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

net/publication/376186544

Geocell as a Promising Reinforcement Technique for Road Pavement: A State

of the Art

Article in Indian Geotechnical Journal · December 2023

DOI: 10.1007/s40098-023-00818-0

CITATIONS READS

0 80

3 authors:

Sayanti Banerjee Bappaditya Manna

Indian Institute of Technology Delhi Indian Institute of Technology Delhi
9 PUBLICATIONS 2 CITATIONS 112 PUBLICATIONS 483 CITATIONS

SEE PROFILE SEE PROFILE

Jagdish T. Shahu
Indian Institute of Technology Delhi
111 PUBLICATIONS 1,518 CITATIONS

SEE PROFILE

All content following this page was uploaded by Sayanti Banerjee on 04 December 2023.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

Indian Geotech J
https://doi.org/10.1007/s40098-023-00818-0
STATE OF THE ART/PRACTICE PAPER
Geocell as a Promising Reinforcement Technique for Road
Pavement: A State of the Art
Sayanti Banerjee1 · Bappaditya Manna1 ·
J. T. Shahu1
Received: 20 July 2023 / Accepted: 7 November 2023
© The Author(s), under exclusive licence to Indian Geotechnical Society 2023
Abstract Geocell has become increasingly popular as rein-
forced material in various fields of civil engineering over
the last few decades. Geocells can be a solution to the prob-
lems associated with paved and unpaved road construction
over weak soil. Many researchers have conducted laboratory
model testing, field trials, numerical, and analytical studies
to assess the significant impact of geocell reinforcement. The
current paper reviews various studies available in the litera-
ture and provides a summary of the main contributions. The
current study illustrates that improved performance owing
to geocell reinforcement is dependent on several factors and
variables, including the relative density of infill material,
geocell rigidity, and geometry, placement location of geocell
and geocell type. Furthermore, a comprehensive review of
the various literature and design guidelines was presented to
assess the performance improvement of geocell-reinforced
pavement in terms of rut depth, vertical stress distribution,
resilient modulus, modulus improvement factor, and traffic
benefit ratio. The important findings from a review of the
relevant literature indicate that the geocell provides con-
finement, membrane effect, and larger stress distribution,
resulting in a greater load-carrying capacity and modulus of
reinforced soil. Several studies highlighted that due to the
usage of geocells as a layer of reinforcement, a 13 to 71%
reduction in rut depth occurred. Furthermore, the modulus
* Sayanti Banerjee
Sayanti.Banerjee@civil.iitd.ac.in
Bappaditya Manna
bmanna@civil.iitd.ac.in
J. T. Shahu
shahu@civil.iitd.ac.in
1
Department of Civil Engineering, Indian Institute
of Technology Delhi, Hauz Khas, New Delhi 110016, India
of the geocell-soil composite may improve by 2.5 to 3.5
times of modulus value of the unreinforced section due to
the increment of the geocell height.
Keywords Reinforcement · Flexible pavement · Geocell ·
Infill material · Geometry
Introduction
Pavements, which are functionalised for transmitting the
vehicle wheel load to deeper competent soil strata in order
to provide safety, are categorised into two types, namely
flexible pavement and rigid pavement. Flexible pavement
is a load-carrying structure, which consists of layers of
various granular materials above the subgrade material.
The primary aim of flexible pavements is to create a
safe driving surface without any inconvenience for pas-
sengers and vehicles due to the extreme deformation of
the pavement structures. The durability of flexible pave-
ments depends on different factors, such as the pavement
layer thicknesses, strength of the subgrade, stiffness of the
various pavement layers, and environmental conditions.
In recent years, many roads have been designed on weak
subgrade (California bearing ratio < 5%) as the amount
of road traffic has increased. Such tasks are difficult for
engineers as weak subgrade soil has a low shear strength,
causing excessive consolidation, bearing capacity failure,
and insufficient load transfers from the base layer when
subjected to heavy, repeated traffic loads. Thus, a weak
subgrade was a major concern for pavement design engi-
neers because of its potential contribution to large perma-
nent deformation in flexible pavements. Such a problem
has contributed to research efforts to enhance the condi-
tion of the pavement structure and to establish sustainable
13
Vol.:(0123456789)
 Indian Geotech J

strategies for stabilising pavement. One way to address this

concern is to incorporate enough reinforcement to boost
the overall strength and rigidity of the pavement structure
while also minimising related expenditures. Geosynthetic
material has significantly contributed to enhancing the
efficiency of both unpaved and paved roads over the last
40 years and has been one of the verified base course rein-
forcement strategies [41, 42].
Several geosynthetic materials have been developed
to enhance soil quality and performance in a variety of
pavement-related applications, including base and sub-
base stabilisation, strengthening, drainage, slope protec-
tion, and embankment protection. In recent years, geo-
cells have been widely employed to build low-maintenance
Fig. 2  Schematic representation of geocell-reinforced pavement
roadways in problematic ground conditions. Among vari-
ous geosynthetic materials, geocell (as depicted in Fig. 1)
is a three-dimensional geosynthetic product composed of Now, the present paper aims to summarise all the past
high-density polyethylene, polyester, or other polymers. studies on the reinforcement mechanism, influencing factor
The connected cells were filled with granular materials of geocell and key governing factors of reinforced pavement
to create a stiff base for supporting the different loading in order to provide the reader with a better understanding
conditions. The lateral confinement to the infill material of the advantages of geocell-reinforced pavements. The
within the cells was generated due to the interfacial fric- paper provides a deeper understanding of the reinforce-
tion between the geocell and infill material. Therefore, the ment mechanism of the geocell layer. Furthermore, the
geocell-soil layer reduces the vertical and lateral deforma- paper contributes to providing a broad overview of different
tion of subgrade soil by distributing the load over a larger influencing parameters that affect the performance of pave-
area of subgrade soil. Consequently, geocells in flexible ment layers. In addition, an extensive review of literature
pavements increase the load-bearing capability and service and design guidelines was conducted to evaluate the perfor-
life of the pavement. The schematic diagram of geocell- mance enhancement of geocell-reinforced pavement in terms
reinforced flexible pavement is shown in Fig. 2. of key governing factors. The outline of this manuscript is
Extensive research was conducted in the laboratory [5, illustrated in Fig. 3.
17, 26, 40, 68, 74, 86, 103, 104, 110] to investigate the
effect of geocell in reinforced pavement. However, there
have been relatively limited field trials [24, 34, 54, 62, 64, History of Geocell
111, 115, 124] and numerical studies (e.g. [5, 38, 48, 55,
73, 112]) aimed at providing insights into the behaviour In the early 1970s, the US army engineers designed geocell
of geocell-reinforced soil. The findings from these studies to provide a confinement effect to increase the load-carrying
indicate that the application of geocells is advantageous capacity of poorly graded sand for military purposes. The
for a variety of geotechnical engineering tasks. first geocells were composed of paper sand grids soaked

