See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.

net/publication/274765609

A bearing capacity calculation method for soil reinforced with a geocell

Article  in  Geosynthetics International · June 2013

DOI: 10.1680/gein.13.00007

CITATIONS READS

21 3,413

3 authors, including:

José Orlando Avesani Neto Marcos Massao Futai

University of São Paulo University of São Paulo
20 PUBLICATIONS   30 CITATIONS    65 PUBLICATIONS   228 CITATIONS   

SEE PROFILE SEE PROFILE

Some of the authors of this publication are also working on these related projects:

Computational Modelling of Concrete Structures View project

Tunelcon Project View project

All content following this page was uploaded by Marcos Massao Futai on 25 September 2015.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

 Geosynthetics International, 2013, 20, No. 3

A bearing capacity calculation method for soil

reinforced with a geocell
J. O. Avesani Neto1 , B. S. Bueno2 and M. M. Futai3
1
PhD Student, São Carlos School of Engineering, University of São Paulo – EESC/USP, 13566-590 São
Carlos, SP, Brazil, Telephone: +55 11-986201152, Telefax: +55 16-33739509,
E-mail: avesani.neto@gmail.com
2
Professor, São Carlos School of Engineering, University of São Paulo – EESC/USP, 13566-590 São
Carlos, SP, Brazil, Telephone: +55 16-33739501, Telefax: +55 16-33739509,
E-mail: bsbueno@sc.usp.br
3
Professor, Engineering School, University of Sao Paulo – EP/USP, 05508-010 São Paulo, SP, Brazil,
Telephone: +55 11-30915246, Telefax: +55 11-30915181, E-mail: futai@usp.br

Received 25 June 2012, revised 30 November 2012, accepted 9 February 2013

ABSTRACT: Geocell geosynthetics have been used in several areas of geotechnical engineering,
such as retaining walls, slope protection against erosion, road bases and channel lining. However,
geocell was initially designed to improve soil bearing capacity. Performing works in soft soils is
always a challenge to geotechnical engineering and involves risks, such as (global and local) soil
failures and large settlements. As reinforcement, geocell satisfactorily increases the bearing capacity
of the soil, enabling its use. In this regard, this paper presents a method for predicting the bearing
capacity of geocell-reinforced soils, taking into account the soil foundation bearing capacity and the
geocell reinforcement mechanisms – the stress dispersion effect and the confinement effect. The
proposed method is verified with the results of laboratory experiments by several researchers and
compared with other calculation methods. The results show that the calculated bearing capacity
obtained by this method give a better fit to the experimental results than other methods. The
method also proved to be a good approach for different geocell characteristics (geometry),
foundation soil and geocell infill (sand and clay) and loading shape (circular, rectangular and strip).

KEYWORDS: Geosynthetics, Soil reinforcement, Soil improvement, Calculation method, Soft soil

REFERENCE: Avesani Neto, J. O., Bueno, B. S. & Futai, M. M. (2013). A bearing capacity calculation
method for soil reinforced with a geocell. Geosynthetics International, 20, No. 3, 129–142.
[http://dx.doi.org/10.1680/gein.13.00007]

