Geocell Configuration: Comparison
Please note this is a comparison between Version 2 by Sirius Huang and Version 1 by Gali Madhavi Latha Latha.

Geocells, which are polymeric interconnected cells filled with soil, provide excellent support to loads through all-round confinement and a beam effect; hence, they are extensively used in various geotechnical applications such as embankments, foundations, pavements, slopes, railways, and reinforced earth (RE) walls. 

  • geocells
  • geometry
  • reinforcing parameters
  • pavements

1. Introduction

Since the 1970s, geocells are being widely used in various applications of geotechnical engineering. The idea of a cellular confinement system was originally developed by US army corps of engineers for the ease of transport of military vehicles over weak subgrades [1]. The first cellular confinement systems were made of paper, which were later replaced by aluminum and wooden cells [2,3][2][3].
The modern form of geocells came into existence since 1980s. Unlike planar textiles and grids, geocells, which are three-dimensional networks of cells filled with a choice of soil, provide added benefits such as all-round confinement through hoop stresses developed in the cells and a beam effect resulting from their stiff-mat configuration. Geocells, by virtue of their shape and depth, provide greater load-bearing capacity and reduce lateral deformations in soils confined by them under static and cyclic loading scenarios [4,5,6,7][4][5][6][7]. The inclusion of geocells in various structures has additional benefits such as stability improvement, climate resilience, higher resistance to cyclic loads, erosion control, basal support, and savings in time and cost [4,8][4][8]. Because of these merits, geocells are extensively used in pavements, slopes, foundations, embankments, and reinforced earth (RE) walls. Recently, geocells have also found application in heavy-duty highways and high-speed trains [5,6][5][6]. The mechanism of geocell reinforcement has been investigated by many researchers through experimental, numerical, and analytical studies. In a network of geocells, each cell is surrounded by several neighboring cells, and all the cells are filled with soil. With the application of external load, the soil inside the geocell pushes the cell wall, resulting in the development of an additional confining stress along the wall [4,8,9,10][4][8][9][10]. The additional confinement is translated into apparent cohesion, thereby increasing the shear strength of the soil, and preventing its lateral spread [11]. Furthermore, the extension of cell walls is opposed by the lateral stresses from the neighboring cells, causing the interconnected network of geocells to act as a cushion or stiffened mattress with higher strength and stiffness. This beam action redistributes the externally applied loads over a wider area and, thus, reduces the magnitude of stresses acting on the underlying soil [12]. This stiffened soil–geocell composite also hinders the propagation of the failure surface into the underlying soil [13]. Furthermore, at large displacements, the geocell layer acts as a tensioned membrane, providing sufficient upward resistance to the applied loads and, thus, reducing the stresses on the underlying soil [12,14][12][14]. A schematic representation of a geocell-reinforced soil bed is shown in Figure 1. In this figure, B represents the width of the foundation, u represents the depth of the geocell layer from the ground surface, and H, d, and b represent the height, pocket size, and width of the geocell layer, respectively. Various mechanisms responsible for the reinforcing action of geocells are presented in Figure 2. In this figure, θ represents the angle of load dispersion.
Figure 1.
Schematic representation of geocell reinforced foundation bed.
Figure 2. Mechanisms of geocell reinforcement: (a) confinement effect (plan view); (b) stress dispersion effect (sectional elevation); (c) lateral resistance effect on a single geocell (front view); (d) membrane effect (sectional elevation).
Figure 3 shows a photograph of the latest form of commercially available honeycomb-shaped geocells available at the Indian Institute of Science, Bangalore. Figure 3a shows the collapsed form of geocells, which helps in stacking large volumes of geocells in a compact form. In Figure 3b, an expanded form of a geocell layer is shown, and the cell wall, junctions, and perforations are marked. Geocells took almost five decades to evolve geometrically to their current versatile configuration. Historically, geocell layers were fabricated onsite using planar geosynthetics such as geotextiles and geogrids by strategically connecting the cells and filling them with granular soils [15]. Initially, resins and additives were used to connect the cells, which were chronologically replaced by bodkin joints, photo lamination, and ultrasonic welding in the most recent form of commercial geocells. Similarly, the geometric shape of the geocells has also undergone several transformations from square, circular, rectangular, diamond, and hexagonal to honeycomb. Furthermore, the cell material also evolved from paper, aluminum, and wood to polymer [3]. Currently, solid or perforated high-density polyethylene (HDPE) and novel polymeric alloy (NPA) are the commonly used polymers to manufacture geocells. However, the latter is more popular due to its greater flexibility, thermo-plasticity, and surface texture [16].
