Available online at www.sciencedirect.

com

ScienceDirect
International Journal of Pavement Research and Technology 11 (2018) 114–127
www.elsevier.com/locate/IJPRT

Experimental evaluation of geocell-reinforced bases under

repeated loading
Sanat K. Pokharel a,1, Jie Han b,⇑, Dov Leshchinsky c, Robert L. Parsons b
a
Stratum Logics Inc, St. Albert, Alberta T8N 7L5, Canada
b
Civil, Environmental, and Architectural Engineering Department, The University of Kansas, Lawrence, KS 66045, USA
c
Department of Civil and Environmental Engineering, The University of Delaware, Newark, DE 19719, USA

Received 9 September 2016; received in revised form 8 March 2017; accepted 12 March 2017
Available online 21 March 2017

Abstract

Geocells, one type of geosynthetics manufactured in a form of three-dimensional interconnected cells, have been reported to effectively
provide lateral confinement to infill material to increase the modulus and bearing capacity of base courses. Most studies so far have been
focused on the behavior of geocell-reinforced bases under static loading. Geocells used for pavement applications are subjected to
repeated loading. Limited studies have been conducted to investigate the performance of geocell-reinforced bases under repeated loading.
In this study, single and multiple geocell-reinforced granular bases with three types of infill materials (Kansas River sand, quarry waste,
and AB-3 aggregate) were tested and compared with the unreinforced bases under repeated loading. This study experimentally investi-
gated the effect of the geocell reinforcement on the permanent deformation and percentage elastic deformation of the granular bases. The
test results showed that the geocell reinforcement reduced the permanent deformation and increased the percentage elastic deformation
of the granular bases. Multiple geocell-reinforced sections demonstrated even better performance as compared with single
geocell-reinforced sections.
Ó 2017 Chinese Society of Pavement Engineering. Production and hosting by Elsevier B.V. This is an open access article under the CC BY-NC-ND
license (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/).

Keywords: Geosynthetic reinforcement; Geocells; Permanent deformation; Elastic deformation; Repeated loading; Base course

1. Introduction tenance requirements [1,2]. Therefore, it is considered as a

Geosynthetic reinforcement, one of the established tech-
niques of ground improvement for over 40 years, has been
developed extensively to improve the performance of both
paved and unpaved roads. Geosynthetic reinforcement has
been used to increase bearing capacity and modulus,
reduce required base thickness, extend the service life of
the pavement, reduce operational cost, and minimize main-
⇑ Corresponding author. Fax: +1 7858645631.
E-mail addresses: sanatpokharel@hotmail.com (S.K. Pokharel),
jiehan@ku.edu (J. Han), reslope@aol.com (R.L. Parsons).
1
Fax: +1 7804082259.
Peer review under responsibility of Chinese Society of Pavement
Engineering.
sustainable option to overcome premature pavement fail-
ure. Majority of the research on geosynthetics for pave-
ment applications so far, has focused on planar
reinforcement, such as geogrid and geotextile, and has
resulted in several design methods [1–5]. However, the
three-dimensional forms of interconnected honeycomb
geosynthetic cells, known as geocells, are not that com-
monly used as compared with geogrids and woven geotex-
tiles. One major reason for this situation is that theories
and design methods for geocells have been lagging far
behind the applications in the field [6].
The idea of cellular confinement was first developed by
the United States Army Corps of Engineers in 1970s [7].
The geocells then were made of paper soaked in phenolic