2003, 2004; Zhou and Wen 2008; Madhavi Latha and

1. INTRODUCTION
The construction of embankments on soft soils involves
numerous difficulties for both designers and contractors.
Although there are several conventional techniques that
avoid or improve soft soils, such as removing and replacing
the soil, piled embankments and consolidation, they are not
always feasible because of time, economic or execution
issues. Other approaches can be applied in these cases, some
with large and expensive structures and others with smart
applications of geosynthetics improvement, such as soil
reinforcement. These include solutions, such as lightweight
fill and planar reinforcement with geogrid and geotextile. In
this option, geocell has the same ability as high-performance
geogrids and geotextiles to improve the soil bearing capa-
city. In fact, geocell has additional advantages because of its
form, which makes it far superior to other types of interven-
tion regarding reinforced soil performance (Dash et al.
1072-6349 # 2013 Thomas Telford Ltd
Somwanshi 2009; Moghaddas Tafreshi and Dawson 2010).
Several authors have conducted laboratory and field
experiments to show the benefits of using geocell rein-
forcement in soil. Bathurst and Jarrett (1988) and Bathurst
and Crowe (1992) performed a large-scale model test
programme to investigate the load–deformation perform-
ance of geocell-reinforced mattress. Rea and Mitchell
(1978), Mandal and Gupta (1994), Mhaiskar and Mandal
(1996), Krishnaswamy et al. (2000), Dash et al. (2001a),
Meneses (2004) and Mengelt et al. (2006) evaluated the
influence of geocell pocket size (aspect ratio) in improve-
ment. Rajagopal et al. (1999) and Wesseloo et al. (2009)
performed triaxial and uniaxial tests in soil samples rein-
forced with one-cell and multiple-cell structures to analyse
the strength and deformation of the reinforcement for differ-
ent numbers of cells. The influence of type, strength and
stiffness of the geocell material was studied by Rajagopal et
129
130
al. (1999), Dash et al. (2001a), Meneses (2004), Madhavi
Latha et al. (2006) and Madhavi Latha and Murthy (2007).
In laboratory experiments, Dash et al. (2001a, 2003, 2007)
and Thallak et al. (2007) investigated the influence on
improvement of the height and width of the geocell mattress
and depth of placement. Dash et al. (2001a) and Meneses
(2004) studied the interference of subgrade resistance and
Madhavi Latha et al. (2006), Sireesh et al. (2009) and
Pokharel et al. (2010) reported the influence of the geocell
filler material on the reinforced soil bearing capacity. The
results of laboratory model tests in geocell-reinforced soil
under repeated (cyclic) loads were presented by Dash et al.
(2001b, 2003), Meneses (2004), Mengelt et al. (2006).
Thallak et al. (2007), Pokharel et al. (2009), Sireesh et al.
(2009) and Moghaddas Tafreshi and Dawson (2012) investi-
gated the benefits of the addition of planar reinforcement on
a geocell mattress.
Despite the large number of studies on geocell-
reinforced soil, few authors have proposed a method of
bearing capacity calculation, which explains the relatively
limited use of geocell for this purpose. The current methods
are Koerner’s (Koerner 1994) and Presto’s (Presto 2008),
which adapt the conventional plastic limit equilibrium
mechanism employed in the bearing capacity of a shallow
foundation with the addition of geocell layer improvement
by the confinement effect. The apparent cohesion method
(Bathurst and Karpurapu 1993; Rajagopal et al. 1999;
Madhavi Latha et al. 2006; Madhavi Latha and Murthy
2007) considers the geocell mattress as a foundation soil
layer with an equivalent value of apparent cohesion. Zhang
et al. (2010) also described a method of bearing capacity
calculation using the mattress geocell membrane effect and
the stress dispersion effect. However, this method requires
the results of various load–displacement levels from experi-
mental unreinforced soil bearing capacity tests to determine
the improvement of the geocell reinforcement.
This paper proposes a bearing capacity calculation
method for soil reinforced with geocell by considering the
main mechanisms of resistance development in geocell to
achieve a more accurate result than is provided by other
methods.
2. RESISTANCE DEVELOPMENT
MECHANISM IN GEOCELL
As with other geosynthetics used as planar reinforcement,
the development of resistance in geocell is credited to
different mechanisms working together to develop im-
proved bearing capacity in soil. However, unlike planar
reinforcements, which trigger the confinement and mem-
brane effects, geocell generates a third mechanism – the
stress dispersion effect – and higher efficiency in the
confinement effect. Each mechanism acts in a specific
way; however, the mechanisms are interrelated and are
generated by the loading application (Zhou and Wen
2008; Zhang et al. 2010).
2.1. Confinement effect
When the loading is applied, the geocell honeycomb
structure increases the confining stresses and the stiffness
Geosynthetics International, 2013, 20, No. 3
Avesani Neto, Bueno and Futai
of its fill material. Horizontal stresses also arise between
the fill material and the geocell wall, mobilising an
interface shear stress. Thus, the confinement effect con-
tributes in two ways: by geotechnically improving the soil
filling (strength and deformability), providing better load
absorption, and by dissipating the loads through horizontal
stresses in the geocell. Such stresses are distributed and
shared among adjacent cells mobilisation of both the
confined soil passive resistance (Bathurst and Jarrett
1988; Mandal and Gupta 1994) and the interface shear
resistance between soil and wall inside the geocells (Bath-
urst and Jarrett 1988; Koerner 1994; Hufenus et al. 2006).
In contrast to the membrane effect, an important
advantage of this mechanism is that displacements are not
required for its activation. However, its effectiveness
depends on sufficient interface friction between the fill
material and the geocell pocket (Cancelli and Montanelli
1999).
2.2. Stress dispersion effect
Also termed the raft foundation effect, this effect is
similar to the confinement effect as it does not require
displacement for mobilisation. This is the basic principle,
and its operation can be explained as a stress spreading
effect to the underlying layer due to the three-dimensional
structure of interconnected pockets and filled material,
creating a structure capable of providing stiff resistance to
bending, compression, tension and shear, similar to a
concrete slab. Because of this dispersion, the load is
transferred to the foundation soil, acting on a larger
surface and leading to lower stress levels.
2.3. Membrane effect
The membrane effect develops as a result of a vertical
displacement in the foundation soil under the geocell
mattress, which creates a concave shape in the tensioned
geosynthetic material. On account of its stiffness and
lateral anchoring, the curved reinforced material exerts an
upward force that supports the applied loading and
improves the bearing capacity, acting as a tensioned
membrane and reducing the pressure on the subgrade
(Zhou and Wen 2008). However, this effect requires larger
subgrade displacements, high geosynthetic stiffness, and a
minimum roughness between the reinforcement and the
soil for mobilisation of anchorage friction (Ghosh and
Madhav 1994; Hufenus et al. 2006). Additionally, this
improvement requires a separation effect between the two
soil layers (over and under the reinforcement) to mobilise
the geosynthetic resistance. For these reasons it was
decided to use only the confinement and stress dispersion
effects in the proposed formulation.
3. CURRENT BEARING CAPACITY
CALCULATION METHODS
3.1. Koerner’s method
Koerner (1994) developed a bearing capacity calculation
method by adding the geocell improvement by the con-
Bearing capacity calculation for soil reinforced with a geocell
finement effect to the statically loaded shallow foundation
bearing capacity
1
pr ¼ 2k a p tan  þ cN c S c þ qN q S q þ ªBN ª S ª (1)
2
where pr is the reinforced bearing capacity, ka is the
coefficient of active earth pressure, p is the load applied
to the geocell mat,  is the interface shear angle between
the cell wall and the filling soil (Koerner (1994) suggests
15–208 between sand and HDPE and 25–358 between
sand and nonwoven geotextile), c is the subgrade soil
cohesion; q is the surcharge load, ª is the subgrade soil
unit weight, B is the loading width, Nc , Nq and Nª are
bearing capacity factors, which are all functions of 
(Terzaghi and Peck 1967), and Sc , Sq and Sª are loading
shape factors (Terzaghi and Peck 1967).
3.2. Presto’s method
Presto (2008) developed a theoretical bearing capacity
method for geocell-reinforced soil based on empirically
derived design methods for unpaved roads over soft soils.
The equation proposed is
h
pr ¼ 2 k a  vm tan  þ cu N c (2)
d 2
where pr is the reinforced bearing capacity, h/d is the
geocell aspect ratio, ka is the coefficient of active earth
pressure, vm is the average vertical stress (calculated at
top and bottom of geocell mattress using the theory of
elasticity – Boussinesq’s solution),  is the interface shear
angle between the cell wall and the filling soil (for smooth
cell wall, Presto 2008 suggests approximately 0.70 of the
infill material friction angle, ), cu is the subgrade shear
strength, and Nc is the bearing capacity coefficient based
on the design traffic from US Forest Service guidelines
(2.8 for high traffic and 3.3 for low traffic, according to
Presto (2008)).
3.3. Apparent cohesion method
The apparent cohesion method was based on laboratory
studies performed by several workers (Bathurst and Kar-
purapu 1993; Rajagopal et al. 1999; Madhavi Latha et al.
2006; Madhavi Latha and Murthy 2007) and the rubber
membrane theory proposed by Henkel and Gilbert (1952).
In the analysis of these researches, the geocell reinforce-
ment was considered an additional foundation soil layer
with cohesive strength that improves the bearing capacity
of the subgrade. The improvement (using the apparent
cohesion methodology) of the geocell mattress is
 pffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffi
M 1  1  a pffiffiffiffiffi
I¼ kp (3)
d0 1  a
where I is the geocell improvement (apparent soil cohe-
sion induced by geocell confinement), M is the modulus
of the membrane obtained from the load–elongation curve
of the geocell material, d0 is the initial geocell pocket
size, a is the axial strain at failure, and kp is the
coefficient of passive earth pressure.
Geosynthetics International, 2013, 20, No. 3
131
4. PROPOSED BEARING CAPACITY
CALCULATION METHOD
The bearing capacity (pr ) provided by the proposed
method is composed of an unreinforced subgrade bearing
capacity (pu ) increased by the geocell bearing capacity
improvement (I)
pr ¼ pu þ I (4)
4.1. Subgrade bearing capacity
The subgrade resistance in this method is the bearing
capacity of unreinforced soil, which can be determined by
various methods such as empirical results, bearing capa-
city equations (Terzaghi, Vesic, Meyerhof) and site load
tests.
In the present work, Terzaghi’s method was used to
determine the bearing capacity of the subgrade soil.
According to Bowles (1996), this method was the most
accurate among other methods cited by the author (Terza-
ghi, Meyerhof, Hansen, Vesic and Balla). Thus, Terzaghi’s
method was implemented as Equation 5 (Terzaghi and
Peck 1967)
1
pu ¼ cN c S c þ ªBN ª S ª (5)
where pu is the unreinforced subgrade bearing capacity, c
is the subgrade soil cohesion, ª is the subgrade soil unit
weight, B is the loading width, Nc and Nª are bearing
capacity factors, Sc is the loading shape factor related to
cohesion (equal to 1.3 for circular and rectangular loads
and 1.0 for strip loads), and Sª is the loading shape factor
related to the soil unit weight (equal to 0.6 for circular
loads, 0.8 for rectangular loads and 1.0 for strip loads).
4.2. Confinement effect
The confinement effect improvement depends directly on
the load magnitude, the fill material, the material itself
and the geocell pocket dimensions. Thus, the contribution
of this effect can be estimated by the following steps.
1. Horizontal stress: due to some factors such as
geocell cellular structure, geocell rib tensile resis-
tance and the filling soil in adjacent cells, the
horizontal rigidity restrains the lateral displacement
inside the cell, leading to a situation similar to at-
rest lateral earth pressure (k0 ). The horizontal stress
(h ) inside the geocell pocket can be calculated as
 h ¼ k0p (6)
(a) Shear stress: the interface shear angle between the
cell wall and the filling soil () depends on the type
of soil and geocell material. However, in the
proposed method, the interface shear angle adopted
was equal to 2/3 of the filling soil friction angle ().
The shear stress () inside the geocell pocket is the
horizontal stress multiplied by the interface friction
tangent, as follows
 ¼ k 0 p tan  (7)
132
2. Unitary pocket shear force: the geocell is a three-
dimensional geosynthetic. It is necessary to quantify
the influence of all pocket surfaces on the geocell
improvement. The unitary pocket shear force (F )
can be calculated by transforming the unitary cell
contribution into a unitary cell force and multiplying
the shear stress by the internal pocket surface–
geocell height, h, multiplied by the four sides of the
pocket size, d (assuming that the geocell pocket is a
square of equivalent side equal to d ), as in Figure 1
F  ¼ h(4d)k 0 p tan  (8)
3. Number of cells under the load: it is necessary to
quantify the number of cells under the load that
contribute to the improvement. The number of cells
under the load (n) is determined from relationship
between the geocell and the load dimensions
(Figure 1)
BL
n¼ (9)
d2
where B and L are, respectively, the load width and
load length.
4. Confinement effect improvement: the confinement
effect improvement is the sum of unitary pocket
shear forces under the load, obtained by multiplying
the number of cells under the load by the unitary
pocket shear force
h
˜F  ¼ 4 k 0 pBL tan  (10)
d On applying the load, owing to the soil filling confine-
where ˜F is the sum of unitary pocket shear forces
under the load (confinement effect improvement), h/d
is the geocell aspect ratio, k0 is the lateral earth
pressure at rest (k0 ¼ 1  sin 9),  is the interface
friction angle between the filling soil and the geocell
Geocell mattress
Geocell pocket
d
Loading
plate B (b)
L
(a)
Figure 1. (a) Plan view of a loading plate over a geocell mattress; (b) a cross-sectional view and the unitary pocket shear force;
(c) internal pocket surface
Geosynthetics International, 2013, 20, No. 3
Avesani Neto, Bueno and Futai
wall, and p is the load at the top of the geocell
mattress.
As observed in laboratory experiments (Dash et al.
2007; Han et al. 2008; Madhavi Latha et al. 2009), the
increase in the aspect ratio (h/d ) to values greater than 1
changes the geocell mattress behaviour. According to the
authors, geocell mattress of smaller depths (h/d , 1,
approximately) bends like a centrally loaded shallow beam
that deflects more, leading to higher contact pressure
underneath, and exhibits tension stress in the bottom and
compression stress in the top, with large shear stress
mobilisation. However, large depth of geocell mattress
(h/d . 1, approximately) leads to high rigidity and the
geocell mattress tends to behave like a raft foundation,
which settles more uniformly, giving rise to a relatively
uniform pressure distribution (Dash et al. 2007; Han et al.
2008; Madhavi Latha et al. 2009). In this case the
confinement effect is only marginal and the most impor-
tant improvement effect is the stress dispersion. Therefore,
in this method the contribution of the confinement effect
improvement was limited to an aspect ratio up to 1, after
which the equation neglects this parameter.
4.3. Stress dispersion effect
The improvement due to this effect is expressed as a
function of the load shape and size (boards, footing, tires,
etc.), occurring only in finite-sized loads, and the geocell
pocket size.
ment the stress is spread to the bottom of the reinforce-
ment layer to a larger area. Many authors (Terzaghi and
Peck 1967; Bowles 1996) use a dispersion angle (Ł) to set
the value of this stress spread. In soil mechanics and
foundations work, it is common to use values of 308 and
p
Fτ Fτ Fτ h
4d
τ τ τ τ h
(c)
Bearing capacity calculation for soil reinforced with a geocell 133