Figure 3.
Commercially available geocells: (
a
) collapsed form; (
b
) expanded form.
The present-day configuration of honeycomb geocells enables them to enclose maximum infill with a minimum perimeter of cells [8]. While manufacturing geocells, surface texture is imparted to the geocells, as shown in Figure 3, to enable them to mobilize greater interfacial shear strength when they are in contact with soils [17]. The postmortem analysis of geocells from various model tests showed that the junctions of the geocells remained intact even when local straining and buckling were observed in geocell walls [18,19][18][19]. Furthermore, the perforations present on the geocell walls (refer to Figure 3) facilitate easy drainage to dissipate pore pressures that develop inside the cells. These perforations also provide adequate interlocking between infill soils of adjacent geocells so that the geocell-reinforced soil behaves like a stiffened composite mass [20]. The perforations on cell walls also facilitate root growth within the cells, which is beneficial when vegetation is grown on geocell walls and slopes. The total pore area of the perforations is typically 6–22% of the unit area of the geocell wall. Table 1 presents the typical range of geometric and mechanical properties of commercial geocells reported by earlier studies [8,16][8][16] and geocell manufacturing companies.
Table 1.
Typical properties of commercial geocells.

References

  1. Webster, S.L.; Watkins, J.E. Investigation of Construction Techniques for Tactical Bridge Approach Roads across Soft Ground; US Waterways Experiment Station: Vicksburg, MS, USA, 1977; Volume 2.
  2. Rea, C.; Mitchell, J.K. Sand Reinforcement Using Paper Grid Cells; ASCE Spring Convention and Exhibit: Pittsburgh, PA, USA, 1978; pp. 24–28.
  3. Meyer, K.G. Managing Degraded off-Highway Vehicle Trails in Wet, Unstable, and Sensitive Environments; USDA Forest Service, Technology and Development Program, Missoula Technology and Development Center: Missoula, MT, USA, 2002; Available online: https://www.google.co.in/books/edition/Managing_Degraded_Off_highway_Vehicle_Tr/wc7sYHoj1j0C?hl=en (accessed on 18 July 2023).
  4. Rajagopal, K.; Krishnaswamy, N.R.; Latha, G.M. Behavior of sand confined with single and multiple geocells. Geotext. Geomembr. 1999, 17, 171–184.
  5. Leshchinsky, B.; Ling, H. Effects of geocell confinement on strength and deformation behavior of gravel. J. Geotech. Geoenvironment. Eng. 2013, 120, 339–351.
  6. Latha, G.M. Geocells for transportation geotechnical applications. Indian Geotech. J. 2021, 50, 602–613.
  7. Latha, G.M.; Somwanshi, A. Effect of reinforcement form on the bearing capacity of square footings on sand. Geotext. Geomembr. 2009, 27, 399–412.
  8. Gedela, R.; Karpurapu, R. Influence of pocket shape on numerical response of geocell reinforced foundation systems. Geosynth. Int. 2021, 28, 327–337.
  9. Henkel, D.J.; Gilbert, G.D. The effect of the rubber membrane on the measured triaxial compression strength of clay specimens. Geotechnique 1951, 3, 20–29.
  10. Bathurst, R.J.; Karpurapu, R. Large-Scale Triaxial Compression Testing of Geocell-Reinforced Granular Soils. Geotech. Test. J. 1993, 16, 296–303.
  11. Garcia, R.S.; Neto, J.A. Stress-dependent method for calculating the modulus improvement factor in geocell-reinforced soil layers. Geotext. Geomembr. 2021, 48, 145–157.
  12. Zhang, L.; Zhao, M.; Zou, X.; Zhao, H. Deformation analysis of geocell reinforcement using Winkler model. Comput. Geotech. 2009, 36, 977–983.
  13. Dash, S.K.; Rajagopal, K.; Krishnaswamy, N.R. Behavior of geocell-reinforced sand beds under strip loading. Can. Geotech. J. 2007, 43, 905–916.