Fig. 1  Schematic representation of geocell geometry

13
Indian Geotech J

Fig. 3  Research outline of the present manuscript

with phenolic water-resistant epoxy, which were the proto-
types of the current geocells. Later, because of the strength
requirements, metallic geocells, particularly those con-
structed of aluminium, were considered, but these proved
impracticable due to the difficulties of handling and high
cost. Geogrid sheets joined by bodkin bars have also been
used to make geocells [21]. Currently, the most common
polymer used to produce geocells is high-density polyeth-
ylene (HDPE), which is made by welding expanded HDPE
strips to make honeycombs. Geocells have now been made
using a new kind of polymer called noval polymeric alloy
(NPA). The properties of both geocells (i.e. HDPE and
NPA) and the standard guidelines are given in Table 1. From
Table 1, it can be observed that the NPA geocell has a higher
tensile strength and a lower coefficient of thermal expan-
sion (CTE) value than the HDPE geocell. Higher tensile
strength indicates that the NPA geocell has greater resistance
to stretching or deformation under tension, which can be
advantageous in certain applications. A lower coefficient of
thermal expansion means that the NPA geocell is less likely

Table 1  Properties of geocell (information provided by Sitharam et al. [106])

Properties Values Units Standard guidelines
Noval polymeric High-density polypoly-
alloy (NPA) ethylene (HDPE)

Density 0.95 (± 1.5%) ≥ 0.94 (± 1.5%) g/cm3 ASTM D1505 [6]

Strip thickness 1.53 (± 10%) 1.53 (± 10%) mm ASTM D5199 [8]
Tensile strength > 20 ≤ 20 N/mm PRS ­method(1)
Creep reduction factor > 2.7 > 2.6 ASTM D6992 [10](2)
Coefficient of thermal expansion (CTE) < 80 80 Ppm/ °C ISO 11359–2 (TMA) [60]
ASTM E831 [11](3)
Allowed strength for design of 50 years >8 – kN/m ASTM D6992 [10](4)
Environmental stress-cracking resistance (ESCR) > 3000 > 3000 hr ASTM D1693 [7]
Resistance to UV deterioration > 250 > 250 Minutes ASTM D5885 [9]
(1)
At 23 °C, a test sample cut from seam to seam was recorded at a strain rate of 20%/min
(2)
For 50 years at 23 °C, the creep (deformation) reduction factor
(3)
The CTE measurement range is between − 30 °C and + 30 °C
(4)
For 50 years at 23 °C, the maximum creep strain allowed to occur at 10%

13
 Indian Geotech J

to expand or contract significantly with temperature changes,

which can be important in environments with large tem-
perature variations. However, it is important to note that the
superiority of one geocell material over another depends on
the specific requirements of the application and the condi-
tions in which it will be used. While NPA geocell may have
certain advantages in terms of tensile strength and CTE, it
does not necessarily mean it is universally better than HDPE
geocell for all applications. However, since the NPA geocell
is a relatively new material, further research is necessary to
comprehensively understand its long-term effects.

Mechanism of Geocell Reinforcement

The principal effects attributed to geocells have been identi-

fied as the consequences of confinement, the improvement
in bearing capacity, and the manifestation of a tensioned
membrane effect [44]. Although knowledge of reinforce-
ment mechanisms was initially derived through static plate
load experiments, the current review has concentrated on
mechanisms when subjected to cyclic loading. High tensile
strength, bending resistance, and shear strength are provided
by the geocell-reinforced bases, and the failure planes are
intercepted from the subsoil layer [130]. On the basis of a
prior study [49–52], the reinforcing mechanisms provided
by geocell material were reported as follows.
Fig. 4  Mechanism of geocell: a confinement mechanism (after Bis-
was and Krishna [16]); b membrane mechanism (after Zhang et al.
The effect of confinement [128]); c vertical stress distribution (after Sitharam and Hegde [104])

The confinement effect is offered by the walls of cells as

given below: Membrane Effect

(1) Interfacial resistance (as shown in Fig. 4a), which
occurs due to the friction between the geocell wall
and the filler material to prevent the encapsulated soil
against punching down.
(2) Lateral confinement offered by the vertical member
(or walls) of geocell to infill material, thus prevent-
ing the infill material from spreading out (as shown
in Fig. 4a) and the geocell layer acting as a mattress
(Fig. 4a). In the absence of geocell walls, the lateral
spreading of infill material would occur.
(3) As a result of the confinement effect, the elastic modu-
lus of the reinforced layer increases. Consequently, a
lesser load is distributed below the reinforced layer
as compared to the unreinforced section, which is
observed by Han et al. [47]. Also, Gourc et al. [45]
conducted compression testing to demonstrate the
confinement effect and verified these findings using
finite element analysis.
The tension generated in the curved geocell section to sus-
tain the imposed load is denoted as the beam effect or ten-
sioned membrane effect. This tensioned membrane effect
is shown in Fig. 4b. As depicted in Fig. 4b, when the pave-
ment structure is significantly deformed, the curved geocell-
reinforced section is subjected to some tension force (T). As
the geocell-reinforced section is stiffer than the neighbour-
ing soil, the vertical component of the tension force (Tsinα,
where α = the horizontal angle of the tension force) directly
opposes the wheel load and reduces the pressures that are
transferred into the subgrade soil, thereby enhancing the
long-term performance of the pavement [33, 91, 130].
Stress Distribution
A schematic illustration of the stress distribution mechanism
in geocell-reinforced foundation beds is shown in Fig. 4c. As
shown in Fig. 4c, a loading area of width L on a geocell layer