278 as a simplification, referring to a 2V:1H spread. In arc tangent of the inverse of aspect ratio d/h) for different
studies with geocells, Dash et al. (2007) reported that the geometries of reinforcement used by Dash et al. (2007).
dispersion angle ranged between 48 and 52.68, with strong This comparison is presented in Table 1.
dependence on the geocell geometric characteristics used The theoretical dispersion angles calculated by the
in each test. Zhang et al. (2010) used values between 258 proposed method were similar to those obtained by Dash
and 558 in their model, citing a range of 258 to 608 et al. (2007) in experiments, mainly for geocell aspect
obtained from the literature. ratio greater than 1. For aspect ratios smaller than 1 and
The present method used a stress spreading a distance geocell depth of placement greater than 0.25B, the
equal to one pocket – that is, a value equal to d for each proposed method overestimated values of dispersion
side of the load, as shown in Figure 2. This stress angle.
dispersion was employed because, owing to the cellular Making a force balance from Figure 2 it follows that
structure of the reinforcement layer and mainly to the high the force on the geocell mattress bottom (p ), is equal to
confinement induced within the pocket, the stress spread the load on the surface (p) minus the confinement effect
in this layer is expected to intercept the wall of the (˜F ; Equation 10)
adjacent pocket; even this spreading overcomes a rel- h
atively high angle according to the traditional concepts p (B þ 2d)(L þ 2d) ¼ pBL  4 k 0 p BL tan  (11)
d
employed in soil mechanics and foundations. However,
when intercepting the adjacent pocket wall, this spread is Thus, the stress that effectively acts on the subgrade soil
barred because of the wall rigidity and the material (p ) can be defined by Equation 12
discontinuity, even if it is lower than the usual values  
stipulated in soil mechanics and foundations work.  h BL
p ¼ p  4 k 0 p tan  (12)
To evaluate this adoption, the authors compared results d (B þ 2d)(L þ 2d)
of dispersion angle (Ł) reported by Dash et al. (2007) with
those calculated by the proposed method (obtained by the The relationship between the geometric characteristics
B, L and d in Equation 12 was expressed as a parameter
p termed the stress redistribution effect (e). Equation 12 can
be rewritten as
 
 h
p ¼ p  4 k 0 p tan  e (13)
θ
d
ΔFτ
p*
Geocell 4.4. Bearing capacity of geocell-reinforced soil (pr )
Subgrade
The improvement in the bearing capacity due to geocell
d B reinforcement (I) can be defined as the difference between
the stress on the top of the geocell mattress (p) and the
B ⫹ 2d stress acting on its bottom (p ). Thus, the bearing capacity
of the geocell-reinforced soil, as shown in Equation 4, is
Figure 2. Illustration of the stress dispersion effect adopted  
for the presented method p ¼ p þ p  p
r u (14)

Table 1. Comparison of dispersion angles obtained in the experiments of Dash et al.

