base and sub­
ential Transformers) with a 150-mm capacity and ±0.01% accuracy are base layers were determined by considering the subgrade CBR value and
affixed to the actuator for measuring the surface settlement. traffic volume of 5 million equivalent standard axles. Different pave­
The Hydraulic Power Unit (HPU) serves the purpose of facilitating ment layers were constructed sequentially within a test tank, as shown
the dissipation of heat created during operation, hence ensuring the in Fig. 5a-f. The construction procedure started with the initial layer
known as the subgrade, which has an overall height of 1000 mm.

656
S. Banerjee et al. Geotextiles and Geomembranes 52 (2024) 654–670

Subsequently, the subbase and base layers are incorporated, with

respective thicknesses of 150 mm and 250 mm, within the tank. The
subgrade layer (i.e., sand) is initially prepared in the tank using the
manual hammer blow technique, achieving a 60% relative density. To
achieve uniform compaction, the entire thickness of the subgrade layer
is divided into ten equal sections, each measuring 100 mm in height. The
weight of the soil required for each layer is determined and evenly
distributed within the corresponding layers. The compacting process
involves using a 3 kg wooden hammer in each layer until the desired
density is attained. A photograph of the fully completed subgrade layer
is presented in Fig. 5b.
After placing the subbase layer on top of the subgrade layer, the
aggregate layer is compacted using the manual hammer technique with
a 3 kg wooden hammer. The construction process involves mixing a
predetermined amount of material with moisture content and then
placing the uniformly mixed blend inside the tank to match the target
layer thickness. A photograph of the fully constructed subbase layer is
provided in Fig. 5c. The base layer constructed above the subbase layer
followed the same procedure. Fig. 5e depicts the complete construction
of the various pavement layers within the tank. As shown in Fig. 5d, the
geocell layer is positioned over the subbase layer for the reinforced
Fig. 3. Tensile force versus strain response of geocell layer. section, and wet mix macadam (WMM) material is filled into the geocell

Table 3
Material properties of geocell layer.
Material Weld Spacing (SW) Height (H) Seam Strength Tensile strength at 10% strain Initial tensile modulus Min thickness Density (g/
(mm) (mm) (N)(*) (kN/m) (kN/m)(a) (mm) cm3)

HDPE 330 75 1096 19.04 371.25 1.65 0.94

100 1446
150 2178
200 2846

HDPE 356 75 1072 19.04 371.25 1.65 0.94

100 1456
150 2211
200 2865

HDPE 445 75 1100 19.04 371.25 1.65 0.94

100 1477
150 2180
200 2851

Note: HDPE: High Density Polyethylene; (a) as per guideline given in ASTM D 4595 (2009); (*) as given by the manufacturer.

Fig. 4. Schematic diagram of test set-up and pavement sections: (a) whole test set-up; (b) instrumented different pavement sections with geocell.

657
S. Banerjee et al. Geotextiles and Geomembranes 52 (2024) 654–670

Fig. 5. Construction sequence of model pavement: (a) empty tank with 50 mm thick foam at different boundaries; (b) subgrade layer construction with all sensors;
(c) subbase layer construction with all sensors; (d) geocell layer placement over subbase; (e) base layer construction with sensors; (f) complete test set-up.

pocket. The geocell pockets are filled with soil in a manner that ensures subbase layers can be determined by dividing the maximum dry density
an additional 10 cm of soil covering the geocell layer before continuing obtained from the tank by the maximum dry density derived from the
with the compaction process. In this particular study, the asphalt layer laboratory test. It was found that 98% of the compaction level is ach­
was not considered due to its inherent stiffness, which can be a barrier to ieved for both subbase and base layers, showing that the desired level of
understanding the effectiveness of the reinforced layer. compaction as per MORTH (2013) specification had been reached. Any
The assessment of quality control for the compacted layers within the constructed segment that exhibited a compaction percentage below 98%
tank was conducted to ensure the achievement of the appropriate was subsequently removed and reconstructed.
compaction level across various pavement layers. When filling the tank
with sand for the subgrade layer, two small containers are placed in the
3.4. Instrumentation
corner. Once the subgrade layer has been compacted, these small con­
tainers are carefully extracted from the tank without shaking. The
The instrumentation included strain gauges, earth pressure cells, and
achieved relative density is measured along with the weight of the sand-
displacement transducers that were all connected to a digital data
filled containers. Every layer of sand undergoes this process to ensure
acquisition system (as shown in Fig. 5). Displacement transducers were
consistent relative density. Then, after the construction of the subbase
used to measure the vertical displacement at the base, subbase, and
layer in the test tank, the optimum moisture content and maximum dry
subgrade layers. The stresses in the subgrade, subbase layer, and base
unit weight were measured following IS 2720 (Part 28) (2010). The
layer were measured using earth pressure cells. To monitor the strain
same method is followed for the base layer. The measured dry density
and stress mobilisation within the geocell wall, the 350Ω resistance
for the subbase and base layer was 21.20 kN/m3 and 22.30 kN/m3
strain gauges are fixed to the geocell wall.
respectively. The compaction level achieved for both the base and
As shown in Fig. 5b, earth pressure cells were positioned at the

658
S. Banerjee et al. Geotextiles and Geomembranes 52 (2024) 654–670

subgrade layer at different relative distances from the loading axis, that Table 4
is 0D, 1D and 2D (where D is the diameter of the loading plate). The detailed test matrix of unreinforced and reinforced sections.
Furthermore, the earth pressure cell was also positioned at the subbase Test Reinforcement Parameter (H, u) Loading No of
and base layer along the loading axis (Fig. 5c). To measure displace­ sequence type pattern test
ments beneath each layer, the responses were transmitted to the top of 1 Unreinforced NA Monotonic 1
the model track through settlement pegs. These settlement pegs con­ 2 Geocell u = base and subbase Monotonic 6
sisted of brass rods with circular perspex plates attached to both ends, as reinforced layer
depicted in Fig. 5c. The brass rod was enclosed within a smooth pipe to H = 75 mm (SW330,
356, 445 mm)
enable unrestricted movement of the rod. Settlement pegs were posi­ 3 Unreinforced NA Repetitive 1
tioned at a distance of 0.67D from the edge of the loading plate at 4 Geocell SW330 (H = 75, 100, Repetitive 12
different pavement layers, as depicted in Fig. 4. LVDTs were affixed on reinforced 150, 200 mm)
top of the settlement pegs to monitor the displacement of these pegs. SW356 (H = 75, 100,
150, 200 mm)
Furthermore, to measure the strain variations at the geocell wall, the
SW445 (H = 75, 100,
strain gauges were attached using three different configurations, as 150, 200 mm)
shown in Fig. 6. In the first configuration, strain gauges were attached to
Note: u = Placement depth of geocell; H = geocell height; SW = weld spacing;
the geocell walls along the loading axis, extending away from the
NA = not applicable.
loading region up to one side of the tank. In the second configuration,
two strain gauges were positioned at the bottom and middle of the
geocell wall beneath the loading axis. In the third configuration, strain monotonic loading condition, with a displacement rate of 0.5 mm/min.
gauges were attached at the bottom of the geocell walls in two different In the case of repetitive loading conditions, a haversine load pulse with a
directions (vertical and horizontal) under the loading axis. frequency of 1 Hz was utilized, as shown in Fig. 7.
From Fig. 7, it can be observed that the loading sequence consisted of
applying the load for 0.1 s at the initial stage of each cycle, followed by a
4. Testing procedure and loading pattern
0.9-s rest period (Tanyu et al., 2013; IRC 37, 2018). The repetitive
loading investigations were conducted until a minimum of 50,000 load
4.1. Testing procedure
cycles were reached or until the base layer settlement measurement
The current study involved conducting experiments in two distinct
loading stages: (1) monotonic loading conditions, and (2) repetitive
loading conditions. The preliminary stage of the investigation involved
the execution of seven model experiments under monotonic loading
conditions for both unreinforced (UR) and geocell-reinforced (GR)
conditions. In the case of reinforcement, tests were conducted for
various scenarios involving different weld spacings (SW330, 356, 445
mm) and placement depths (base and subbase layer). The primary ob­
jectives of these tests were to determine the optimal depth for geocell
reinforcement and establish the magnitude of the repetitive load to be
applied during subsequent repeated load tests. The actuator was used to
apply monotonic loading through a rigid circular steel plate with a
diameter of 300 mm. In addition, a total of twelve tests were conducted
to evaluate the performance of unpaved sections subjected to repeated
loading, wherein the reinforcement was positioned at the optimal depth.
Also, one test has been carried out for UR sections under repetitive
loading conditions. The test matrix comprising UR and GR sections with
varying geocell heights and weld spacing is presented in Table 4.