13
Indian Geotech J
acts as if it were a loading area of width (L + 2 h × tan 𝜃) on
soft soil at depth h (h = reinforcement depth) and θ is the
load dispersion angle (30–45°). Numerous researchers (e.g.
[57, 113, 129]) have addressed the vertical load distribution
mechanism of geocell-reinforced layer, and they discovered
that the interconnected geocells create a composite struc-
ture that behaves like a wide slab, spreading the applied
pressure over a wide space and enhancing the load-carrying
capability of the foundation soil. Mhaiskar and Mandal [77]
proposed that the dense infill material increases the load-
carrying capacity of foundation soil and disperses the load
over a larger region.
Influencing Factors of Geocell
Most of the prior studies have been conducted to analyse
geocell behaviour in pavements and the parameters that
influence the significant performance improvements of geo-
cell reinforcement. The thickness of the base layer, subgrade
layer strength, the filler material quality, and the geometry
of the reinforcement were found to have a substantial impact
on the geocell performance. Table 2 summarises the factors
affecting geocell performance and their optimal values as
reported in prior research. Furthermore, an extensive discus-
sion of these influencing parameters is given below.
Shape of Geocell
The response of a geocell-reinforced layer is greatly influ-
enced by the shape of the geocell. Pokharel et al. [86]
conducted laboratory experiments on geocell-reinforced
pavement bases using a single geocell and discovered
that a circular-shaped geocell had a greater rigidity and
load-carrying capacity than an elliptical-shaped geocell.
Furthermore, several researchers [29, 67, 122] conducted
laboratory studies and concluded that the chevron shape
geocell is more effective as it has a greater number of
joints per area, which increases the bending and shearing
Table 2  Different influencing parameters and their optimal values as reported in prior research
Researchers
Webster [122]; Krishnaswamy et al. [67]; Dash et al. [29]; Pokharel et al. [86]
Dash et al. [30]; Sitharam et al. [105]; Sireesh et al. [103]; Latha et al. [70]; Hegde and
Sitharam [53]
Mhaisker and Mandel [78]; Dash et al. [29]; Sitharam et al. [105]; Sireesh et al. [103]
Dash et al. [29]; Latha et al. [70], Pokharel et al. [86]; Dash [27]; Hegde and Sitharam
[53]
Dash et al. [30]
Dash et al. [30]; Yoon et al. [127]; Tafreshi and Dawson [109]
D Diameter of the loading plate
stiffness. The higher stiffness geocell layout aids in uni-
formly distributing huge loads on the soft foundation soils.
Previous research was limited by the fact that the pocket
shape was assumed to be either a chevron or diamond,
although the actual shape of geocells is a honeycomb.
Also, very few numerical analyses [39] on the influence
of pocket shape have been conducted, whereas all studies
on geocell shape have been experimental in nature.
Height and Width of Geocell
Several researchers have hypothesised that the width and
height of the geocell layer have a substantial influence
on the effectiveness of the geocell-reinforced structure.
The studies demonstrate that the increased width of the
geocell layer inhibits the development of rupture planes in
the soil bed, improving composite behaviour and reducing
surface heaving [29, 53, 78, 103, 105]. Additionally, the
larger plan region of the geocell mattress helps to dis-
tribute the wheel load across a larger region. These two
aspects contributed to the pavement’s increased load-bear-
ing capability.
Also, the higher height of geocell wall, the higher will
be the interfacial friction. Adequate height of the geocell
wall will eventually stop the infill material from punching
down completely [30, 70, 103, 105]. Consequently, the
whole geocell mattress functions as a composite struc-
ture, significantly improving performance. Additionally,
as the geocell layer’s height increases, the moment of
inertia and hence the bending and shear stiffness of the
geocell mattress increase, redistributing footing pressure
over a larger region and thus improving the performance of
the subgrade layer. Figure 5 depicts the impact of geocell
height (h/D) on the cumulative permanent deformation of
the reinforced base layer. In Fig. 5, h represents the height
of the geocell layer (i.e.100 mm and 150 mm) and D rep-
resents the diameter of the loading plate (i.e. 152.4 mm).
Influencing parameter Optimum values
Shape of geocell Chevron
Height of geocell 1.5 to 2D
Width of geocell 4 to 6D
Properties of infill material Relative density
value as high
as possible
Pocket size of geocell 0.8 to 1.0D
Placement depth or cover thickness 0.10 to 0.33D
13

Fig. 5  Impact of geocell height
on cumulative permanent defor-
mation (after George et al. [40])
Properties of Infill Material
Furthermore, in order to ensure better efficacy of geocell-
reinforced systems, it is suggested that the relative density
(ID) of the filler material is maintained as high as feasible
[27, 29, 70, 86]. Also, when the filler material is placed
into a geocell at a higher density, a beam or semi-rigid slab
effect is created, which is then overlaid by vertical loads on
top of it.
Pokharel et al. [85] conducted an experimental study on
geocell-reinforced bases subjected to repetitive loading. This
research observed the impact of different filler materials on
the percentage elastic deformation of reinforced bases, as
illustrated in Fig. 6. The dense infill material offers enhanced
load-bearing capacity, and as a result, geocell reinforcement
reduces vertical stress transmitted to the poor subgrade by
dispersing the load over a larger region. In the majority of
studies, granular materials have been employed as infill
material, but only a small number of studies [49] have used
silty clay as infill material. However, no research has been
conducted utilising different waste materials other than recy-
cled asphalt as a filler material.
The Pocket Size of Geocell
Despite the fact that geocells have a triangular form, pocket
sizes are measured in equivalent diameters. The equivalent
13
Indian Geotech J
diameter is obtained by transforming the triangular area into
a circle with a similar cross-sectional area to provide for
axial symmetrical conditions. The geocell pocket size has
a substantial impact on the behaviour of reinforced foun-
dation beds. A smaller pocket size geocell, according to
Rai [89], performs better. Smaller pockets provide greater
confinement per unit volume, resulting in increased bearing
capacity [49]. The ideal pocket size as reported by various
researchers [30, 89] is 0.8D to 1.0D, where D is the loading
plate diameter. Most prior research on the geocell pocket
size has explored handmade geocells comprised of geogrids
or geotextiles, but factory-made geocells are more com-
monly used in actual field applications.
The Texture of Geocell Wall
When compared to geocells with smooth walls, the rough
surface increased the frictional contact between the filler
material and the cell wall, improving performance. The load-
bearing capability of the reinforced foundation bed increased
significantly when the friction angle was increased [50, 53].
Placement Depth or Cover Thickness
The height of the granular layer (u) between the surface and
the geocell mattress is the placement depth of the geocell
under the loading area. This soil cushion helps to distribute
Indian Geotech J
Fig. 6  Effect of different types
of infill material on elastic
deformation (after Pokharel
et al. [85])
the incoming load to the underlying geocell mattress with a
lesser volume and evenly, thus avoiding early local buckling
of the geocell wall [30, 109, 127]. A placement depth of
0.10D to 0.33D was proposed as the optimal value to avoid
direct loading of geocell walls [30].
Geocell Type
In recent years, two types of geocells (i.e. NPA and HDPE)
are commonly employed as reinforced material in the pave-
ment. The NPA geocell has the same flexibility at low tem-
peratures as the HDPE geocell. However, the NPA geocells
have higher tensile stiffness, strength, and a lower thermal
expansion coefficient than HDPE geocells. As a result, NPA
geocells have shown significant improvements in rigidity,
load-carrying capacity, stress distribution, and lower distor-
tion compared to standard HDPE geocells.
Some of the laboratory, numerical, and field studies with
their subgrade conditions, geocell properties, type of infill
material, and other parameters are presented in Tables 3,
4, and 5, respectively. All the, i.e. Tables 3, 4, and 5 illus-
trate that most previous studies have clarified the impact
of geocell geometrical parameters on the performance of a
geocell-reinforced pavement under static and cyclic loading
conditions, whereas very few studies have considered differ-
ent factors, namely the type of infill material, the thickness
of the base layer, and type of geosynthetic material.
Studies on Different Governing Factors
of Geocell‑Reinforced Pavement
For military purposes, the US army engineers developed the
first geocell materials in the early 1970s. Later, a number
of researches were performed to investigate the impacts of
geocells on pavements using laboratory, field, and numerical
investigations.
There were a lot of previous studies done in the labo-
ratory to assess the impacts of geocells on soil beds [12,
27–29, 31, 48–50, 70, 75, 93, 105, 118]. Based on labo-
ratory experiments, the researcher has shown that geocell
reinforcement is beneficial when the soil-geocell compos-
ite layer is applied over the poor subgrade layer [32, 72,
83, 88, 92]. The behaviour of geocells was first explained
numerically in the mid-1990s. Geocells have been studied
through numerical simulations over the decades by a number
of researchers [13, 47, 51–53, 69, 78, 94, 125]. Furthermore,
on the basis of laboratory and numerical investigation data,
analytical models on the load-carrying capacity of geocell-
reinforced foundation beds have been proposed by some
researchers [66, 80, 128]. In addition, very few researchers
have documented the use of geocells in the field as case
studies [24, 64].
Geocell has been extensively used in pavements for rein-
forcing the pavement layer and improving the subgrade soil
material. Geocells in pavement layers have significantly
13
 Indian Geotech J