(2007) with those calculated by the proposed method

Experiment Depth of geocell Width of geocell Aspect Dispersion angle, Ł(8)

placement reinforcement ratio
u/B b/B h/d Dash et al. Proposed
(2007) method

1 0.10 12 0.53 39 62
2 0.10 12 0.67 42 56
3 0.10 12 1.00 53 45
4 0.10 12 1.33 39 37
5 0.10 12 1.67 31 31
6 0.10 12 2.29 23 24
7 0.10 12 2.62 22 21
8 0.10 4 2.29 20 24
9 0.10 6 2.29 20 24
10 0.10 8 2.29 21 24
11 0.10 10 2.29 22 24
12 0 8 2.29 22 24
13 0.10 8 2.29 21 24
14 0.25 8 2.29 18 24

Geosynthetics International, 2013, 20, No. 3

134
or
h range and for all experiments.
pr ¼ pu þ 4 k 0 pe tan  þ (1  e)p (15)
d
5. ANALYSIS OF THE PROPOSED
METHOD
The method was verified through the results of 79
laboratory bearing capacity experiments performed by
several workers and presented in Table 2, which also
displays the variables used by each author.
5.1. Evaluation of the influence of lateral earth
pressure coefficient
As observed, the current bearing capacity calculation
methods adopt different lateral earth pressure coefficients.
Koerner and Presto’s method uses the coefficient of active
earth pressure, whereas the apparent cohesion method uses
the coefficient of passive earth pressure. The bearing
capacity experiments previously cited were used in the
evaluation of the influence of the lateral earth pressure
coefficient on the presently proposed method, as shown in
Figure 3.
The coefficient of passive earth pressure generated
overestimated results not corresponding to the values
measured in the experiments. Both active and at rest
lateral earth pressure presented satisfactory results. How-
ever, the coefficient of active earth pressure exhibited a
slight underestimation results, while the lateral earth
pressure at rest showed the best fit for the proposed
method, justifying its use.
5.2. Analysis of the proposed method for
experimental results of other workers
Figure 4 shows the comparison of the experimental results
from other authors with those from the proposed method.
In general, there was an excellent fit of values from the
proposed method with those from different experiments
for the full range of bearing capacity values.
For better visualisation and analysis, the experiments
were grouped by similarity, as follows.
• Experiments on sandy soil foundations; hand-made
geocells consisted of geogrid (prepared by cutting
geogrids from full rolls and placing them in
transverse and diagonal directions, on the soil bed,
with bodkin joints inserted at the connections) and
strip footings (Dash et al. 2001a, 2001b). The fit was
good, with accurate results for the entire stress range
and for all experiments. Specifically, for the
Moghaddas Tafreshi and Dawson (2010) experiments
(sandy soil foundation, geocell made with non-woven
geotextile and filled with sandy soil, and strip foot),
the proposed method showed a slight underestima-
tion in the bearing capacity prediction.
• Experiments on clay foundations; hand-made geo-
cells consisted of geogrid filled with sand; circular
load (Dash et al. 2003; Sireesh et al. 2009). The fit
Geosynthetics International, 2013, 20, No. 3
Avesani Neto, Bueno and Futai
was good, with accurate result for the entire stress
• Experiments on clay soil foundations; circular load;
hand-made geocells consisted of geogrid filled with
clay soil (Thallak et al. 2007) and geocells made
with HDPE (high-density polyethylene) and poly-
propylene geotextile filled with sandy soil (Meneses
2004). The proposed method slightly overestimated
compared with the results of Meneses (2004). For
the results of Thallak et al. (2007), it is noteworthy
that the proposed method fitted satisfactorily for the
special case in which the filled soil is the same as
for the subgrade – that is, soft clay soil.
• Experiments on clay foundations; polypropylene
geocell filled with sand, strip load (Mhaiskar and
Mandal 1996) and rectangular load (Mandal and
Gupta 1994). The proposed method showed a good
approximation to the results of Mhaiskar and Mandal
(1996). However, for the results of Mandal and
Gupta (1994), the proposed method overestimated
the bearing capacity. This is due to the over-
estimation of the subgrade bearing capacity obtained
by the Terzaghi method. In unreinforced experiments
performed by Mandal and Gupta (1994), the bearing
capacity obtained was smaller than the results
calculated by the Terzaghi method as used in the
proposed method – Equation 2.
5.3. Comparison between the methods for geocell-
reinforced soil
This study considered the methods developed by Koerner
and by Presto and the apparent cohesion method. The
equation proposed by Zhang et al. (2010) was not verified
because it is not a prediction method but an adjustment of
experimental results, depending on the test results. The
experimental data used in the comparison were the same
as presented in Table 2.
For sandy soil in subgrade, the general tendencies
observed for each method were that the apparent cohesion
method and Koerner’s method showed underestimated
results; Presto’s method delivered strongly overestimated
results; and the proposed method fitted well for all the
ranges of bearing capacity values. Figure 5 shows all the
results for this case.
For clay soil in the foundation, the general tendencies
observed for the methods were that Koerner’s method
exhibited strongly underestimated results; Presto’s method
delivered values ranging between over- and underestima-
tions; the apparent cohesion method was extremely vari-
able, with overestimated results; and the proposed method
fitted well for all the ranges of bearing capacity values.
Figure 6 shows all the results for this case.
In the specific case using clay soil to fill the geocell
where the geocell mattress rested on clayey foundation
(Thallak et al. 2007), Koerner’s method and Presto’s
method annulled the reinforcement improvement by can-
celling the confinement effect, in which resistance is given
only by the bearing capacity of the unreinforced subgrade.
Although the proposed method also annuls this effect, it
considers the stress dispersion effect on the improvement.
 Bearing capacity calculation for soil reinforced with a geocell
Table 2. Summary of laboratory experiment variables

Variable Author

Mandal and Gupta Mhaiskar and Dash et al. (2001a) Dash et al. Dash et al. (2003) Meneses (2004) Thallak et al. Sireesh et al. Moghaddas Tafreshi
(1994) Mandal (1996) (2001b) (2007) (2009) and Dawson (2010)
Geosynthetics International, 2013, 20, No. 3