http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.ijprt.2017.03.007
1996-6814/Ó 2017 Chinese Society of Pavement Engineering. Production and hosting by Elsevier B.V.
This is an open access article under the CC BY-NC-ND license (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/).
 S.K. Pokharel et al. / International Journal of Pavement Research and Technology 11 (2018) 114–127
water resistant resin. Later metallic geocells were chosen to
meet the strength requirements but they proved unfeasible
because of handling difficulty and high cost. Cellular struc-
tures resembling geocells were also made from geogrids
forming the sides and diaphragms [8,9]. Geocells have also
been made using geogrid sheets jointed by bodkin bars (for
example, Carter and Dixon [10]). Commercially available
geocells are now made of high-density polyethylene
(HDPE) and novel polymeric alloy (NPA). NPA geocells
are explained in the sections to follow. Geocells come in
different shapes and sizes; however, the most common
shape of geocell is nearly circular.
Geocells provide enhanced confinement effect and
impart apparent cohesion [11]; increase strength [12] and
resilient modulus [13,14]; and significantly improve the
load-deformation and stress distribution characteristics of
poorly-graded materials [15]. The extent of bearing capac-
ity increase is correlated with the horizontal stiffness of the
cell material [16] and the hoop stresses in the geocell wall
are the most significant contributing factor toward resisting
loads [17]. NPA geocell reinforcement reduces the plastic
deformation and increase the percent of elastic deforma-
tion under repeated loading [18,19]. A series of static plate
load tests conducted by Pokharel et al. [20] showed that the
shape of geocell layout, the stiffness and type of geocell
material, and the property of infill material all played vital
roles in the behavior of geocell-reinforced bases under sta-
tic loading. Pokharel et al. [20] recommended a near circu-
lar shape of geocell layout as the most efficient one.
Pavement failure is often caused by insufficient stiffness
and strength of the pavement structure including subgrade,
base, and asphalt or concrete surface, under heavy and
repeated traffic loading. Al-Qadi and Hughes [21] reported
an increase of the resilient moduli of aggregate layers by
about two times due to the installation of geocells within
an asphalt paved road construction. Field tests with indus-
trial by-products as the infill material in the geocell over a
period of 12-month was also found to achieve all the essen-
tial performance requirements [22]. Han et al. [23] and Tha-
kur et al. [24] studied recycled asphalt pavement (RAP)
materials used as infill materials while in the Pokharel
et al. [25] study three different infill materials were used
including Aggregate Base Type 3 (AB-3), quarry waste
(QW), and RAP. Both studies showed the benefits of geo-
cell reinforcement in reducing ruts if unreinforced and rein-
forced sections are equally compacted. Under static
loading, Pokharel et al. [20] found the modulus of the sin-
gle geocell-reinforced bases improved by up to two times
that of the unreinforced bases while the bearing capacities
of the single geocell-reinforced bases were improved by up
to 2.5 times those of the unreinforced bases. Thakur et al.
[24] investigated the effect of geocell confinement on the
creep deformation on RAP base material and they found
that the geocell confinement significantly reduced the creep
deformation of the RAP base material.
Although a summary of the above-mentioned past stud-
ies on geocell reinforcement confirms that the geocell can
115
provide confinement and increase the modulus and
strength of infill material, geocell-reinforced bases under
repeated loading have not been well investigated. In this
study, repeated load tests on single and multiple geocell-
reinforced bases were carried out using three different infill
materials. In addition, NPA geocells manufactured using a
new manufacture technology than HDPE were used in this
study.
This paper presents the results of an experimental study
conducted with NPA geocells. Repeated plate load tests
were carried out on unreinforced, single geocell-
reinforced, and multiple geocell-reinforced bases in-filled
with poorly-graded Kansas River sand (KR sand), QW,
and well-graded AB-3. The influences of both single and
multiple geocell reinforcements with different infill materi-
als are compared and evaluated in terms of permanent
deformation, traffic benefit ratio (TBR), and percentage
elastic deformation.
2. Material and test equipment
2.1. Geocell type and characteristics
Geocell made of novel polymeric alloy (NPA) was used
for the tests in this study. NPA is a nano-composite alloy
of polyester/polyamide nano-fibers dispersed in polyethy-
lene matrix and characterized by flexibility at low temper-
atures similar to HDPE with elastic behavior similar to
engineering thermoplastic. NPA geocells have a lower ther-
mal expansion coefficient and higher tensile stiffness and
strength than HDPE geocells. The coefficient of thermal
expansion (CTE) of the Neoloy element used to make the
geocell, measured using ASTME831 was less than
80 ppm/°C in the measurement range from 30 °C to
+30 °C. The geocell used in the experiments had the tensile
strength of 19.1 MPa and the elastic modulus of 355 MPa
at 2% strain. 2% strain was chosen to characterize the
stress–strain of geocell because the field studies have shown
that the measured strains in geosynthetics are typically
within 2%. Almost identical test results on wide-width ten-
sile property of the geocell were obtained from three sam-
ples of 100 mm wide NPA geocell tested by following the
ISO-527 test method. Fig. 1 shows the stress–strain curve
of the NPA geocell, which was measured at a strain rate
of 10%/min at 23 °C in this study. The height of the geo-
cells used in this study was 100 mm and the wall thickness
was 1.1 mm. There were two perforations of 1 cm2 each on
each pallet of the geocell. The spacing between the weld at
two ends of a single NPA cell and when expanded the cell
had internal dimension of 205 mm  235 mm. Fig. 2 shows
the picture of the geocell used in this research.
2.2. Base course material
In the present study, three different base materials, Kan-
sas River (KR) sand, quarry waste (QW), and AB-3 aggre-
gate, were used as infill material. KR sand is locally
116 S.K. Pokharel et al. / International Journal of Pavement Research and Technology 11 (2018) 114–127
20
16
Tensile stress (MPa)
12
0
0 4
Fig. 1. Tensile stress–strain curve of the NPA geocell.
Fig. 2. Picture of the NPA geocell used in the research.
available in the Lawrence area in Kansas, USA. KR sand
was chosen in this research to examine the possibility of
poorly graded and comparatively cheaper material in the
future with geocells. AB-3 is crushed limestone aggregate
available in local quarry sites in Kansas and is the most
common aggregate used in the road bases and unpaved
road construction in Kansas. QW is the waste material pro-
duced during aggregate production in quarries. The alter-
native QW was chosen to check if the waste material can
be used as an infill in the geocell thus enhancing the sus-
tainable use of the waste at the quarry sites. The QW
and AB-3 aggregate used in the tests were brought from
a local limestone quarry site in Kansas. The grain size dis-
tribution curves of these infill materials are shown in Fig. 3.
The KR sand is a poorly-graded sub-rounded river sand
having a mean particle size (d50) = 2.6 mm, minimum void
ratio = 0.354, maximum void ratio = 0.583, specific grav-
ity = 2.65 at 20°C, coefficient of curvature = 0.98, and
8 12 16 20
Strain (%)
coefficient of uniformity = 2.73. The KR sand is classified
as SP according to the Unified Soil Classification System
(USCS). The peak angle of internal friction of the KR sand
at 70% relative density was 41°, which was obtained from
three triaxial tests. The details of these triaxial tests on
the KR sand can be found in the paper by Bhandari and
Han [26]. The QW used for the tests had a mean particle
size (d50) = 1.2 mm, liquid limit = 20, plastic limit = 12,
specific gravity = 2.76 at 20 °C, coefficient of curva-
ture = 0.77, and coefficient of uniformity = 12. The QW
is classified as SP-SC according to the USCS. Standard
Proctor tests and California Bearing Ratio (CBR) tests
were conducted for the QW. As shown in Fig. 4, the opti-
mum moisture content of the QW was 9% and its maxi-
mum dry density was 2.1 g/cm3. Fig. 5 shows the CBR
value of 57% at 7% moisture content and 38% at the opti-
mum moisture content. The AB-3 aggregate used for the
tests is a well-graded base material widely used in pavement
applications in Kansas (USA). It had a mean particle size
(d50) = 7.0 mm, liquid limit = 20, plastic limit = 13, specific
gravity = 2.69 at 20°C, optimum moisture content = 10%,
California Bearing Ratio (CBR) = 75% at 7.1% moisture
content and 49% at the optimum moisture content, coeffi-
cient of curvature = 1.55, and coefficient of unifor-
mity = 21. The AB-3 is classified as GW-GC according to
the USCS. Standard Proctor tests and CBR tests were con-
ducted for the AB-3 also. As shown in Fig. 4, the optimum
moisture content of the AB-3 was 10% and its maximum
dry density was 2.06 g/cm3. The compaction and CBR
curves for the AB-3 aggregate are also shown in Figs. 4
and 5.
2.3. Model test setup
Model tests were conducted in a medium-scale loading
apparatus designed and fabricated at Department of Civil,
 S.K. Pokharel et al. / International Journal of Pavement Research and Technology 11 (2018) 114–127 117

