International Journal of Geotechnical Engineering

ISSN: 1938-6362 (Print) 1939-7879 (Online) Journal homepage: http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/yjge20

Performance evaluation of geocell-reinforced

pavements

K. H. Mamatha & S. V. Dinesh

To cite this article: K. H. Mamatha & S. V. Dinesh (2017): Performance evaluation of

geocell-reinforced pavements, International Journal of Geotechnical Engineering, DOI:
10.1080/19386362.2017.1343988

To link to this article: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/19386362.2017.1343988

Published online: 02 Jul 2017.

Submit your article to this journal

Article views: 2

View related articles

View Crossmark data

Full Terms & Conditions of access and use can be found at

http://www.tandfonline.com/action/journalInformation?journalCode=yjge20

Download by: [Mount Sinai Health System Libraries] Date: 04 July 2017, At: 16:49
International Journal of Geotechnical Engineering, 2017
https://doi.org/10.1080/19386362.2017.1343988

Performance evaluation of geocell-reinforced pavements

K. H. Mamatha and S. V. Dinesh
Department of Civil Engineering, Siddaganga Institute of Technology, Tumkur, India

ABSTRACT ARTICLE HISTORY

Weak subgrades are the common problem in road construction and these weak subgrades lead to Received 2 May 2017
large deformation resulting in rutting failure of the pavement structure. These days, Geocells have been Accepted 14 June 2017
widely used to reinforce/stabilise the structures with unbound materials. This paper presents the results
KEYWORDS
of repeated load tests on the unreinforced and geocell-reinforced model pavement sections. The model Pavement; rut depth; surface
pavement sections were built in a steel tank of size 2 m × 2 m × 2 m. Stage construction was adopted in heave; geocell; rut life
the construction of model pavement sections. The geocell layer of varying aspect ratio was considered
and in all the geocell-reinforced pavement sections, geocell layer was placed at the interface of subgrade
and granular sub-base course layers. Haversine loading was adopted to simulate the vehicular loading. A
maximum pressure of 760 kPa (pressure exerted by a truck with single axle and single wheel) was applied
at the top of the test section using a hydraulic jack of capacity 100kN. The tests were terminated at 500
loading cycles. The pressure – settlement behaviour of unreinforced and geocell-reinforced pavement
sections is reported. The plastic settlement is found to be the predominant mode of settlement which
ultimately leads to rutting failure of the pavement. The provision of geocells reduces rutting to an extent
of 13–71% and increases the rut life of the pavement sections by a factor of 1.6 to 3.5 with varying aspect
ratio and pavement thickness when compared with the respective unreinforced pavement sections. The
reduction in plastic settlement (RPS) increases with increase in aspect ratio of geocells and higher aspect
ratio (i.e. 0.67) shows maximum reduction in rutting. Geocell reinforcement is also found to reduce surface
heaving and the reduction in plastic settlement is quantified in terms of a non-dimensional improvement
factor varying in the order of 2.19–2.64 with varying pavement thickness and aspect ratio. The improvement
increases with increase in aspect ratio of geocells and higher aspect ratio geocell (i.e. 0.67) corresponds to
maximum reduction in rutting, RPS, reduced heaving and maximum improvement factor. The introduction
of geocell at the interface of subgrade and sub-base results in more durable, environment-friendly and
long-lasting pavement.

Introduction et al. 2006; Latha, Asha, and Hemalatha 2010; Veeresh, Mamatha,
and Dinesh 2014; Mamatha and Dinesh 2017), reduce base
Weak subgrades are the common problem in road construc-
course thickness for a given service life (Webster and Watkins
tion. Whether it is a temporary access road or a permanent
1977; Giroud and Noiray 1981; Love 1984; Bush, Jenner, and
road built over a weak subgrade, a large deformation of the sub-
Bassett 1990; Sivakumar Babu and Kumar 2012) and delay rut-
grade can lead to deterioration of the paved or unpaved surface.
ting development (Potter and Currer 1981; Veeresh, Mamatha,
Geosynthetic materials such as geocells have been widely used to
and Dinesh 2014; Mamatha and Dinesh 2017). However, in some
reinforce/stabilise the structures with unbound materials such as
studies it is reported that the designed pavement thicknesses
roads, slopes, retaining walls and embankments. Geocells com-
are very important and cannot be compromised (Al-Qadi et al.
pletely encase the soil and provide all-round confinement, thus
2012; Veeresh 2013).
preventing the lateral spreading of the soil. Because of this, the
Therefore, in this study an attempt is made to verify the
soil – geocell layer acts as a stiff mat, distributing the load over
possibility of reducing the pavement thickness through geocell
a much larger area of the subgrade soil. This helps in reducing
reinforcement. The model pavement is composed of subgrade,
vertical and lateral deformations of the foundation soil to a large
sub-base and sacrificial layer. The objective of this study is to
extent besides increasing the overall load carrying capacity of the
access the improvement in pavement performance due to geocell
foundation soil. Several studies have shown that geosynthetics
reinforcement and to compare these results with that of an unre-
can extend the service life of pavements (Potter and Currer 1981;
inforced pavement section. The effect of geocell and its properties
Lawson 1992; Haliburton and Barron 1983; Webster and Watkins
on the improved performance is evaluated in terms of rutting by
1977; Giroud and Noiray 1981; Love 1984; Austin and Coleman
carrying out a series of repeated load tests on unreinforced and
1993; Al-Qadi et al. 1994; Fannin and Sigurdsson 1996; Hufenus