Subgrade soil Clay: su ¼ 20 kPa Clay: su ¼ 10 kPa Sand:  ¼ 39.28, Sand:  ¼ 42.28 Clay: su ¼ 3 kPa Clay: Clay: su ¼ 5.6 kPa Clay: su ¼ 10 kPa Sand:  ¼ 37.58
40.28, 418, 41.78 and su ¼ 13.7 kPa to
42.28 20.5 kPa
Filling soil Sand:  ¼ 368 Sand:  ¼ 368 and Sand:  ¼ 39.28, Sand:  ¼ 42.28 Sand:  ¼ 418 Sand:  ¼ 308 Clay: su ¼ 5.6 kPa Sand:  ¼ 378, 398 Sand:  ¼ 37.58
408 40.28, 418, 41.78 and and 328 and 418
42.28
Load shape Strip Rectangular Strip Strip Circular Circular Circular Circular Strip
Depth of geocell 0 0 0 and 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.086 0, 0.033, 0.067, 0.05 0.1
mattress, u/B 0.1, 0.25, 0.5 and
1
Width of geocell 4.25 3.4 8, 10 and 12 8 5 and 5.6 4.06 1.3, 1.9, 3.1, 3.7, 1.3, 1.9, 2.5, 3.1, 4.2
mattress, b/B 4.3, 4.9 and 5.5 3.7, 4.3, 4.9 and
5.5
Aspect ratio, h/d 3.04 0.5, 0.67, 1 and 2 0.30, 0.53, 0.67, 2.29 0.53, 1.05, 1.58, 0.25, 0.50 and 0.75, 1.5, 2.25 and 0.75, 1.2, 2.25, 3, 0.33, 0.66, 1 and
1.33, 1.67, 2.29 and 2.1, 2.63 and 3.15 0.75 3 3.75 and 4.5 1.33
2.62
Geocell material Non-woven Non-woven Three different Geogrid Geogrid HDPE and non- Geogrid Geogrid Non-woven
geotextile geotextile geogrids woven geotextile geotextile
Strain, s/B (%) 5, 10, 15, 20, 30 3, 5, 10, 15, 20, 5, 10, 15, 20, 30 5, 6, 7, 10, 15, 3, 5, 10, 15, 20, 5, 10, 15, 20, 30 3, 5, 10, 15, 20, 5, 10, 15, 20, 30 5, 10, 15, 20 and
and 40 30 and 40 and 40 20, 30 and 40 30 and 40 and 40 30 and 40 and 40 25

Note: su is the undrained shear strength of the soil (kPa),  is the friction angle of the soil (8); HDPE is high-density polyethylene.

135
136 Avesani Neto, Bueno and Futai
1400

Bearing capacity calculated by proposed method (kPa)

1200

1000

800

600

400
Coefficient of active earth pressure

200 Coefficient of passive earth pressure

Coefficient of earth pressure at rest
0
0 200 400 600 800 1000 1200 1400
Bearing capacity obtained from experiments (kPa)

Figure 3. Evaluation of the influence of the lateral earth pressure coefficient on the proposed method

1400
Bearing capacity calculated by proposed method (kPa)

1200

1000

800

600 Mandal and Gupta (1994)

Mhaiskar and Mandal (1996)
Dash et al. (2001a)
400 Dash et al. (2001b)
Dash et al. (2003)
Meneses (2004)
200 Thallak et al. (2007)
Sireesh et al. (2009)
Moghaddas Tafreshi and Dawson (2012)
0
0 200 400 600 800 1000 1200 1400
Bearing capacity obtained from experiments (kPa)

Figure 4. Comparison of the experimental results from various authors with those from the proposed method

1800
Bearing capacity calculated by various methods (kPa)

1600

1400

1200

1000

800

600

400 Apparent cohesion

Presto
200 Koerner
Proposed method
0
0 200 400 600 800 1000 1200 1400 1600 1800
Bearing capacity obtained from experiments (kPa)

Figure 5. Comparison between all experimental results for sandy soil in foundation and those from the calculation methods
Geosynthetics International, 2013, 20, No. 3
Bearing capacity calculation for soil reinforced with a geocell 137
600

Bearing capacity calculated by various methods (kPa)

500

400

300

200

Apparent cohesion
100
Presto
Koerner
0 Proposed method
0 100 200 300 400 500 600
Bearing capacity obtained from experiments (kPa)

Figure 6. Comparison between all experimental results for clay soil in foundation and those from the calculation methods

Figure 7 compares the experiment al results of Thallak et Terzaghi’s method in terms of the bearing capacity of
al. (2007) with the calculation methods. unreinforced soils, leading to results closer to those of the
The reason Koerner’s method underestimates is that it experiments.
considers only the confinement effect in the geocell The apparent cohesion method considers a cohesion
improvement. Moreover, the real-world case is three- increment in the geocell layer. However, the method does
dimensional, whereas the equation is two-dimensional and not specify a rupture model or a formulation for the soil
does not consider the geocell’s geometric characteristics. foundation. In order to determine the confinement stress
Lastly, in some cases, the surcharge portion from the increase, the equation requires as input the axial deforma-
geocell in the bearing capacity method developed by tion of geocell walls, which is difficult to determine and
Terzaghi and used in Koerner’s method overestimates the use for different load application levels.
improvement and hence the bearing capacity of the
reinforced soil. 5.4. Results from earth-pressure cells under the
Presto’s method includes the geocell geometric charac- geocell layer
teristics using the aspect ratio h/d. However, the method Meneses (2004) conducted bearing capacity experiments
does not limit the influence of h/d, yielding overestimates in geocell-reinforced soil with earth-pressure cells (type
for aspect ratios higher than 1. The method considers BE-2KC from Kyowa Electronic Instruments Co., Chofu,
only the confinement effect and adopts a model of Japan) placed on the bottom of the geocell mattress to
punching failure for the foundation soil that overestimates acquire stress dissipation (or the bearing capacity improve-
the subgrade resistance, mainly for sandy soils. For clay ment) in the geocell cushion. The test set-up is presented
soil in the foundation, this failure model resembles in Figure 8.

200
Bearing capacity calculated by various methods (kPa)

175

150

125

100

Apparent cohesion
75
Presto
Koerner
50
Proposed method

25

0
0 25 50 75 100 125 150 175 200
Bearing capacity obtained from experiments (kPa)

Figure 7. Comparison between experimental results for clay soil filling the geocell (Thallak et al. 2007) and those from the
calculation methods
Geosynthetics International, 2013, 20, No. 3
138 Avesani Neto, Bueno and Futai

350 Circular rigid strain

plate

0.32

0.46

0.43

0.23
187.09

152.31
50.51

139.98
32.81

50.51

11.96

79.83
Geocell-
reinforced
cushion
Soil-pressure cell

0.32

0.46

0.43

0.23
171.50

139.62

127.30
46.30

30.07

46.30

10.97

73.17
200

Subgrade

Reinforced
1800

155.91

126.92

119.11
42.09

27.34

42.09

66.52
0.32

0.46

9.97
0.43

0.23
steel tank

0.32

0.46

8.97
0.43

0.23
140.32

114.23

105.12
37.89

24.61

37.88

59.87
0.26
Table 3. Intermediate variables for the computation of the different methods improvement. Experiment: Meneses (2004); HDPE geocell, h/d