  14. Mandal, J.N.; Gupta, P. Stability of geocell-reinforced soil. Constr. Build. Mater. 1994, 8, 54–61.
  15. Bush, D.I.; Jenner, C.G.; Bassett, R.H. The design and construction of geocell foundation mattresses supporting embankments over soft grounds. Geotext. Geomembr. 1990, 9, 83–98.
  16. Pokharel, S.K. Experimental Study on Geocell-Reinforced Bases under Static and Dynamic Loading. Ph.D. Thesis, University of Kansas, Lawrence, KS, USA, 2010.
  17. Gedela, R.; Kalla, S.; Sudarsanan, N.; Karpurapu, R. Assessment of load distribution mechanism in geocell reinforced foundation beds using digital imaging correlation techniques. Transp. Geotech. 2021, 31, 100664.
  18. Dash, S.K.; Rajagopal, K.; Krishnaswamy, N.R. Performance of different geosynthetic reinforcement materials in sand foundations. Geosynth. Int. 2004, 11, 35–41.
  19. Tafreshi, S.M.; Sharifi, P.; Dawson, A.R. Performance of circular footings on sand by use of multiple-geocell or-planar geotextile reinforcing layers. Soils Found. 2016, 55, 984–997.
  20. Liu, Y.; Deng, A.; Jaksa, M. Failure mechanisms of geocell walls and junctions. Geotext. Geomembr. 2019, 46, 104–120.
  21. Dash, S.K.; Rajagopal, K.; Krishnaswamy, N.R. Strip footing on geocell reinforced sand beds with additional planar reinforcement. Geotext. Geomembr. 2001, 19, 519–5211.
  22. Dash, S.K.; Krishnaswamy, N.R.; Rajagopal, K. Bearing capacity of strip footings supported on geocell-reinforced sand. Geotext. Geomembr. 2001, 19, 235–255.
  23. Sitharam, T.G.; Sireesh, S.; Dash, S.K. Model studies of a circular footing supported on geocell-reinforced clay. Can. Geotech. J. 2005, 41, 693–703.
  24. Thallak, S.G.; Saride, S.; Dash, S.K. Performance of surface footing on geocell-reinforced soft clay beds. Geotech. Geol. Eng. 2007, 25, 499–514.
  25. Lal, D.; Sankar, N.; Chandrakaran, S. Behaviour of square footing on sand reinforced with coir geocell. Arab. J. Geosci. 2017, 10, 345.
  26. Tafreshi, S.M.; Dawson, A.R. Comparison of bearing capacity of a strip footing on sand with geocell and with planar forms of geotextile reinforcement. Geotext. Geomembr. 2010, 28, 72–114.
  27. Sherin, K.S.; Chandrakaran, S.; Sankar, N. Effect of geocell geometry and multi-layer system on the performance of geocell reinforced sand under a square footing. Int. J. Geosynth. Ground Eng. 2017, 3, 20.
  28. Dash, S.K.; Reddy, P.D.T.; Raghukanth, S.T.G. Subgrade modulus of geocell-reinforced sand foundations. Proc. Inst. Civ. Eng. Ground Improv. 2008, 160, 79–117.
  29. Muthukumar, S.; Sakthivelu, A.; Shanmugasundaram, K.; Mahendran, N.; Ravichandran, V. Performance assessment of square footing on jute geocell-reinforced sand. Int. J. Geosynth. Ground Eng. 2019, 5, 25.
  30. Shin, E.C.; Kang, H.H.; Park, J.J. Reinforcement efficiency of bearing capacity with geocell shape and filling materials. KSCE J. Civ. Eng. 2017, 21, 1627–1655.
  31. Tafreshi, S.M.; Shaghaghi, T.; Mehrjardi, G.T.; Dawson, A.R.; Ghadrdan, M. A simplified method for predicting the settlement of circular footings on multi-layered geocell-reinforced non-cohesive soils. Geotext. Geomembr. 2015, 42, 332–343.
  32. Saride, S.; Gowrisetti, S.; Sitharam, T.G.; Puppala, A.J. Numerical simulation of geocell-reinforced sand and clay. Proc. Inst. Civ. Eng. Ground Improv. 2009, 161, 185–198.
  33. Latha, G.M.; Rajagopal, K.; Krishnaswamy, N.R. Experimental and theoretical investigations on geocell-supported embankments. Int. J. Geomech. 2006, 6, 30.