Table 3  Summary of previous research involving laboratory trials on geocell-reinforced pavement

Researchers Test details Subgrade soil Infill material Geocell material Parameters varied

Pokharel et al. [86] Static and cyclic plate N/A Kansas River sand NPA material N/A
load tests
(D = 15 cm)
Thakur et al. [117] Cyclic plate load test 25% Kaolin+ Recycled asphalt NPA (100 ­mm2 area) t = 15 cm, 23 cm,
(D = 30 cm) 75% river sand material 30 cm
mixture h = 10 cm, 15 cm
Rajagopal et al. [90] Cyclic and mono- Dry sand Granular subbase NPA h = 5 cm, 10 cm, 15 cm
tonic plate load test material (210 × 250 mm)
(D = 15 cm)
Suku et al. [108] Cyclic plate load test Riverbed sand Aggregate (Grada- HDPE t = 15 cm, 20 cm,
(D = 15 cm) tion III) (330 ×180mm) 25 cm, 30 cm
Pokharel et al. [85] Cyclic plate load tests N/A Kansas River sand, NPA Filler materials (sand,
(D = 15 cm) quarry waste, (205 × 235 mm) quarry waste, AB-3
and AB-3 aggregate aggregate)
Reinforcement type
(single, multiple
geocell)
Mamatha and Dinesh Cyclic plate load Black cotton soil Aggregate HDPE h = 10 cm, 12.5 cm,
[74] tests (Steel (224 × 259 mm) 15 cm
plate = 0.3 m × 0.3 m) t = 25 cm, 30 cm,
35 cm
Arias et al. [5] Cyclic plate load test- Texas soil Aggregate HDPE (203 × N/A
ing. (D = 30.5 cm) 234 mm)
Hegde and Palsule Cyclic plate load test- Poorly graded sand Poorly graded sand HDPE (210 × Geosynthetics type
[55] ing. (D = 15 cm) 245 mm) (geocell and geogrid)
Sheikh and Shah Static plate load testing Dredged soil (Dal Reclaimed asphalt HDPE (224 × h = 10 cm, 12.5 cm,
[100] (D = 30 cm) Lake, Srinagar) 224 mm) 15 cm
t = 12 cm, 15 cm,
20 cm
Siabil et al. [102] Cyclic plate load test EPS Well-graded sand Geotextile t = 40 cm, 50 cm,
(D = 30 cm) (h = 100 and 60 cm
d = 110 mm)
Gedela and Kar- Static plate load testing EPS Poorly graded HDPE (210 × W = 33 cm, 35.6 cm,
purapu [38] (D = 30 cm) sand 244 mm; 224 × 44.5 cm
259 mm; 287 × h = 10 cm, 15 cm
320 mm)
George et al. [40] Static plate load tests Clay Reclaimed Asphalt HDPE h = 10 cm, 15 cm
(D = 15.24 cm) (320 × 290 mm)
Sheikh et al. [101] Static plate load tests Dredged soil Crushed quarry waste HDPE (224 × h = 10 cm, 12.5 cm,
(D = 30 cm) (Shalimar Basin and Dolomite lime- 259 mm) 15 cm
of Dal Lake, stone aggregates Type of infill material
Srinagar) t = 12 cm, 15 cm,
17 cm
Tafreshi et al. [112] Static plate load testing EPS Gravelly sand Geotextile t = 30 cm, 40 cm,
(D = 30 cm) (d = 50 mm) 50 cm, 60 cm
EPS density (EPS
40/40, EPS 40/30,
EPS 30/30, EPS
30/20)

D Loading plate diameter, t Base layer thickness, d Geocell pocket diameter, h Geocell pocket height, W Weld distance of geocell, EPS
Expanded polystyrene, NPA Noval polymeric alloy, HDPE High-density polyethylene

improved performance due to their capacity to provide improvement in terms of rut depth, vertical stress distribu-
additional lateral confinement and stabilization. Numerous tion, resilient modulus, modulus improvement factor, and
researchers have carried out numerical studies, experimental traffic benefit ratio. So, based on the database, a comprehen-
investigations, and field testing to assess the performance sive review of the various literature was presented to analyse

13
 Table 4  Summary of previous research involving numerical study on geocell-reinforced pavement
Author (Year) Analysis platform Pavement components Parameter varied Remarks
Subgrade Infill material Geocell
Indian Geotech J

Yang et al. [124] FLAC3D (Clayey soil) (Sand) (NPA) h = 10 cm,15 cm Comparison of vertical
(FDM) LE model [μ = 0.35, MC model LE model [μ = 0.45, t = 24 cm, 18 cm stress transferred to the
E = 49.3 MPa] [μ = 0.35, M = 462 kN/m, subgrade from the base
ψ = 13º, ϕ = 41.1º] 𝜙i = 34.7º, Ci = 0.8 kPa] has been shown
Suku et al. [108] Plaxis 2D (Sand) (Infill = aggregate, N/A Improvement in permanent
(FEM) LE model geocell = HDPE) deformation has been
[E = 200 MPa] HS model shown using the geocell
[ E = 330 MPa, reinforcement
C = 10 kPa, ϕ = 44º]
Hegde and Venkateswarlu FLAC3D (Silty sand) (Silty sand) MC model (NPA) N/A Effectiveness of geocell has
[54] (FDM) MC model [E = 20 MPa, C = 2 kPa, LE model been shown in terms of
[E = 20 MPa, C = 2 kPa, ϕ = 32º] [E = 275 MPa, μ = 0.45] displacement amplitude
ϕ = 32º] and maximum particle
velocity due to traffic
Arias et al. [5] LS-DYNA (Texas soil) MMC (Aggregate) MMC model (HDPE) N/A Geocell reinforcement is
(FEM) model [E = 34.5 MPa, [E = 41.4 MPa, C = 60 kPa, LE model found to reduce the verti-
C = 54.5 kPa, ϕ = 33.8º] ϕ = 0º] [E = 414 MPa, μ = 0.45] cal stress at the subgrade
by 30%
Hegde and Palsule [55] Plaxis 2D (Sand) (Infill = sand, Geocell and geogrid Subgrade settlement was
(FEM) MC model Geocell = HDPE) found to be reduced due to
[E = 15 MPa, μ = 0.3, MC model the geocell inclusion
C = 3 kPa, ψ = 22º, [E = 65 MPa, μ = 0.3,
ϕ = 34º] C = 34 kPa, ψ = 22º, ϕ = 34º]
Siabil et al. [102] ABAQUS (EPS 20, EPS 30) (Sand) (Geotextile) LE model t = 40, 50, and 60 cm Due to the use of geocell
(FEM) DP model DP model [E = 200 MPa, μ = 0.35] layer over soft subgrade,
[E = 5 and 9 MPa, μ = 0.01, [E = 35 MPa, μ = 0.3, the Mr value of the pave-
ψ = 1º, ϕ = 5º] ψ = 10º, ϕ = 5º] ment layer increased by
25–53%
Gedela and Karpurapu FLAC3D (EPS) (Sand) (HDPE) h = 10, 15, 20, 25, 30 cm The bearing capacity of geo-
[38] (FDM) MC model [G = 1.8 MPa, MC model LE model D = 30, 60, 120 cm cell-reinforced case was
μ = 0.11, C = 37.5 kPa, [E = 35 MPa, μ = 0.35, [E = 235 MPa, μ = 0.45, improved by almost 57%,
ϕ = 2º] C = 0 kPa, ψ = 11º, 𝜙i = 41º, Ci = 0] and the stress dispersion
ϕ = 44º] angle increased compared
to the unreinforced case
Sheikh et al. [101] ABAQUS (Dredged soil) (Quarry waste, limestone) LE model h = 10, 12.5 and 15 cm, Due to geocell inclusion
(FEM) MC model MC model [E = 275 MPa, μ = 0.45] Infill material type and, almost 50% increase in
[E = 25 MPa, μ = 0.35, [E = 97 and 193 MPa, t = 12, 15 and 17 cm bearing capacity can be
C = 35 kPa, ϕ = 10º] μ = 0.4, C = 1 and observed along with an
0.1 kPa, ϕ = 41º, 55º] increased dispersion angle

