Pagination not final (cite DOI) / Pagination provisoire (citer le DOI)

ARTICLE
Three-dimensional numerical analysis of geocell-reinforced
soft clay beds by considering the actual geometry of geocell
pockets
Can. Geotech. J. Downloaded from www.nrcresearchpress.com by INDIAN INSTITUTE OF SCIENCE on 08/17/15

A.M. Hegde and T.G. Sitharam

Abstract: Due to its complex honeycomb structure, the numerical modeling of the geocell has always been a big challenge.
Generally, the equivalent composite approach is used to model the geocells. In the equivalent composite approach, the geocell–
soil composite is treated as the soil layer with improved strength and stiffness values. Though this approach is very simple, it is
unrealistic to model the geocells as the soil layer. This paper presents a more realistic approach of modeling the geocells in
three-dimensional (3D) framework by considering the actual curvature of the geocell pocket. A square footing resting on geocell
reinforced soft clay bed was modeled using the “fast Lagrangian analysis of continua in 3D” (FLAC3D) finite difference package.
Three different material models, namely modified Cam-clay, Mohr–Coulomb, and linear elastic were used to simulate the
behaviour of foundation soil, infill soil and the geocell, respectively. It was found that the geocells distribute the load laterally
to the wider area below the footing as compared to the unreinforced case. More than 50% reduction in the stress was observed
in the clay bed in the presence of geocells. In addition to geocells, two other cases, namely, only geogrid and geocell with
additional basal geogrid cases were also simulated. The numerical model was systematically validated with the results of the
physical model tests. Using the validated numerical model, parametric studies were conducted to evaluate the influence of
various geocell properties on the performance of reinforced clay beds.
For personal use only.

Key words: geocells, geogrid, numerical modeling, fast Lagrangian analysis of continua in 3D (FLAC), soft clay, plate load test,
bearing capacity, footing.

Résumé : En raison de la structure en nid d’abeille complexe des géocellules, la modélisation numérique de celles-ci a toujours
été un grand défi. Généralement, l’approche du composite équivalent est utilisée pour modéliser les géocellules. Dans le cas de
l’approche du composite équivalent, le composite géocellule–sol est traité comme la couche de sol ayant des valeurs améliorées
de force et de rigidité. Quoique cette approche soit très simple, il est peu réaliste de modéliser les géocellules comme étant la
couche de sol. Cet article présente une approche plus réaliste pour modéliser les géocellules dans le cadre tridimensionnel en
considérant la courbure réelle de la poche de la géocellule. Une semelle carrée reposant sur un lit d’argile molle renforcé de
géocellules a été modélisée au moyen du progiciel en différences finies « fast Lagrangian analysis of continua in 3D » (FLAC3D).
Trois modèles de matériau différents, l’argile Cam modifié, le Mohr–Coulomb et l’élastique linéaire ont été utilisés pour simuler
le comportement du sol de fondation, du sol de remplissage et de la géocellule, respectivement. On a trouvé que les géocellules
distribuent la charge latéralement à la zone plus large au-dessous de la semelle par rapport au cas non renforcé. On a observé une
réduction de plus de 50 % de la contrainte dans le lit d’argile en présence de géocellules. En plus des géocellules, deux autres cas,
à savoir la géogrille seule et les géocellules avec géogrille de fond supplémentaire ont aussi été simulés. Le modèle numérique a
été systématiquement validé par les résultats des essais sur modèle physique. Le modèle numérique validé a servi à réaliser des
études paramétriques afin d’évaluer l’influence des diverses propriétés des géocellules sur la performance des lits d’argile
renforcés. [Traduit par la Rédaction]

Mots-clés : géocellules, géogrille, modélisation numérique, « fast Lagrangian analysis of continua in 3D » (FLAC), argile molle, essai
de charge avec plaque, capacité portante, semelle.

Introduction
Ground improvement using the soil reinforcement technique has
grown substantially in the last three decades. The technique has
grown from use of metal grids to use of geosynthetic products such
as geogrids and geocells to reinforce soft soil. Nowadays, geocells are
being widely used in geotechnical engineering to strengthen soft
soil. General applications of geocell include pavements, foundations,
and embankments. By virtue of its three-dimensional (3D) box-like
structure, geocell provides additional confinement to the soil. Geo-
cells offer faster, cheaper, sustainable, and environmentally friendly
solutions to many complex geotechnical problems. Many research-
ers have highlighted the beneficial effects of the geocells with the
help of 1g model tests (Sitharam et al. 2005; Dash et al. 2007;
Moghaddas Tafreshi and Dawson 2010; Dash and Bora 2013; Tanyu
et al. 2013; Hegde and Sitharam 2014a; Hegde et al. 2014). Some re-
searchers in the past also studied the efficacy of geocells using the
full scale field tests and the case studies (Cowland and Wong 1993;
Han et al. 2011; Kief et al. 2011; Yang et al. 2012; Moghaddas Tafreshi
et al. 2013, 2014; Sitharam and Hegde 2013). However, very few re-
searchers have attempted the numerical modeling of the geocells
due to difficulty in modeling its complex honeycomb structure. Be-
cause geocell applications are growing at a rapid rate nowadays; it is

Received 6 September 2014. Accepted 10 February 2015.

A.M. Hegde and T.G. Sitharam. Department of Civil Engineering, Indian Institute of Science, Bangalore, India, 560012.
Corresponding author: A.M. Hegde (e-mail: amarnathhegde@gmail.com).