100

80

% passing
60

40

Kansas River sand

20 Quarry waste
AB-3 aggregate

0
0.01 0.1 1 10 100
particle size in mm

Fig. 3. Grain size distribution curves of KR sand, QW, and AB-3 aggregate.

2.10
Dry density (Mg/m 3)

2.05

2.00

1.95
Quarry waste
AB-3 aggregate
1.90
6 7 8 9 10 11 12
Moisture content (%)

Fig. 4. Standard Proctor compaction curves of QW and AB-3 aggregate.

75

60
CBR (%)

45

30

15 Quarry waste

AB-3 aggregate
0
6 7 8 9 10 11
Moisture content (%)

Fig. 5. California Bearing Ratio curves of QW and AB-3 aggregate.

Environmental, and Architectural Engineering at the 900 kPa. The loading plate was 15 cm in diameter. Fig. 6
University of Kansas. The loading system had a 15-cm shows the details of the wooden test box, which was square
diameter air cylinder with a maximum air pressure of and had a plan area of 6400 cm2 with an adjustable height.
118 S.K. Pokharel et al. / International Journal of Pavement Research and Technology 11 (2018) 114–127

Fig. 6. Test box with geocell layout.

Fig. 7 shows the pictures of the loading machine and Fig. 8
shows the single and multiple geocell reinforcement placed
inside the box. For single geocell-reinforced sections, the
geocell was placed at the center of the box and laid out
in a near circular shape as suggested by Pokharel et al.
[20]. The geocells were placed in a near circular shape as
well for multiple geocell-reinforced bases. All geocells in
this study were 10 cm high with a 2-cm thick fill cover
(same material as the base). For all the tests, the geocells
were filled and embedded in the infill material. The KR
sand was placed and compacted to 70% relative density
inside and outside the cell in three layers: two 5-cm thick
layers and one 2-cm cover layer. The QW was compacted
to a dry density approximately equal to 95% of the maxi-
mum dry density on the drier side (approximately 7% mois-
ture content) of the compaction curve. The AB-3 was also
compacted to a dry density approximately equal to 95% of
the maximum dry density on the drier side (approximately
9% moisture content) of the compaction curve. For com-
parison purposes, unreinforced bases were prepared in a
similar way. No subgrade existed for all the tests because
the primary purpose of this research was to evaluate the
influence of the geocell on the behavior of the base course.
A loading plate was placed at the center of the geocell
for the reinforced case or at the center of the box for the
unreinforced case. Loads were applied in increments by
adjusting air pressure in the air cylinder. The repeated load
was applied at 1 min/cycle in a trapezoidal form. The load
 S.K. Pokharel et al. / International Journal of Pavement Research and Technology 11 (2018) 114–127 119

Fig. 7. Loading machine.