13
 Indian Geotech J

the impacts of geocell on the performance benefits of rein-

h Height of geocell, t Thickness of base layer, D Loading plate diameter; μ Poisson’s ratio, ψ Dilation angle, ϕ Friction angle, E Modulus of elasticity, M Tensile stiffness, 𝜙i Interface friction
angle, Ci Interface cohesion, C Cohesion, NPA Noval polymeric alloy, HDPE High-density polyethylene, EPS Expanded polystyrene; Mr Resilient modulus, MC Mohr–Coulomb, LE Linear
reinforcement over the soft
and 5 mm joints between value was reduced by 54%
forced flexible pavement. Furthermore, Table 6 provides

due to the use of geocell

The surface settlement
an overview of prior studies corresponding to the various
improvement parameters for geocell-reinforced pavement.

subgrade
Rut Depth
Remarks

Rut depth, or the depression in the road caused by the move-

ment of wheels, plays a crucial role in vehicular movement
over soft and sandy soil. Several transportation authorities
Continuous bed, 0 mm,

and design standards have adopted a critical rut depth crite-

Parameter varied

rion (i.e. failure criteria) for the design of paved and unpaved
EPS blocks

roads. The ‘allowable’ rut depth of 75 mm was chosen by

US army engineers as the ‘failure’ criterion for unpaved
elastic, DP Drucker-Prager; MMC Modified Mohr–Coulomb, HS Hardening soil, FEM Finite element method, FDM Finite difference method

roads. The AASHTO design guidelines [3] specify a per-

missible rut depth range of 13–75 mm for unpaved roads.
Various design guidelines [3, 59] often consider a critical
[E = 800 MPa, μ = 0.35]

rut depth value of 25 mm for paved roads. In addition, the

(Geotextile) LE model

critical rut depth value specified by highway authorities

for paved roads is provided in Table 7. When the pavement
reached the critical rut depth value specified in Table 7, the
highway authority conducted pavement maintenance work.
Geocell

Pavement laid over a poor subgrade can generate exces-

sive rut depth very quickly after construction, resulting in
increased maintenance expenses.
Nowadays, the geocell layer has been introduced to the
[E = 35 MPa, μ = 0.32,

base or subbase layer of pavement in order to solve this

ψ = 12º, ϕ = 42º]

problem. The term ‘rut depth reduction’ (RDR) is used to

Infill material

quantify the improvement value in several studies that have

MC model

been conducted in recent years to assess the performance

(Sand)

improvement of the geocell-reinforced layer over the unrein-

forced layer under repetitive loading. The ratio of the cumu-
[ E = 0.81, 2.16, 2.86 MPa,

lative permanent deformations of the unreinforced layer and

Analysis platform Pavement components

the geocell-reinforced layer to that of the unreinforced layer

Isotropic LE and von

C = 40, 70, 95 kPa,

(20, 30 and 40 EPS)

for a specific number of loading cycles is known as the RDR

ϕ = 2º, 3º, 3.5º]
Mises criterion

(Saride et al. [95]). The RDR for the specific loading cycle
can be represented as:
Subgrade

The RDR for n th loading cycle =

[ ]
(cumulative permanent deformation)reinf
1− × 100
(cumulative permanenent deformation)unreinf
(1)
ABAQUS

In the laboratory, the effectiveness of geocell-reinforced

(FEM)

base or subbase layers is investigated by replicating the pave-

ment section in a tank with various pavement layers placed
and static or repetitive loading condition is applied. Figure 7
depicts the standard experimental setup used in the labora-
Table 4  (continued)

Tafreshi et al. [112]

tory investigations.
The standard test setup comprised a load-applying
Author (Year)

hydraulic jack attached to a tank. When a loading force is

applied to a soil layer, it will experience deformation, which
can be categorised into two distinct types: (1) the distortion

13

Table 5  Summary of previous research involving field study on geocell-reinforced pavement
Researchers Type of study
Cowland and Wong [24] Case Study
Emersleben and Meyer [36] Vehicle crossing and falling weight
deflectometer
Han et al. [46] Full-scale accelerated pavement test
Yang et al. [126] Accelerated pavement test
Rajagopal et al. [90] Plate load test
Tafreshi et al. [111] Field cyclic plate load test
Hegde and Venkateswarlu [54] Field Study
Deshmukh et al. [34] Light Weight
Deflectometer and field California
Bearing Ratio test
13
Test section
300 m × 200 m, 2 nos
Reconstruction of road K-23 (Ger-
many)
6.1 m × 4.9 m × 1.8 m
6.1 m × 4.9 m × 1.8 m
200 m long stretch of road
2 m × 2 m × 0.7 m
2 m × 2 m × 0.5 m
Fifteen geosynthetic reinforced and
three unreinforced sections
Indian Geotech J
Parameters Remarks
N/A A satisfactory performance of the
embankment over the soft soil was
observed due to the addition of
geocell
N/A The incorporation of geocells decreased
the vertical stress below the geo-
cell layer by 30% and improved the
modulus value by 10% compared to
the unreinforced case
N/A Service life of unpaved section was
improved by a factor of 1.3–1.8,
and the load dispersion angle was
increased by 7°-10° due to the geocell
inclusion
N/A Geocell reinforcement has been found
to improve the stability of unpaved
roads and to reduce permanent defor-
mation
N/A The MIF value at the base layer was
improved due to geocell inclusion
Unreinforced, multi-layered geocell, Geocell reinforcement is found to
geocell+rubber soil combined reduce the vertical stress and settle-
section ment value at the subgrade layer
Placement depth = 3 mm, 9 mm, Effectiveness of geocell has been shown
15 mm in terms of displacement amplitude
and maximum particle velocity due
to traffic
h = 100 mm, 150 mm The efficacy of geocell has been shown
Infill material (Fly Ash, WMM), in terms of MIF, and the MIF value
Placement (Base, Subbase layer) for a geocell-reinforced base layer was
found to be 1.84–2.13
 Indian Geotech J