Can. Geotech. J. 52: 1–12 (2015) dx.doi.org/10.1139/cgj-2014-0387 Published at www.nrcresearchpress.com/cgj on 14 February 2015.
 Pagination not final (cite DOI) / Pagination provisoire (citer le DOI)
2 Can. Geotech. J. Vol. 52, 2015

high time to demonstrate the realistic approach of modeling the Fig. 1. Schematic view of test setup.
geocells. The design computations often require quick calculations
to understand the effect of the various key parameters in the design.
In such situations, one cannot always depend on the experimental
and field studies. Numerical modeling technique not only helps to
carry out quick calculations, but also provides the scientific repre-
sentation of the results.
In the recent past, the geocells have been modeled using the
equivalent composite approach and in which the geocell–soil
composite is treated as the soil layer with improved strength
Can. Geotech. J. Downloaded from www.nrcresearchpress.com by INDIAN INSTITUTE OF SCIENCE on 08/17/15

and stiffness values (Bathurst and Knight 1998; Madhavi Latha and
Rajagopal 2007; Madhavi Latha and Somwanshi 2009; Hegde and
Sitharam 2013; Mehdipour et al. 2013). Though this approach is
very simple, it is unrealistic to model geocells as the soil layer.
Because geocells have a 3D structure, it is always appropriate to
model them in a 3D framework. Han et al. (2008) carried out the
numerical simulation of a single cell geocell subjected to uniaxial
compression in FLAC3D. In their study, the cell was modeled as the
square box due to the difficulty in modeling the actual shape. For
the same reason, Hegde and Sitharam (2014b) adopted the circular
shaped pocket geometry while modeling the problem of the sin-
gle cell geocell subjected to uniaxial compression. In their study,
the researchers observed the deviation in the experimental and
numerical pressure–settlement response at the higher settlement.
The researchers had attributed this anomaly to the circular shaped
geometry used in the modeling process and emphasized the impor-
Fig. 2. Grain-size distribution curves for clay and sand.
tance of modeling the actual shape of the geocells. Saride et al. (2009)
adopted the square shaped geometry of the cell pocket while mod-
eling the multiple cell geocell in FLAC3D. A similar approach was also
For personal use only.

used by Leshchinsky and Ling (2013) while modeling a geocell rein-

forced ballast system. However, the actual shape (i.e., 3D honeycomb
shape) of the single cell geocell was modeled by Yang et al. (2010) in
their study.
Contrary to the previous studies, an attempt has been made to
model the real shape of the multiple cell geocells by considering
the actual curvature of its pocket. The foundation soil, infill soil,
and the geocell materials were assigned with three different ma-
terial models to simulate the real case scenario. To validate the
numerical modeling, the laboratory plate load tests were con-
ducted on soft clay bed reinforced with geocells. The validated
numerical model was further used to study the influence of the
various geocell properties on the performance of the reinforced
clay beds. Though this manuscript mainly discusses the numeri-
cal simulations of the geocells in detail, the essential details of the
experimental studies are also presented.
Classification System, the sand was classified as poorly graded
Experimental studies sand with symbol SP. Figure 2 represents the grain-size distribu-
Figure 1 shows the schematic representation of the test setup tion curve of sand and clay. The geocell used in the study was
used in the laboratory studies. A cast iron test tank of size 900 mm made up of Neoloy (novel polymeric alloy). Figure 3 shows the
length, 900 mm width, and 600 mm height was used. The tank was photograph of the geocell. A biaxial geogrid made of polypropyl-
connected to the loading frame that was attached to a manually ene was used at the base of the geocell. The properties of the
operated hydraulic jack. A square shaped steel plate of 150 mm wide geocells and geogrids are listed in Table 1. Tensile stress–strain
and 20 mm thick was used as the model footing. The bottom of the behaviour of the geocell and the geogrid is shown in Fig. 4.
footing was made rough by coating a thin layer of sand with epoxy The clayey soil was powdered and then mixed with a predeter-
glue. mined amount of water. The moist soil was placed in the airtight
Natural clayey soil with specific gravity 2.66 was used to prepare container for 3–4 days for allowing uniform distribution of mois-
the foundation bed. The liquid limit and the plastic limit of the ture within the sample before kneading again. Soil was uniformly
clayey soil were 40% and 19%, respectively. According to the Uni- compacted in 25 mm thick layers to achieve the desired height of
fied Soil Classification System (ASTM 2011), the soil was classified the foundation bed. A manually operated plate compactor was used
as clay with low compressibility (CL). The maximum dry density for the purpose. The sides of the tank were coated with polyethylene
and the optimum moisture content of the soil in the Standard sheets to avoid side friction. By carefully controlling the compaction
Proctor condition were found to be 18.2 kN/m3 and 13.2%, respec- effort and the water content of the test bed, a uniform test condition
tively. Dry sand with specific gravity of 2.64, effective particle size was maintained in all the tests. The fall cone apparatus was used to
(D10) of 0.26 mm, coefficient of uniformity (Cu) of 3.08, coefficient measure the undrained cohesion of the bed. The test bed had a unit
of curvature (Cc) of 1.05, maximum void ratio (emax) of 0.81, mini- weight of 18.63 kN/m3, moisture content of 26%, degree of saturation
mum void ratio (emin) of 0.51, and angle of internal friction (␸) of of 91%, undrained shear strength of 5 kPa, and average dry density of
36° was used to fill the geocell pockets. As per the Unified Soil 14.81 kN/m3. Reinforcements of width equal to 5.8B were placed at

Published by NRC Research Press

 Pagination not final (cite DOI) / Pagination provisoire (citer le DOI)
Hegde and Sitharam 3

Fig. 3. Photograph of the geocell: (a) folded; (b) expanded.