Fig. 8. Geocell layout.

was increased from the minimum (0 kPa) to the maximum
(345 kPa or 552 kPa) in 15 s. The maximum load was
applied for 20 s and the load was released slowly in a per-
iod of 15 s to the minimum, which was maintained for 20 s
before starting the next loading cycle. The test was termi-
nated when the percentage of elastic deformation reached
constant at many loading cycles. To establish consistency
in the comparison, all the tests therefore were terminated
after 150 cycles except the unreinforced sand that could
not hold the applied load (i.e., failure occurred). As
Pokharel et al. [18–20] and Han et al. [27] showed, the ulti-
mate bearing capacities of the unreinforced and geocell-
reinforced AB-3 and QW bases are higher than the tire
pressure of a typical highway truck (i.e., 552 kPa). There-
fore, a repeated load of 552 kPa was applied for all the tests
with AB-3 and QW bases. Pokharel et al. [20] showed that
120 S.K. Pokharel et al. / International Journal of Pavement Research and Technology 11 (2018) 114–127
the ultimate bearing capacities of multiple geocell-
reinforced, single geocell-reinforced, and unreinforced
KR sands were 715, 500, and 230 kPa, respectively. Since
the ultimate bearing capacity of the multiple geocell-
reinforced KR sand is higher than 552 kPa, a repeated load
of 552 kPa was applied on the multiple geocell-reinforced
KR sand. Since the ultimate bearing capacity of the single
geocell-reinforced KR sand was lower than 552 kPa, the
repeated load test on the single geocell-reinforced KR sand
was done at an applied pressure of 345 kPa (corresponding
to approximately 70% of its ultimate bearing capacity,
which is also close to the tire pressure of typical construc-
tion equipment). Due to the low ultimate bearing capacity
of the unreinforced KR sand (230 kPa), a repeated load
test at either 552 kPa or 345 kPa pressure was impossible.
For a comparison purpose, a repeated load test was also
performed on the multiple geocell-reinforced KR sand at
an applied pressure of 345 kPa.
3. Test results and discussion
Before the repeated tests, the possible boundary effect of
the test box and the repeatability of the test results were
examined. As discussed by Pokharel et al. [20], the box size
of 80 cm  80 cm is large enough to eliminate the bound-
ary effect. Pokharel et al. [20] also showed that this test
device had good repeatability of the test results. Test results
of unreinforced, single geocell-reinforced, and multiple
geocell-reinforced bases with three different infill materials
(KR sand, QW, and AB-3) under repeated loading are dis-
cussed below. For single geocell tests, unconfined and con-
fined tests were conducted. For an unconfined test, the
geocell was filled with granular material inside the cell only
without any surrounding soil outside the geocell. For a
Fig. 9. Single geocell-reinforced section after the test.
confined test, the geocell was filled and embedded in the
granular material. The infill material was placed into the
box including the geocell and compacted to the desired
density. The layout of single and multiple geocell in the test
box are shown in Fig. 8a and b. A single geocell-reinforced
section after the test is shown in Fig. 9.
3.1. Pressure–displacement cycles
The pressure–displacement cycles of the geocell-
reinforced KR sand under repeated loading of 345 kPa were
presented in Pokharel et al. [18] as a preliminary study. The
pressure–displacement cycles of the unreinforced and multi-
ple geocell-reinforced AB-3 under repeated loading of
552 kPa are presented in Fig. 10. The pressure–displacement
curves with the unloading and re-loading process were
obtained for all the unreinforced, single geocell-reinforced,
and multiple geocell-reinforced sections. However, due to
the space limit, only two curves from the tests on AB-3 aggre-
gate sections are shown in Fig. 10(a) and (b). The permanent
deformations of the KR sand, QW, and AB-3 bases under
repeated loading are shown in Figs. 11–13, respectively.
The permanent deformation kept on accumulating with the
increasing number of the loading cycles during the test. It
is shown that in each cycle, there are elastic and plastic (also
called permanent deformation) deformations.
The modulus values of the unreinforced and reinforced
bases at the first loading cycle can be determined based
on the slopes of the initial linear portions of the pres-
sure–displacement curves. In a similar test with the KR
sand, the modulus of the single geocell-reinforced section
was approximately 1.5 times that of the unreinforced sec-
tion [18]. In the present study, the modulus improvement
factors of the reinforced base to the unreinforced base
 S.K. Pokharel et al. / International Journal of Pavement Research and Technology 11 (2018) 114–127 121

Applied pressure (kPa)

0 100 200 300 400 500 600
0

1
Displacement (mm)

3 1 cycle

4 5 cycle
10 cycle

5 25 cycle
50 cycle
6 100 cycle
150 cycle

(a) Unreinforced AB-3 aggregate

Applied pressure (kPa)
0 100 200 300 400 500 600
0

1
Displacement (mm)

2 1 cycle

3 5 cycle
10 cycle
25 cycle
4 50 cycle
100 cycle
150 cycle
5

(b) Multiple geocell-reinforced AB-3 aggregate

Fig. 10. Pressure–displacement cycles under repeated loading.