  34. Madhavi Latha, G.; Dash, S.K.; Rajagopal, K. Equivalent continuum simulations of geocell reinforced sand beds supporting strip footings. Geotech. Geol. Eng. 2008, 26, 387–398.
  35. Mhaiskar, S.Y.; Mandal, J.N. Investigations on soft clay subgrade strengthening using geocells. Constr. Build. Mater. 1996, 10, 281–286.
  36. Cheung, Y.K.; Chan, H.C. Finite element analysis. In Reinforced Concrete Deep Baems; Kong, F.K., Ed.; Blackie Publication: Glasgow, UK, 1990; pp. 204–237.
  37. Saride, S.; Rayabharapu, V.K.; Vedpathak, S. Evaluation of rutting behavior of geocell reinforced sand subgrades under repeated loading. Indian Geotech. J. 2015, 44, 378–388.
  38. Hegde, A.; Sitharam, T.G. 3-Dimensional numerical modelling of geocell reinforced sand beds. Geotext. Geomembr. 2015, 42, 171–181.
  39. Kargar, M.; Mir Mohammad Hosseini, S.M. Effect of reinforcement geometry on the performance of a reduced-scale strip footing model supported on geocell-reinforced sand. Sci. Iran. 2017, 24, 96–109.
  40. Krishnaswamy, N.R.; Rajagopal, K.; Latha, G.M. Model studies on geocell supported embankments constructed over a soft clay foundation. Geotech. Test. J. 2000, 23, 44–49.
  41. Shimizu, M.; Inui, T. Increase in the bearing capacity of ground with geotextile wall frame. In Proceedings of the Fourth International Conference on Geotextiles Geomembranes and Related Products, Hague, The Netherlands, 28 May–1 June 1990; pp. 1–29.
  42. Yang, X. Numerical Analyses of Geocell-Reinforced Granular Soils under Static and Repeated Loads. Ph.D. Thesis, University of Kansas, Lawrence, KS, USA, 2010.
  43. Saha, D.C.; Mandal, J.N. Performance of reclaimed asphalt pavement reinforced with bamboo geogrid and bamboo geocell. Int. J. Pavement Eng. 2020, 21, 571–582.
  44. Bagli, S.P. A tryst with geosynthetics. Indian Geotech. J. 2022, 52, 1003–1053.
  45. Leshchinsky, B.; Ling, H.I. Numerical modeling of behavior of railway ballasted structure with geocell confinement. Geotext. Geomembr. 2013, 36, 33–42.
  46. Rai, M. Geocell-Sand Mattress Overlying Soft Clay Subgrade: Behaviour under Circular Loading. Ph.D. Thesis, IIT Guwahati, Guwahati, India, 2010.
  47. Khalaj, O.; Moghaddas Tafreshi, S.N.; Mask, B.; Dawson, A.R. Improvement of pavement foundation response with multi-layers of geocell reinforcement: Cyclic plate load test. Geomech. Eng. 2015, 9, 373–395.
  48. Sitharam, T.G.; Sireesh, S. Effects of base geogrid on geocell-reinforced foundation beds. Geomech. Geoengin. Int. J. 2006, 1, 207–216.
  49. Mehdipour, I.; Ghazavi, M.; Moayed, R.Z. Numerical study on stability analysis of geocell reinforced slopes by considering the bending effect. Geotext. Geomembr. 2013, 37, 23–34.
  50. Davarifard, S.; Tafreshi, S.M. Plate load tests of multi-layered geocell reinforced bed considering embedment depth of footing. Procedia Earth Planet. Sci. 2015, 15, 105–110.
  51. Arvin, M.R.; Zakeri, A.; Bahmani Shoorijeh, M. Using finite element strength reduction method for stability analysis of geocell-reinforced slopes. Geotech. Geol. Eng. 2019, 37, 1443–1456.
  52. Tafreshi, S.M.; Dawson, A.R. A comparison of static and cyclic loading responses of foundations on geocell-reinforced sand. Geotext. Geomembr. 2012, 32, 54–68.
  53. Zhang, L.; Zhao, M.; Shi, C.; Zhao, H. Bearing capacity of geocell reinforcement in embankment engineering. Geotext. Geomembr. 2010, 28, 475–482.
More
ScholarVision Creations