Can. Geotech. J. Downloaded from www.nrcresearchpress.com by INDIAN INSTITUTE OF SCIENCE on 08/17/15

Table 1. Properties of geocell and geogrid. Numerical analysis

Parameter Value Modeling details
Geocell In the present study, FLAC3D was chosen for the analysis consider-
Cell size (mm × mm) 250 × 210 ing its ability to model a wide range of geotechnical problems.
For personal use only.

Aspect ratio 0.6 FLAC3D uses an explicit finite difference solution scheme to solve the
No. of cells/m2 40 initial and boundary value problems. It has several built-in material
Cell depth (mm) 150 models and structural elements to model the variety of geomaterials
Strip thickness (mm) 1.53 and the reinforcements. It provides the option to use the interface
Cell seam strength (N) 2150 (±5%) elements to accurately model the joints and the interfaces between
Density (g/cm3) 0.95 (±1.5%) two materials. FLAC3D also contains a powerful built-in program-
Short term yield strength (kN/m) 20 ming language called FISH that enables the user to define new vari-
Geogrid ables and functions.
Polymer Polypropylene In the present study, the dimension of the model was kept the
Aperture size (mm × mm) 35 × 35 same as that of the test bed used in the experiments. The modified
Ultimate tensile strength (kN/m) 20 Cam-clay model was used to simulate the behaviour of the soft
Mass per unit area (g/m2) 220 clay bed and the Mohr–Coulomb model was used to simulate the
Shape of aperture opening Square
behaviour of the infill soil, i.e., sand. The geocell was modeled using
the geogrid structural element. The geogrid structural elements can
Fig. 4. Tensile stress–strain behaviour of geocell and geogrid. resist the membrane stresses, but cannot resist the bending stresses.
The rigid nature of the geocell joint was simulated by fixing the
nodes representing the joints. A linear elastic model was used to
simulate the behaviour of the geocell. The interfaces between the
geocell and the soil were linearly modeled with Mohr–Coulomb yield
criterion as shown in Figs. 5a–5b. Only a quarter portion of the test
bed was modeled using symmetry to reduce the computational ef-
fort. The quarter symmetric model of size 0.45 m × 0.45 m × 0.6 m
was discretised into 9216 zones. Analyses were carried out under
controlled velocity of a magnitude of 2.5 × 10−5 m/step. The displace-
ment along the bottom boundary (which represents the tank bot-
tom) was restrained in both horizontal as well as vertical directions.
The side boundaries (which represent the tank sides) were restrained
only in the horizontal direction, such that the displacements were
allowed to occur in the vertical direction. By providing the lateral
resistance to the soil nodes representing the area of the footing,
roughness of the footing was simulated. Similar to the laboratory
studies, the undrained test condition was maintained during the
the depth of 0.1B (where B is the width of the footing). The cell pock- modeling process.
ets were filled up with the clean sand using pluviation technique to
maintain uniform density. A layer of geotextile was used as a sepa- Determination of model parameters
rator between the soft clay bed and the sand overlaying it. Upon Table 2 represents properties of different materials used in the
filling the geocell with the sand, the footing was placed on top and numerical simulations. An isotropic triaxial compression test was
the load was applied. The footing was placed such that it rested on conducted to determine the Cam-clay parameters: slope of the
the center of the geocell pocket. normal consolidation line (␭), slope of the swelling line (␬), and

Published by NRC Research Press

 Pagination not final (cite DOI) / Pagination provisoire (citer le DOI)
4 Can. Geotech. J. Vol. 52, 2015

Fig. 5. Interface shear behaviour between infill soil and geocell (Itasca 2008): (a) shear stress, ␶, versus shear displacement, u; (b) shear stress,
␶, versus normal stress, ␴.
Can. Geotech. J. Downloaded from www.nrcresearchpress.com by INDIAN INSTITUTE OF SCIENCE on 08/17/15

Table 2. Properties of different materials used in nu- Fig. 6. Cam-clay: (a) v versus lnp; (b) critical state line.
merical modeling.
Parameter Value
Clay
Shear modulus, G (MPa) 1.36
Friction constant, M 0.68
Slope of NCL, ␭ 0.22
Slope of swelling line, ␬ 0.09
Specific volume at reference pressure, v␭ 1.78
Pre-consolidation pressure, pc 100
Unit weight, ␥ (kN/m3) 20
For personal use only.

Sand
Shear modulus, G (MPa) 5.77
Bulk modulus, K (MPa) 12.5
Poisson’s ratio, ␮ 0.3
Cohesion, C (kPa) 0
Friction angle, ␸ (°) 36
Geocells
Young’s modulus, E (MPa) 275
Poisson’s ratio, ␮ 0.45
Interface shear modulus, ki (MPa/m) 2.36
Interface cohesion, ci (kPa) 0
Interface friction angle, ␸i (°) 30
Thickness, ti (mm) 1.5
Geogrids
Young’s modulus, E (MPa) 210
Poisson’s ratio, ␮ 0.33
Interface shear modulus, ki (MPa/m) 2.36
Interface cohesion, ci (kPa) 0
Interface friction angle, ␸i (°) 18
Thickness, ti (mm) 1.5
Note: NCL, normal consolidation line.

