Transportation Geotechnics 41 (2023) 101021

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Transportation Geotechnics
journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/trgeo

Evaluation of the structural performance of the geocell-stabilized

flexible pavement
Ashrafuzzaman Khan a, Anand J. Puppala b, *, Nripojyoti Biswas c,
Surya Sarat Chandra Congress d
a
Associate Transportation Researcher, Texas A&M Transportation Institute, 1111 RELLIS Parkway Bryan, TX 77807, United States
b
A.P. & Florence Wiley Chair Professor, Zachry Department of Civil and Environmental Engineering, Texas A&M University, Dwight Look Engineering Building, College
Station, TX 77840, United States
c
Texas A&M Engineering Experiment Station (TEES), Texas A&M University, Dwight Look Engineering Building, College Station, TX 77840, United States
d
Department of Civil and Environmental Engineering, Michigan State University, Room 3566 Engineering Building, 428 S Shaw Lane, East Lansing, MI 48824, United
States

A R T I C L E I N F O A B S T R A C T

Keywords: Geocell can provide sustainable solutions for the pavement infrastructure as it allows the utilization of reclaimed
Flexible pavements and inferior quality base aggregate materials as infill materials. The benefits of using geocell have been well
Geocell established in the literature; however, lack of knowledge regarding the field performance hinders transportation
Reclaimed asphalt pavement
agencies from designing flexible pavement with such products. This study aims to determine the contribution of
FWD
Rutting
geocell towards pavement system performance based on non-destructive field testing. The existing road section
IRI of a Farm to Market Road was replaced with different thicknesses of geocell-reinforced base layer filled with
reclaimed asphalt pavement (RAP) material. The performance of the reinforced sections was verified with the
profiler test and rutting measurements. Falling weight deflectometer (FWD) tests were conducted on different
test sections to capture the pavement responses. Field data showed that geocell allowed the maximum usage of
RAP material and enhanced its performance. The back-calculated in-situ modulus showed that the additional
confinement provided by the geocell ranged between 8 and 20 psi. The increase in confinement indicated an
increase in resilient modulus, which was further calculated for each geocell-reinforced section. Geocell also
helped to restrict the differential movement of the subgrade by providing uniform support, which resulted in a
smoother road structure with less rutting and longitudinal cracking.

Introduction and background
Geocell is a three-dimensional honeycomb structure primarily made
from high-density polyethylene (HDPE) sheets that can enhance load-
bearing capacity and improve the stiffness of the infill material. The
Mohr-Coulomb failure envelope obtained from the large-scale triaxial
compression tests showed that the infill material would gain some
apparent cohesion due to the additional confinement offered by geocell
reinforcement [1]. Several researchers used geogrids to form the shape
of geocells with different aspect ratios by varying the size of pockets and
height of reinforcements [2–4]. Low-cost material, i.e., bamboo, was
used as a geocell to study the behavior of different infill materials under
static loading [5]. The geocells made of High-density polyethylene
(HDPE) and Novel Polymeric Alloy (NPA) are commercially available
for reinforcing inferior quality materials, i.e., reclaimed asphalt pave­
ment (RAP), quarry dust, and other reclaimed aggregates [6].
The repeated load testing on geocell reinforced reclaimed-asphalt-
pavement base (GRRB) layers showed that it could increase the layer
moduli by 3 to 4 times; however, few studies have been conducted on
the performance of the GRRB layer in the field [7,8]. Several of the field
studies that are currently available investigated the performance of
geocell-reinforced unpaved roads in terms of rutting or plate load testing
[9,10]; others focused on its performance during non-destructive field
testing, i.e., profiler and falling weight deflectometer (FWD) tests [11].
Geocell reinforcement could provide a better road structure than the
other base treatment methods, as the three-dimensional confinement

* Corresponding author.
E-mail addresses: m-khan@tti.tamu.edu (A. Khan), anandp@tamu.edu (A.J. Puppala), nripojyoti.biswas@tamu.edu (N. Biswas), surya@msu.edu (S. Sarat
Chandra Congress).