Table 6  An overview of prior studies based on various governing factors that indicate the performance improvement of geocell
Governing factors Type of study Researchers Key findings

Rut Depth Laboratory Pokharel et al. [86]; Thakur et al. [117]; Tanyu Addition of geocell material to pavement layers
et al. [114]; Suku et al. [108]; Mamatha and effectively reduces rut depth by 13 to 71%
Dinesh [74]; Hegde and Palsule [55]; Siabil
et al. [102]; George et al. [40]
Numerical Suku et al. [108]; Hegde and Palsule, [55];
Siabil et al. [102]
Field Pokharel et al. [87]; Latha et al. [72]; Han et al.
[46]; Yang et al. [126]; Tafreshi et al. [111]
Vertical stress distribution Laboratory Thakur et al. 2012; Siabil et al., 2020; Khalaj Inclusion of geocell reduces the vertical stress in
et al. 2015 a granular pavement layer by almost 50% along
Numerical Sheikh et al. [101]; Siabil et al. [102]; Arias with an increase in stress dispersion angle
et al. [5]; Sharma et al. [99]; Gedela and
Karpurapu [38]
Field Emersleben and Meyer [36]; Keif and Raja-
gopal [62]; Rajagopal et al. [92]; Han et al.
[46]; Tafreshi et al. [111]
Resilient modulus Laboratory Mengelt et al. [76]; Tanyu et al. [114]; Suku Due to the use of Geocell reinforcement over a
et al. [108]; Siabil et al. [102]; George et al. soft subgrade, the Mr value of the pavement
[40] layer has been increased by 40–50%
Field Al-Qadi and Hughes [4]
Modulus improvement factor Laboratory Pokharel et al. [85] MIF ranged from 1.26 to 2.04 due to the addition
Field Deshmukh et al. [34]; Rajagopal et al. [92]; of the geocell layer
Rajagopal et al. [90]; Kief [64]
Traffic benefit ratio Laboratory Pokharel et al. [85]; Hegde and Palsule [55]; Due to the geocell layer, the TBR value usually
George et al. [40] ranges from 2 to 32
Field Latha et al. [72]

Table 7  Critical rut depth value Highway authorities Critical rut

considered by the highway depth (mm)
authorities (Fwa et al. [37])
Pavement condition index (Shahin 1994) > 25.4
Pavement surface evaluation and rating manual, asphalt roads (Walker [120]) > 50.8
Washington State Department of Transportation (WSDOT [121]) > 19.1
Ohio Department of Transportation (ODOT [81]) > 19.1
Massachusetts Highway Department (CMRPC [22]) > 38.1
Ministry of Transportation and Infrastructure, British Columbia (BC MTI [19]) > 20
California Department of Transportation (Caltrans [20]) > 25.4

that can be reversed is referred to as ‘resilient deformation’,
and (2) the deformation that cannot be reversed is referred
to as ‘permanent deformation or rut depth’. Increasing the
number of cycles leads to a significant upsurge in pavement
layer rut depths. The rutting characteristics of pavements
are affected by a variety of parameters, some of which are
traffic cycles, the magnitude of loads, the physical proper-
ties of the pavement layers, and the thicknesses of the lay-
ers. The life of the pavement is dependent on its rutting
behaviour under repetitive loads. Various researchers have
already investigated the use of geocell-reinforced materials
to reduce the formation of ruts on pavement sections [40,
55, 74, 86, 102, 108, 114, 117]. These researchers found that
the addition of geocell reinforcement material in the pave-
ment layers was shown to help alleviate fatigue and rutting
failures caused by repeated traffic loads. Figure 8 depicts the
permanent deformation or rut depth values for different geo-
cell heights. Figure 8 illustrates that the permanent deforma-
tion values decrease as the height of the geocell layer (h/D)
increases. In Fig. 8, h represents the height of the geocell
layer (i.e.150 mm, 230 mm, and 300 mm) and D represents
the diameter of the loading plate (i.e. 300 mm).
Numerous numerical studies were also carried out on
geocell-reinforced systems corresponding to the improve-
ment parameter, i.e. rut depth. Suku et al. [108] and Hegde
and Palsule [55] used PLAXIS 2D to conduct numerical

13
Indian Geotech J

Fig. 7  Schematic diagram of

an experimental test setup (after
Suku et al. [108])

Fig. 8  Effect of reinforced base

layer thickness on permanent
deformation (after Thakur et al.
[117])