pre-consolidation pressure (pc ). Figure 6a shows the relationship

between specific volume (v) and natural logarithmic of mean ef-
fective stress (ln p). The isotropic triaxial compression test was
carried out in three cycles, i.e., loading, unloading, and reloading.
During the loading cycle, the sample was consolidated under
seven different confining pressures from 50 to 350 kPa with an
increment of 50 kPa in each step. At 100 kPa, a change in the slope
of the line was observed, indicating the particular value of the
pressure is nothing but the pre-consolidation pressure. During
unloading, the pressure was reduced from 350 to 50 kPa in seven
steps with the decrement of 50 kPa in each step. In the reloading
cycle, the confining pressure was increased to 450 kPa in eight
steps. The slope of the critical state line, parameter M, and elastic
modulus of the clay were determined from the consolidated un-
drained triaxial compression test. The test was carried out at three
different confining pressures: 100, 200, and 300 kPa. Figure 6b
shows the critical state line determined from the consolidated
undrained triaxial test. Similarly, the elastic modulus of the sand
was also determined from the consolidated undrained triaxial test.
The shear modulus values for both clay and sand were determined
from the elastic modulus value, assuming the Poison’s ratio of 0.5
and 0.3, respectively, for clay and sand. The shear strength properties
(cohesion C and ␸) of the sand were determined from the direct shear
test. The elastic modulus of the geocell and geogrid was determined
from tensile stress–strain behaviour shown in Fig. 4. The secant mod-
ulus was determined corresponding to 2% axial strain in both the
cases. The interface shear strength properties (interface cohesion, ci,
and interface friction angle, ␸i) for both geocell and geogrids were
obtained from the modified direct shear test. The interface shear

Published by NRC Research Press

 Pagination not final (cite DOI) / Pagination provisoire (citer le DOI)
Hegde and Sitharam 5

Fig. 7. FLAC3D model for different cases: (a) unreinforced; (b) geogrid reinforced; (c) geocell reinforced; (d) geocell and geogrid reinforced.
Can. Geotech. J. Downloaded from www.nrcresearchpress.com by INDIAN INSTITUTE OF SCIENCE on 08/17/15
For personal use only.

modulus value (ki) of 2.36 MPa/m was considered in the analysis for
geocells and geogrids (Itasca 2008).
The Cam-clay model in FLAC3D is only applicable to material in
which the stress state corresponds to a compressive mean effective
stress. Hence, a minimum value of compressive mean effective stress
was initialized at the beginning. Given an initial mean effective pres-
sure, po , the initial specific volume, vo, must be consistent with the
choice of parameters ␬, ␭, p1, and pc . The initial value vo was calcu-
lated corresponding to po on the swelling line using eq. (1) and the
same value was used in the analysis (refer Fig. 6a).
where, v␭ is the specific volume corresponding to the reference
pressure; pc is the pre-consolidation pressure; p1 is the reference

pressure equal to 1 kPa; pm is the maximum mean effective stress
applied during the loading cycle of the isotropic compression test;
and po is the initial mean effective stress. Similarly, the initial
value of the bulk modulus (K) was calculated using eq. (2) and the
same was used in the analysis.
vo po
(2) K⫽
␬

(1) vo ⫽ v␭ ⫺ ␬ ln 冉冊 冉 冊 冉 冊
pc
p1
⫺ ␭ ln

pm
pc
⫹ ␬ ln

pm
po
Preliminary analyses carried out revealed that the boundary dis-
tances did not influence the results as deformations and stresses

Published by NRC Research Press

 Pagination not final (cite DOI) / Pagination provisoire (citer le DOI)
6 Can. Geotech. J. Vol. 52, 2015

were contained within the boundaries. It is understood that the geo- Fig. 8. Bearing pressure–settlement behaviour.
cell is made of multiple interconnected cells and the shape of all the
cells is similar from one to another. Hence, a photograph of the
single cell was taken and it was digitized to obtain the actual curva-
ture of the cell. The coordinates were deduced from the curvature
and the same were used in the FLAC3D to model the actual shape of
the geocell. Figure 7a–7d shows the FLAC3D models of the different
cases considered in the study. In addition to geocells, the geocell with
additional basal geogrid case and only geogrid cases were also mod-
eled. The numerical results were compared with the results of the
Can. Geotech. J. Downloaded from www.nrcresearchpress.com by INDIAN INSTITUTE OF SCIENCE on 08/17/15

experimental studies described in the earlier part of the manuscript.

Using the validated model, the distributions of the stresses and dis-
placements below the footing for different cases were obtained.

Results and discussions

Figure 8 shows the comparison of bearing pressure–settlement
curves obtained from experimental and numerical studies for dif-
ferent type of reinforcements. A fairly good agreement was ob- Fig. 9. Normalized vertical stress measured in the test bed for
served between the experimental and numerical results. In the different test cases.
case of the unreinforced soft clay bed, ultimate bearing capacity
in the range of 30 kPa was observed. Steep reduction in the slope
of the pressure–settlement curve indicates the punching shear
bearing capacity failure of the test bed. In the case of the rein-
forced clay beds, there was no clear cut failure, even at very large
settlements. Geocells take up the foundation load even after the
failure of the foundation bed. Out of all tested cases, maximum
bearing capacity was observed in the case of the foundation bed
reinforced with the combination of geocell and geogrid. Provision
For personal use only.