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.trgeo.2023.101021
Received 3 August 2022; Received in revised form 29 April 2023; Accepted 7 May 2023
Available online 26 May 2023
2214-3912/© 2023 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
A. Khan et al.
offered by the geocell can restrict the development of tensile stresses
within the base layer. It can be an ideal candidate for farm-to-market
roads where the applied stress on the base layer is higher due to a
thinner surface layer.
The farm-to-market (FM) road system is the largest secondary
highway system that connects rural and agricultural areas to towns and
cities in the state of Texas [12]. Farm-to-market roads constructed over
expansive subgrades suffer from rutting, cracking, and shoulder de­
pressions that lead to an increase in transportation agencies’ mainte­
nance budget [13–17]; therefore, state and federal agencies are looking
for a sustainable solution that utilizes reclaimed materials and can
ensure the performance of these roads [18–20]. One of the most readily
available materials is reclaimed asphalt pavement (RAP); however, the
maximum utilization limit of untreated RAP in the base layer is less than
50%, as its permanent deformation is 1.7 to 3.0 times higher than the
traditional flex base material [21,22]. Researchers are trying to maxi­
mize the utilization of RAP by blending it with virgin aggregate,
applying chemicals, or confining it with geocells [5,23,24]. Several field
studies are currently available, where plate load tests were conducted to
determine the enhancement of elastic modulus of pavement layer with
the application of geocell; however, the reinforcement mechanism of
geocell in the field is still under investigation.
The structural condition and layer properties of in-service pavement
can be assessed with FWD testing. The deflection parameters, i.e.,
maximum deflection, base layer index (BLI), and AREA, can be deter­
mined from the complete deflection bowls. The BLI, determined from
the deflection data, provides a general idea about the condition of the
existing base layer [25]. The in situ equivalent elastic moduli of the
pavement layers can be estimated with ASTM D5858 [26]. The linear
regression approach can be used to correlate the deflection parameters
with the pavement layer properties [27]. Constant moduli are recom­
mended for back-calculating the upper thin surface layer [26]. The field
responses recorded from the FWD studies are used for the calibration of
the material model based on the Mechanistic-Empirical Pavement
Design Guide (MEPDG) [28]. The back-calculated properties of the
pavement layers can be further used to calibrate the material stiffness
models [29]. The material parameters of the geocell-reinforced base
layer can be determined from the back-calculation approach [30].
There are several criteria that can be used to evaluate the perfor­
mance of reinforced and unreinforced flexible pavement structures.
These include rutting, cracking, riding quality, and in-situ stiffness of
pavement layers. Rutting is one of the critical criteria that is used to
evaluate the design life of a flexible pavement. It can be predicted based
on the calibrated material parameters from the laboratory; however, the
performance of the in-service pavements may deviate from the predicted
values. Field measurements of the rutting can provide very good insights
into the performance of the pavement base layers. In the case of asphalt
pavement, the rutting develops quite precipitously during the first few
years and then levels off at a considerably gentler rate (20). According to
the Asphalt Institute’s design method, the expected maximum rutting
for flexible pavement should be less than 0.5 in.. The riding quality of
the flexible pavement is also an important performance indicator to
determine future maintenance and rehabilitation needs. The structural
performance parameters, such as base layer stiffness and base layer
indices observed from the FWD test, can be further verified with the
measured rutting and roughness of the road surface.
This study also aims to estimate the additional confinement provided
by the geocell layers based on field observations, and this information
will be valuable in the future implementation of GRRB layers to support
pavement infrastructure in problematic soil conditions.
Objective and scope of work
The major objective of this research study was to gain insights into
the performance of geocell-reinforced reclaimed asphalt pavement base
(GRRB) layers based on the deflections and deformations data collected
2
Transportation Geotechnics 41 (2023) 101021
from the flexible pavement sections built on expansive subgrades. The
permanent deformation of the RAP can be higher when compared to the
flex base material due to its viscous properties; however, the RAP was
used in this project to demonstrate the improvement of the marginal
RAP base material with the additional confinement coming from the
geocell layer. The use of RAP materials will be a major boon to the
transportation agencies as large stockpiles of RAP aggregates are
available throughout USA. The field study was conducted using the
following methods: FWD tests for determining base layer modulus,
profiler tests for determining riding quality, and field surveys for
measuring rutting.
Experimental study area
The study area was located in the southwestern region of the Dallas-
Fort-Worth (DFW) metropolitan area, where most of the road sections
have been constructed over expansive soil formation. A farm-to-market
road, FM 1807, was chosen as an ideal candidate for the construction of
the test section, as this road suffered from the presence of an expansive
subgrade and its movements from seasonal changes. This road may be
classified as a medium to low volume road as the average annual daily
traffic is less than 1500. This is a two-lane-two-way road, having a paved
shoulder of at least 2 ft on either side. Visual rutting, shoulder de­
pressions, and longitudinal cracking were common problems in this
study area. The local transportation agency tried various approaches,
including the stabilization of the base and adding overlays on top of the
existing road surface; however, the longitudinal cracks reappeared on
top of the rehabilitated sections after just one season of rainfall.
A new method of base stabilization was adopted in this study with
the use of HDPE geocells to provide uniform support and restrain uneven
movements of the base layer due to the seasonal fluctuation of moisture.
Due to the strong cellular structure of geocells, it is hypothesized to
utilize an inferior quality of aggregate to be used as infill material. A
huge volume of reclaimed pavement asphalt (RAP) material was avail­
able in a nearby stockpile; thus, the application of RAP was considered
as the infill material with geocell as this material has the potential to
provide economical and sustainable solutions.
Test sections and material properties
The geocell-reinforced base has the potential to decrease the vertical
stresses transmitted to underlying soil layers, which will allow the
reduction of the thickness of the surface layer. On the other hand, the
reduction in surface layer thickness will increase the lateral stresses
acting on the geocell. Higher lateral stress will offer higher confinement,
eventually increasing the pavement foundation’s overall bearing ca­
pacity; hence, all the reinforced test sections can be constructed with a
thin asphalt layer.
The existing roadway section had a 4-inch asphalt layer atop a 15-
inch base layer. However, the reinforced test sections were con­
structed with a 2-inch thin asphalt pavement layer and different heights
of geocell-reinforced RAP base layers (GRRBs). The existing road section
was used as the control section (CS) for this study. The initial asphalt
layer design thickness of the control section was 2 in. Due to the reap­
pearance of longitudinal cracks and pavement surface depressions, an
additional 2-inch overlay was placed as a remedial measure. This
resulted in a total of 4-inch-thick asphalt layer for the control section.
While designing for the geocell-reinforced section, it was assumed that
the uniform support provided by the geocell would help in preventing
the longitudinal cracks on top of the flexible pavement and hence, the
thickness of the asphalt layers for the reinforced and unreinforced sec­
tions were not the same. The layer thicknesses of the reinforced and
control sections are presented in Table 1.
Apart from the pavement sections mentioned in Table 1, three un­
reinforced (1′ x 15′ ) sections: UR1, UR2, and UR3, were also constructed
within the eastbound lane of the road, which had material properties
A. Khan et al. Transportation Geotechnics 41 (2023) 101021