124.73

101.54
33.68

21.87

33.67

53.22

88.43
0.32

0.46

7.97
0.43

0.23
1420

Figure 8. Test set-up and model dimensions of the

0.32

0.46

6.98
0.43

0.23
109.13

29.47

19.14

29.46

46.57

88.85

72.53
experiments reported by Meneses (2004) (units: mm)

0.32

0.46

5.98
0.43

0.23
93.54

25.26

16.40

25.25

39.91

76.15

60.54
With these data, it was possible to compare the experi-
mental stress dissipation (difference between applied
pressure and cell earth pressure measured) with the theor-
etical stress dissipation calculated by the different meth-
0.32

0.46

4.98
0.43

0.23
77.95

21.05

13.67

21.05

33.26

63.46

47.55
ods – the confinement effect in Koerner’s and Presto’s
methods and confinement and stress dispersion effects in
the proposed method. The apparent cohesion method was
0.32

0.46

3.99
0.43

0.23
62.36

16.84

10.94

16.84

26.61

50.77

35.96
not considered in this analysis because of the difficulty in
assuming axial deformation in the geocell walls for differ-
ent load levels applied.
46.77

12.63

12.63

19.96

38.08

25.47
0.32

8.20
0.46

2.99
0.43

0.23
Meneses (2004) performed tests in a clay soil founda-
tion with approximately 20 kPa cohesion. The applied load
was a circular footing (load width, B ¼ 350 mm) and sand
0.32
8.42

5.47
0.46
8.42

1.99
0.43

0.23
31.18

13.30

25.38

16.18
with a 358 friction angle was used to fill the geocell
pockets.
Table 3 shows the intermediate variables for the
0.32
4.21

2.73
0.46
4.21

1.00
0.43
6.65

0.23

4.29
15.59

12.69

computation of the stress dissipation calculated by these

methods (using Equations 1, 2 and 15) for one of the
experiments performed by Meneses (2004): HDPE geocell
with aspect ratio, h/d ¼ 0.26 (height, h ¼ 50 mm and
0.00

0.32
0.00

0.00
0.46
0.00

0.00
0.43
0.00

0.23
0.00

0.00

pocket size, d ¼ 190 mm).

Figures 9–12 show a comparison between the experi-
Improvement, 2(h=d)k a  vm tan  (kPa)

mental and theoretical stress dissipations for three differ-

Horizontal stress inside the geocell

Horizontal stress inside the geocell

Horizontal stress inside the geocell

4(h=d)(tan )k 0 pe þ (1  e)p (kPa)

ent aspect ratios (h/d ¼ 0.26, 0.52, 0.78) of HDPE

geocells (Figures 9–11) and a polypropylene non-woven
Improvement, 2k a p tan  (kPa)

Stress redistribution effect, e

Interface shear friction, tan

Interface shear friction, tan

Interface shear friction, tan

geotextile geocell with aspect ratio 0.78 (Figure 12).

Only the proposed method satisfactorily calculated the
pocket, k a  vm (kPa)

stress dissipation into the geocell mattress. The fit was

Improvement (kPa)
pocket, k 0 p (kPa)
pocket, k a p (kPa)

better for aspect ratios of 0.26 and 0.78 with HDPE

Improvement,

geocell. In the cases of HDPE geocell with h/d ¼ 0.52 and

geotextile geocell, the method was overestimated for high
applied stress, which produced non-linear behaviour for
all methods.
Load step, p (kPa)

Koerner’s formulation, which does not consider the

Koerner’s method

Proposed method
Presto’s method

geocell geometric characteristics, provided the same stress

dissipation result for different aspect ratios. In contras,
Experiment

Presto’s equations considered the geocell geometry, in-

creasing stress dissipation for high aspect ratio values.
However, using only the confinement effect, Presto’s
Geosynthetics International, 2013, 20, No. 3
Bearing capacity calculation for soil reinforced with a geocell 139
200 225
Koerner
Koerner 200
175 Presto
Presto
175 Proposed method

Stress dissipation (kPa)

150 Proposed method
Stress dissipation (kPa)

Experiment
Experiment 150
125
125
100 100

75 75

50 50

25
25
0
0 0 20 40 60 80 100 120 140 160 180 200
0 20 40 60 80 100 120 140 160 180 200 Applied pressure (kPa)
Applied pressure (kPa)
Figure 12. Comparison between experimental and theoretical
Figure 9. Comparison between experimental and theoretical stress dissipations using data from the experiments reported
stress dissipations using data from the experiments reported by Meneses (2004) (polypropylene geocell: h/d 0.78)
by Meneses (2004) (HDPE geocell: h/d 0.26)
method underestimated the stress dissipation and provided
a poor approximation to the test results.
Zhou and Wen (2008) also developed earth-pressure
200 instrumentation at the geocell layer bottom during bearing
Koerner capacity experiments. However, the authors used an airbag
175
Presto to simulate application of an embankment load in the
150 Proposed method subgrade. Since the load is not ‘finite’ and there is no
Stress dissipation (kPa)

Experiment vertical stress dispersion, the geocell cushion develops

125
only the confinement effect. Zhou and Wen (2008) used
100 clay soil in the foundation (c ¼ 24 kPa) and sandy soil
( ¼ 328) for filling the HDPE geocell with an aspect
75
ratio of 1.33. Figure 13 shows the experimental and
50 calculated stress dissipations.
Again the proposed method proved to be closer to the
25
experimental results than other methods, even annulling
0 the stress dispersion effect and considering only the
0 20 40 60 80 100 120 140 160 180 200 220
Applied pressure (kPa)
confinement effect. As the only effect involved in this
case is the confinement effect, Koerner’s formulation
Figure 10. Comparison between experimental and theoretical provided a satisfactory approximation to the stress dissipa-
stress dissipations using data from Meneses’s (Meneses 2004) tion measured. Presto’s method yielded acceptable results
experiments (HDPE geocell: h/d 0.52) due to the lower aspect ratio utilised by the authors
(h/d ¼ 1.33).
Similarly to previous researches, Dash et al. (2007)
presented results of earth-pressure instrumentation at the
200
Koerner 70
180
Presto Koerner
160
Theoretical stress dissipation (kPa)

Proposed method 60
Stress dissipation (kPa)