CONTACT  S. V. Dinesh  dineshsv2004@gmail.com, dinesh@sit.ac.in

© 2017 Informa UK Limited, trading as Taylor & Francis Group
2   K. H. MAMATHA AND S. V. DINESH

geocell-reinforced model pavement sections built in a steel tank
of dimensions 2 m × 2 m × 2 m in the laboratory.
Materials
In the present work, expansive (black cotton soil) soil, aggre-
gates and silty sand were used for the preparation of subgrade,
sub-base and sacrificial layers, respectively. The black cotton soil
was collected from Bagalkot, Karnataka, India. Aggregates of
size 40 mm down, 12.5 mm down and stone dust were collected
from a nearby quarry located in Tumkur, Karnataka, India. Silty
sand was collected from a local site. The materials were tested
for their engineering properties and all the tests were carried
out as per the relevant IS codes. The engineering properties of
soils are tabulated in Table 1. Ministry of Road Transport and
Highways (MoRT&H 2013), Government of India suggests that
the subgrade soil should have a maximum dry unit weight of
greater than or equal to 18 kN/m3 (under standard proctor condi-
tion for low volume roads and under modified proctor condition
for other roads), liquid limit less than 70% and plasticity index
less than 45%. The selected soil fails to meet the requirements
of subgrade as per MoRT&H (2013) guidelines and requires
suitable ground improvement method to be adopted for better
performance of subgrade. Black cotton soils failing to meet the
MoRT&H (2013) guidelines are present in vast areas in India and
a large network of roads are being constructed and maintained.
A large number of failures of these roads due to weak subgrade
are also reported. The aggregates were sampled and tested for its
physical properties as per the relevant IS codes and the test results
are tabulated in Table 2. It is observed that the aggregates meet all
the strength requirements specified by MoRT&H (2013). Among
the three gradings specified for the sub-base course layer by
Indian Road Congress (IRC), grading II was considered for the
sub-base course layer as per IRC: SP: 72 (2007). By trial and error
method, the aggregates were mixed in different proportions to
have a design mix confirming to grading II and in this study, 46%
of 40 mm down, 26% of 12.5 mm down and 28% of stone dust
was considered. Ministry of Rural Development (MORD 2014)
specifies that the percentage passing 0.075 mm IS sieve shall not
exceed 5% in cases where the granular sub-base is laid over clayey
subgrade in order to overcome the drainage problems and the
sub-base course material should have a minimum soaked CBR of

Table 1. Engineering properties of soils.

Property Silty sand Black cotton soil

Specific Gravity 2.66 2.72
Grain size distribution (%)
Gravel 4 0
Sand 88 10
Silt 8 36
Clay 0 54
Soil classification
I.S soil classification SW-SM CH
H.R.B classification A-2-6 A-7-C
Consistency limits
Liquid limit (%) 30 78
Plastic limit (%) NP 23
Plasticity index (%) – 48
Shrinkage limit (%) 16 12
Compaction characteristics
Modified proctor test
OMC (%) 9 19
Maximum dry unit weight (kN/m3) 19.72 16.8
Standard proctor test
OMC (%) 13 24
Maximum dry unit weight (kN/m3) 18.05 14.6
Unconfined compressive strength
Unsoaked (kPa) 129 89
Soaked (kPa) – –
California bearing ratio test (CBR)
Unsoaked condition (%) 6 5
Soaked condition (%) 4 3
Swelling Index (%) – 34

Table 2. Physical properties of aggregates.

Test MoRT&H specifications Results Remarks

40 mm down 12.5 mm down
Aggregate impact value (%) Max 30% 25 24 Acceptable
Aggregate crushing (%) Max 30% 22 23 Acceptable
Specific gravity 2.5–3.2 2.66 2.64 Good
Water absorption (%) Max 2% 0.4 0.4 Good
Los Angeles abrasion (%) Max 40% 31 32 Acceptable
Combined indices Max 30% 27 29 Acceptable