are provided in Table 1. The modulus improvement factor
is defined as the modulus ratio of a reinforced base to an
unreinforced base with the same infill material.
3.2. Permanent deformation vs. number of cycles
Fig. 11 presents the cumulative deformation vs. number
of cycles of the KR sand under three different conditions.
For each test, there are two lines, which correspond to
the cumulative deformations under a load and zero load.
The difference between these two curves at the same num-
ber of cycles is the elastic deformation. Since the unrein-
forced KR sand section failed at 230 kPa [19,27], a
repeated load test under a pressure of 345 kPa was not pos-
sible. However, the single geocell-reinforced KR sand sec-
tion under the repeated loading of 345 kPa survived 150
cycles of loading. The same load in the case of multiple
geocell-reinforced KR sand section produced only 84% of
that deformation after 150 loading cycles. This comparison
demonstrates that multiple geocell reinforcement further
improved the performance of reinforced bases. Under a
higher applied pressure of 552 kPa, the multiple geocell-
reinforced section deformed more than that under a lower
pressure of 345 kPa. It is interesting to note that the defor-
mation vs. number of cycle curves for the multiple geocell-
reinforced sections under these two different pressures are
nearly parallel after 50 cycles.
Figs. 12 and 13 present the cumulative deformations of
unreinforced, single geocell-reinforced, and multiple
geocell-reinforced QW and AB-3 bases, respectively under
repeated loading of 552 kPa. It is clearly shown that both
single and multiple geocell reinforcements reduced the
122 S.K. Pokharel et al. / International Journal of Pavement Research and Technology 11 (2018) 114–127

20

Cumulative deformation (mm)

16

12

8 Single cell-reinforced - 0 kPa (unloaded from 345 kPa)

Single cell-reinforced - 345 kPa
Multicell-reinforced - 0 kPa (unloaded from 345 kPa)
4 Multicell-reinforced - 345 kPa
Multicell-reinforced - 0 kPa (unloaded from 552 kPa)
Multicell-reinforced - 552 kPa
0
0 25 50 75 100 125 150
Number of loading cycle

Fig. 11. Deformations of the KR sand bases under repeated loading.

Fig. 12. Cumulative deformations of the QW bases under repeated loading.

Fig. 13. Cumulative deformations of the AB-3 bases under repeated loading.
 S.K. Pokharel et al. / International Journal of Pavement Research and Technology 11 (2018) 114–127
Table 1
Modulus improvement factors of the bases.
Reinforced base Modulus improvement factor
Multiple geocell-reinforced KR 2.04
Single geocell-reinforced QW 1.26
Multiple geocell-reinforced QW 1.46
Single geocell-reinforced AB-3 1.32
Multiple geocell-reinforced AB-3 1.73
cumulative deformations as compared with the unrein-
forced base. The reduction in the cumulative deformation
started from the first loading cycle. The cumulative defor-
mations for the QW and AB-3 bases with a single geocell
reinforcement measured at 150 cycles were reduced by a
factor of 1.50 and 1.33 as compared with the unreinforced
QW and AB-3 bases, respectively, at the same number of
cycles. The inclusion of multiple geocells reduced the
cumulative deformations of the QW and AB-3 bases by
factors of 1.55 and 1.40, respectively. These comparisons
demonstrate that multiple geocell reinforcement further
improved the performance of reinforced bases slightly.
Pokharel et al. [20] showed that the geocell reinforcement
did not show any benefit in the performance of QW bases
under static loading because QW had apparent cohesion.
This study clearly shows that geocell reinforcement
improved the performance of QW and AB-3 bases under
dynamic loading even though these materials have appar-
ent cohesion.
Fig. 14 presents a special case where the cumulative
deformation of the confined, single geocell-reinforced
QW under repeated loading is compared with an uncon-
fined case. It is clearly shown that the confinement of the
geocell by the surrounding soil reduced the cumulative
deformation. It is understandable that soil confinement
and geocell confinement have the same effect.
Fig. 15 shows a comparison of the permanent deforma-
tions of unreinforced and geocell-reinforced bases with
three different infill materials under repeated loading of
Fig. 14. Cumulative deformations of unconfined and confined, single geocell-reinforced QW.
123
552 kPa. Since the unreinforced KR sand could not sustain
the applied pressure of 552 kPa, no test data is shown in
this figure. However, the test data of the multiple geocell-
reinforced KR sand in Fig. 15 clearly show the significant
benefit of geocell reinforcement in stabilizing the KR sand.
Fig. 15 also shows that the AB-3 and QW bases had the
similar performance under the repeated loading, which
was much better than the reinforced KR sand. It is worth
pointing out that since the QW is more sensitive to mois-
ture than the AB-3, it may behave differently from the
AB-3 when they are saturated. Further research is needed
to evaluate their behavior under a saturated condition.
3.3. Traffic benefit ratio
The benefit of geocell reinforcement for extending pave-
ment life can be evaluated using a parameter of traffic ben-
efit ratio (TBR). TBR is defined as the ratio of the number
of cycles necessary to reach a given rut depth (i.e., the per-
manent deformation) for a geocell-reinforced test section to
that for an unreinforced section at the same rut depth with
the same section thickness and base and subgrade proper-
ties. The base thickness in all the test sections was 12 cm
and the subgrade in the present study was a hard wood sur-
face. Past research on other geosynthetic-reinforced bases
showed that the TBR values depended on the level of per-
manent deformation. Since the permanent deformations of
most base sections at the end of 150 loading cycles in this
study were less than 4 mm, the TRB values were calculated
at the permanent deformation of 3 mm. Since the unrein-
forced KR sand failed under static loading before the max-
imum pressure was applied, the number of cycles required
to reach a permanent deformation of 3 mm would be less
than 1. Therefore, although the benefit of geocell reinforce-
ment in the weak and poorly-graded KR sand was very
high compared to that of the stronger materials QW and
AB-3, the TBR values for KR sand sections were not cal-
culated. Table 2 presents the TBR values for single and
124 S.K. Pokharel et al. / International Journal of Pavement Research and Technology 11 (2018) 114–127