of the basal geogrid not only imparts the additional strength to

the soil, but also resists the downward movement of soil due to
the footing penetration. Overall, good agreement was observed
between the experimental and numerical results.
Figure 9 shows the normalized vertical stress measured at the
different depths of the test bed for different test cases. These values
were obtained from numerical studies and correspond to the points
exactly below the center of the footing at different depths. The ver-
tical stress measured at a point (Pu) was normalized by the applied
footing pressure (qu) on top of the clay bed. Similarly, the depth (Z)
was normalized by footing width (B) for convenience. In Fig. 9 only
stress values from depth 1B to 2B are compared, because the height of
the geocells mattress (H) is the same as that of footing width (B), the
geocell occupies the depth from 0 to 1B below the footing. In the
present case, only those stress values measured below the geocells
are compared. A substantial reduction in the measured stress value
was observed in the presence of different reinforcements as com-
pared to unreinforced bed. When the clay bed was reinforced with
geocells, more than 50% reduction in the stress value was observed at
the top portion of the bed, just below the geocells. Maximum stress
reduction of about 70% was observed when additional geogrid was
provided below the geocells. It is always beneficial to use a combina-
tion of geocell and geogrid reinforcement rather than using geocell
alone.
Figure 10 shows the vertical stress contours for the different test
cases. The reported stress contours correspond to the applied vertical
stress equal to the ultimate bearing capacity of the unreinforced soft
clay bed. The distribution of the stress contours indicates that the
tank boundaries have no bearing on the results. Uniform distribu-
tion of the stresses up to the large depth was observed in the case of
the unreinforced bed. In the geogrid reinforced case, the influence
depth of the stress was found to be reduced as compared to the
unreinforced bed. In the case of geocells, the stresses are transferred
relatively to a shallow depth as compared to the previous two cases
and are transferred laterally to the wider areas. Similar types of ob-
servations were also made by Saride et al. (2009). The interconnected
cells form a panel that acts like a large mat that transfers the im-
posed load to the larger area, leading to better performance of the
foundation beds. This mechanism is known as beam mechanism.
When the basal geogrid was provided below the geocells, further
reduction in the transferred stress to the soil subgrade was observed.
Figure 11 shows the pressure bulb corresponding to 0.1qu for the
unreinforced and geocell with additional basal geogrid reinforced
cases. Due to the symmetry, only a half section of the pressure
bulb has been shown in the figure. In the case of the unreinforced
bed, a uniform pressure bulb of circular shape was observed. The
pressure bulb was found to disperse up to the depth of 1.6B. In the
geocell and the geogrid reinforced case, the pressure bulb was not
uniform as observed in the case of the unreinforced bed; instead a
pressure bulb of irregular shape was observed. However, the bulb
was confined within the depth of 1B, up to where the geocell layer
is present. The bulb was found spreading in the lateral direction
indicating the fact that the geocells distribute the load into the
wider areas below the footing as compared to the unreinforced
bed.
Figure 12 shows the vertical displacement contours for different
cases. The reported contours correspond to the fill settlement of
30% of the footing width (S/B = 30%). Uniform distribution of the
contours in a narrow band indicates the punching shear failure of
the unreinforced soft clay bed (see Fig. 12a). In addition, the heav-
ing of the soil surrounding the footing was also observed. When
geogrid was used as the reinforcement, the settlement of the foot-
ing and also the heaving surrounding the footing were found
reduced as compared to the unreinforced clay bed. In both unre-
inforced and geogrid reinforced cases, the displacement contours
were confined within the footing size. However, in the case of
geocells, due to the beam mechanism, the displacements were
found to spread outside the footing width. In addition, the surface
heaving was not observed in the presence of geocells. In the ex-
perimental results reported by the Hegde and Sitharam (2013), the

Published by NRC Research Press

 Can. Geotech. J. Downloaded from www.nrcresearchpress.com by INDIAN INSTITUTE OF SCIENCE on 08/17/15
For personal use only.
Published by NRC Research Press

Fig. 10. Vertical stress distribution: (a) unreinforced; (b) geogrid only; (c) geocell only; (d) geocell and geogrid.

7 Hegde and Sitharam

Pagination not final (cite DOI) / Pagination provisoire (citer le DOI)

 Pagination not final (cite DOI) / Pagination provisoire (citer le DOI)
8 Can. Geotech. J. Vol. 52, 2015
Fig. 11. Pressure bulb of 0.1qu: (a) unreinforced; (b) geocell and geogrid reinforced.
Can. Geotech. J. Downloaded from www.nrcresearchpress.com by INDIAN INSTITUTE OF SCIENCE on 08/17/15
For personal use only.
tilting of the footing was observed at very high loads. However,
numerical studies did not reveal any such findings. According to
the authors, this particular anomaly is due to the assigning of the
same material properties to the entire test bed. Uniform settle-
ments are expected as long as the foundation material properties
are homogeneous and the rate of application of the footing pres-
sure is constant. However, in experiments, it is very difficult to
prepare the entire test bed of homogeneous material properties.
At very high loads, even a small change in the density of the test
bed is sufficient to cause the tilting of the footing. Because of this
limitation, the model predicted only a small amount of heaving in
the geocell and geogrid reinforced case. A similar observation was
also made by Hegde and Sitharam (2015) while carrying out the 3D
numerical simulation of geocell reinforced sand beds. With the
increase in loading, the surface heaving was found to increase in
the model. To induce the settlement of S/B = 30%, the geocell and
geogrid reinforced clay bed was subjected to larger loading as
compared to the geocell reinforced clay bed.
Factors affecting performance of reinforced clay
beds
In this section, the effects of various geocell properties, which
could affect the performance of the reinforced clay bed are dis-
cussed with the help of the validated numerical model. The key
parameters studied are the (i) elastic modulus of the geocell,
(ii) elastic modulus of the basal geogrid, (iii) height of the geocell,
(iv) pocket size of the geocell, and (v) interface friction angle. How-
ever, the effects of the foundation bed parameters are not consid-
ered in the present study.
Effect of geocell modulus
Based on the baseline case illustrated in Fig. 7d and Table 2, the
modulus of the geocell was changed to one-fifth of its original
modulus (i.e., 55 MPa) and five times its original modulus (i.e.,
1375 MPa). The pressure–settlement behaviours of three different
cases are compared in Fig. 13a. The bearing capacity of the reinforced
bed increased with the increase in the modulus of the geocell. As the
geocell modulus increases, the higher confining pressure will be
exerted on the infill soil under same lateral deformation. The addi-
tional confining pressure leads to the increase in the bearing capac-
ity of the foundation bed.
Effect of basal geogrid modulus
Based on the baseline case illustrated in Fig. 7d and Table 2, the
modulus of the basal geogrid was changed to one-fifth of its orig-
inal modulus (i.e., 42 MPa) and five times its original modulus (i.e.,
1050 MPa). The pressure–settlement behaviours of three different
cases are compared in the Fig. 13b. The bearing capacity of the
reinforced bed increased with the increase in the modulus of the
basal geogrid. A similar observation was made by Sitharam and
Hegde (2013) with the help of analytical studies. As the tensile
strength of the basal geogrid increases, the resistance offered by the
geogrid to the downward movement of the soil also increases. How-
ever, the effect of basal geogrid modulus is not as prominent as the
geocell modulus.
Height of geocell mattress
The height of the geocell used in the baseline case illustrated in
Fig. 7d and Table 2 is 0.15 m. The height of the geocell was reduced
to two-thirds (0.1 m) and one-third (0.05 m) of its original height to
match the height of commercial geocells available in the market.
The pressure–settlement behaviours of three different cases are
compared in the Fig. 13c. The bearing capacity of the geocell rein-
forced foundation bed increased with an increase in the height of
the geocell. Similar types of observations were also made by Dash
et al. (2001) using experimental investigations. As the height of the
geocell increases, the footing load will be dispersed to larger ar-
eas. As a result of this, the pressure transmitted to the soil re-
duces, which leads to improvement in the overall performance of
the foundation bed.
Pocket size of geocell
The equivalent pocket diameter of the geocell used in the pres-
ent study is 0.22 m. The other pocket sizes of the geocells consid-
ered in the analysis are 0.2, 0.25, and 0.3 m. The pocket sizes are
selected to match the pocket sizes of the commercial geocells
Published by NRC Research Press
 Hegde and Sitharam
Fig. 12. Vertical displacement contours at S/B = 30%: (a) unreinforced; (b) only geogrid; (c) only geocell; (d) geocell and geogrid. S, fill settlement.
Can. Geotech. J. Downloaded from www.nrcresearchpress.com by INDIAN INSTITUTE OF SCIENCE on 08/17/15