Figure 1. Grain size distribution curves.
Figure 2. Vibratory plate compactor.
Table 3. Properties of geocell.
Property Values
Geocell type SW-356
Density 0.935–0.965 g/cm3
Expanded cell dimension
Length 224 mm
Width 259 mm
Weld spacing 356 mm
Sheet thickness 1.52 mm
Height (h) 100, 125 and 150 mm
20% under modified proctor condition. The percentage passing
0.075 mm IS sieve is less than 3% thereby satisfying the MORD
(2014) criteria for sub-base constructed over clayey subgrade.
Figure 1 shows the grain size distribution curves of the selected
soils and sub-base course material. The compaction and strength
characteristics of the designed sub-base course material were
determined under modified proctor condition. The maximum
dry unit weight is 21.3 kN/m3 and optimum moisture content
is 4.2%. The unsoaked and soaked CBR values are 35 and 30%,
respectively. Thus, the designed mix satisfies the CBR criteria
specified by MORD (2014). In order to verify the possibility of
reduction in granular layer thickness, three different sub-base
thicknesses were considered, i.e. 25, 30 and 35 cm.
Geocells made of high density polyethylene manufactured by
STRATA Geosystems India Pvt. Ltd., Mumbai, India was used
for reinforcing the granular layer. Geocells of aspect ratio 0.45,
0.56 and 0.67 were considered and Table 3 shows the properties
of the geocells. In varying the aspect ratio of geocell, only the
INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF GEOTECHNICAL ENGINEERING   3
height of the geocell mattress was varied and diameter was kept
constant (i.e. 100, 125 and 150 mm high for aspect ratio 0.45,
0.56 and 0.67, respectively).
Method of compaction
The black cotton soil subgrade was prepared by manual compac-
tion. For compaction, a rammer weighing 20 kg and a free fall of
50 cm was considered. The equivalent proctor energy per unit
volume required for the manual compaction with the above-men-
tioned rammer and the free fall to achieve the same degree of
compaction as that of standard proctor energy was determined
as MoRT&H (2013) recommends standard proctor condition
for the subgrade of a low volume road. A total of 151 blows were
applied to compact a volume of 0.5 m × 0.5 m × 0.1 m to achieve a
relative compaction greater than 95%. At the end of compaction,
the density was determined by core cutter method at a minimum
of three points and the relative compaction was then determined.
The subgrade in all the test sections was compacted with 604
evenly distributed blows per layer over an area of 1  m × 1  m
and 0.1 m thick in three lifts. The unreinforced and geocell-re-
inforced sub-base courses and sacrificial layers were compacted
by using a vibratory plate compactor operating at four different
frequencies i.e. 20, 40, 60 and 80 Hz. The compactor consists of
a base plate of 0.25 m × 0.25 m and 0.01 m thick. Figure 2 shows
the vibratory plate compactor used. A series of trials were car-
ried out to develop the calibration curves for relative compaction
with time for all the four frequencies for unreinforced sub-base,
geocell-reinforced sub-base and sacrificial layers. In each trial,
the density of the compacted layer was determined by suitable
method (i.e. core cutter method for sacrificial layer and sand
replacement method for unreinforced and geocell-reinforced
sub-base course material) at a minimum of three points. The
average relative compaction was used to construct the calibration
chart which consists of number of blows as abscissa and relative
compaction as ordinate. The time required to achieve the desired
density with a specified frequency of compaction was directly
obtained from the respective calibration charts. In all the test
sections, the sub-base and sacrificial layers were compacted with
80 Hz frequency to achieve the desired density. The sub-base was
compacted in layers of 0.1 m thick and the sacrificial layer was
compacted in one lift. In all the test sections, the sub-base course
layer was compacted at 80 Hz frequency with the vibratory plate
compactor with a compaction time of 15 min to compact an area
of 0.25 m × 0.25 m. In case of geocell-reinforced sub-base the
compaction time required was 5 min more than that of the unre-
inforced sub-base to achieve the desired density. The sacrificial
layer was compacted in 8 min at 80 Hz frequency to achieve the
desired density. A relative compaction of greater than 95% for
subgrade and 98% for sub-base and sacrificial layers was main-
tained throughout as specified by MoRT&H (2013).
Construction of model pavement sections
A steel tank of size 2  m × 2  m × 2  m was used to build the
model pavement sections. A steel plate of size 0.3  m × 0.3  m
and 0.03 m thick was used to transfer the load to the test sec-
tions. Stage construction was adopted for the construction of
the model pavement section and is explained in detail in the
4   K. H. MAMATHA AND S. V. DINESH
following paragraphs. Figure 3 shows the pictorial view of stage
construction of model pavement section.
Preparation of subgrade
The steel tank was initially filled with well-graded sand up to a
depth of 1 m from the bottom corresponding to relative den-
sity greater than 85%. A pavement section of size 1 m × 1 m
was constructed using a steel frame of size 1 m × 1 m × 0.3 m.
Over the prepared sand deposit, a subgrade of 0.3 m thick was
constructed using black cotton soil. The soil and water required
for the above mentioned dimension was determined based on
its maximum dry unit weight and optimum moisture content
corresponding to standard proctor condition as specified by IRC:
Figure 3. Stage construction of model pavement section.
37 (2012). Soil was mixed thoroughly with the calculated amount
of water and mixed thoroughly to obtain a homogeneous wet
soil at the respective optimum moisture content and allowed for
maturation. The whole mass was then poured into the steel frame
placed over the sand deposit. The subgrade was compacted using
a rammer as detailed earlier. At the end of compaction, the steel
frame was raised to the top for further laying. Before placing
the next layer, i.e. sub base course layer, the top surface of the
compacted subgrade was scratched to ensure proper bonding
between the two layers.
Preparation of sub-base course
On the prepared subgrade, a sub-base course of desired thick-
ness, i.e. 25, 30 and 35 cm was constructed. The required quantity
of the sub-base course material and amount of water to be mixed
were determined based on its maximum dry unit weight and
optimum moisture content under modified proctor condition as
specified by MoRT&H (2013). The calculated amount of sub-base
course material and water were mixed well to obtain homogene-
ous mix and poured into the steel frame. The sub-base course was
compacted using vibratory plate compactor as detailed earlier. In
the geocell-reinforced sections, a geocell layer was stretched at
the top of levelled subgrade and filled with the sub-base material.
Prior to compaction, the sub-base material was lightly tamped
with the help of a tamping rod to ensure proper compaction in
the lower part of the geocell followed by compaction using vibra-
tory plate compactor as detailed earlier. Before placing the next
layer, i.e. sacrificial layer, the surface of the compacted sub-base
was scratched to ensure proper bonding. The steel frame was
further raised to the top to facilitate subsequent laying.
Preparation of sacrificial layer
Above the prepared sub-base, a sacrificial layer of 5 cm thick as
suggested by IRS: SP: 77 (2008) was constructed. The quantity of
soil and water required was determined based on its maximum
dry unit weight and optimum moisture content corresponding
to modified proctor condition (IRC: 37 2012). The soil and water
were mixed thoroughly and placed in the steel frame. Then the
whole soil mass was compacted by vibratory plate compactor
as detailed earlier. The surroundings of the pavement section
were filled completely with well graded sand to a relative den-
sity greater than 85% and it is assumed to act as shoulder in
pavements.
Test set-up and repeated load testing
The steel tank was connected to a rigid loading frame and the
assembly forms a reaction frame for loading through hydraulic
jack of capacity 100kN with a least count of 1kN. A square steel
plate of size 0.3 m x 0.3 m and 0.03 m thick was used as the
loading plate. The size of the loading plate was approximately
equal to 1/6th of the width of the test tank and with this set-up
the boundary effects are avoided (Hegde and Sitharam 2016).
The deformation of the plate was measured by the four dial
gauges (i.e. D1, D2, D3 and D4) mounted at each corner of the
test plate and the surface profile was measured using three
dial gauges (i.e. D5, D6 and D7) mounted at distances of 10, 20
 INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF GEOTECHNICAL ENGINEERING   5