Table 1 respectively. One dimension swell test (ASTM D4546-14e1) results

Test section details. showed the maximum swelling strain of 8.5%, which characterized it as
Layer information Existing Reinforced Sections expansive soil. The maximum dry density of the untreated RAP material
Road (CS) was 122 pcf, and the optimum moisture content was 4.5%. The geocell
RS1 RS2 RS3
used in this study were made from HDPE with two different heights of 4-
Asphalt Thickness (inch) 4 2 2 2 inch and 6-inch. The nominal expanded cell size was 12.6 in. × 11.3 in.,
Base Base-1 Top cover – 2 2 2
Geocell layer – 01 – 4 6 4
and seam peel strength was 320 lbf. The secant elastic modulus of the
Intermediate cover – – – 2 geocell was 51.5 ksi at 2% strain with a tensile strength of 1370 lb/ft.
Geocell layer – 02 – – – 4
Base-2 Existing base 15 11 9 5 Field Studies
Total base thickness (inch) 15 17 17 17
Subgrade Thickness (inch) – – – –
Field studies were conducted during the monitoring period of the
Note: The thickness of GRRB for the RS1, RS2, and RS3 are 6, 8, and 12 in., first three years. The deflection data obtained from the FWD studies
respectively. The thicknesses of the pavement sections were taken during the were used for the determination of the structural performance of the
time of construction The cover thicknesses were considered as per FWD test
geocell-reinforced base layer. Additional field surveys, i.e., profiler test,
locations (the cover thickness varied from 1 to 2 in.) The top and intermediate
crack monitoring survey, and rutting surveys, were conducted to study
covers are the same RAP material used for the construction of geocell layers.
and verify the structural performance evaluated from geocell layers.
FWD studies have provided additional data for validating reinforced
and layer thicknesses analogous to RS1, RS2, and RS3, respectively. A
geocell layers.
series of laboratory tests were conducted to characterize the material
used for the current study. The subgrade soil was classified as high
plasticity clay (CH), according to the Unified Soil Classification System.
The liquid limit and plasticity index of the soil were 58% and 31%,

Fig. 1. Falling weight deflectometer (FWD) testing: a) test locations, b) pavement geometry and loading conditions.