Pagination not final (cite DOI) / Pagination provisoire (citer le DOI)

For personal use only.
Published by NRC Research Press

9
 Pagination not final (cite DOI) / Pagination provisoire (citer le DOI)
10 Can. Geotech. J. Vol. 52, 2015

Fig. 13. Bearing pressure–settlement curves: (a) different modulus of geocell; (b) different modulus of basal geogrid; (c) different height of
geocell; (d) different pocket sizes of geocell; (e) different interface friction angles.
Can. Geotech. J. Downloaded from www.nrcresearchpress.com by INDIAN INSTITUTE OF SCIENCE on 08/17/15
For personal use only.

available on the market. Figure 13d represents pressure–settlement
behaviour of the foundation bed reinforced with geocells with
different pocket sizes. The bearing capacity of the foundation bed
increased with a decrease in the pocket size of the geocell. As the
cell size decreases the confinement offered per unit volume in-
creases, which leads to increase in the load carrying capacity of
the foundation bed.
Interface friction angle
The geocell used in the present study had a rough texture on its
surface. The interface friction angle obtained from the modified di-
rect shear test was 30° and the same was used in the baseline model.
Most of the other types of geocells available on the market have a
smooth surface. Hence, the corresponding interface friction angle
will be lesser in those cases than the present case. Hence, in the
present study, different values of the friction angles lower than
the present value are considered. The other values considered in
the present analysis are 12°, 18°, and 24°. The bearing capacity
of the reinforced foundation bed marginally increased with an
increase in the interface friction angle as shown in Fig. 13e. As the
interface friction angle increases, the friction force will develop