and 30 cm, respectively, from the edge of the test plate in the
machine direction on one side of the test plate. For verification,
three more dial gauges (i.e. D8, D9 and D10) were mounted in
the cross machine direction on one side of the test plate at the
same distances as mentioned above. The measured deforma-
tions on the loading plate (i.e. D1, D2, D3 and D4) are averaged
to get the deformation of the test plate at the centre of the
test section. The haversine loading was adopted to simulate
repeated load applied due to vehicular loading and the hav-
ersine loading started with a seating load of 7kN to create a
pressure of 7 kg/cm2 with respect to the plate size (i.e. 30 cm).
When no further settlement occurs, the dial gauges were set
to zero again. A peak pressure of 760 kPa was considered in
order to simulate the tyre pressure exerted by a truck with
single axle and single wheel on pavements. A pre-calibrated
proving ring of capacity 200 kN with a least count of 0.2 kN
was placed between the vertical support and hydraulic jack
to measure the applied load. The test was terminated at 500
loading cycles. Figure 4 shows the experimental set-up. Table 4
shows the experimental programme.
Results and discussions
A series of repetitive load tests were performed on unreinforced
and geocell-reinforced model pavement sections with varying
sub-base thickness and aspect ratio. Following paragraphs pro-
vide the discussion on test results.
Figures 5(a)–(c), 6(a)–(c) and 7(a)–(c) show the variation of
total, plastic and elastic settlement with the number of load cycles
of unreinforced and geocell-reinforced model pavement sections
with sub-base of thicknesses (a) 0.25 m (b) 0.30 m (c) 0.35 m. The
trend of settlement values is similar. In both unreinforced and
geocell-reinforced pavement sections, plastic settlement accounts
for 85–90% of the total settlement and elastic settlement is only
10–15% of the total settlement. This indicates the predominant
rutting behaviour. It is observed that the total and plastic settle-
ments increased significantly with the increase in the number of
load cycles in unreinforced model pavement section. The total
and plastic settlements of geocell-reinforced test sections follow

Figure 4. Experimental set-up.

Table 4. Experimental programme.