3
A. Khan et al. Transportation Geotechnics 41 (2023) 101021

FWD studies to determine the base layer stiffness deflection and layer moduli had the best performance in terms of cor­
relation coefficient and standard errors, considering a 5% significant
The primary purpose of non-destructive FWD testing is to assess the level. The correlation coefficients (R2) obtained from the linear regres­
structural performance of existing pavement layers and predict future sion analyses are presented in Table 4.
load-carrying capacity. FWD tests were conducted after 21 months from The correlation coefficients presented in Table 4 were used to
the end of construction. A total of 40 test locations were selected for the develop the following mathematical expressions for existing base and
reinforced sections (RS1, RS2, and RS3) and control sections (CS), as GRRB bases (Eq. (1) & Eq. (2)):
shown in Fig. 1a. A 9000 lb. mass was used to apply a vertical load with a
12-inch diameter loading plate that recorded the field deflections (Do, Ebase(WB) = 610.6–7.2(Esg) − 381.1(log Do) (1)
D1, D2, D3, D4, D5, and D6) with seven deflection sensors, as shown in Ebase(EB) = 473.6–4.4(Esg) − 274.7(log Do) (2)
Fig. 1b. One of the deflection sensors was placed just under the loading
plate to record the maximum deflection (Do). The center-to-center The modulus of the subgrade layer and the maximum deflection
spacing of the deflection sensors was 12 in., which can produce a values are required to determine the base layer modulus. The moduli
deflection bowl with a radius of 72 in.. The field responses collected estimated from Eqs. (1) and (2) were used to perform additional
from the current study were used to determine the following parameters: pavement analyses to determine the AREA for the present test sections.
Base Layer Index (BLI), base layer modulus, and GRRB layer modulus. The AREA values predicted from this approach were also compared with
The deflection data collected from the field were normalized with the AREA values measured from the field deflection data.
respect to the reference load of 9000 lb. The collected data were cate­ Four-layered analyses were conducted to estimate the moduli of
gorized into four major section groups: Reinforced Section 1 (RS1), geocell-reinforced RAP base layers (GRRB). The thickness of the total
Reinforced Section 2 (RS2), Reinforced Section 3 (RS3), and the Control base layer was the same (17 in.) for all the reinforced sections; however,
Section (CS). The characteristics of the collected data from different the thickness of the GRRBs for the RS1, RS2, and RS3 sections were 6 in.,
sections are summarized in Table 2. 8 in., and 12 in., respectively. The top and intermediate cover thick­
In this study, the equivalent elastic moduli of the pavement base nesses for different test sections are listed in Table 1.
layers were back calculated from the recorded field responses during the
FWD tests. The modulus back-calculation approach adopted in this study Roughness and rutting measurements
is shown in Fig. 2.
The thickness of the top surface layer was less than one-third of the The international roughness index (IRI) was defined as a mathe­
loading plate diameter; hence a fixed modulus of the asphalt layer was matical property of a two-dimensional road profile. It is an important
used for this study. The air temperature during the FWD test is an statistic parameter that will relate to the ride quality of the existing road
important parameter for back-calculation analysis, as the elastic sections. In this study, a high-speed profiler was used to collect the
modulus of the asphalt layer is temperature dependent. The average longitudinal profile of the road surface, including on both wheel paths,
recorded temperature during the tests was 75◦ F, and corresponding and the data was used to determine the IRI for different test sections. The
elastic moduli of 600 ksi was used for the pavement analyses. A three- IRI data was further correlated with the Pavement Serviceability Rating
layered pavement system was considered with asphalt, base, and sub­ (PSR). In addition to roughness, the permanent deformations along the
grade layers as a part of the pavement system to simulate the FWD critical wheel paths were also determined. Surface depressions along the
testing condition with a multi-layer linear elastic approach (MLEA). The wheel path of a flexible pavement are defined as rutting and can be
layer properties used for the MLEA are presented in Table 3. Different categorized into two major types: mix rutting and subgrade rutting.
scenarios considering all combinations of the layer properties were Subgrade rutting was the predominant type of failure on the test sections
analyzed for this study. constructed on the farm-to-market road test sections. The rutting on the
The 112 scenarios that were considered in this research study can be wheel paths was measured for all the test sections on a regular basis. It
categorized into two major groups: existing road or westbound (WB) and was expected that the inclusion of geocells could minimize the rutting by
test section or eastbound (EB). The deflection bowl data obtained from distributing the traffic load over a wider area.
the multi-layered linear elastic approach were used to determine the
deflection parameters Do, AREA, F1, and F2 for each scenario. The cor­ Analysis of field results
relations between the deflection parameters and the pavement layers
moduli were developed based on linear regression analysis. It was This section discusses the structural performance of different test
observed that the mathematical expression with the maximum sections in terms of IRI, Rutting, base layer index, and base layer
modulus. The performance of the test sections was addressed with
respect to these measurements.
Table 2
Summary of FWD Data Collected from the Test Sections.
Base layer index (BLI)
Section Type of geocell Range of Range of Range Range
ID reinforcement maximum AREA of F1 of F2
used in the base deflection (inch) The BLI is measured by the difference between the deflections
layer under loading measured at the center and 12 in. away from the center of the FWD
plate, Do loading. It is generally reported in μm and can vary between 100 and
(10-3 in.)
400. A BLI value lower than 200 indicates a very sound granular base
RS1 4-inch geocell 16.7–22.3 16.6 – 0.89 – 1.22 – material, and a value greater than 400 indicates a deteriorating base
18.3 1.22 1.41
layer that requires some rehabilitation [25]. The BLI indices estimated
RS2 6-inch geocell 16.8 – 18.5 16.2 – 1.02 – 1.23 –
17.6 1.22 1.36
from the field deflection data are presented in Fig. 3. The estimated
RS3 #2–4-inch 16.2 – 18.6 17.6 – 1.05 – 1.23 – average BLI was less than 200 for all the test sections, indicating a sound
geocell 18.8 1.21 1.37 granular base layer.
CS No geocell 11.5–15.8 18.1–20.7 1.17 – 1.22 – The difference between the minimum and maximum values was
0.87 0.95
higher for RS1 and lower for RS3. The increase in the thickness of the
Note: AREA = 6(1 + 2D1/Do + 2D2/Do + 2D3/Do); F1 = (Do - D2)/D1 ; F2 geocell height helped enhance the performance of the base layer by
=(D1 - D3)/D2. reducing the non-uniformity. The average BLI for the CS section was less
than 200; however, the fluctuation was much higher than RS2 and RS3

4
A. Khan et al. Transportation Geotechnics 41 (2023) 101021

Fig. 2. Flowchart for the estimation of base layer modulus from field FWD studies.

in Fig. 4a. The layer moduli obtained for four different sections during
Table 3
field data collection are shown in Fig. 4b.
Pavement Layer Properties Used for Multi-Layer Linear Elastic Analysis (MLEA).
The average predicted moduli for the overall base layer within the
Existing road (WB) Test sections (EB) reinforced test sections varied between 58 and 63 ksi. The inclusion of
Asphalt thickness 4 2 geocells helped to distribute the load uniformly over a wider area and
(inch) maintain uniformity within the test sections, which resulted in a lower
Asphalt modulus 600 600 standard deviation of the base layer moduli within the reinforced test
(ksi)
Asphalt Poisson’s 0.35 0.35
sections. The average base layer modulus within the control section was
ratio around 50 ksi; however, the range is greater than 45 ksi. The maximum
Base thickness 15 17 range of base layer moduli observed within the reinforced sections was
(inch) at least four times lower than the base layer moduli of the control sec­
Base modulus (ksi) 30, 40, 50, 60, 70, 80, 90, 30, 40, 50, 60, 70, 80, 90,
tion. The geocell-reinforced layers within the RS1, RS2, and RS3 acted as
100 100
Base Poisson’s ratio 0.30 0.30 rigid layers and eliminated the possibility of uneven support conditions.
Subgrade modulus 5.0, 7.5, 10.0, 12.5, 15.0, 5.0, 7.5, 10.0, 12.5, 15.0,
(ksi) 17.5, 20.0 17.5, 20.0
Contribution of geocell layer to improve pavement system performance
Subgrade Poisson’s 0.35 0.35
ratio
The additional confinement provided by a geocell contributes to an
increase in the effective bulk stress acting within the confined layer. As
sections. The fluctuation within the CS section indicated an uneven the stiffness of the unbound base material is stress-dependent, the
pavement support system. The minimum required height of the geocell additional confinement from the geocell leads to a notable change in the
was 6 in. to provide a consistent support system, as minor fluctuations of base layer modulus.
BLI values were observed for RS2 and RS3.
Estimation of field modulus of the geocell-reinforced base layer
Base layer modulus The base modulus reported in the previous section was derived from
a three-layer analysis. Four-layer analyses were performed to predict the
A three-layer analysis was performed to determine the stiffness of the moduli of the GRRB layers. A comparison of the three-layer and four-
15-inch and 17-inch base layers for the existing and reinforced sections, layer analyses are shown in Table 5. The value of the elastic modulus
respectively. The layer moduli predicted from the proposed regression of the existing base layer (Base-2) was taken as the minimum elastic
method were used to simulate the FWD loading condition with MLEA. modulus observed within the control section (CS) base layer. The ratio of
The deflection bowl parameter, AREA, computed with the predicted the predicted and measured values of the deflection bowl parameters
moduli, was verified with the AREA calculated from the field de­ (Do/Dof and AREA/AREAf) were used as the performance indicator of the
flections. A comparison of the AREA of MLEA and the field is presented predicted moduli values. It was observed that the four-layer analyses