Published by NRC Research Press

 Pagination not final (cite DOI) / Pagination provisoire (citer le DOI)
Hegde and Sitharam
between the inner surface of the geocell and the infill soil. The
developed friction force will act in the upward direction and helps
to resist the imposed load, leading to improved performance of
the foundation bed. This mechanism is known as lateral resis-
tance mechanism offered by the geocells. Due to this mechanism,
the textured geocell always yields better performance than the
geocell with smooth surface.
Scaling issues
The results of the 1g model tests are prone to scale effects. As
Can. Geotech. J. Downloaded from www.nrcresearchpress.com by INDIAN INSTITUTE OF SCIENCE on 08/17/15
suggested by Fakher and Jones (1996), the results of the small scale
model tests can be extrapolated to prototype cases by carefully
applying the scaling laws. If “N” is the scaling factor, then the
tensile strength of the geocell and geogrid to be used in the pro-
totype application is N2 times the tensile strength of the geocell
and geogrid used in model tests (Viswanadham and König 2004;
Sireesh et al. 2009). In model studies, commercial geocells and
geogrids with tensile strength of 20 kN/m were used. Hence, the
extrapolated results are applicable to limited prototype applica-
tions. The present results can be extrapolated to a prototype case
with scaling factor (N) maximum up to 2. In that case, the tensile
strength of the prototype geocell material falls in the range of
80 kN/m. Generally, bamboo has the tensile strength in that range.
The 3D cells and planar grids prepared from bamboo known as
“bamboo cells” and “bamboo grids” could be used in the place of
geocells and geogrids respectively, in prototype applications. It is
advised to carry out the chemical treatment of the bamboo using
impregnation techniques to increase the durability. The further de-
tails of bamboo cells – bamboo grids and their application in soft
For personal use only.
soils have been explained elsewhere Hegde and Sitharam (2014c).
In spite of the limitations, the 1g model tests and numerical
simulations carried out in the present study are successful enough
to highlight the efficacy of the geocells. The presented results are
helpful to understand the basic mechanism and overall trends in
the results. These results could be used in providing guidelines for
design and construction of geocell-reinforced foundations, con-
ducting large-scale model tests, and developing the analytical
models.
Conclusions
A realistic approach of modeling the geocells in a 3D framework
has been demonstrated in the paper. The actual curvature of the
geocell pocket was considered in the modeling process. The infill
soil, foundation soil, and the geocells were assigned with three
different material models to simulate the real case scenario. The
model was validated with the experimental studies and it was
found that the results were in good agreement with each other.
When the clay bed was reinforced with geocells, more than 50%
reduction in the stress was observed at the top portion of the bed,
just below the geocells. About 70% reduction in the stress was
observed when the additional geogrid was provided below the
geocells. The beam mechanism of the geocell was vindicated by
the shape of the stress and displacement contours. By virtue of the
beam mechanism, geocells distribute the load in the lateral direc-
tion to wider areas and hence, lower the stress intensity on the
subgrade below. The parametric studies conducted revealed that
the tensile strength of the geocell is responsible to a major extent
for imparting the strength to the foundation beds as compared to
other properties. However, other properties such as height and
pocket sizes of the geocells also have a direct influence on the
bearing capacity of the foundation bed. It was also found that the
geocell with a textured surface yields better performance than
the geocell with a smooth surface. The provision of the additional
geogrid below the geocell, further improves the performance of
reinforced clay beds by virtue of the membrane mechanism. The
present model is elegant and accurate as compared to the equiv-
alent composite approach of modeling the geocells. However, the
11
model has certain limitations. The model fails to capture the tilt-
ing failure of the footing.
Acknowledgements
The authors are thankful to Xiaoming Yang, Oklahoma State
University, USA, and Jie Han, University of Kansas, USA, for their
valuable suggestions through email correspondence during the
initial stage of the work.
References
ASTM. 2011. Standard practice for classification of soils for engineering purposes
(Unified Soil Classification System). ASTM standard D2487. American Society
for Testing and Materials, West Conshohocken, Pa.
Bathurst, R.J., and Knight, M.A. 1998. Analysis of geocell reinforced-soil covers
over large span conduits. Computers and Geotechnics, 22(3–4): 205–219. doi:
10.1016/S0266-352X(98)00008-1.
Cowland, J.W., and Wong, S.C.K. 1993. Performance of a road embankment on
soft clay supported on a geocell mattress foundation. Geotextiles and
Geomembranes, 12: 687–705. doi:10.1016/0266-1144(93)90046-Q.
Dash, S.K., and Bora, M.C. 2013. Improved performance of soft clay foundations
using stone columns and geocell-sand mattress. Geotextiles and Geomem-
branes, 41: 26–35. doi:10.1016/j.geotexmem.2013.09.001.
Dash, S.K., Krishnaswamy, N.R., and Rajagopal, K. 2001. Bearing capacity of strip
footings supported on geocell-reinforced sand. Geotextiles and Geomem-
branes, 19: 235–256. doi:10.1016/S0266-1144(01)00006-1.
Dash, S.K., Rajagopal, K., and Krishnaswamy, N.R. 2007. Behaviour of geocell-
reinforced sand beds under strip loading. Canadian Geotechnical Journal,
44(7): 905–916. doi:10.1139/t07-035.
Fakher, A., and Jones, C.J.F.P. 1996. Discussion: bearing capacity of rectangular
footings on geogrid-reinforced sand. Journal of Geotechnical Engineering,
122: 326–327. doi:10.1061/(ASCE)0733-9410(1996)122:4(326).
Han, J., Yang, X., Leshchinsky, D., and Parsons, R.L. 2008. Behavior of geocell-
reinforced sand under a vertical load. Transporation Research Record: Jour-
nal of the Transportation Research Board, 2045: 95–101. doi:10.3141/2045-11.