Fig. 15. Comparison of permanent deformations under 552 kPa repeated loading.

Table 2 3.4. Elastic deformation

Calculated traffic benefit ratios (TBRs).
Infill Reinforcement Maximum applied pressure TBR The elastic deformations of unreinforced and single
material type (kPa)
geocell-reinforced sections with the number of loading
QW Single geocell 552 8.0 cycles are plotted in Fig. 16 for the QW and AB-3 sections.
QW Multiple geocell 552 12.0
The elastic deformations of the multiple geocell-reinforced
AB-3 Single geocell 552 8.5
AB-3 Multiple geocell 552 12.5 KR sand and unreinforced and multiple geocell-reinforced
QW and AB-3 sections are plotted in Fig. 17. Fig. 16 shows
multiple geocell-reinforced sections having different infill that the single NPA geocell-reinforced sections had higher
material. The geocell-reinforced QW and AB-3 bases had elastic deformation than the unreinforced sections of QW
comparable TRB values. The multiple geocell reinforce- and AB-3. This comparison demonstrates that the
ment had higher TBR values than the single geocell rein- geocell-reinforced bases had more elastic responses than
forcement. It should be pointed out that these TRB the unreinforced bases due to the inclusion of the geocell.
values were calculated to demonstrate the benefit of geocell The amount of elastic deformation was slightly higher at
reinforcement in pavement life, but they should not be used the beginning but later stabilized to a constant value.
for design because actual pavement sections may be much Fig. 17 shows that the multiple geocell-reinforced AB-3
different from the base sections in this study, for example, base had more elastic response than the multiple geocell-
the bases in this study were on a firm subgrade. reinforced sand, followed by the quarry waste.

0.9
Elastic deformation (mm)

0.6

Unreinforced QW
0.3 Single geocell-reinforced QW
Unreinforced AB-3
Single geocell-reinforced AB-3
0.0
0 25 50 75 100 125 150
Number of loading cycle

Fig. 16. Elastic deformations of unreinforced and single geocell-reinforced QW and AB-3 bases under 552 kPa repeated loading.
 S.K. Pokharel et al. / International Journal of Pavement Research and Technology 11 (2018) 114–127 125

0.9

Elastic deformation (mm)

0.6

Multiple geocell-reinforced sand

0.3
Multiple geocell-reinforced QW

Multiple geocell-reinforced AB-3

0.0
0 25 50 75 100 125 150
Number of loading cycle

Fig. 17. Elastic deformations of multiple geocell-reinforced bases under 552 kPa repeated loading.

100

80
% elastic deformation

60

40 Single cell-reinforced loaded at 345 kPa

Multicell-reinforced loaded at 345 kPa

20 Multicell-reinforced loaded at 552 kPa

0
0 25 50 75 100 125 150
Number of loading cycle

Fig. 18. Percentage of elastic deformation for geocell-reinforced KR sand with loading cycle.