Table 4
Linear Regression Analysis.
ID Asphalt Air R2a σ Constant Esg Ebase
Thickness (inch) Temp. (◦ F) (%) c p q

WB 4 75 95.4 0.025 1.6022 − 0.0189 − 0.0026

EB 2 75 94.8 0.028 1.7237 − 0.0161 − 0.0036

Note: Equation of the following form, logDo = c + p × Esg + q × Ebase. a Significant at 5% level, σ = standard error. Ebase = elastic modulus of the base Esg =
elastic modulus of the subgrade.

5
A. Khan et al. Transportation Geotechnics 41 (2023) 101021

θ = σv + 2(σr + Δσ) + γz(1 + 2K0) (5)

Eq. (5) can be rearranged and combined with Eq. (3) to get the
following form
logMr − log4.41
10( )
− σv − 2σ r − γz(1 + 2K0 )
(6)
0.6125
Δσ =
2
Where Mr is the back-calculated in-situ elastic modulus obtained
from the FWD test. The following section will discuss the estimation
procedure of additional confining stress offered by the geocell.

Estimation of additional confining pressures with geocell

Fig. 3. Base Layer Index (BLI) based on FWD deflections data.
provided a better fit with the field measurements. The predicted moduli
of the GRRB layers located at RS1, RS2, and RS3 were 65.0, 72.0, and
58.0 ksi, respectively, thus providing stable and uniform pavement
support. Monitoring is continuing, and these will add more to the un­
derstanding of geocell layers and their utilization in thin, flexible
pavement systems on expansive soils.
The estimated moduli for the GRRB layers presented in Table 5 were
used to back-calculate the confining pressure offered by the geocell from
Eq. (3). Khan et al. (2020) conducted the repeated load triaxial tests on
unreinforced RAP material and presented the two-parameter material
model, which can be expressed with the following equation.
The applied vertical and radial stresses acting within the base ma­
terial are required to estimate the Δσ. The magnitude of these stresses
also depends on the asphalt layer thickness (tasph) as well as the elastic
modulus of the pavement layers. Fig. 5 represents the normalized ver­
tical stress profile due to the application of vertical stress at the top of the
pavement surface. The actual vertical stress (σv) was normalized with
the applied vertical stress (q), and the depth was normalized with the
loading plate radius (a). The normalized depth is the ratio of the actual
depth (z) and the radius of the loading plate (a). Three different modular
ratios (E1/E2): 20, 10, and 5, were considered, where E1 represents the
modulus of the asphalt layer and E2 represents the modulus of the base
layer. The elastic modulus ratio between the base and subgrade (E2/E3)
Table 5
Comparison Between 3-Layer and 4-Layer Analyses.
RS1 RS2 RS3

Mr(RAP) = 4.41θ0.6125 (3) 3 4 3 4 3 4

Layer Layer Layer Layer Layer Layer
Where Mr(RAP) is the resilient modulus of the unreinforced RAP
Asphalt 2 2 2 2 2 2
material, and θ is the bulk stress. The following equation (Eq. (4) con­ thickness
siders the pavement layer weights to determine the bulk stress. (inch)
Asphalt modulus 600.0 600.0 600.0 600.0 600.0 600.0
θ = σv + 2σr + γz(1 + 2K0 ) (4) (ksi)
Base-1 thickness 17 6 17 8 17 12
Where σv and σr are the vertical and radial stress increase at depth z; γ (inch)
and Ko are the average unit weight and earth pressure coefficient at rest, Base-1 modulus 60.9 65.0 62.3 72.0 56.9 58.0
respectively. For simplicity, the over consolidation ratio, OCR = 1 was (ksi)
considered for the infill material. The radial stresses acting on the base Base-2 thickness 11 9 5
(inch)
layer is close to negative, and the aggregate particle within the base
Base-2 modulus 30.0 30.0 30.0
layer tends to move away from each other due to the tensile force. The (ksi)
base materials are not good at tension, and hence the additional Subgrade 16.0 16.0 16.0 16.0 16.0 16.0
confinement (Δσ ) provided by the geocell can play a significant role in modulus (ksi)
enhancing the overall bulk stress, which will eventually increase the Do/Dof 0.87 0.99 0.94 1.00 0.97 1.00
AREA/AREAf 0.94 0.93 0.99 0.99 0.96 0.97
resilient modulus of the base layer. The additional confinement can be
added with Eq.4 to determine the bulk stress for the geocell-reinforced Notes: Do, Dof - predicted and measured maximum deflections AREA, AREAf -
base layer, as presented in Eq. (5). predicted and measured deflection parameters.

Fig. 4. Back-calculation of base layer modulus: a) verification of predicted values with field measurements, b) predicted base layer moduli.