Sl No. Description
1 Subgrade + Sub-base (25 cm) + Surface layer
2 Subgrade + Geocell-reinforced sub-base (25 cm with h/d of 0.45) +
Surface layer
3 Subgrade + Geocell-reinforced sub-base (25 cm with h/d of 0.56) +
Surface layer
4 Subgrade + Geocell-reinforced sub-base (25 cm with h/d of 0.67) +
Surface layer
5 Subgrade + Sub-base (30 cm) + Surface layer
6 Subgrade + Geocell-reinforced sub-base (30 cm with h/d of 0.45) +
Surface layer
7 Subgrade + Geocell-reinforced sub-base (30 cm with h/d of 0.56) +
Surface layer
8 Subgrade + Geocell-reinforced sub-base (30 cm with h/d of 0.67) +
Surface layer
9 Subgrade + Sub-base (35 cm) + Surface layer
10 Subgrade + Geocell-reinforced sub-base (35 cm with h/d of 0.45) +
Surface layer
11 Subgrade + Geocell-reinforced sub-base (35 cm with h/d of 0.56) +
Surface layer Figure 5. Variation of total settlement with no. of load cycles of unreinforced and
12 Subgrade + Geocell-reinforced sub-base (35 cm with h/d of 0.67) + geocell-reinforced model pavement sections with a sub-base of thickness (a)
Surface layer 0.25 m, (b) 0.30 m, (c) 0.35 m.
6   K. H. MAMATHA AND S. V. DINESH
Figure 6.  Variation of plastic settlement with no. of load cycles of unreinforced
and geocell-reinforced model pavement sections with a sub-base of thickness
(a) 0.25 m, (b) 0.30 m, (c) 0.35 m.
the same trend as in case of unreinforced test section with the
reduced magnitude. The magnitude of settlement further reduces
with an increase in the pavement thickness.
At 50 load cycles which correspond to a traffic volume of 50
CVPD, about 50–80% of the total and plastic settlements occur
in unreinforced and geocell-reinforced test sections (with vary-
ing aspect ratio and pavement thickness) when compared with
the respective total and plastic settlements at the end of 500
load cycles which correspond to a traffic volume of 500 CVPD.
However, the provision of geocell within the pavement structure
did not show any appreciable effect on the elastic behaviour of
the pavement structure.
Provision of geocell at the interface of subgrade and sub-base
showed significant reduction in plastic settlement and the reduc-
tion further increased with increase in aspect ratio of geocells
for all the pavement thicknesses. Among the three aspect ratios
considered, aspect ratio of 0.67 gave the maximum improve-
ment in the pavement performance irrespective of the pavement
thickness. From the figures it is observed that the mobilisation of
geocell strength began at less than 50 load cycles in all the geo-
cell-reinforced pavement sections and the degree of mobilisation
is higher in case of pavement section reinforced with 0.56 and
0.67 aspect ratio geocell and this is attributed to the increased
confinement offered by the geocells. For a particular aspect ratio,
the degree of improvement is higher in thick pavements and this
is attributed to the increased stiffness of the pavement.
Figure 7.  Variation of elastic settlement with no. of load cycles of unreinforced
and geocell-reinforced model pavement sections with a sub-base of thickness
(a) 0.25 m, (b) 0.30 m, (c) 0.35 m.
The geocells offer confinement and friction effect at the inter-
face and the friction effect mobilise when the granular layer on
the top of geocell tends to undergo significant lateral deforma-
tion. Under these conditions, the friction force mobilises pre-
venting the lateral flow, provides confinement and hard layer
effect at the bottom. This is likely to result in dilation effect,
thereby enhances the load carrying capacity with significant
reduction in total settlement.
To compare the benefits of geocell reinforcement numerically,
a parameter called reduction in plastic or permanent settlement
(RPS) is used (Abu-Farsakh et al. 2012) and is defined as follows.
PUR − PRE
RPS = × 100 (1)
PUR
where, PUR = Permanent settlement of unreinforced pavement
section.
PRE = Permanent settlement of geocell-reinforced pavement
section.
Figure 8(a)–(c) shows the variation of reduction in plastic set-
tlement (RPS) with number of load cycles of geocell-reinforced
pavement sections with a sub-base of thickness (a) 0.25 m (b)
0.30 m (c) 0.35 m. At 50 load cycles (i.e. 50 CVPD), the RPS
 INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF GEOTECHNICAL ENGINEERING   7

Figure 8. Variation of reduction in plastic settlement (RPS) with no. of load cycles Figure 9.  Surface profiles of settlement of unreinforced and geocell-reinforced
of geocell-reinforced pavement section with a sub-base of thickness (a) 0.25 m, (b) pavement sections with a sub-base of thickness (a) 0.25 m, (b) 0.30 m, (c) 0.35 m.
0.30 m, (c) 0.35 m.