4.2. Loading pattern

The present investigation employs two distinct loading situations.

Fig. 7. Repeated loading pattern used for experimental study.
Initially, the plate was subjected to a concentric application of the

Fig. 6. Strain gauge installation along the geocell wall: (a) along the loading axis and extending away from the loading axis up to one side of the tank; (b) at the
bottom and middle of the geocell wall in a different direction.

659
S. Banerjee et al. Geotextiles and Geomembranes 52 (2024) 654–670

reached 25 mm, as specified by the IRC: SP-72 (2015) and IRC 37 the base layer, which has been recognized as the optimal location for
(2018). geocell placement.

5. Results and discussion 5.2. Repetitive loading

5.1. Monotonic loading The load versus settlement responses for both GR and UR cases were
depicted in Fig. 9. The GR sections with different geocell heights (H =
The load versus settlement responses for the various UR and GR 75 mm, 100 mm, 150 mm, 200 mm) and various weld spacings (SW =
sections are depicted in Fig. 8. In the reinforced cases, the monotonic 330 mm, 356 mm, 445 mm) exhibited a substantial reduction in set­
loading tests were performed with consistent geocell heights (specif­ tlement, ranging from about 28% to 72% when compared to the unre­
ically, 75 mm) under varying scenarios. These scenarios included inforced section. This reduction in settlement highlights the
different weld spacings (SW330, 356, 445 mm) and placement depths effectiveness of geocell reinforcement in enhancing the performance of
(base and subbase layers). The primary objectives of these tests were to pavement layers and load-carrying capacity.
identify the optimal location for geocell reinforcement and to determine Additionally, to provide a clear visualization of the advantageous
the magnitude of the repetitive load. Also, these tests were carried out impact of the reinforced layer, the deformation profile after 50,000
with varying weld spacing to determine the most effective reinforcement loading cycles is presented in Fig. 10 for both the UR and GR sections
location for each specific weld spacing. with a configuration of SW330-H100. In the UR section (Fig. 9a), there
It can be observed from Fig. 8 that the reinforcement positioned at was considerable plastic deformation (εp ) with minimal elastic recovery
the base layer consistently shows a higher load-carrying capacity value (εe ), which suggests that the pavement underwent substantial perma­
than the reinforcement placed at the subbase layer for all weld spacings. nent deformation. In contrast, the GR section (Fig. 9b) exhibited lower
It is important to note that a clear failure mode was evident in the case of plastic deformation and higher elastic recovery, indicating better resis­
the unreinforced section. However, when the geocell reinforcement was tance to permanent deformation. Also, it is evident from Fig. 9b that
employed, there was no distinct failure observed in the load-settlement geocells with greater height and lower weld spacings contribute to a
behaviour, under the substantial load up to 99 kN. The remarkable reduction in final settlement values. This reduction is attributed to its
performance of geocell reinforcement, even under significant loads, can enhanced capability to confine the soil within the geocell. In contrast,
be attributed to the confinement effect of the geocell mattress. Soil- geocells with larger weld spacings, specifically 445 mm, and varying
geocell interaction effect plays a pivotal role in enhancing the perfor­ heights were found to have a minimal impact on pavement reinforce­
mance of the GR pavement sections. Geocell, being a three-dimensional ment, resulting in minimum reductions in final settlement values. Also,
structure, utilizes the walls of each cell to provide interfacial resistance this difference in the hysteresis loops for the GR section highlights the
to the enclosed soil. This resistance helps prevent the encapsulated soil clear advantage of reinforcement, particularly in terms of the selected
from settling or punching down. Additionally, the vertical members or placement location and the magnitude of repetitive loading.
walls of the geocell offer lateral confinement to the infill material, pre­
venting it from spreading out laterally. Consequently, the geocell layer 5.2.1. Permanent deformation or rut depth at the base layer
effectively functions as a mattress for the pavement. These two phe­ The primary method for evaluating road performance is through the
nomena collectively contribute to a reduced settlement in the GR identification of permanent deformation or rutting on the pavement
pavement compared to the UR pavement. It is important to highlight surface. This phenomenon is characterised by the formation of de­
that the IRC 37 (2018) guideline specifies a standard axle wheel load of pressions or excessive settling on the pavement surface as a result of
40 kN, and the selected pavement sections have demonstrated the ability repeated loading. The present investigation depicts in Fig. 9a that the
to withstand wheel loads above 40 kN (Fig. 8). Consequently, a total deformation (εc ) observed on the surface of the base layer can be
maximum load magnitude of 40 kN was chosen for the subsequent re­ attributed to the combined effects of permanent (plastic) deformation
petitive loading tests. Furthermore, all subsequent tests for repetitive (εp ) and resilient (elastic) deformation (εe ). Thus, for both UR and GR
loading conditions were conducted with the reinforcement positioned at pavement sections at different numbers of load cycles (N), the perma­
nent deformations were calculated by subtracting resilient deformation
from the total deformation, and the results are illustrated in Fig. 11.
From Fig. 11, it can be observed that the rut depth increased with the
increasing number of loading cycles. However, the inclusion of geocell
significantly reduced the rut depths. In the case of the UR section, the rut
depth reached 19.36 mm at the end of 50,000 cycles, as shown in the
subfigure of Fig. 11. In contrast, the same section reinforced with
different geocell layers exhibited rut depths of less than 15 mm at the
end of the same 50,000 loading cycles (N = 50,000). This substantial
reduction in rut depth (i.e., ranging from 22% to 74%) demonstrates the
effectiveness of geocell reinforcement in improving pavement perfor­
mance and reducing permanent deformation. The UR section developed
the maximum rut depth due to the unbound nature of the aggregate
material. However, the geocell layer significantly constrained the lateral
movement of the aggregate layer, leading to a reduction in rut depth
development at the base layer. The study also revealed that the effec­
tiveness of reinforcement became evident from the very first loading
cycle.
Among different GR sections, it was observed that geocells with the
same heights but different weld spacings exhibited distinct rutting
behaviour, with significant differences in the rut depth development.
The rut depths for the GR sections SW330-H75, SW330-H100, SW330-
Fig. 8. Load versus settlement response for monotonic loading of UR and H150, SW330-H200, SW356-H75, SW356-H100, SW356-H150,
GR sections. SW356-H200, SW445-H75, SW445-H100, SW445-H150, SW445-H200

660
S. Banerjee et al. Geotextiles and Geomembranes 52 (2024) 654–670

Fig. 9. Load-settlement responses of different pavement sections under repetitive loading up to 50,000 loading cycles (a) unreinforced; (b) reinforced.