3.5. Percentage of elastic deformation
Fig. 18 presents the elastic deformation as a percentage
of the total deformation for geocell-reinforced KR sand
with the number of loading cycles under the repeated load-
ing of 345 kPa and 553 kPa. Fig. 19 presents the percent-
ages of elastic deformation of multiple geocell-reinforced
sections with different base materials under 552 kPa
repeated loading. Similar results were obtained for all three
base materials: reinforced KR sand and both unreinforced
and reinforced QW and AB-3 bases. Both Figs. 18 and 19
represent the trend of those curves as well; therefore, those
curves are not included here. The percentage of elastic
deformation was calculated by dividing the elastic defor-
mation induced by each load cycle to the total deformation
(i.e., the sum of elastic and plastic deformations) at that
cycle.
Figs. 18 and 19 show that the representative percentage
of elastic deformation for all the test sections increased
with the number of the loading cycles. At the initial loading
cycles, the plastic deformation was more pronounced,
however, at around 10 cycles, the percentage of elastic
deformation increased rapidly with the loading cycles and
became relatively stable. After 10 cycles, the percentage
of elastic deformation was more than 80% for the single
geocell-reinforced KR sand and more than 95% for the
geocell-reinforced QW and AB-3 bases. At 150 load
cycles, the percentage of elastic deformation was 95.2%
for the geocell-reinforced sand and more than 99% for
the geocell-reinforced QW and AB-3 bases. The higher
percentage of elastic deformation is desirable for a longer
service life of a pavement section. Figs. 18 and 19 show that
geocell reinforcement increased the percentage of elastic
deformation in the reinforced section as compared with
126 S.K. Pokharel et al. / International Journal of Pavement Research and Technology 11 (2018) 114–127
100
80
% elastic deformation
60
40
20
0
0 25
Fig. 19. Percentages of elastic deformation of multiple geocell-reinforced sections with different base materials under 552 kPa repeated loading.
the unreinforced section, especially for the sections with the
KR sand base.
4. Conclusions
This paper presents the results of experimental work
conducted to investigate the behavior of novel polymer
alloy (NPA) geocell-reinforced bases under repeated load-
ing. The unreinforced and geocell-reinforced base courses
with three different infill materials, Kansas River sand
(KR sand), quarry waste (QW), and AB-3 aggregates were
tested under repeated loading. The experimental investiga-
tions included the effect of infill material on the perfor-
mance of geocell-reinforced granular bases. The following
conclusions can be drawn from this experimental study:
1. The geocell-reinforced bases had higher initial modulus
than the unreinforced bases. Their modulus improve-
ment factors ranged from 1.26 to 2.04.
2. Geocell reinforcement significantly reduced the perma-
nent deformation as compared with the unreinforced
bases of all three infill materials under repeated loading.
Multiple geocells further reduced the permanent defor-
mation as compared with single geocell.
3. The traffic benefit ratio (TBR) values from this study
were equal to or greater than 8.0 for the single geocell-
reinforced bases and 12.0 for multiple geocell-
reinforced bases, respectively.
4. The geocell-reinforced QW and AB-3 bases had a higher
percentage of elastic deformation than the unreinforced
bases due to the contribution of the geocell. Except for
the sand bases, geocell-reinforced AB-3 and QW bases
reached 90% elastic deformation after the initial few
cycles (mostly 10 cycles).
Acknowledgements
This research was funded jointly by the University of
Kansas, Transportation Research Institute from Grant
Sand
QW
AB-3
50 75 100 125 150
Number of loading cycle
#DT0S59-06-G-00047, provided by the US Department
of Transportation – Research and Innovative Technology
Administration and PRS Mediterranean, Inc. in Israel.
Their support is greatly appreciated. Mr. Milad Jowkar,
a former graduate student in the Department of Civil,
Environmental, and Architectural Engineering at the
University of Kansas provided assistance in the testing.
References
[1] J.P. Giroud, J. Han, Design method for geogrid-reinforced unpaved
roads. I. Development of design method. ASCE, J. Geotech.
Geoenviron. Eng. 130 (8) (2004) 775–786.
[2] J.P. Giroud, J. Han, Design method for geogrid-reinforced unpaved
roads. II. Calibration of applications. ASCE, J. Geotech. Geoenvi-
ron. Eng. 130 (8) (2004) 787–797.
[3] J. Steward, R. Williamson, J. Mohney, Guidelines for Use of Fabrics
in Construction and Maintenance of Low-Volume Roads. Report
FHWA-TS-78-205, United States Department of Transportation,
Federal Highway Administration, Washington D.C., 1977.
[4] J.P. Giroud, L. Noiray, Geotextile- Reinforced Unpaved Road
Design, ASCE J. Geotech. Eng. Div. 107 (GT9) (1981) 1233–1254.
[5] J.S. Tingle, S.R. Jersey, Empirical design methods for geosynthetic-
reinforced low-volume roads, J. Transport. Res. Board, No. 1989 2
(2007) 91–101.
[6] J. Yuu, J. Han, A. Rosen, R.L. Parsons, D. Leshchinsky, Technical
Review of Geocell-Reinforced Base Courses over Weak Subgrade.