Presto
140 Experiment
50 Proposed method
120
100 40
80
30
60
40 20

20
10
0
0 20 40 60 80 100 120 140 160 180 200 0
Applied pressure (kPa) 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70
Measured stress dissipation (kPa)
Figure 11. Comparison between experimental and theoretical
stress dissipations using data from the experiments reported Figure 13. Comparison between experimental and calculated
by Meneses (2004) (HDPE geocell: h/d 0.78) stress dissipations using data from Zhou and Wen (2008)
Geosynthetics International, 2013, 20, No. 3
140 Avesani Neto, Bueno and Futai

bottom of the geocell mattress during bearing capacity provided the same stress dissipation for the three different
tests. Experiments were conducted with a geocell made of aspect ratios, yielding strongly underestimated results for
geogrid filled with the same sandy soil as for the subgrade stress dissipation (approximately 30% of the experimental
( ¼ 42.28). Figures 14–16 show a comparison between value).
the experimental and calculated stress dissipations for As previously discussed, although Presto’s method con-
different aspect ratios (h/d ¼ 1.67, 2.29 and 2.62, respec- siders the aspect ratio, it does not consider other effects,
tively). leading to underestimations. The method provided the best
As the Koerner method considers neither the stress fit for an aspect ratio of 2.62.
dispersion effect nor the geocell geometry, this method
5.5. Limitations of the proposed method and
1600
suggestions for implementation
Theoretical stress dissipation (kPa)

Koerner The bearing capacity calculation method for soil rein-

1400
Presto forced with geocell proposed here is based on the confine-
1200 Proposed method ment effect and the stress dispersion effect and applies
1000 some geometric characteristics of the geocell reinforce-
800 ment (pocket size, d and cell height, h) and of the loading
600 (load width, B) and the friction angle of the infill material.
It does not consider the depth of geocell cushion place-
400
ment (u), the width of the geocell layer (b), the pattern of
200
the cell or the tensile strength of the geocell material.
0 Accordingly, the following recommendations are made for
0 200 400 600 800 1000 1200 1400 1600
Measured stress dissipation (kPa) its appropriate application.

Figure 14. Comparison between experimental and calculated • The ratio between the geocell pocket size and the
stress dissipations using data from Dash et al. (2007) for width of the loading must be less than 1: d/B , 1.
geocell made of geogrid and aspect ratio of 1.67 • The depth of the geocell layer placement must be
small: u/B , 0.2.
1600
• The width of the geocell reinforcement (b) must be
Theoretical stress dissipation (kPa)

Koerner
1400 greater than the load width (B) plus 4 geocell
Presto
1200 Proposed method
pockets sizes (d): b ¼ B + 4d.
• Saturated soil should not be used as infill material.
1000
• The modulus of the geocell material (M) must be
800
higher than 50 kN/m.
600 • Soil should be compacted on the geocell layer.
400
Failure to adopt or comply with one or more of these
200
recommendations described does not necessarily mean
0 that the method cannot be applied, but it may reduce the
0 200 400 600 800 1000 1200 1400 1600
Measured stress dissipation (kPa) accuracy when estimating the carrying capacity of the
reinforced soil.
Figure 15. Comparison between experimental and calculated
stress dissipations using data from Dash et al. (2007) for
geocell made by geogrid and aspect ratio of 2.29 6. CONCLUSIONS
This paper has presented a calculation method for predict-
1600
Koerner
ing the bearing capacity of geocell-reinforced soil. The
Theoretical stress dissipation (kPa)