at the end of 50,000 cycles were measured to be 9.51 mm, 6.83 mm, interconnected cells, offering improved load distribution and enhanced
5.28 mm, 5.02 mm, 10.22 mm, 8.54 mm, 6.10 mm, 5.25 mm, 15.07 mm, confinement. This increased shear resistance in the infill soil contributes
13.38 mm, 10.63 mm, and 10.28 mm, respectively. The observation to reduced rut depth in pavements reinforced with lower weld spacings.
highlights that, for a specific geocell height, geocells with a weld spacing Also, the observed rutting reduction for weld spacings of 330 was
of 445 mm exhibit a higher rut depth, ranging from about 32% to 51%, slightly better than that for weld spacing of 356, with minimum differ­
when compared to geocells with weld spacings of 330 mm and 356 mm. ences ranging from 4% to 11%. So, it can be mentioned that the ad­
Wider weld spacings, such as 445 mm, signify a reduced number of cells vantageous impact of geocells is observable up to an optimal weld
positioned beneath the loading plate. This reduction can lead to less spacing (i.e., 356 mm), beyond which the effect of reinforcement be­
efficient load distribution and a decreased ability to confine the aggre­ comes minimal. As the number of geocell pockets increases (specifically,
gate material within the geocell pockets. Several researchers (Dash and when the distance between welds reduces), there is a threshold where
Bora, 2013; Gedela and Karpurapu, 2021a) reported similar findings in further reduction in weld spacing does not substantially impact the
their studies. Reduced weld spacings result in a denser network of overall behaviour of geocell-infill material. Consequently, the decrease

661
S. Banerjee et al. Geotextiles and Geomembranes 52 (2024) 654–670

Fig. 10. Deformation profile of pavement after 50,000 loading cycles, (a) unreinforced section; (b) reinforced section (SW330-H100).

rutting in flexible pavements, an evaluation index known as the rutting

depth reduction ratio (RDRR) can be employed. The RDRR, or Rutting
Depth Reduction Ratio, is defined as the ratio between the rut depth of
the GR section at a specific loading cycle and the rut depth of the UR
section at the corresponding loading cycle (Suku et al., 2016). Past
research has demonstrated that flexible pavements reinforced with
geocells tend to have a lower RDRR value, indicating better performance
in resisting rutting (Han et al., 2011; Thakur et al., 2012; Suku et al.,
2016). In the present study, RDRR values were determined for the
flexible pavement reinforced with various combinations of weld spacing
and geocell height, as presented in Table 5. It can be seen from Table 5
that the higher geocell heights exhibit higher RDRR values in compar­
ison to lower geocell heights. The higher heights of the geocell enhance
the bending and shear rigidity of the entire GR pavement by increasing
the moment of inertia. As a result, this facilitates the redistribution of the
load across a larger area in GR sections, leading to an improved
load-carrying capacity and RDRR values in the pavement sections.
Furthermore, it can be observed that the geocell having a weld spacing
of 445 mm exhibits a lower RDRR value in comparison to geocells
Fig. 11. Rut depth at the pavement base layer versus number of cycles for having weld spacings of 330 mm and 356 mm. However, when the
different GR and UR pavement sections. geocell layer has higher weld spacings, there is a possibility that the
material between the geocell layers may experience displacement,
in rut depth becomes less noticeable. potentially resulting in the settlement of the encapsulated soil. This
It was observed that for a particular weld spacing, geocells with a settling of the soil within the pavement can lead to a higher RDRR value.
greater height performed better by around 32%–48% compared to those It can be concluded that the most significant reduction in rut depth
with lower heights (i.e., 75 mm), primarily attributed to their increased occurs at lower loading cycles (N = 1000). When a load is applied to an
flexural rigidity. The increased flexural rigidity of taller geocells allows unreinforced pavement, especially during the initial loading cycles, soil
them to better distribute loads, provide more substantial structural particles tend to move laterally and compact closely with neighbouring
support, and reduce settlement of the underlying soil. In contrast, geo­ particles. This lateral movement and compaction result in a high rut
cells with reduced heights exhibit significantly lower flexural rigidity, depth in the UR pavement at the initial stage. In contrast, when a GR
which results in a less noticeable reinforcement effect. Furthermore, the pavement is subjected to loading, the soil and geocell system may un­
increased contact area between the geocell wall and the filler material in dergo an initial compaction phase during the early stages of loading.
the taller geocell layer leads to greater interfacial friction. As a result, This initial compaction has a beneficial effect by reducing rut depth.
the tensile strength of the geocell layer becomes more effectively This effect is more noticeable at lower loading cycles when the geocell is
mobilized. This increase in mobilized tensile strength leads to a greater
resisting moment, which includes both the tensile force within the
geocell-soil combined system and the lateral confining force exerted by Table 5
Rut depth reduction ratio at base layer for various geocell configurations and
soil particles within the geocell cells. This enhanced resisting moment is
loading cycles.
then capable of overcoming the driving moment, preventing the infill
material from completely punching down. Similar results are observed Pavement Rutting depth reduction ratio at base layer (%)
sections
by Mehdipour et al. (2013). However, it was observed that the beneficial 1000 10,000 20,000 30,000 50,000
influence of geocells is noticeable up to an optimal geocell height cycles cycles cycles cycles cycles
(typically around 150 mm) and beyond which the reinforcement effect SW330-H75 65.63 45.09 40.00 38.02 50.89
becomes marginal. Additionally, the geocell with a lower weld spacing SW330-H100 89.16 75.08 65.56 60.26 64.71
and height, such as SW330-H100, exhibited comparable rutting SW330-H150 92.15 83.48 76.27 70.41 72.70
SW330-H200 92.56 84.30 80.43 76.99 74.07
behaviour with a variation of about 10% when compared to the geocell
SW356-H75 57.11 42.87 35.76 35.86 47.20
with a higher weld spacing and height, like SW356-H150. Despite dif­ SW356-H100 87.36 73.31 60.68 53.25 55.91
ferences in weld spacing and height, both geocell configurations may SW356-H150 91.18 81.39 69.95 66.46 68.52
have provided a similar level of confinement effect to the encapsulated SW356-H200 91.63 82.32 76.13 70.64 72.86
soil. As a result, both the geocell configurations provide similar rutting SW445-H75 26.63 14.07 8.80 6.60 22.14
SW445-H100 34.60 21.92 17.94 15.98 30.88
resistance to the underlying soil. SW445-H150 50.36 33.53 30.08 31.21 45.09
In addition, to assess the effectiveness of geocells in mitigating SW445-H200 53.80 34.86 33.51 32.62 46.92

662
S. Banerjee et al. Geotextiles and Geomembranes 52 (2024) 654–670

mobilizing its full reinforcement potential. For example, at the end of

1000 cycles, all the GR sections exhibit significantly greater RDRR
values ranging from 50% to 93%, compared to the RDRR values
observed after other loading cycles for the same GR sections. Also, the
soil and geocell systems may exhibit time-dependent behaviour, such as
stress relaxation and creep. This behaviour can impact the rutting per­
formance over time. Similar observations were made by Ghasemzadeh
et al. (2023) in their study.