values range from 13 to 21%, 39 to 47% and 51 to 71%, respec-

tively, for geocells with aspect ratio 0.45, 0.56 and 0.67 (with
varying pavement thickness). At the end of 500 load cycles (i.e.
500 CVPD), the RPS values were found to remain approximately
same as that of 50 load cycles (i.e. 50 CVPD) and this clearly
indicates the early mobilisation of geocell strength.
Figure 9(a)–(c) shows the surface profiles of total settlement
of unreinforced and geocell-reinforced model pavement sections
with a sub-base of thickness (a) 0.25 m, (b) 0.30 m and (c) 0.35 m
at the end of 50 (solid lines) and 500 (dotted lines) load cycles. In
the unreinforced pavement section, increase in number of load
cycles showed increased heaving at the edge of the loading plate.
Provision of geocells greatly reduced the surface heaving and
the heaving further reduced with increase in the aspect ratio of
Figure 10. Schematic representation of rut depth as per IRC: 115 (2014).
geocells and increase in the pavement thickness. The pavement
section reinforced with geocell of 0.67 aspect ratio showed min-
imum heave at the surface when compared with the other aspect (2014). Rut depth is defined as the maximum perpendicular dis-
ratios considered. In case of thick pavement section reinforced tance measured between the bottom surface of a 3 m straight
with higher aspect ratio geocell, the surface heaving completely edge and the contact area of the gauge with the pavement surface
ceased. at a specific location. Figure 10 shows the schematic representa-
From the test results, the rut depth developed at the surface tion of rut depth as per IRC: 115 (2014). The maximum permis-
of the model pavement section was determined as per IRC: 115 sible rut depth is 50 mm in case of unpaved roads or gravel roads
8   K. H. MAMATHA AND S. V. DINESH
Figure 11.  Variation of rut depth with no. of load cycles of unreinforced and
geocell-reinforced pavement sections with a sub-base of thickness (a) 0.25 m, (b)
0.30 m, (c) 0.35 m.
as per IRC: 115 (2014). If a pavement structure develops a rut
depth beyond the maximum permissible limit, the pavement is
considered unserviceable and maintenance/rehabilitation must
be resorted to IRC: 115 (2014).
The test was terminated at 500 load cycles and the forecast
of the accumulated rut depth was carried out till the pavement
fails (i.e. exceeds a maximum permissible settlement of 50 mm).
Figure 11 shows the variation of rut depth with number of load
Figure 12.  Variation of improvement factor of geocell-reinforced pavement
sections with thickness of sub-base.
cycles of unreinforced and geocell-reinforced pavement sections
with a sub-base of thickness (a) 0.25 m, (b) 0.30 m and (c) 0.35 m.
The unreinforced test section develops significant rut depths at
50 load cycles (i.e. 50 CVPD) and it further increased signifi-
cantly with the increase in load cycles. The geocell-reinforced
test sections follow similar trend with reduced rut depths and
the reduction was more with increased aspect ratio. The pave-
ment sections with sub-base of thickness 0.25, 0.30 and 0.35 m
were found to be serviceable up to 1000, 1550 and 2250 load
cycles. The geocell-reinforced pavement section with a sub-base
of thickness 0.25 m is found to be serviceable up to 1600, 2250
and 3150 load cycles, respectively, for 0.45, 0.56 and 0.67 aspect
ratio geocell. Similarly, the geocell-reinforced pavement section
with a sub-base of thickness 0.30 m is found to be serviceable
up to 2450, 3700 and 6500 load cycles, respectively, for 0.45, 0.56
and 0.67 aspect ratio geocell. The geocell-reinforced pavement
section with a sub-base of thickness 0.35 m is found to be ser-
viceable up to 4300, 5300 and 7850 load cycles, respectively, for
0.45, 0.56 and 0.67 aspect ratio geocell.
It is observed that the geocells with higher aspect ratio are
very effective in reducing the rutting behaviour to a large extent.
This qualitatively indicates that geocell-reinforced sections have
a very large resilient modulus values than unreinforced sections
which results in sustainable, durable, long-lasting and less main-
tenance pavement sections.
A non-dimensional parameter called improvement factor (If)
is used to quantify the benefit of geocell reinforcement (Hegde
and Sitharam 2016) and is defined as follows.
PUR
If = (2)
PRE
Figure 12 shows the variation of improvement factor (If) of geo-
cell-reinforced pavement sections with thickness of sub-base. It is
observed that the values of If increase with increase in the aspect
ratio of geocells irrespective of the thickness of the pavement
section. The maximum value of If is observed for the pavement
sections reinforced with geocell of aspect ratio of 0.67. For geocell
having an aspect ratio of 0.45, the maximum If values are in the
order of 1.32, 1.33 and 1.40, respectively, for pavements sections
with 0.25, 0.30 and 0.35 m thick sub-base. With geocell having
 INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF GEOTECHNICAL ENGINEERING   9

Table 5. Repeated load test results on unreinforced and geocell-reinforced model pavement sections.