1400 proposed method was based on the study of geocell

Presto
1200 Proposed method
reinforcement mechanisms (confinement effect and stress
dispersion effect) and verified through comparison with
1000
laboratory experimental results from several authors.
800 The following conclusions can be drawn.
600
• In general the method showed a good fit to the
400
results of the experiments with several ranges of
200 variables and test conditions (different geometry of
0 the geocell reinforcement, different soil foundations
0 200 400 600 800 1000 1200 1400 1600
resistance and different load shape and dimensions).
Measured stress dissipation (kPa)
• The comparison between the current bearing capacity
Figure 16. Comparison between experimental and calculated methods for geocell-reinforced soil showed that the
stress dissipations using data from Dash et al. (2007) for proposed method generally has a better approach
geocell made of geogrid and aspect ratio of 2.62 than the other methods (Koerner’s, Presto’s and the
Geosynthetics International, 2013, 20, No. 3
Bearing capacity calculation for soil reinforced with a geocell
apparent cohesion method) for both sandy and clay
foundation soils.
• Results from earth-pressure cells under the geocell
layer confirmed the better ability of the proposed
method to predict the stress dispersion and the
bearing capacity under different conditions;
• The method demonstrated good applicability even
for geocell filled with clay soil.
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
The authors acknowledge the São Carlos School of
Engineering and the School of Engineering, both at the
University of São Paulo (EESC/EP - USP) for the study
opportunity and the Institute of Technology Research
(IPT) and Geo Soluções Company for their support.
NOTATION
Basic SI units are given in parentheses.
B load width (m)
b geocell reinforcement width (m)
c subgrade soil cohesion (Pa)
cu subgrade shear strength (Pa)
d pocket size of the geocell (m)
d0 initial pocket size of the geocell (m)
e stress redistribution effect (dimensionless)
F unitary pocket shear force (N)
h/d aspect ratio of the geocell (dimensionless)
h geocell height (m)
I geocell bearing capacity improvement (Pa)
k0 coefficient of lateral earth pressure at rest
(dimensionless)
ka coefficient of active earth pressure
(dimensionless)
kp coefficient of passive earth pressure
(dimensionless)
L load length (m)
M modulus of the membrane obtained from a
load–elongation curve of the geocell
material (N/m)
Nc , Nq , Nª bearing capacity factors (dimensionless)
n number of cells under the load
(dimensionless)
p load at the top of the geocell mattress (Pa)
p stress on the geocell mattress bottom (Pa)
pr bearing capacity of the geocell reinforced
soil (Pa)
pu bearing capacity of unreinforced soil (Pa)
q surcharge load (Pa)
Sc , Sq , Sª loading shape factors (dimensionless)
s general footing settlement (m)
su undrained shear strength of the soil (Pa)
u embedded depth of the geocell (m)
ª unit weight of the soil (N/m3 )
˜F sum of unitary pocket shear forces under
the load (N)
 interface friction angle between the filling
soil and the geocell wall (8)
Geosynthetics International, 2013, 20, No. 3
141
a axial strain at failure in the geocell pocket
(dimensionless)
Ł dispersion angle (8)
h horizontal stress (Pa)
vm average vertical stress (kPa)
 shear stress inside the geocell pocket (Pa)
 friction angle of the soil (8)
REFERENCES
Bathurst, R. J. & Crowe, E. R. (1992). Recent case histories of flexible
geocell retaining walls in North America. Recent Case Histories of
Permanent Geosynthetic-Reinforced Soil Retaining Walls, Tokyo,
Japan, pp. 3–20.
Bathurst, R. J. & Jarrett, P. M. (1988). Large-scale model tests of
geocomposite mattresses over peat subgrades. Transportation
Research Record, 1188, 28–36.
Bathurst, R. J. & Karpurapu, R. (1993). Large scale triaxial compression
testing of geocell reinforced granular soils. ASTM Geotechnical
Testing Journal, 16, No. 3, 296–303.
Bowles, J. E. (1996). Foundation Analysis and Design, 5th edition,
McGraw-Hill, New York, NY, USA.
Cancelli, A. & Montanelli, F. (1999). In-ground test for geosynthetic
reinforced flexible paved roads. Geosynthetics Conference, 2,
Boston, USA, pp. 863–878.
Dash, S. K., Krishnaswamy, N. R. & Rajagopal, K. (2001a). Bearing
capacity of strip footings supported on geocell-reinforced sand.
Geotextile and Geomembranes, 19, No. 4, 235–256.
Dash, S. K., Rajagopal, K. & Krishnaswamy, N. R. (2001b). Strip footing
on geocell reinforced sand beds with additional planar reinforce-
ment. Geotextiles and Geomembranes, 19, No. 8, 529–538.
Dash, S. K., Rajagopal, K. & Krishnaswamy, N. R. (2004). Performance
of different geosynthetic reinforcement materials in sand founda-
tions. Geosynthetics International, 11, No. 1, 35–42.
Dash, S. K., Rajagopal, K. & Krishnaswamy, N. R. (2007). Behaviour of
geocell reinforced sand beds under strip loading. Canadian
Geotechnical Journal, 44, No. 7, 905–916.
Dash, S. K., Sireesh, S. & Sitharam, T. G. (2003). Model studies on
circular footing supported on geocell reinforced sand underlain by
soft clay. Geotextiles and Geomembranes, 21, No. 4, 197–219.
Ghosh, C. & Madhav, M. R. (1994). Reinforced granular fill–soft soil
system: Confinement effect. Geotextiles and Geomembranes, 13,
No. 11, 727–741.
Han, J., Yang, X., Leshchinsky, D. & Parsons, R. L. (2008). Behavior of
geocell-reinforced sand under a vertical load. Transportation
Research Record, 2045, 95–101.
Henkel, D. J. & Gilbert, G. D. (1952). The effect of the rubber membrane
on the measured triaxial compression strength of clay samples.
Geotechnique, 3, No. 1, 20–29.
Hufenus, R., Rueegger, R., Banjac, R., Mayor, P., Springman, S. M. &
Bronnimann, R. (2006). Full-scale field tests on geosynthetic
reinforced unpaved roads on soft subgrade. Geotextiles and
Geomembranes, 24, No. 1, 21–37.
Koerner, R. M. (1994). Designing with Geosynthetics, 3rd edition,
Prentice Hall, Englewood Cliffs, NJ, USA.
Krishnaswamy, N. R., Rajagopal, K. & Madhavi Latha, G. (2000). Model
studies on geocell supported embankments constructed over a soft
clay foundation. Geotechnical Testing Journal, 23, No. 2, 45–54.
Madhavi Latha, G., Dash, S. K. & Rajagopal, K. (2009). Numerical
simulation of the behavior of geocell reinforced sand in
foundations. International Journal of Geomechanics, ASCE, 9,
No. 4, 143–152.
Madhavi Latha, G. & Murthy, V. S. (2007). Effects of reinforcement form
on the behavior of geosynthetic reinforced sand. Geotextiles and
Geomembranes, 25, No. 1, 23–32.
Madhavi Latha, G., Rajagopal, K. & Krishnaswamy, N. R. (2006).
Experimental and theoretical investigations on geocell-supported
embankments. International Journal of Geomechanics, 6, No. 1,
30–35.
 142
Madhavi Latha, G. & Somwanshi, A. (2009). Effect of reinforcement
form on the performance of square footings on sand. Geotextiles
and Geomembranes, 27, No. 4, 409–422.
Mandal, J. N. & Gupta, P. (1994). Stability of geocell-reinforced soil.
Construction and Building Materials, 8, No. 1, 55–62.
Meneses, L. A. (2004). Use of Geocell in Soft Soil Reinforcement,
Masters thesis, São Carlos School of Engineering, University of São
Paulo, São Carlos, Brazil (in Portuguese).
Mengelt, M., Edil, T. B. & Benson, C. H. (2006). Resilient modulus and
plastic deformation of soil confined in a geocell. Geosynthetics
International, 13, No. 5, 195–205.
Mhaiskar, S. Y. & Mandal, J. N. (1996). Investigations on soft clay
subgrade strengthening using geocells. Construction and Building
Materials, 10, No. 4, 281–286.
Moghaddas Tafreshi, S. N. & Dawson, A. R. (2010). Comparison of
bearing capacity of a strip footing on sand with geocell and with
planar forms of geotextile reinforcement. Geotextiles and Geomem-
branes, 28, No. 1, 72–84.
Moghaddas Tafreshi, S. N. & Dawson, A. R. (2012). A comparison
of static and cyclic loading responses of foundations on
geocell-reinforced sand. Geotextiles and Geomembranes, 32, No.
5, 55–68.
Pokharel, S. K., Han, J., Leshchinsky, D., Parsons, R. L. & Halahmi, I.
(2010). Investigation of factors influencing behavior of single
geocell-reinforced bases under static loading. Geotextiles and
Geomembranes, 28, No. 6, 570–578.
Pokharel, S. K., Han, J., Parsons, R. L., Qian, Y., Leshchinsky, D. &
Halahmi, I. (2009). Experimental study on bearing capacity of
The Editor welcomes discussion on all papers published in Geosynthetics International. Please email your contribution to
discussion@geosynthetics-international.com by 15 December 2013.
Geosynthetics International, 2013, 20, No. 3
View publication stats
Avesani Neto, Bueno and Futai
geocell-reinforced bases. 8th International Conference on Bearing
Capacity of Roads, Railways and Airfields, Champaign, IL, USA,
June 2009, pp. 1159–1166.
Presto (2008). Geoweb load support system – Technical overview, Presto
Products Company, Appleton, WI, USA.
Rajagopal, K., Krishnaswamy, N. R. & Madhavi Latha, G. (1999).
Behavior of sand confined in single and multiple geocells.
Geotextiles and Geomembranes, 17, No. 3, 171–184.
Rea, C. & Mitchell, J. K. (1978). Sand reinforcement using paper grid
cells. ASCE Spring Convention and Exhibit, Pittsburgh, USA, pp.
24–28.
Sireesh, S., Sitharam, T. G. & Dash, S. K. (2009). Bearing capacity of
circular footing on geocell–sand mattress overlying clay bed with
void. Geotextiles and Geomembranes, 27, No. 2, 89–98.
Terzaghi, K. & Peck, R. B. (1967). Soil Mechanics in Engineering
Practice, 3rd edition, Wiley, New York, NY, USA.
Thallak, S. G., Saride, S. & Dash, S. K. (2007). Performance of surface
footing on geocell-reinforced soft clay beds. Geotechnical and
Geological Engineering, 25, No. 5, 509–524.
Wesseloo, J., Visser, A. T. & Rust, E. (2009). The stress-strain behaviour
of multiple cell geocell packs. Geotextiles and Geomembranes, 27,
No. 1, 31–38.
Zhang, L., Zhao, M., Shi, C. & Zhao, H. (2010). Bearing capacity of
geocell reinforcement in embankment engineering. Geotextiles and
Geomembranes, 28, No. 5, 475–482.
Zhou, H. & Wen, X. (2008). Model studies on geogrid- or geocell-
reinforced sand cushion on soft soil. Geotextiles and Geomem-
branes, 26, No. 3, 231–238.