5.2.2. Traffic benefit ratio (TBR)

Several studies (AASHTO, 1993; Holtz et al., 2008; Pokharel et al.,
2018; George et al., 2021) have evaluated the durability or extension of
pavement life for geocell-reinforced pavement using a dimensionless
index called Traffic Benefit Ratio (TBR). TBR compares the number of
load cycles (NGR) necessary to induce a specific amount of rutting in the
GR section with the number of cycles (NUR) required to induce the same
amount of rutting in the UR section. Traffic Benefit Ratio (TBR) essen­
tially represents the additional traffic loads that can be sustained by the
pavement when geocell reinforcement is utilized, while keeping all
other pavement materials and geometries constant. Since the rut depths
Fig. 12. Rut depth at the subgrade layer versus number of cycles for different
of some GR sections (i.e., SW330-H150, SW330-H200) in this study are
GR and UR pavement sections.
less than 6 mm, TRB values are calculated at the rut depth value of 5
mm. The calculated TBR values for different reinforced sections are
given in Table 6. From this table, it can be observed that TBR values are The findings from Fig. 12 indicate that the UR pavement exhibits
much higher for all GR sections, which indicates that the significantly higher rut depths at the subgrade layer, ranging from about
geocell-reinforced pavement can withstand more traffic loads before 51% to 88% higher compared to the various GR sections. This sub­
reaching the same level of rutting as the unreinforced pavement. A stantial difference emphasizes the effectiveness of geocell reinforcement
higher TBR signifies a greater improvement in pavement durability due in mitigating rutting value at subgrade. The geocell layer plays a pivotal
to the use of geocell reinforcement. role in offering substantial lateral support to the encapsulated soil par­
ticles. This support generates increased confining stress along the geo­
5.2.3. Permanent deformation or rut depth at subgrade layer cell walls, effectively contributing to apparent cohesion and enhancing
When a pavement exhibits rut depth at the base layer, it is generally the shear strength parameters of the base layer. Essentially, the geocell,
more straightforward and cost-effective to perform rehabilitation work along with its encapsulated soil layer, functions akin to a mattress,
because it can be targeted specifically at the affected layer without transmitting minimal vertical stress to the subgrade layer. This results in
disturbing the other pavement layers. This intensive repair approach a noteworthy reduction in rut depth values at the subgrade layer for the
reduces overall pavement repair costs and minimizes construction dis­ geocell-reinforced pavement compared to the rut depth values of the
ruptions. In contrast, if the rutting occurs at the subgrade layer, it poses a unreinforced pavement. A similar improvement in rut depth at the
more significant challenge. To address rut depth at the subgrade, it often subgrade layer for geosynthetics-reinforced pavement compared to UR
necessitates the removal of the entire pavement structure, including the pavement was also observed in a study conducted by Baadiga et al.
surface, base, and subbase layers. After removal, the construction of the (2021). Additionally, the sub-figure of Fig. 12 demonstrates that after
entire pavement structure must be carried out again. Thus, the rut depth 50,000 loading cycles, the GR sections exhibited a significantly greater
at the subgrade layer is considered a critical failure for the pavement reduction in rut depth at the subgrade layer compared to the UR section.
section precisely due to the extensive and costly repair required. It sig­ The sub-figure of Fig. 12 shows that among the GR sections, the rut
nifies that the foundation of the pavement layer, which is the subgrade, depths at the subgrade layer for the reinforced sections configured with
has deteriorated to the point where it can no longer support the upper SW330-H75, SW330-H100, SW330-H150, SW330-H200, SW356-H75,
pavement layers. Consequently, the current investigation has provided SW356-H100, SW356-H150, SW356-H200, SW445-H75,
findings regarding rut depth at the subgrade layer for both GR and UR SW445-H100, SW445-H150, SW445-H200 at the end of 50,000 cycles
pavement under different loading cycles, as illustrated in Fig. 12. were measured to be 0.95 mm, 0.80 mm, 0.72 mm, 0.67 mm, 1.05 mm,
0.90 mm, 0.76 mm, 0.70 mm, 2.80 mm, 2.39 mm, 2.20 mm, and 2.15
mm, respectively. Regarding rut depth at the subgrade layer, it can be
observed that the taller geocell with a lower weld spacing results in a
Table 6
Traffic benefit ratio (TBR) values for different geocell reinforced sections.
significantly lower rut depth, approximately 75% less, when compared
to the shorter geocell with a higher weld spacing. The enhanced per­
Pavement sections Rut depth = 5 mm (For UR section, NUR = 17)
formance observed may be due to several factors: (1) Geocells with
No of cycles (NGR)
TBR =
NGR greater height and lower weld spacing offer a larger contact area,
NUR
facilitating more effective distribution of applied loads and reducing
SW330-H75 6583 387 local stress concentrations on the subgrade layer. (2) Geocells with
SW330-H100 28,156 1656 greater height and lower weld spacing often result in better interlocking
SW330-H150 45,591 2682
and increased internal friction between the geocell and the encapsulated
SW330-H200 49,800 2929
SW356-H75 4818 283 soil particles, enhancing the shear strength of the composite system and
SW356-H100 22,549 1326 minimizing deformation. (3) A geocell with higher height and lower
SW356-H150 37,059 2180 weld spacing acts like an effective cushion that helps in better distri­
SW356-H200 44,898 2641 bution of the applied load to the subgrade layer. This reduces the po­
SW445-H75 340 20
SW445-H100 732 36.6
tential for localized settlement and rut formation. Additionally, an
SW445-H150 2888 170 evaluation index known as the rutting depth reduction ratio (RDRR) can
SW445-H200 3380 199 be used to determine the efficacy of geocells in preventing rutting in the