13

analysis. Suku et al. [108] modelled the subgrade sand
using a linear elastic model, while unreinforced and geocell-
reinforced layers were modelled using the hardening soil
model. Hegde and Palsule [55] modelled both the geocell
reinforced layer and the soil layer using Mohr–Coulomb
drained criteria. According to both studies, the addition of
geocell-reinforced material to pavement layers can reduce
rut depth by 13 to 71%. In addition, Siabil et al. [102]
proposed a more realistic technique in which the geocell
mattress was modelled as a multiple-cell system using the
ABAQUS software. This study concluded that geocells
can distribute pressure over a larger area, thereby reducing
pavement rutting.
Very few field studies have been conducted on geocell-
reinforced pavements. Some of these studies were con-
ducted using a single-wheel system on an outdoor test track
or a simple field plate load test. Using geocells to construct
unpaved roads in northern Alberta and British Columbia
was documented by Pokharel et al. [87]. In this investiga-
tion, an NPA geocell with a height of 150 mm was used.
The presence of geocells led to a substantial improvement
in load-bearing capacity and a decrease in rut depth. Similar
findings were reported by Latha et al. [72]. Yang et al. [126]
performed accelerated pavement tests (APT) on four sec-
tions of unreinforced and geocell-reinforced unpaved road
sections to characterize the efficiency of the geocell-rein-
forced soil. In the presence of geocells, researchers noticed
a considerable reduction in the depth of the rut. Nowadays,
a considerable quantity of recycled asphalt pavement (RAP)
material is generated as a result of pavement rehabilitation
activities. RAP may be utilised as a base course material
in the development of sustainable pavements. Han et al.
[46] evaluated the impact of geocell reinforcement on RAP
material by conducting a full-scale moving wheel load test.
Due to the presence of geocells, researchers observed a con-
siderable reduction in rut depth and an improvement in the
stress distribution angle. Furthermore, the moving wheel
tests were performed by Bortz et al. [18] on asphalt pave-
ments with geocell-reinforced and unreinforced bases with
three separate infill materials (i.e. AB-3, quarry waste, and
RAP) over medium (CBR = 6%) and strong (CBR = 12%)
subgrade layer. This study concluded that RAP and quarry
waste bases reinforced with geocells were equally effective
as those constructed with geocell-reinforced well-graded
aggregate (AB-3) bases. In addition, researchers deter-
mined that pavements constructed on strong subgrades had
a lower rut depth value than those constructed on medium
subgrades. Similar results were reported by Thakur et al.
[116], who conducted laboratory cyclic plate load testing
on geocell-reinforced RAP bases over strong and poor weak
subgrade.
13
Indian Geotech J
Vertical Stress Distribution
The mechanism for stress dispersion is also known as
the wide slab mechanism, which was initially observed
by Binquet and Lee [15]. In addition, several researchers
[29, 30, 105, 113, 129] conducted 1-g model testing to
explore the vertical load distribution mechanism in the
geocell-reinforced layer, and it has been found that the
interconnected geocells create a composite structure that
behaves like a wide slab, dispersing the applied load and
improving the load-carrying capability of foundation soil.
The laboratory investigations that have been done till
now have demonstrated that the geocell reinforcement dis-
perses the vertical stress across a larger area, hence reduc-
ing the vertical stress at the centre of the poor subgrade
layer [102]. Figure 9 depicts the vertical stress distribution
of both reinforced and unreinforced cases. From Fig. 9, it
can be observed that the geocell reinforcement disperses
the vertical stress across a larger area than the unrein-
forced case. Also, a recent study has demonstrated that
geocell confinement may be utilised to boost the strength
of RAP bases. Thakur et al. [117] used geocell-reinforced
RAP bases to conduct large-scale laboratory cyclic plate
load experiments across the poor subgrade. The research-
ers found that the thickness of the reinforced base layer
significantly affected the efficiency of RAP bases by mini-
mising vertical stress at the base-subgrade contact.
The finite element (FE) technique is sophisticated
enough to analyse a pavement section under applied
wheel loads. The effectiveness of reinforced unpaved
road areas was analysed numerically using ABAQUS,
and the findings were compared to the experimental data;
a good match was found [101]. Siabil et al. [102] used
the FE program ABAQUS software to conduct a numeri-
cal study of the pavement foundation, including the EPS
geofoam and geocell layer. Furthermore, pavement with
geocell-reinforced rock quarry waste base over dredged
soil subgrade was studied numerically in ABAQUS soft-
ware by Sheikh et al. [101]. Three different types of infill
materials, geocell heights, and base layer thickness were
employed in this study, and the influence of these various
factors on vertical distortion and vertical stress dispersion
was investigated. Arias et al. [5] used the finite element
program LS-Dyna to simulate the geocell-reinforced and
unreinforced foundation. Furthermore, Gedela and Kar-
purapu [38] constructed a three-dimensional (3D) numeri-
cal model of geocell-reinforced pavement using the finite
difference method (FDM) algorithm FLAC3D. The major-
ity of these studies showed that a uniform circular-shaped
pressure bulb was spread vertically at the subgrade layer in
the case of an unreinforced bed. In contrast, the irregularly
shaped pressure bulb in the geocell-reinforced container
was restricted within the geocell pocket and was observed
Indian Geotech J
Fig. 9  Vertical stress distribu-
tion a unreinforced case; b
reinforced case (after Gedela
et al. [38])
to spread laterally. In comparison with an unreinforced
condition, the geocells distribute the applied pressure
across a large region, reducing the vertical stress disper-
sion at the subgrade layer.
Several researchers conducted different field studies to iden-
tify the vertical stress distribution mechanism of the geocell
layer. Emersleben and Meyer [36] performed a falling weight
deflectometer and field plate load test to explore the benefits
of geocell-reinforced pavement. Researchers observed that the
deflection of the road surface was reduced by 15% as measured
by the falling weight deflectometer. Also, this study showed
that the vertical stress under the geocell-reinforced granular
layer was decreased by more than 50% in the field trials as
compared to the unreinforced case. Similar observations were
reported by Keif and Rajagopal [62] and Rajagopal et al. [92].
In addition, Han et al. [46] performed full-scale accelerated
pavement testing to assess the impact of geocell reinforcement
on RAP base courses over poor subgrade. The experimen-
tal findings revealed that the NPA geocell layer enhanced the
efficiency of unpaved RAP sections by increasing the stress
dispersion angle and extending the service life of the pave-
ment. Tafreshi et al. [111] conducted a series of field cyclic
plate load experiments to evaluate the efficiency of geocells in
enhancing pavement performance. Researchers concluded that
employing geocell and rubber soil mixture layers together is
more beneficial than using geocell layers alone. In addition, the
researchers investigated the impact of adding multiple layers
of geocell reinforcement on load-carrying capacity. The study
concludes that the effectiveness of reinforcement improves
with the number of layers by increasing the load-carrying
capacity and vertical stress dispersion at the subgrade layer.
13
 Indian Geotech J

Resilient Modulus
The ratio between the cyclic deviator stress (σd(cyc)) and the
elastic resilient strain (ɛ1) during unloading is the resilient
modulus (Mr) [35]. It can be written as:
𝜎d(cyc)
Mr =
𝜀1
Mr is an essential parameter for assessing the ability of
pavement to resist deformation and fatigue caused by traffic
loads. The presence of geocell reinforcement can enhance
the resilient modulus of the pavement, contributing to its
improved performance, durability, and resistance to rutting
failure. It is the most significant input parameter for deter-
mining the material characteristics of various pavement lay-
ers under repetitive loading [23]. Typically, it is measured
by laboratory-based cyclic triaxial testing or in situ falling
weight deflectometer testing. Many transportation authori-
ties have conducted laboratory testing in accordance with
the approach outlined in AASHTO T307-99 [2]. However,
laboratory testing of geomaterials before usage in pavement
construction is quite difficult and very expansive. As a result,
several transportation authorities conducted either falling
weight deflectometer (FWD) tests or plate load testing in the
field to determine the deflection value and then back-ana-
lysed the data to predict Mr values. The equation for calcu-
lating Mr from the deflection value is presented below [14].
( )
Π 1 − 𝜇2 qa
Mr = (3)
2Δ
where q = change in applied pressure, µ = Poisson’s ratio,
a = loading plate radius, ∆ = deflection value below the load-
ing plate.
(2) The key benefits of this field technique are its straightfor-
ward interpretation and lack of requirement for subsurface
samples for subsequent analysis. The disadvantage of this
approach is that it does not conform to laboratory-deter-
mined moduli values. Consequently, a variety of analytical
models (according to the experimental results) have been
developed that can be utilised to directly determine the Mr at
certain physical states, loading situations, and stress levels,
as shown in Table 8. From the models illustrated in Table 8,
the mechanistic empirical pavement design guide (MEPDG)
model provided in NCHRP 1-28A is the most often used
model for determining the resilient modulus value. These
mathematical models are restricted to unreinforced cases,
which is a main drawback. In recent years, several researches
have been undertaken to determine the influence of the addi-
tion of geocell in the base layer on the value of the resilient
modulus.
Mengelt et al. [76] carried out cyclic triaxial testing to
investigate the impact of geocell reinforcement on the resil-
ience modulus and plastic deformation behaviour of the
soil. The resilience modulus is increased by 1.4–3.2 and
16.5–17.9 percent, respectively, by the usage of geocell for
the coarse and fine-grained soils. The study demonstrated
that if compaction was carried out at the optimum moisture

Table 8  Different empirical relationships of resilient modulus proposed by prior researchers