Total deformation (mm) % Reduction in total deformation

GSB thickness
(mm) UR h/d = 0.45 h/d = 0.56 h/d = 0.67 h/d = 0.45 h/d = 0.56 h/d = 0.67
250 26.5 20.4 15.9 12.8 23 40 52
300 21.2 16.3 12.3 9.3 23 42 56
350 16.9 12.4 9.7 7.2 27 43 57
Plastic deformation (mm) % Reduction in plastic deformation
GSB thickness (mm) UR h/d = 0.45 h/d = 0.56 h/d = 0.67 h/d = 0.45 h/d = 0.56 h/d = 0.67
250 24.9 18.9 14.4 11.4 24 42 54
300 19.5 14.6 10.7 7.7 25 45 61
350 14.8 10.6 7.9 5.6 29 46 62

Table 6. Possibility of thickness reduction with performance level for geocell-reinforced pavement sections.

Geocell-reinforced pavement section details

Unreinforced pavement section details Equivalent performance Better performance
0.35 (UR) 0.30 (h/d = 0.45) 0.30 (h/d = 0.56)
0.25 (h/d = 0.56) 0.30 (h/d = 0.67)
0.25 (h/d = 0.67)
0.30 (UR) 0.25 (h/d = 0.45) 0.25 (h/d = 0.56)
0.25 (h/d = 0.67)