663
S. Banerjee et al. Geotextiles and Geomembranes 52 (2024) 654–670

subgrade layer of flexible pavements. Detailed information about the consequence, the load is not efficiently distributed over a larger area,
RDRR is provided in the previous section. The RDRR values of the leading to increased localized stress concentrations in the soil below.
subgrade layer are given in Table 7. Conversely, in the case of a geocell-reinforced soil layer, the geocell
As shown in Table 7, the geocell with a lower weld spacing and combined with the infill soil behaves like a semi-rigid slab. This
height, such as SW330-H100, exhibited a similar RDRR value with a configuration is effective in distributing the applied load over a more
variation of about 6% when compared to the geocell with a higher weld extensive area. The flexural bending of the geocell layer leads to the
spacing and height, like SW356-H150. Also, it can be seen from Table 7 development of confining pressure in the pockets directly below the
that the higher geocell heights exhibit higher RDRR values in compar­ loading plate, and this effect gradually propagates to adjacent pockets.
ison to lower geocell heights. Furthermore, as compared to the rut depth Consequently, the applied load is transmitted through the geocell walls
at the base layer (as given in Table 5), a larger rut depth reduction at the and cell joints to the surrounding pockets, ensuring that the load is
subgrade layer (as given in Table 7) is observed. The improvement in distributed over a more extensive area compared to the unreinforced
pavement performance, particularly in terms of reduced rutting at the section. This distribution of the load reduces localized stress concen­
subgrade layer, can be attributed to the following factors: (1) when a trations, contributing to improved load-bearing capacity.
load is applied to the pavement structure, the GR section bears the Furthermore, within the GR sections, it is noticeable from Fig. 13b
maximum load, while the subgrade layer is subjected to the least load. that the SW330-H200 reinforced section effectively distributes minimal
This is due to the load-distributing properties of the geocell, which pressure to the base layer (122.39 kPa) and subgrade layer (90.95 kPa)
efficiently spread the load over a larger area, minimizing localized stress at the end of 50,000 loading cycles compared to the other reinforced
concentrations. This reduction in stress concentrations significantly re­ sections. This observation suggests that the specific geocell configura­
duces rutting at the subgrade layer, (2) when the load is applied directly tion SW330-H200 exhibits superior load distribution capabilities,
to the base layer, the soil particles in the base layer tend to move away resulting in reduced pressure on the base and subgrade layers. In
from the loading area. Despite the presence of geocell reinforcement, contrast, it was observed that the SW445-H75 reinforced section exerts
this soil movement is minimized but not eliminated. Consequently, there the highest pressure on the base layer (230.58 kPa) and subgrade layer
is still some rutting at the base layer, although it is reduced compared to (182.30 kPa) at the end of 50,000 loading cycles compared to the other
the UR section. reinforced sections. This indicates that the pressure distribution beneath
the GR section is greatly influenced by the height and weld spacing of
5.2.4. Vertical stress distribution along the pavement depth the geocell. This conclusion aligns with the findings of several re­
To measure the vertical stress distribution along the loading axis of searchers (Dash et al., 2007; Gedela and Karpurapu, 2021a, 2021b) who
various pavement layers, three pressure sensors are strategically posi­ also derived similar conclusions in their studies. It was observed that for
tioned above the base, subbase, and subgrade layers. Notably, the a particular weld spacing, geocells with a greater height distribute less
pressure sensor above the base layer is located 50 mm below the loading vertical stress on both the subbase (ranging from about 15% to 29%) and
plate (i.e., above the geocell layer) to safeguard it from potential dam­ the subgrade layer (ranging from about 12% to 45%) compared to those
age. Fig. 13 illustrates the vertical stress distribution throughout the with lower heights. Additionally, it was observed that, for a specific
depth of both GR and UR pavement sections. It is evident from Fig. 13 geocell height, geocells with a weld spacing of 445 mm result in a higher
that as the number of loading cycles increases, the vertical stress at vertical stress distribution on both the subbase layer (ranging from
various pavement layers also increases for both the GR and UR sections. about 14% to 37%) and the subgrade layers (ranging from about 20% to
Additionally, it is noticeable from Fig. 13a and b that the vertical stress 50%) in comparison to geocells with weld spacings of 330 mm and 356
values at the base layer are approximately the same, at around 549 kPa, mm. This behaviour is attributed to the fact that geocells with lower
for both the GR and UR pavement sections. weld spacings tend to exhibit higher flexural rigidity. This rigidity aids
Furthermore, it is observed that the vertical stress at the subbase in more effective load distribution, preventing excessive deformation
layer in the GR pavement is reduced by approximately 23%–59%, while and reducing the stress concentration within the pavement layers.
the vertical stress at the subgrade layer of the GR section is reduced by However, it was observed that for a specific geocell height, the weld
around 12%–56% when compared to the vertical stress in the UR spacings of 330 and 356 exhibited the same vertical stress distribution at
pavement. This substantial reduction in vertical stress within these the subbase with very minimal differences of about 7%–13%, whereas
layers highlights the positive impact of geocell reinforcement in miti­ the variation in pressure distribution at the subgrade layer is about 4%–
gating stress concentrations in the subbase and subgrade layers. In UR 12%. So, it can be mentioned that the advantageous impact of geocells in
sections, load transfer within the soil happens through particle-to- pressure distribution is observable up to an optimal weld spacing (i.e.,
particle contact. This means that each soil particle beneath the loading 356 mm), beyond which the effect of reinforcement becomes minimal.
plate transmits the load vertically to the particle directly beneath it. As a Both SW330-H100 and SW356-H150 reinforced sections exhibited the
same vertical stress distribution on the subbase (152 kPa) and subgrade
Table 7 layer (106 kPa). The flexural rigidity and load distribution characteris­
Rut depth reduction ratio at subgrade layer for various geocell configurations tics of these geocell configurations might be comparable, resulting in
and loading cycles. similar stress distribution patterns.
Pavement Rut depth reduction at subgrade layer (%)
sections 5.2.5. Subgrade stress distribution
1000 10,000 20,000 30,000 50,000
cycles cycles cycles cycles cycles
To measure the stress distribution at the subgrade layer, the earth
pressure cells were positioned along the loading axis and away from the
SW330-H75 74.22 75.53 79.05 79.94 83.31
loading axis, that is 0D, 1D, and 2D (where D is the loading plate
SW330-H100 79.35 81.11 82.77 83.36 85.99
SW330-H150 86.12 85.16 86.60 86.14 87.33 diameter, i.e., 300 mm). The subgrade stress distribution at different
SW330-H200 87.28 88.55 88.73 88.37 88.31 loading cycles and relative distances for different GR and UR test sec­
SW356-H75 71.68 73.52 76.91 77.96 81.64 tions are shown in Fig. 14. As depicted in Fig. 14, the observed vertical
SW356-H100 75.99 77.45 80.17 81.08 84.16 stresses were replicated on the opposite sides of the loading axis in
SW356-H150 84.93 84.16 85.18 84.69 86.69
SW356-H200 86.12 86.13 87.13 86.61 87.67
consideration of symmetry. It is evident from Fig. 14 that as the number
SW445-H75 45.09 46.37 50.32 50.77 50.79 of loading cycles increases, the vertical subgrade stress values also in­
SW445-H100 49.07 53.56 53.91 54.23 58.09 crease. Also, it can be observed that, compared to all GR sections, the UR
SW445-H150 53.23 58.20 57.00 56.63 61.45 pavement has a maximal vertical stress at the subgrade layer at each
SW445-H200 59.54 56.18 58.20 58.27 62.24
loading cycle.

664
S. Banerjee et al. Geotextiles and Geomembranes 52 (2024) 654–670

Fig. 13. Vertical stress distribution along the depth of pavement sections for different test sections (a) unreinforced; (b) reinforced.

Additionally, it is noticeable that during the initial loading cycles (i. loading cycles increases, the upper layers begin to deteriorate and
e., N = 1000 and 10,000), the subgrade stress distribution values for the cannot adequately support the load. Consequently, the maximum load is
UR section are nearly identical to those for the SW445-H75 and SW445- progressively transferred to the subgrade soil particle in the UR sections
H100 reinforced sections. However, as the loading cycles progress and in contrast to the GR sections, where the geocell reinforcement effec­
reach the end (N = 50,000), the vertical stress at the subgrade layer is tively distributes the load and reduces the development of stress in the
higher for the UR sections when compared to the various GR sections. subgrade layer. Additionally, among the various GR sections, it was
This difference can be attributed to the load transfer mechanisms within observed that the SW330-H200, SW330-H150, SW330-H100, SW356-
the soil. In the UR sections, load transfer primarily occurs through H200, and SW356-H150 reinforced sections exhibit improved vertical
particle-to-particle contact. During the initial loading cycles, the upper stress distribution at the subgrade layer when compared to the other
aggregate layer bears the maximum stress, and minimal stress is trans­ reinforced sections (i.e., SW330-H75, SW356-H75, SW356-H100,
mitted to the lower subgrade soil particle. However, as the number of SW445-H75, SW445-H100, SW445-H150, and SW445-H200). This

665
S. Banerjee et al. Geotextiles and Geomembranes 52 (2024) 654–670

Fig. 14. Subgrade stress distribution at different loading cycles and relative distances for different test sections.

finding suggests that these specific geocell configurations are more The subgrade stress distribution angle for different GR and UR
effective in distributing vertical stress within the subgrade layer, pavement sections and loading cycles are given in Table 8. It is evident
potentially resulting in better stress reduction and overall pavement from Table 8 that all the GR sections exhibit higher θ values when
performance. compared to the UR section. This increased distribution angle observed
Furthermore, the subgrade stress distribution angle (θ) is an assess­ in the GR sections is attributed to the semi-rigid response of the geocell
ment index that can be used to evaluate the ability of geocell materials to mattress. The geocell effectively transfers the load to the surrounding
distribute vertical stress within the subgrade layer of a pavement pockets and distributes it over a broader area due to its semi-rigid
structure. Several researchers (Thakur et al., 2012; Baadiga et al., 2022) response. This behaviour emphasizes the ability of the geocell rein­
have utilized this assessment index to measure the effectiveness of forcement to mitigate stress concentration and distribute vertical stress
reinforcement materials. In previous studies, the stress distribution more uniformly within the subgrade layer. The stress distribution angles
angle is determined using an approach that focuses on the maximum observed by Dash et al. (2007) vary between 4◦ and 52.6◦ for different
vertical stress at the subgrade level along the loading axis. This approach pocket sizes, heights, and widths of the geocell layer. However, the
is chosen because the induced maximum stresses at the subgrade layer current study observed the stress distribution angles of about 16◦ to 36◦
beneath the loading axis can lead to severe damage and are thus for different weld spacings and geocell heights. The study conducted by
considered critical in pavement design (Qian et al., 2013). The θ value is Dash et al. (2007) was restricted to monotonic loading. Furthermore,
obtained using the following Eq. (1): based on the literature review, Zhang et al. (2010) observed that the
σ dispersion angle varied from 25◦ to 60◦ and chose 35◦ in their analytical
Pmax = (1) equation for validation of the model test results that involved 30 mm
π (r + h tan θ)2
high geocell and monotonic loading. The chosen value of stress distri­
where, Pmax = maximum vertical stress at the subgrade layer for a bution angle is within the range of the present study.
particular loading cycle (kPa); σ = Total vertical load applied to the From Table 8, it is evident that the SW330-H200, SW330-H150,
pavement base layer (i.e., 40 kN); r = radius of the loading plate (i.e., SW330-H100, SW356-H200, and SW356-H150 reinforced sections
0.15 m); h = total height of the pavement layer resting above the sub­ demonstrate an enhanced vertical stress distribution angle at the sub­
grade layer (i.e., 0.4 m); θ = subgrade stress distribution angle at a grade layer. In the field, mostly geocells of 356 mm weld spacing and
particular loading cycle. 150 mm height (SW356-H150) are used. However, the current research
findings indicate that the SW330-H200, SW330-H150, SW330-H100,
and SW356-H200 geocell configurations exhibit behavior similar to
Table 8 the SW356-H150 configuration. Among these sections, the SW330-
Subgrade stress distribution angle (θ) for different pavement sections and H200, SW330-H150, and SW356-H200 geocell configurations are
loading cycles. associated with higher costs due to their increased geocell height and
reduced weld spacing. On the other hand, the geocell of 330 mm weld
Pavement sections θ value at different cycles
spacing and 100 mm height (SW330-H100) having approximately 30%
1000 cycles 10,000 cycles 50,000 cycles
lower cost compared to SW356-H150 is as effective in reducing the rut
Unreinforced 23.35 18.20 13.78 depth and localized vertical stress distribution. So, using the SW330-
SW330-H75 29.47 25.07 21.23 H100 geocell configuration provides cost savings without sacrificing
SW330-H100 32.75 30.23 26.13
performance, making it a viable and economical choice for geotechnical
SW330-H150 34.37 31.65 27.15
SW330-H200 35.88 34.37 29.26 projects.
SW356-H75 26.36 24.56 19.89
SW356-H100 29.26 27.15 23.58 5.2.6. Strain values at geocell wall
SW356-H150 33.02 30.46 26.32
To measure the strain variations in different directions (i.e., along the
SW356-H200 34.43 31.70 27.30
SW445-H75 24.26 18.72 15.94
width and height) of the geocell, the strain gauges were attached to the
SW445-H100 24.43 19.13 16.49 geocell wall using three different configurations: (1) In the first config­
SW445-H150 24.60 20.26 18.08 uration, strain gauges were attached to the geocell walls along the
SW445-H200 24.60 20.26 18.19 loading axis, extending away from the loading region up to one side of