6
A. Khan et al.
Fig. 5. Vertical stress distribution for pavement with different asphalt layer thickness and material stiffness ratio based on multi-layer linear elastic approach.
was considered as 5. Similarly, the radial stress distribution is presented
in Fig. 6.
For all the reinforced test sections, the radius of the loading plate, a
= 6 in.; thickness of the asphalt layer, tasp = a/3; E1/E2 ≈ 10. The mid-
depth of the base layer for RS1, RS2, and RS3 are 6 in., 7 in., and 9 in.,
respectively. The corresponding normalized depths are 1.00, 1.17, and
1.50; the magnitudes of normalized vertical stresses are 0.75, 0.65, and
0.54; the magnitudes of normalized radial stresses can be taken equal to
zero. The angle of internal friction of the RAP material, ϕ = 35◦ , can be
used to estimate the Ko = 0.271. The average unit weight of the pave­
ment material can be assumed, γ = 120 pcf. Since the average applied
vertical stress during the FWD test was 84 psi, the vertical stress increase
for the RS1, RS2, and RS3 sections will be 63, 54.6, and 45.4 psi,
respectively. All these values can be used to determine the additional
confining pressures based on Eq. (6).
The estimated additional confinements offered by the geocells for
RS1, RS2, and RS3 were approximately 8.6, 20.1, and 10.4 psi, respec­
tively. The estimated bulk stress acting at the mid-depth of the RS1, RS2,
and RS3 are 80.9, 95.6, and 67.1 psi, respectively, whereas the calcu­
lated bulk stresses without the geocell confinement will be 63.6, 55.3,
and 46.3 psi, respectively. The increase in bulk stresses with the geocell
confinement helped to increase the base layer stiffness. It should be
noted that the moduli for RS1, RS2, and RS3 without the confinement
would be 56.1, 51.5, and 46.2 ksi, respectively. These values indicate
that the inclusion of geocells in the GRRBs for the RS1, RS2, and RS3
sections increased the base layer moduli by 15.9%, 39.8%, and 25.5%,
respectively, thus providing stable and uniform pavement support.
Fig. 6. Radial stress distribution for pavement with different asphalt layer thickness and material stiffness ratio based on multi-layer linear elastic approach.
7
Transportation Geotechnics 41 (2023) 101021
Pavement condition surveys
The increase in base layer stiffness with Geocell also enhances the
overall pavement structural performance. The following section will
discuss the results obtained from the profiler test and field measure­
ments of the rutting along the critical wheel paths.
Roughness measurement
Ride quality is one of the fundamental concerns of road users, as it is
directly related to the pavement’s safety and riding comfort condition.
Longitudinal profiles provide some understanding of the overall
smoothness of the road surface. The smoothness of the road is measured
in terms of bumps throughout the profile of the road and the Interna­
tional roughness index (IRI). The longitudinal profile of the test sections
and corresponding IRI values can provide an overall indication of
pavement performance. The longitudinal profiles of RS1, RS2, and RS3
are presented in Fig. 7. It was observed that the RS2 and RS3 sections
had smoother surfaces as compared to the RS1 section. The maximum
bumps recorded for RS2 and RS3 were less than 0.2 in..
Longitudinal profiles for RS1, RS2, and RS3 sections were separated
for a single profiler test on the eastbound lane of the road; each test
section was 130 ft. The IRI values for different test sections are presented
in Fig. 8. It was observed that the IRI value for RS1 was significantly
higher than that of RS2 and RS3, which was also supported by the nature
of the longitudinal profiles of the corresponding sections. The maximum
estimated IRI for RS1 was 219.8 in./mile.
RS2 and RS3 sections exhibited better performance than RS1, as the
maximum IRI values recorded in these test sections were less than 123.2
A. Khan et al.
Fig. 7. Longitudinal profile of different test sections.
Fig. 8. IRI of test sections.
in./mile. The restriction of the lateral movement of the base material
due to geocell helped to provide uniform support and decreased the
permanent deformation. The reduction of permanent deformation hel­
ped enhance the reinforced sections’ performance. The IRI values were
also used to determine the Pavement Serviceability Rating (PSR) based
on the Paterson method.
The PSR values for the RS1, RS2, and RS3 sections were 2.7, 3.7, and
3.5, respectively. The PSR value for the RS1 section was 2.7, indicating a
fair condition. RS2 and RS3 were comparable to the existing road sec­
tion, with the PSR values ranging between 3 and 4, showing good con­
dition with minimum rutting and cracking. The terminal life of a flexible
pavement can be predicted from the rate of change of the PSR values
with time.
Rutting measurements
Rutting is defined as permanent vertical deformation along the
wheel paths of flexible pavement. In this study, rutting was measured
along the test sections’ left and right wheel paths. The rut in the left
wheel paths was significantly deeper than in the right wheel paths. This
might have happened due to the variation in the extended length of
reinforcement. The extended portion of the geocell panels under the left-
wheel path was less than 2 feet (near crown), whereas the extended
length under the right wheel paths was more than 3 feet (near shoulder).