an aspect ratio of 0.56, the maximum If values are in the order
of 1.73, 1.82 and 1.85 respectively for pavements sections with
0.25, 0.30 and 0.35 m sub-base thicknesses. For geocell having
an aspect ratio of 0.67, the maximum If values are in the order
of 2.19, 2.53 and 2.64, respectively, for pavement sections with
0.25, 0.30 and 0.35 m sub-base thicknesses.
Table 5 shows the comparison of plastic settlement of unre-
inforced and geocell-reinforced model pavement sections with
three sub-base thicknesses, i.e. 0.25, 0.30 and 0.35 m. Table 6
shows the possibility of thickness reduction with performance
level for the geocell-reinforced pavement sections based on plas-
tic settlement criteria. Thus, the pavement thickness can be opti-
mised to achieve an equivalent/better performance depending
on the pavement thickness and properties of geocell.
Conclusions
An experimental investigation was carried out to study the effect
of provision of geocell at the interface of subgrade and sub-base
course layer and their properties on the performance of flexible
pavements. A series of repeated load tests were carried out on
both unreinforced and geocell-reinforced model unpaved pave-
ment sections. Based on the test results, the following conclu-
sions are drawn.
• Plastic settlement is the predominant settlement leading
to rutting mode of failure in the pavements.
• The provision of geocell at the subgrade and base interface
reduced the total and plastic deformation significantly
leading to improved rutting behaviour. The rutting has
reduced to an extent of 13–71% with varying aspect ratio
and pavement thickness when compared with the respec-
tive unreinforced pavement sections. The reduction in
plastic settlement (RPS) increases with increase in aspect
ratio of geocells and higher aspect ratio (i.e. 0.67) shows
maximum reduction in rutting. In addition, geocell rein-
forcement did not show any significant effect on the elastic
behaviour of the pavements and thus, it has little influence
on fatigue performance of pavements.
• The provision of geocell at the interface of subgrade and
sub-base showed reduced heaving at the edges and with
geocell of aspect ratio 0.67, the heaving ceased which
eliminates the pavement surface undulations providing
good riding comfort.
• The improvement factor increases with an increase in
aspect ratio of geocells. Higher aspect ratio geocell (i.e.
0.67) corresponds to maximum improvement factor and
is in the order of 2.19 to 2.64 with varying pavement
thickness.
• The provision of geocell at the interface of subgrade and
sub-base increases the service life (rut life) of the pave-
ments by a factor of 1.6 to 3.5 depending on the pavement
thickness and aspect ratio of geocell.
Acknowledgement
The authors acknowledge Prof. T G Sitharam and Department of Civil
Engineering, Indian Institute of Science, Bangalore for providing the
steel tank to the Department of Civil engineering, Siddaganga Institute of
Technology, Tumkur for the research work.
Disclosure statement
No potential conflict of interest was reported by the authors.
References
Abu-Farsakh, M. Y., G. Souci, G. Z. Voyiadjis, and Q. Chen. 2012.
“Evaluation of Factors Affecting the Performance of Geogrid-Reinforced
Granular Base Material Using Repeated Load Triaxial Tests.” Journal of
Materials in Civil Engineering 24 (1): 72–83.
Al-Qadi, I. L., S. H. Dessouky, J. Kwon, and E. Tutumluer. 2012. “Geogrid-
Reinforced Low-volume Flexible Pavements: Pavement Response and
Geogrid Optimal Location.” Journal of Transportation Engineering 138
(9): 1083–1090.
10   K. H. MAMATHA AND S. V. DINESH
Al-Qadi, I. L., T. L. Brandon, R. J. Valentine, and T. E. Smith. 1994.
“Laboratory Evaluation of Geosynthetic Reinforced Pavement Sections.”
In Transportation Research Record, 1439, Transportation Research Board,
73rd Annual Meeting, 25–31. Washington, DC.
Austin, D. N., and D. M. Coleman. 1993. “A Field Evaluation of Geosynthetic
Reinforced Haul Roads over Soft Foundation Soils.” Proceedings of
Geosynthetics, Industrial Fabrics Association International, 65–80. St.
Paul, MN.
Bush, D. I., C. G. Jenner, and R. H. Bassett. 1990. “The Design and Construction
of Geocell Foundation Mattresses Supporting Embankments over Soft
Grounds.” Geotextiles and Geomembranes 9 (1): 83–98.
Fannin, R. J., and O. Sigurdsson. 1996. “Field Observations on Stabilization
of Unpaved Roads with Geosynthetics.” Journal of Geotechnical
Engineering 122 (7): 544–553.
Giroud, J. P., and L. Noiray. 1981. “Geotextile Reinforced Unpaved Road
Design.” Journal of Geotechnical Engineering 107 (9): 1233–1254.
Haliburton, T. A., and J. V. Barron. 1983. “Optimum Method for Design
of Fabric Reinforced Unsurfaced Roads.” In Transportation Research
Record, 916, 26–32. Washington, DC: Transportation Research Board.
Hegde, A., and T. G. Sitharam. 2016. “Behaviour of Geocell Reinforced Soft
Clay Bed Subjected to Incremental Cyclic Loading.” Geomechanics and
Engineering 10 (4): 405–422.
Hufenus, R., R. Rueegger, R. Banjac, P. Mayor, S. M. Springman, and R.
Bronnimann. 2006. “Full Scale Field Tests on Geosynthetic Reinforced
Unpaved Roads on Soft Subgrade.” Geotextiles and Geomembranes 24
(1): 21–37.
IRC: 37. 2012. Guidelines for the Design of Flexible Pavements. New Delhi:
Indian Roads Congress.
IRC: 115. 2014. Guidelines for Structural Evaluation and Strengthening of
Flexible Road Pavements Using Falling Weight Deflectometer (FWD)
Technique. New Delhi: The Indian Roads Congress.
IRC: SP: 72. 2007. Guidelines for the Design of Flexible Pavements for Low
Volume Rural Roads. New Delhi: The Indian Roads Congress.
IRC: SP: 77. 2008. Manual for Design, Construction and Maintenance of
Gravel Roads. New Delhi: Indian Roads Congress.
Latha, G. M., M. N. Asha, and M. S. Hemalatha. 2010. “Performance of
Geosynthetics in Unpaved Roads.” International Journal of Geotechnical
Engineering 4: 154–164.
Lawson, C. R. 1992. “Some Examples of Separation Geotextiles under Road
Pavements.” Proceedings of the Institution of Civil Engineers – Transport
95 (3): 197–200.
Love, J. P. 1984. “Model Testing of Geogrids in Unpaved Roads.” Thesis
submitted to University of Oxford.
Mamatha, K. H., and S. V. Dinesh. 2017. “Evaluation of Strain Modulus
and Deformation Characteristics of Geosynthetic Reinforced Soil –
Aggregate System under Repetitive Loading.” International Journal of
Geotechnical Engineering. doi:10.1080/19386362.2017.1307309.
MORD. 2014. Ministry of Rural Development: Specifications for Rural
Roads. New Delhi: The Indian Roads Congress.
MoRT&H. 2013. Ministry of Road Transport and Highways - Specifications
for Roads and Bridges. 5th ed. New Delhi: Indian Roads Congress.
Potter, J. F., and E. W. H. Currer. 1981. The Effect of a Fabric Membrane on
the Structural Behaviour of a Granular Road Pavement. TRRL Report
No. LR996. Crowthorne.
Sivakumar Babu, G. L., and Pawan Kumar. 2012. “An Approach for
Evaluation of Use of Geocells in Flexible Pavements.” Proceedings of
Indian Geotechnical Conference, Paper No. E502, Delhi.
Veeresh, A. S. 2013. “Evaluation of Use of Geocells in Flexible Pavements.”
M.Tech thesis submitted to Department of Civil Engineering,
Siddaganga Institute of Technology, Tumkur, Karnataka, India.
Veeresh, A. S., K. H. Mamatha, and S. V. Dinesh. 2014. “Evaluation of
Use of Geocells in Flexible Pavement.” In Proceedings of International
Conference on Advances in Civil Engineering and Chemistry of Innovative
Materials, 918–924. Chennai: SRM University.
Webster, S. L., and J. E. Watkins, 1977. Investigation of Construction
Techniques for Tactical Bridge Approach Roads across Soft Ground.
Technical Report S-77-1. Vicksburg, MS: USAE Waterways Experiment
Station.