666
S. Banerjee et al. Geotextiles and Geomembranes 52 (2024) 654–670

the tank. (2) In the second configuration, two strain gauges were placed sections along the loading axis and extending away from the loading
at the bottom and middle of the geocell wall under the loading axis. No region up to one side of the tank. It is evident from Fig. 15 that as the
strain gauge was applied at the top of the geocell wall, as previous re­ number of cycles increases, the strain values also increase for all the
searchers (Baadiga et al., 2022) had observed minimal strain in that geocells with different configurations. It is also noteworthy from Fig. 15
location. (3) In the third configuration, strain gauges were attached at that the highest strain values are consistently observed at the geocell
the bottom of the geocell walls in two different directions (vertical and wall positioned just below the loading axis for all the GR sections and
horizontal) under the loading axis. A vertical strain gauge can measure this is due to the lateral confinement effect of the geocell wall on the
the strain value resulting from the compression (buckle) along the infill material, which generates circumferential strain in the geocell
geocell height. A horizontal strain gauge can measure both tensile wall. Also, Fig. 15 illustrates that the strain value at the geocell wall
(convex) and compressive strains (concave). tends to decrease when the strain gauges are positioned farther away
Following the first configuration, Fig. 15 illustrates the strain vari­ from the loading plate. A similar result was observed by Tanyu et al.
ation at the geocell wall for various loading cycles and reinforced (2013). The aspect ratio of geocells, represented as the ratio of geocell

Fig. 15. Variation of strain at the geocell wall for different reinforced sections and loading cycles along the width of the pavement.

667
S. Banerjee et al. Geotextiles and Geomembranes 52 (2024) 654–670

height (H) to geocell diameter (D), is recognized as a crucial factor the geocell walls in two directions (vertical and horizontal) beneath the
influencing the performance and strain values of the geocell layer by loading axis for all the GR sections. However, in the vertical direction,
various researchers (Tang and Yang, 2013; Mamatha and Dinesh, 2019). no significant strain values were observed for any of the sections, with
In this study, a variation in aspect ratio is achieved by increasing the the maximum vertical strain occurring in the geocell with the SW445-
height of geocell or reducing the weld spacing (Fig. 15). It has been H75 configuration, amounting to 9.2 × 10− 4 %. Nevertheless, in the
observed that as the aspect ratio increases from 0.26 to 0.95, the strain horizontal direction, significant tensile strain values are observed and
values approximately decrease from 16% to 60%. For a certain weld the results are given in Fig. 15. The measured strain values are within
spacing, the observation was made that as the height of the geocell in­ the elastic range for all the geocell layer. All geocell configurations used
creases, there is a corresponding decrease in strain values ranging from in this study did not experience a buckling failure or tearing even after
around 16%–57% when compared to the strain values of lower geocell 50,000 load cycles due to adequate seam strength of the geocell joints.
heights. In contrast, for a particular geocell height, as the weld spacing The results align with those reported by Leshchinsky and Ling (2013)
decreases, the strain value decreases by around 12%–67% compared to highlighting the importance of seam strength in ensuring the durability
the strain values of higher weld spacings. This improvement in strain of geocell-reinforced sections.
values for higher geocell heights and lower weld spacings is attributed to In addition, the stress value is measured at the bottom part of the
the increased confinement effect of the encased soil within the geocell geocell wall placed below the loading axis for different GR sections at
pocket, thereby decreasing the measured strains. the end of 50,000 cycles and the results are shown in Fig. 17. Fig. 17
In addition, following the second configuration, Fig. 16 illustrates illustrates that stress values at the geocell wall decrease significantly as
the strain values along the height of the geocell positioned just below the the distance from the loading region increases. When a load is applied,
loading axis for various GR sections after 50,000 cycles. For all the GR the cell positioned directly below the loading axis bears the maximum
sections, it was observed that the strain gauge placed at the bottom gives load, resulting in the development of maximum confining stress, which
higher strain values by around 16%–38% compared to the strain values provides lateral constraint to the infill material, and consequently, the
obtained from the middle-positioned strain gauges. While the middle maximum stress value is experienced by the geocell wall. Similar results
region of a geocell wall experiences only friction interaction with the were observed by Siabil et al. (2020). Moreover, for a specific weld
infill soil, the bottom part of the wall also experiences lateral movement spacing, an increase in the height of the geocell leads to a reduction in
of the infill soil which is trying to move out of the geocell pocket. This stress values at the geocell wall, ranging from about 15% to 58%, in
gives rise to higher strain at the bottom of the geocell wall compared to comparison to stress values at lower geocell heights, as depicted in
middle part. Similar findings were observed by several other researchers Fig. 17. Conversely, for a given geocell height, decreasing the weld
(Thakur et al., 2012; Leshchinsky and Ling, 2013; Baadiga et al., 2022). spacing results in a stress value reduction of about 13%–68% when
For instance, Leshchinsky and Ling (2013) observed a 3.5% higher strain compared to higher weld spacings. The enhanced confinement effect of
at the bottom part of the geocell wall compared to the upper part. the encased soil within the geocell pocket contributes to this reduction
However, there were differences in embankment dimensions, loading in stress values at higher geocell heights and lower weld spacings.
frequency (5 Hz), and infill material properties compared to the current Considering the observed performance, the SW330-H100, SW330-H150,
study. Consequently, Leshchinsky and Ling (2013) observed a higher and SW356-H150 geocell configurations emerge as optimized choices,
strain value compared to that obtained in the present study (=0.42 %) providing minimum strain and stress values at the geocell wall.
for the cyclic loading. Thakur et al. (2012) reported higher strain value
of 1.51% at the bottom of the geocell wall, which is also higher than the 6. Conclusions
results of the current study. The geocell material used by Thakur et al.
(2012) was a novel polymeric alloy (NPA), whereas the current study In the present study, large-scale model testing has been carried out
used HDPE. Additionally, the infill material within the geocell pockets for both UR and GR pavement sections under monotonic and repetitive
also varied from the present study. Baadiga et al. (2022) conducted loading conditions. This study aims to investigate the advantages of GR
monotonic load tests on geocell-reinforced pavement sections using the pavements using various geocell configurations, focusing on the per­
same infill and geocell materials as in the current investigation. This manent deformation at the base and subgrade layer, vertical stress dis­
study observed higher strain values near the bottom of the geocell walls, tribution across different layers, and strain values within geocell walls.
ranging from 0.08% to 0.14% for geocell heights of 75 mm, 100 mm, The key findings from this study are summarized below:
150 mm, and 200 mm, respectively, closely matching with the results of
the current investigation (=0.07–0.28%) for the monotonic load tests. 1. The study highlights that geocells with greater height and lower weld
In the third configuration, strain gauges were affixed at the bottom of spacings offer improved rut depth reduction in the base and subgrade

Fig. 16. Strain values along the height of geocell placed below the loading axis for different reinforced sections at 50,000 cycles.