Proceedings of the First Pan American Geosynthetics Conference &
Exhibition, 2–5 March 2008, Cancún, Mexico, 2008, pp. 1022–1030.
[7] S.L. Webster, Investigation of Beach Sand Trafficability Enhance-
ment Using Sand-Grid Confinement and Membrane Reinforcement
Concepts. U.S. Army Engineer Waterways Experiment Station,
Vicksburg, MS, Report GL-79-20 (1), 1979.
[8] S. Edgar, The use of a high tensile polymer grid mattress on the
Musselburgh and Protobello Bypass, in: Proceedings of the Polymer
Grid Reinforcement Conference, Thomas Telford, London, 1984,
103–111.
[9] J. Paul, Economics and construction of blast embankments using
Tensar geogrids, in: Proceedings of the Polymer Grid Reinforcement
Conference, Thomas Telford, London, 1985, 191–197.
[10] G.R. Carter, J.H. Dixon, Oriented polymer grid reinforcement,
Constr. Build. Mater. 9 (6) (1995) 389–401.
[11] R.J. Bathurst, R. Karpurapu, Large-scale triaxial compression testing
of geocell-reinforced granular soils, Geotech. Test. J., GTJODJ 16
(32) (1993) 296–303.
 S.K. Pokharel et al. / International Journal of Pavement Research and Technology 11 (2018) 114–127
[12] R. Gourves, P. Reiffsteck, J.F. Vignon, Study of confinement effect in
geocells, Geosynth. Appl. Design Construct. 1 (1996) (1996) 455–458.
[13] M.J. Mengelt, T.B. Edil, C.H. Benson, Reinforcement of Flexible
Pavements using Geocells. Geo Engineering Report No. 00–04,
Geotechnical Engineering Program, Department of Civil & Environ-
mental Engineering, University of Wisconsin-Madison, Madison,
Wisconsin, USA, 2000.
[14] M.J. Mengelt, T.B. Edil, C.H. Benson, Resilient modulus and plastic
deformation of soil confined in a geocell, Geosynth. Int. 13 (5) (2006)
195–205.
[15] B. Kazerani, G.H. Jamnejad, Polymer Grid Cell Reinforcement in
Construction of Pavement Structures, Section 1A, Unpaved and
Paved Roads. Geosynthetic ’87 Conference, New Orleans, USA,
1987.
[16] M. Shimizu, T. Inui, Increase in the Bearing Capacity of Ground with
Geotextile Wall Frame. In: Proceedings of the Fourth International
Conference on Geotextiles, Geomembranes and Related Products,
Vol. L. Hague, the Netherlands, 1990, pp. 254.
[17] S.Y. Mhaiskar, Subgrade stabilization using geocells, ASCE Geotech.
Special Publ. 2 (30) (1992) 1092–1103.
[18] S.K. Pokharel, J. Han, D. Leshchinsky, R.L. Parsons, I. Halahmi,
Behavior of Geocell-Reinforced Granular Bases under Static and
Repeated Loads. Contemporary topics in Ground Modification,
Problem Soils, and Geo-Support, in: M. Iskander, D.F. Laefer, M.H.
Hussein (Eds.), International Foundation Congress & Equipment
Expo, March 15–19, 2009, Orlando, Florida. ASCE Geotechnical
Special Publication 187, 2009, pp. 409–416.
[19] S.K. Pokharel, J. Han, R.L. Parsons, Y. Qian, D. Leshchinsky, I.
Halahmi, Experimental Study on Bearing Capacity of Geocell-
Reinforced Bases, in: Proceedings of 8th International Conference
on Bearing Capacity of Roads, Railways and Airfields, June 29–July
2, 2009, Champaign, Illinois.
127
[20] S.K. Pokharel, J. Han, D. Leshchinsky, R.L. Parsons, I. Halahmi,
Investigation of factors influencing behavior of single geocell-
reinforced bases under static loading, J. Geotextile Geomemb. 28
(2010) 570–578.
[21] I. Al-Qadi, J. Hughes, Field evaluation of geocell use in flexible
pavements, Geotech. Aspects Pavements, Transport. Res. Record,
No. 1709 (2000) 26–35.
[22] T.B. Edil, C.H. Benson, M.S.J. Shafique, B.F. Tanyu, W.H. Kim, A.
Senol, Field Evaluation of Construction Alternatives for Roadway
over Soft Subgrade. Transportation Research Board, 81st annual
meeting, January 13–17, 2002, Washington, D.C.
[23] J. Han, S.K. Pokharel, X. Yang, C. Manandhar, D. Leshchinsky, I.
Halahmi, R.L. Parsons, Performance of geocell-reinforced RAP bases
over weak subgrade under full-scale moving wheel loads, ASCE J.
Mater. Civ. Eng. 23 (11) (2011) 1525–1534.
[24] J.K. Thakur, J. Han, R.L. Parsons, Creep behavior of geocell-
reinforced recycled asphalt pavement (RAP) bases, ASCE J. Mater.
Civ. Eng. 25 (10) (2013) 1533–1543.
[25] S.K. Pokharel, J. Han, C. Manandhar, X.M. Yang, D. Leshchinsky,
I. Halahmi, R.L. Parsons, Accelerated pavement testing of geocell-
reinforced unpaved roads over weak subgrade, J. Transport. Res.
Board, No. 2204 2 (2011) 67–75, Low-Volume Roads.
[26] A. Bhandari, J. Han, ‘‘DEM study of a shallow foundation under
vertical loading”. Contemporary Topics in Ground Modification,
Problem Soils, and Geo-Support, Geotechnical Special Publication
No. 187, in: M. Iskander, D.F. Laefer, and M.H. Hussein (Eds.),
International Foundation Congress & Equipment Expo 2009 -
IFCEE ’09, March 15–19, Orlando, Florida, 2009, 465–472.
[27] J. Han, S.K. Pokharel, D. Leshchinsky, R.L. Parsons, I. Halahmi,
Effect of Infill Material on the Performance of Geocell-reinforced
Bases, in: 9th International Conference on Geosynthetics, ICG 2010,
May 23–27, 2010, Brazil.
Copyright of International Journal of Pavement Research & Technology is the property of
Chinese Society of Pavement Engineering and its content may not be copied or emailed to
multiple sites or posted to a listserv without the copyright holder's express written permission.
However, users may print, download, or email articles for individual use.