Fig. 8 presents the maximum rutting observed in the left wheel paths of
the different test sections. The roughness of RS1 was higher than RS2
and RS3; however, the maximum rutting recorded along the wheel paths
8
Transportation Geotechnics 41 (2023) 101021
was lower than other test sections. In addition to the reinforced section,
rutting was also measured within the unreinforced sections UR1, UR2,
and UR3. It was observed that the percentage of reduction of rutting
depends on the thickness of the GRRB layer, as the percentage reduction
for RS1, RS2, and RS3 were 36%, 42%, and 48%, respectively, as shown
in Fig. 9. It should be noted that the average elastic modulus of the RS3
was lower than RS1 and RS2; however, the observed rutting was also
lower for the RS3 section. This happened due to the restriction of lateral
movement of the base material at a larger depth. The depth of the bot­
tom of the geocell reinforcement for the RS1, RS2, and RS3 are 6, 8, and
12 in., respectively.
Field results collected after the completion of the project clearly
showed the superior performance of the pavements built with GRRB
layers. Based on the field observation, the rutting of the reinforced GRRB
sections was lower than the terminal value of 0.50 in.. These results also
indicate that the GRRB can be used with inferior base materials for
supporting pavement systems, promoting the reuse of reclaimed
aggregate layers.
Summary and conclusions
A three-dimensional cellular confinement system can potentially
enhance the performance of unbound base materials. This study presents
the field performance of geocell-reinforced test sections based on field
surveys and non-destructive field tests. The relationships between the
deflection parameters and the pavement layer moduli were developed to
predict the base layer modulus. The moduli of the GRRBs were also
determined from the four-layer analyses based on an iterative approach.
The outcomes of the current study are summarized below.
• The base layer indices (BLI) for all the reinforced test sections were
less than 200, which indicates a sound base condition. The average
predicted moduli for the 17-inch base layer of RS1, RS2, and RS3
were 60.9, 62.3, and 56.9 ksi, respectively. Back-calculated moduli
for the GRRBs in RS1, RS2, and RS3 were 65.0, 72.0, and 58.0 ksi,
respectively. The estimated confining pressure offered by the geocell
in RS1, RS2, and RS3 were 8.6, 20.1, and 10.4 psi, respectively,
which also helped to increase the moduli of the RAP layer by 1.16 to
1.40 times.
• The longitudinal profiles obtained from the profiler tests showed that
the reinforced sections’ performance was enhanced with the increase
in the height of the geocell. The maximum IRI of 219.2 in./mile was
recorded for RS1, whereas the IRI for RS2 and RS3 was less than
123.2 in./mile. Similarly, the PSR values for RS1, RS2, and RS3 were
2.7, 3.7, and 3.5, respectively.
• The inclusion of geocell reduced the permanent deformations. The
reduction of percentages in rutting with geocell for 6-, 8-, and 12-
Fig. 9. Rutting measurements for the test sections over 30 months.
A. Khan et al.
inch-thick reinforced sections were 36%, 42%, and 48%,
respectively.
Geocell has the potential to enhance the stiffness of the base layer by
distributing the vertical stresses over a wider area. The back-calculated
moduli and field survey results obtained from the geocell-reinforced
sections indicate that the geocell provided additional confinement,
which eventually helped reduce the lateral movement of the base ma­
terial and the overall rutting coming from pavement layers. This also
provided uniform support with low IRI values. All these suggest geocell
can be a viable candidate for strengthening the pavement foundation
system.
CRediT authorship contribution statement
Ashrafuzzaman Khan: Conceptualization, Methodology, Software,
Writing – original draft. Anand J. Puppala: Supervision, Methodology,
Writing – original draft. Nripojyoti Biswas: Visualization, Investiga­
tion. Surya Sarat Chandra Congress: Software, Validation, Writing –
review & editing.
Declaration of Competing Interest
The authors declare that they have no known competing financial
interests or personal relationships that could have appeared to influence
the work reported in this paper.
Data availability
Data will be made available on request.
Acknowledgements
This research was funded by the Fort Worth District of the Texas
Department of Transportation (TxDOT) (Dr. Soohyok Im and Janet
Crawford) and the NSF Industry-University Cooperative Research Cen­
ter’s (I/UCRC) Center for Integration of Composites into Infrastructure
(CICI) located at TAMU (NSF PD: Dr. Prakash Balan; Award #2017796).
The authors would further like to express their sincere gratitude to the
TxDOT Fort Worth District and area office’s support crew, Mr. Miles
Hick, and other members of Dr. Puppala’s infrastructure group at TAMU
for their help with the FWD testing and data collection.
References
[1] Bathurst RJ, Karpurapu R. Large-Scale Triaxial Compression Testing of Geocell-
Reinforced Granular Soils. Geotech Test J 1993;16(3):296.
[2] Dash SK. Influence of Relative Density of Soil on Performance of Geocell-
Reinforced Sand Foundations. J Mater Civ Eng 2010;22:533–8. https://doi.org/
10.1061/(ASCE)MT.1943-5533.0000040.
[3] Mandal JN, Gupta P. Stability of geocell-reinforced soil. Constr Build Mater 1994;8:
55–62. https://doi.org/10.1016/0950-0618(94)90009-4.
[4] Mhaiskar SY, Mandal JN. Investigations on soft clay subgrade strengthening using
geocells. Constr Build Mater 1996;10:281–6. https://doi.org/10.1016/0950-0618
(95)00083-6.
[5] Saha DC, Mandal JN. Performance of reclaimed asphalt pavement reinforced with
Bamboo geogrid and Bamboo geocell. Int J Pavement Eng 2020;21:571–82.
https://doi.org/10.1080/10298436.2018.1502432.
Transportation Geotechnics 41 (2023) 101021
[6] Han J. Design of planar geosynthetic-improved unpaved and paved roads. Geotech
Pract Publ 2013:31–41. https://doi.org/10.1061/9780784412817.003.
[7] Pokharel SK, Han J, Leshchinsky D, Parsons RL. Experimental evaluation of
geocell-reinforced bases under repeated loading. Int J Pavement Res Technol 2018;
11:114–27. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijprt.2017.03.007.
[8] George AM, Banerjee A, Puppala AJ, Saladhi M. Performance evaluation of geocell-
reinforced reclaimed asphalt pavement (RAP) bases in flexible pavements. Int J
Pavement Eng 2021;22(2):181–91.
[9] Kief O, Schary Y, Pokharel SK. High-Modulus Geocells for Sustainable Highway
Infrastructure. Indian Geotech J 2015;45:389–400. https://doi.org/10.1007/
s40098-014-0129-z.
[10] Kief O. Structural pavement design with geocells made of novel polymeric alloy. In:
Proceedings of the 2015 Geosynthetics Conference 2015 (pp. 1-10).
[11] Al-Qadi IL, Hughes JJ. Field evaluation of geocell use in flexible pavements. Transp
Res Rec 2000;1709:26–35. https://doi.org/10.3141/1709-04.
[12] Understanding the Texas Farm to Market Road System – Galveston County
Economic Development n.d. https://developgalvestoncounty.com/blog/texas-fa
rm-to-market-road-system/ (accessed July 18, 2021).
[13] Puppala AJ, Punthutaecha K, Vanapalli SK. Soil-Water Characteristic Curves of
Stabilized Expansive Soils. J Geotech Geoenvironmental Eng 2006;132:736–51.
https://doi.org/10.1061/(ASCE)1090-0241(2006)132:6(736).
[14] Khan MA, Biswas N, Banerjee A, Puppala AJ. Field performance of geocell
reinforced reclaimed asphalt pavement base layer. Transp Res Rec J Transp Res
Board 2020;2674:69–80. https://doi.org/10.1177/0361198120908861.
[15] Khan MA, Nripojoyti B, Banerjee A, Puppala AJ. Performance of Geocell-
Reinforced Reclaimed Asphalt Pavement (RAP) Bases in Flexible Pavements Built
on Expansive Soils. Geo-Congress 2020, Reston, VA: American Society of Civil
Engineers; 2020, p. 488–97. 10.1061/9780784482810.051.
[16] Biswas N, Puppala AJ, Khan MA, Congress SSC, Banerjee A, Chakraborty S.
Evaluating the Performance of Wicking Geotextile in Providing Drainage for
Flexible Pavements Built over Expansive Soils. Transp Res Rec J Transp Res Board
2021;2675:208–21. https://doi.org/10.1177/03611981211001381.
[17] Lytton RL, Aubeny CP, Bulut R. Design Procedure for Pavements on Expansive
Soils:, Volume 1. Texas: College Station; 2005.
[18] Das JT, Banerjee A, Puppala AJ, Chakraborty S. Sustainability and Resilience in
Pavement Infrastructure. Environ Geotech 2019:1–13. https://doi.org/10.1680/
jenge.19.00035.
[19] Ezzat H, El-Badawy S, Gabr A, Zaki E-S-I, Breakah T. Evaluation of Asphalt Binders
Modified with Nanoclay and Nanosilica. Procedia Eng 2016;143:1260–7. https://
doi.org/10.1016/j.proeng.2016.06.119.
[20] Sun X, Guo J, Han J, Guo K. Stress analysis of geosynthetic access mat systems over
weak subgrade. Comput Geotech 2021;134:104071. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
compgeo.2021.104071.
[21] Bennert T, Papp WJ, Maher A, Gucunski N. Utilization of construction and
demolition debris under traffic-type loading in base and subbase applications.
Transp Res Rec 2000;1714(1):33–9.
[22] Kim W, Labuz J. Resilient modulus and strength of base course with reclaimed
bituminous material. MN: Minneapolis; 2007.
[23] Puppala AJ, Saride S, Williammee R. Sustainable Reuse of Limestone Quarry Fines
and RAP in Pavement Base/Subbase Layers. J Mater Civ Eng 2012;24:418–29.
https://doi.org/10.1061/(ASCE)MT.1943-5533.0000404.
[24] Puppala AJ, Pedarla A, Chittoori B, Ganne VK, Nazarian S. Long-term durability
studies on chemically treated reclaimed asphalt pavement material as a base layer
for pavements. Transp Res Rec 2017;2657:1–9. https://doi.org/10.3141/2657-01.
[25] Horak E. Surface moduli determined with the falling weight deflectometer used as
benchmarking tool. 26th Annu South African Transp Conf Challenges Implement
Policy 2007:284–93.
[26] American Society for Testing and Materials. ASTM D5858-96 (Reapproved 2020).
Standard guide for calculating In Situ equivalent elastic moduli of pavement
materials using layered elastic theory. 2020. 10.1520/D5858-96R20.2.
[27] Hoffman MS, Thompson MR. Backcalculating nonlinear resilient moduli from
deflection data. Transp Res Rec 1982;852:42–51.
[28] Smith KD, Bruinsma JE, Wade MJ, Chatti K, Vandenbossche JM, Yu HT. Using
Falling Weight Deflectometer Data with Mechanistic-Empirical Design and
Analysis, Volume I: Final Report. Rep No FHWA-HRT-16-009 Fed Highw Adm
2017.
[29] Tutumluer E, Al-qadi I. Advances in Transportation Geotechnics 2. vol. 1. 2012.
10.1201/b12754.
[30] Yang X, Han J, Leshchinsky D, Parsons RL. A three-dimensional mechanistic-
empirical model for geocell-reinforced unpaved roads. Acta Geotech 2013;8:
201–13. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11440-012-0183-6.