668
S. Banerjee et al. Geotextiles and Geomembranes 52 (2024) 654–670

Fig. 17. Stress value at the bottom part of geocell placed below the loading axis for different reinforced sections at 50,000 cycles.

layers, primarily due to their enhanced ability to confine the soil Data availability
within the geocell. The Rut depth reduction ratio (RDRR) for the
various geocell sections examined in the study ranged from 7% to No data was used for the research described in the article.
93% at the base layer and from 45% to 88% at the subgrade layer.
The reduction in rut depth was found to be influenced by the geocell Acknowledgment
height as well as weld spacing.
2. The vertical stress for all the GR sections is reduced on both the This research was funded by the “Performance Study of Geocell
subbase (ranging from about 23% to 59%) and the subgrade layer Reinforced Road Pavement at Dholera Activation Area” project spon­
(ranging from about 12% to 56%) in comparison with the UR section. sored by Dholera Industrial City Development Ltd., A Government of
Furthermore, within the GR sections, the geocells with greater height Gujarat Undertaking, under Sanction No. FT/05/299/2021. Also, the
and lower weld spacings offer better vertical stress reduction on both geocell materials used in this study were readily supplied by M/s. Strata
the subbase (ranging from about 15% to 29%) and the base layer Geosystems India Pvt. Ltd.
(ranging from about 12% to 45%).
3. The study shows all the GR sections exhibit higher subgrade stress References
distribution angle (θ) values of about 5%–89% when compared to the
UR section. Furthermore, among the GR sections, the SW330-H200, AASHTO, 1993. Guide for Design of Pavement Structures. Transportation Research
Board, National Research Council, Washington, DC.
SW330-H150, SW330-H100, SW356-H200, and SW356-H150 rein­ ASTM D 4595, 2009. Standard Test Method for Tensile Properties of Geotextiles by the
forced sections demonstrate an enhanced vertical stress distribution Wide-Width Strip Method. ASTM International, West Conshohocken, PA.
angle at the subgrade layer. ASTM D1883, 2016. Standard Test Method for California Bearing Ratio (CBR) of
Laboratory-Compacted Soils. ASTM International, West Conshohocken, PA.
4. In the field, mostly geocells of 356 mm weld spacing and 150 mm ASTM D2478, 2003. Standard Practice for Classification of Soils for Eng. Purposes,
height (SW356-H150) are used. However, this study suggests that a Unified Soil Classification System. ASTM International, West Conshohocken.
geocell of 330 mm weld spacing and 100 mm height (SW330-H100) ASTM D854, 2014. Standard Test Methods for Specific Gravity of Soil Solids by Water
Pycnometer, Unified Soil Classification System. ASTM International, West
having approximately 30% lower cost compared to SW356-H150 is Conshohocken.
as effective in reducing the rut depth and localized vertical stress Baadiga, R., Balunaini, U., Saride, S., Madhav, M.R., 2021. Influence of geogrid
distribution. properties on rutting and stress distribution in reinforced flexible pavements under
repetitive wheel loading. J. Mater. Civ. Eng. 33 (12).
5. The study revealed that geocells with larger weld spacings (i.e., 445
Baadiga, R., Balunaini, U., Saride, S., Madhav, M.R., 2022. Behavior of geogrid- and
mm) and different geocell heights had a minimal impact on rein­ geocell-stabilized unpaved pavements overlying different subgrade conditions under
forcing pavement, resulting in limited reductions in rut depth and monotonic loading. Int. J. Geosynth. Ground Eng. 8, 34.
vertical stress distribution within the subbase and subgrade layers. Banerjee, S., Manna, B., Shahu, J.T., 2023. Geocell as a promising reinforcement
technique for road pavement: a state of the art. Indian Geotech. J. 2277–3347.
6. The strain value at the geocell wall tends to decrease when the strain https://doi.org/10.1007/s40098-023-00818-0.
gauges are positioned farther away from the loading plate. However, Banerjee, S., Srivastava, M.V.K., Manna, B., Shahu, J.T., 2022. A novel approach to the
for all the GR sections, the strain measurements were found to be design of geogrid-reinforced flexible pavements. Int. J. Geosynth. Ground Eng. 8, 29.
https://doi.org/10.1007/s40891-022-00373-3.
higher at the bottom of the geocell walls indicating a higher Bhowmik, R., Shahu, J.T., Datta, M., 2018. Failure analysis of a geomembrane lined
confinement effect on a lower part of the geocell. Also, no significant reservoir embankment. Geotext. Geomembranes 46 (1), 52–65.
strain value is observed along the vertical direction which signifies BIS, 1970. Classification and Identification of Soils for General Engineering Purposes,
pp. 1–24. New Delhi, India.
that the geocell layer does not experience buckling behaviour during Chen, R.H., Huang, Y.W., Huang, F.C., 2013. Confinement effect of geocells on sand
the loading cycles. samples under triaxial compression. Geotext. Geomembranes 37 (3), 35–44.
Chummar, A.V., 1972. Bearing capacity theory from experimental results. J. Soil Mech.
Found Div. 98 (12), 1311–1324. ASCE.
CRediT authorship contribution statement Dash, S.K., Bora, M.C., 2013. Improved performance of soft clay foundations using stone
columns and geocell-sand mattress. Geotext. Geomembranes 41, 26–35.
Sayanti Banerjee: Writing – original draft, Validation, Methodol­ Dash, S.K., Rajagopal, K., Krishnaswamy, N.R., 2007. Behaviour of geocell-reinforced
sand beds under strip loading. Can. Geotech. J. 44 (7), 905–916.
ogy, Investigation. Bappaditya Manna: Writing – review & editing,
Deshmukh, R.R., Patel, S., Shahu, J.T., 2021. Field assessment of improvement in
Supervision, Funding acquisition, Conceptualization. J.T. Shahu: composite modulus of geosynthetic-reinforced pavements. Geosynth. Int. 28 (6),
Writing – review & editing, Supervision. 624–633.
Gedela, R., Kalla, S., Sudarsanan, N., Karpurapu, R., 2021. Assessment of load
distribution mechanism in geocell reinforced foundation beds using Digital Imaging
Correlation Techniques. Transp. Geotech. 31.