Han, J., Pokharel, S., Yang, X., Manandhar, C., Leshchinsky, D., Halahmi, I., and
Parsons, R.L. 2011. Performance of geocell-reinforced RAP bases over weak
subgrade under full scale moving wheel loads. Journal of Materials in Civil
Engineering, 23(11): 1525–1534. doi:10.1061/(ASCE)MT.1943-5533.0000286.
Hegde, A., and Sitharam, T.G. 2013. Experimental and numerical studies on
footings supported on geocell reinforced sand and clay beds. International
Journal of Geotechnical Engineering, 7(4): 347–354. doi:10.1179/1938636213Z.
00000000043.
Hegde, A.M., and Sitharam, T.G. 2014a. Effect of infill materials on the perfor-
mance of geocell reinforced soft clay beds. Geomechanics and Geoengineer-
ing. doi:10.1080/17486025.2014.921334.
Hegde, A., and Sitharam, T.G. 2014b. Joint strength and wall deformation char-
acteristics of a single cell subjected to uniaxial compression. International
Journal of Geomechanics. doi:10.1061/(ASCE)GM.1943-5622.0000433.
Hegde, A., and Sitharam, T.G. 2014c. Use of bamboo in soft ground engineering
and its performance comparison with geosynthetics: experimental studies.
Journal of Materials in Civil Engineering. doi:10.1061/(ASCE)MT.1943-5533.
0001224.
Hegde, A., and Sitharam, T.G. 2015. 3-Dimensional numerical modelling of geo-
cell reinforced sand beds. Geotextiles and Geomembranes, 43: 171–181. doi:
10.1016/j.geotexmem.2014.11.009.
Hegde, A., Kadabinakatti, S., and Sitharam, T.G. 2014. Protection of buried pipe-
lines using a combination of geocell and geogrid reinforcement: experimen-
tal studies. In Ground improvement and geosynthetics. Geotechnical Special
Publication 238. ASCE. pp. 289–298. doi:10.1061/9780784413401.029.
Itasca. 2008. Fast Lagrangian analysis of continua (FLAC3D 4.00). Itasca Consult-
ing Group Inc., Minneapolis, Minn.
Kief, O., Rajagopal, K., Veeraragavan, A., and Chandramouli, S. 2011. Modulus
improvement factor for geocell-reinforced bases. In Proceedings of Geosyn-
thetics India-11, Chennai, India. pp. 143–152.
Leshchinsky, B., and Ling, H. 2013. Effects of geocell confinement on strength
and deformation behavior of gravel. Journal of Geotechnical and Geoenvi-
ronmental Engineering, 139(2): 340–352. doi:10.1061/(ASCE)GT.1943-5606.
0000757.
Madhavi Latha, G., and Rajagopal, K. 2007. Parametric finite element analyses of
geocell-supported embankments. Canadian Geotechnical Journal, 44(8): 917–
927. doi:10.1139/T07-039.
Madhavi Latha, G., and Somwanshi, A. 2009. Effect of reinforcement form on the
bearing capacity of square footings on sand. Geotextiles and Geomembranes,
27: 409–422. doi:10.1016/j.geotexmem.2009.03.005.
Mehdipour, I., Ghazavi, M., and Moayed, R.Z. 2013. Numerical study on stability
analysis of geocell reinforced slopes by considering the bending effect. Geo-
textiles and Geomembranes, 37: 23–34. doi:10.1016/j.geotexmem.2013.01.001.
Moghaddas Tafreshi, S.N., and Dawson, A.R. 2010. Behaviour of footings on
reinforced sand subjected to repeated loading - comparing use of 3D and
planar geotextile. Geotextiles and Geomembranes, 28: 434–447. doi:10.1016/
j.geotexmem.2009.12.007.
Published by NRC Research Press
 Pagination not final (cite DOI) / Pagination provisoire (citer le DOI)
12
Moghaddas Tafreshi, S.N., Khalaj, O., and Dawson, A.R. 2013. Pilot-scale load
tests of a combined multilayered geocell and rubber-reinforced foundation.
Geosynthetics International, 20(3): 143–161. doi:10.1680/gein.13.00008.
Moghaddas Tafreshi, S.N., Khalaj, O., and Dawson, A.R. 2014. Repeated loading of
soil containing granulated rubber and multiple geocell layers. Geotextiles
and Geomembranes, 42: 25–38. doi:10.1016/j.geotexmem.2013.12.003.
Saride, S., Gowrisetti, S., Sitharam, T.G., and Puppala, A.J. 2009. Numerical sim-
ulation of geocell-reinforced sand and clay. Ground Improvement, 162(4):
185–198. doi:10.1680/grim.2009.162.4.185.
Sireesh, S., Sitharam, T.G., and Dash, S.K. 2009. Bearing capacity of circular
footing on geocell sand mattress overlying clay bed with void. Geotextiles
and Geomembranes, 27(2): 89–98. doi:10.1016/j.geotexmem.2008.09.005.
Can. Geotech. J. Downloaded from www.nrcresearchpress.com by INDIAN INSTITUTE OF SCIENCE on 08/17/15
Sitharam, T.G., and Hegde, A. 2013. Design and construction of geocell founda-
tion to support the embankment on soft settled red mud. Geotextiles and
Geomembranes, 41: 55–63. doi:10.1016/j.geotexmem.2013.08.005.
Sitharam, T.G., Sireesh, S., and Dash, S.K. 2005. Model studies of a circular
For personal use only.
Can. Geotech. J. Vol. 52, 2015
footing supported on geocell-reinforced clay. Canadian Geotechnical Jour-
nal, 42(2): 693–703. doi:10.1139/t04-117.
Tanyu, B.F., Aydilek, A.H., Lau, A.W., Edil, T.B., and Benson, C.H. 2013. Laboratory
evaluation of geocell-reinforced gravel sub base over poor subgrades. Geo-
synthetics International, 20(2): 46–71. doi:10.1680/gein.13.00001.
Viswanadham, B.V.S., and König, D. 2004. Studies on scaling and instrumenta-
tion of a geogrid. Geotextiles and Geomembranes, 22: 307–328. doi:10.1016/
S0266-1144(03)00045-1.
Yang, X., Han, J., Parsons, R.L., and Leshchinsky, D. 2010. Three-dimensional
numerical modeling of single geocell-reinforced sand. Frontiers of Architec-
ture and Civil Engineering in China, 4(2): 233–240. doi:10.1007/s11709-010-
0020-7.
Yang, X., Han, J., Pokharel, S.K., Manandhar, C., Parsons, R.L., Leshchinsky, D.,
and Halahmi, I. 2012. Accelerated pavement testing of unpaved roads with
geocell-reinforced sand bases. Geotextiles and Geomembranes, 32: 95–103.
doi:10.1016/j.geotexmem.2011.10.004.
Published by NRC Research Press
 This article has been cited by:

1. A.M. Hegde, T.G. Sitharam. 2015. Experimental and numerical studies on protection of buried pipelines and underground utilities
using geocells. Geotextiles and Geomembranes 43, 372-381. [CrossRef]
2. S.N. Moghaddas Tafreshi, T. Shaghaghi, Gh. Tavakoli Mehrjardi, A.R. Dawson, M. Ghadrdan. 2015. A simplified method for
predicting the settlement of circular footings on multi-layered geocell-reinforced non-cohesive soils. Geotextiles and Geomembranes
43, 332-344. [CrossRef]
Can. Geotech. J. Downloaded from www.nrcresearchpress.com by INDIAN INSTITUTE OF SCIENCE on 08/17/15
For personal use only.