669
S. Banerjee et al. Geotextiles and Geomembranes 52 (2024) 654–670

Gedela, R., Karpurapu, R., 2021a. Influence of pocket shape on numerical response of Pai, R.R., Bakare, M.D., Patel, S., Shahu, J.T., 2022. Asserting the applicability of copper
geocell reinforced foundation systems. Geosynth. Int. 28 (3), 327–337. slag and fly ash as cemented base materials in flexible pavement from a full-scale
Gedela, R., Karpurapu, R., 2021b. Laboratory and numerical studies on the performance field study. J. Mater. Civ. Eng. 34 https://doi.org/10.1061/(ASCE)MT.1943-
of geocell reinforced base layer overlying soft subgrade. Int. J. Geosynth. Ground 5533.0004123.
Eng. 7 (7), 1–18. Pokharel, S.K., Han, J., Leshchinsky, D., Parsons, R.L., 2018. Experimental evaluation of
George, A.M., Banerjee, A., Puppala, A.J., Saladhi, M., 2021. Performance evaluation of geocell-reinforced bases under repeated loading. Int. J. Pavement Res. Technol. 11,
geocell-reinforced reclaimed asphalt pavement (RAP) bases in flexible pavements. 114–127.
Int. J. Pavement Eng. 22 (2), 181–191. Qian, Y., Han, J., Pokharel, S.K., Parsons, R.L., 2013. Performance of triangular aperture
Ghasemzadeh, H., Jafarzadeh, M., Ahmadi, S., 2023. Dominant elastoplastic of geocell- geogrid-reinforced base courses over weak subgrade under cyclic loading. J. Mater.
reinforced sand subjected to cyclic loading under large-scale triaxial tests. Soil Civ. Eng. 25 (8), 1013–1021. https://doi.org/10.1061/(ASCE)MT.1943-
Dynam. Earthq. Eng. 176. 5533.0000577.
Han, J., Pokharel, S., Yang, X., Manandhar, C., Leshchinsky, D., Halahmi, I., Parsons, R. Saride, S., Gowrisetti, S., Sitharam, T.G., Puppala, A.J., 2009. Numerical simulation of
L., 2011. Performance of Geocell-reinforced RAP bases over weak subgrade under geocell-reinforced sand and clay. Proc. Inst. Civil Eng., Ground Improv. G14,
full-scale moving wheel loads. ASCE J. Mater. Civ. Eng. 23 (11), 1525–1524. 185–198. Issue.
Hegde, A., 2017. Geocell reinforced foundation beds-past findings, present trends and Selig, E.T., Mckee, K.E., 1961. Static and dynamic behaviour of small footings. J. Soil
future 859 prospects: a state-of-the-art review. Construct. Build. Mater. 154, Mech. Found Div. 87 (6), 29–47. ASCE.
658–674. Sheikh, I.R., Mandhaniya, P., Shah, M.Y., 2021. A parametric study on pavement with
Hegde, A., Sitharam, T.G., 2015a. 3-Dimensional numerical modelling of geocell geocell reinforced rock quarry waste base on dredged soil subgrade. Int. J. Geosynth.
reinforced sand beds. Geotext. Geomembranes 43, 171–181. https://doi.org/ Ground Eng. 7, 32.
10.1016/j.geotexmem.2014.11.009. Siabil, S.M.A.G., Tafreshi, M.S.N., Dawson, A.R., 2020. Response of pavement
Hegde, A.M., Sitharam, T.G., 2015b. Three-dimensional numerical analysis of geocell foundations incorporating both geocells and expanded polystyrene (EPS) geofoam.
reinforced soft clay beds by considering the actual geometry of geocell pockets. Can. Geotext. Geomembranes 48, 1–23.
Geotech. J. 52, 1396–1407. https://doi.org/10.1139/cgj-2014-0387. Song, F., Chen, W.S., Nie, Y.W., Ma, L.Q., 2022. Evaluation of required stiffness and
Holtz, R.D., Christopher, B.R., Berg, R.R., 2008. Geosynthetic Design and Construction strength of cellular geosynthetics. Geosynth. Int. 29 (3), 217–228.
Guidelines, Reference Manual (NHI Course No.132013). FHWA Publication No. Song, F., Jin, Y.T., Liu, H.B., Liu, J., 2020. Analyzing the deformation and failure of
FHWA-HI-95-038. Federal Highway Administration, Washington, DC. geosynthetic-encased granular soil in the triaxial stress condition. Geotext.
IRC (Indian Road Congress), 2018. Guidelines for the Design of Flexible Pavements. Geomembranes 48 (6), 886–896.
Indian Code of Practice, IRC-37, New Delhi, India. Song, F., Liu, H.B., Yang, B.Q., Zhao, J., 2019. Large-scale triaxial compression tests of
IRC: SP-72, 2015. Guidelines for the Design of Flexible Pavements for Low Volume Rural geocell-reinforced sand. Geosynth. Int. 26 (4), 388–395.
Roads. New Delhi, India. Suku, L., Prabhu, S.S., Babu, G.L.S., 2017. Effect of geogrid-reinforcement in granular
IS 2720 (Part 14), 2006. Determination of Density Index (Relative Density) of bases under repeated loading. Geotext. Geomembranes 45 (4), 377–389.
Cohesionless Soils. India. Suku, L., Prabhu, S.S., Ramesh, P., Babu, G.L.S., 2016. Behavior of geocell-reinforced
IS 2720 (Part 28), 2010. Determination of Dry Density of Soils In-Place, by the Sand granular base under repeated loading. Transp. Geotech. 9, 17–30. https://doi.org/
Replacement Method. BIS, New Delhi, India. 10.1016/j.trgeo.2016.06.002.
Latha, G.M., Rajagopal, K., Krishnaswamy, N.R., 2006. Experimental and theoretical Tafreshi, M.S.N., Rahimi, M., Dawson, A.R., Leshchinsky, B., 2018. Cyclic and post-
investigations on geocell-supported embankments. Int. J. GeoMech. (1), 30–35. cycling anchor response in geocell-reinforced sand. Can. Geotech. J. https://doi.org/
ASCE. 10.1139/cgj-2018-0559.
Leshchinsky, B., Ling, H., 2013. Effects of geocell confinement on strength and Tafreshi, M.S.N., Siabil, S.M.A.G., Azizian, M., 2021. EPS geofoam pavement foundations
deformation of gravel. J. Geotech. Geoenviron. Eng. 139, 340–352. overlaid by geocell-reinforced soil under static loading: large-scale tests and
Liu, Y., Deng, A., Jaksa, M., 2019. Failure mechanisms of geocell walls and junctions. numerical modeling. J. Mater. Civ. Eng. 33 (No.4), 04021014.
Geotext. Geomembranes 47, 104–120. Tang, X., Yang, M., 2013. Investigation of flexural behavior of geocell reinforcement
Mamatha, K.H., Dinesh, S.V., 2019. Performance evaluation of geocell-reinforced using three-layered beam model testing. Geotech. Geol. Eng. 31 (2), 753–765.
pavements. Int. J. Geotech. Eng. 13 (3), 277–286. Tanyu, B.F., Aydilek, A.H., Lau, A.W., Edil, T.B., Benson, C.H., 2013. Laboratory
Mehdipour, I., Ghazavi, M., Moayed, R.Z., 2013. Numerical study on stability analysis of evaluation of geocell-reinforced gravel subbase over poor subgrades. Geosynth. Int.
geocell reinforced slopes by considering the bending effect. Geotext. Geomembranes 20 (2), 47–61.
37, 23–34. Thakur, J.K., Han, J., Pokharel, S.K., Parsons, R.L., 2012. Performance of geocell-
Mehrjardi, G.T., Motarjemi, F., 2018. Interfacial properties of geocell-reinforced granular reinforced recycled asphalt pavement (RAP) bases over weak subgrade under cyclic
soils. Geotext. Geomembranes 46 (4), 384–395. plate loading. Geotext. Geomembranes 35, 14–24.
MORTH, 2013. Specification for Road and Bridge Works (Fifth Revision). Ministry of Zhang, L., Zhao, M., Shi, C., Zhao, H., 2010. Bearing capacity of geocell reinforcement in
Road Transport & Highways, India. embankment engineering. Geotext. Geomembranes 28 (5), 475–482.
Önal, Y., Çalışıcı, M., Kayadelen, C., Altay, G., 2023. A comparative experimental study Zornberg, J.G., Azevedo, M., Sikkema, M., Odgers, B., 2017. Geosynthetics with
of geocell and geogrid-reinforced highway base layers under repeated loads. Road enhanced lateral drainage capabilities in roadway systems. Transp. Geotech. 12,
Mater. Pavement Des. https://doi.org/10.1080/14680629.2023.2182126. 85–100. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.trgeo.2017.08.008.

670