Researchers Empirical relation Limitations

Seed et al. [96] ( )B

Mr = A × 𝜎3 All empirical relationships are limited to the unreinforced case. Resilient
modulus analytical models for reinforced cases have not yet been
Hicks and Monismith [56] Mr = Y × (𝜃)m
developed
Shackel [97]
[ B
]
(𝜏oct )
Mr = A × C
(𝜎oct )
Uzan [119] Mr = A × (𝜃)B × 𝜎d
( )C

Witczak and Uzan [123] ( )B ( )C

I 𝜏
Mr = A × pa × p1 × poct
a a

Itani [61] ( )B
I1 ( )C ( )D
M r = A × pa × pa
× 𝜎d × 𝜎3

Crockford et al. [25] (

V
)b ( ) ( )d
c
Mr = a × 𝜃+3𝜓 Vw × 𝜏oct × 𝛾𝛾
t w

Pezo [84] ( )B ( )C
Mr = A × 𝜎d × 𝜎3
NCHRP 1-37A [79] ( )B (
𝜏
)C
Mr = A × pa × p𝜃 × poct +1
a a

Mr Resilient modulus (MPa), A, B, C, Y, m Regression constant, σ3 Confining stress (kPa), θ Bulk stress (kPa), τoct Octahedral shear stress
√
�1
(kPa) = 32 I12 − 3I2 2 , I1 first stress invariant, I2 second stress invariant, σoct octahedral normal stress (kPa) = 13 I1, σd Deviator stress (kPa), pa
�

atmospheric pressure (kPa), a, b, c, d Material constants, ψ Suction stress, Vw Volumetric water content, 𝛾𝛾 Normalised unit weight of material
V
t w

13
Indian Geotech J
content (OMC), the resilient modulus value for fine-grained
soils was enhanced. The findings showed that the experi-
ments done on unreinforced fine-grained soil resulted in
greater deformations, which likely contributed to the greater
increase in resilient modulus, while the material was con-
fined within a geocell. Al-Qadi and Hughes [4] described a
case study in Pennsylvania, USA, in which a pavement struc-
ture was supported on a very soft subgrade utilising non-
woven geotextile, geogrids, and a gravel-filled geocell mat.
According to a back-analysis of deflection data from experi-
ments using FWD, the combination of these geosynthetic
materials enhanced the Mr of the gravel layer by a factor of
two. Several researchers [108, 114] carried out large-scale
cyclic loading experiments on geocell-reinforced gravel sub-
bases over a poor subgrade. These studies concluded that
geocell reinforcement increases the Mr of the pavement layer
by 40–50%. According to laboratory tests, the shear strength
and Mr of soil layers can be raised by the lateral confine-
ment offered by a membrane. Siabil et al. [102] carried out
a series of full-scale repeated plate load experiments on EPS
geofoam blocks. This study shows that the Mr of pavements
atop EPS geofoam has increased by as much as 53%. The
Modulus of base or subbase layer for reinforced pavement (ER )
MIF =
Modulus of base or subbase layer for unreinforced pavement (EUR )
Fig. 10  Resilient modulus
variation for different geocell
heights (after George et al. [40])
Mr is influenced by the amplitude of the loading, the thick-
ness of the soil layer, the characteristics of the material, and
the presence of reinforcement. Furthermore, George et al.
[40] carried out extensive repeated load model testing on
RAP material and found a noteworthy improvement in the
Mr of the RAP base layer due to the inclusion of geocells for
different heights (h/D) as shown in Fig. 10. The height of
geocell layer (h) is 100 mm and 150 mm, and the diameter
of loading plate (D) is 152.4 mm.
As depicted in Fig. 10, a significant increase in Mr value
was observed in the initial phase, followed by a period of
stable Mr value. The researchers concluded that this phe-
nomenon happened as a result of the particle rearrangement
that occurred during initial loading and the confinement pro-
vided by the geocell reinforcement layer.
Modulus Improvement Factor
The modulus improvement factor (MIF) is the ratio of the
modulus of the reinforced base or subbase layer (ER) to the
modulus of the unreinforced base or subbase layer (EUR)
under similar test conditions.
(4)
13

MIF quantifies the enhancement in the structural strength
and load-bearing capacity provided by geocell reinforce-
ment. A higher MIF value indicates a greater improvement
in the modulus or stiffness of the pavement layer due to the
presence of geocell reinforcement. This improvement factor
is a key indicator of the effectiveness of geocell reinforce-
ment in pavement applications. MIF may be determined
from both laboratory and field experiments, and it is a
crucial parameter utilised in the standard design approach
(MEPDG) for the design of pavements reinforced with geo-
cells. According to IRC: SP:59 [58], the MIF value ranges
from 2 to 2.75 when the subgrade CBR value is less than
3, whereas, for subgrade CBR values more than 3, the MIF
value ranges from 1.4 to 2.
Additionally, a number of laboratory and field experi-
ments have been carried out to determine the MIF for vari-
ous subgrade conditions, infill materials, and geocell proper-
ties, as these factors have a substantial impact on the MIF
value. Several researchers [34] performed falling weight
deflectometer experiments and lightweight deflectometer
testing in the field to determine the deflection values of the
reinforced and unreinforced foundation layers. The modu-
lus values were estimated by back-calculating the deflection
values, and the MIF was obtained using the formula given
in Eq. 4. Rajagopal et al. [92] and Kief [64] performed field
plate load testing and Pokharel et al. [85] carried out labo-
ratory plate load testing to evaluate the deflection values
of the reinforced and unreinforced foundation layers. Most
researchers employed the same methods to calculate the MIF
for geocell-reinforced pavement. These studies show that
the MIF ranged from 1.26 to 2.04 due to the addition of the
geocell layer.
Traffic Benefit Ratio
The traffic benefit ratio (TBR) is the ratio of the cycles
required to achieve specific permanent surface deformation
in a reinforced test section to the cycles required to achieve
the same deformation in an unreinforced test section with
the same layer thicknesses [82].
TBR is one of the parameters that is typically used in
AASHTO pavement design guidelines [3] for the design of
unreinforced pavements. This parameter is also used for the
design of reinforced pavement as per the guidelines given in
AASHTO R50 [1]. It quantifies the improvements in pave-
ment performance, such as reduced rutting, extended service
life, and increased load-carrying capacity, in comparison
with conventional pavement designs. A higher TBR indi-
cates a more significant benefit from incorporating geocell
reinforcement in the pavement system. Several researchers
[40, 55, 85] conducted large-scale model testing under cyclic
loading for both reinforced and unreinforced pavement to
13
Indian Geotech J
Table 9  TBR values observed by the prior researchers
Researchers TBR values
Latha et al. [72] 16.5, for geocell-reinforced base
6.5, for geogrid reinforced base
Pokharel et al. [85] ≥ 8, for single geocell layer
12, for multiple geocell layers
Hegde and Palsule [55] 1–14, for geocell reinforcement
1–32, for geocell with basal geogrid
George et al. [40] 3.4- 5.6, for a 15-cm-thick geocell layer
2.9–3.6, for a 10-cm-thick geocell layer
determine the same deformation values for a different load-
ing cycle to determine the TBR. TBR values observed by
several researchers are summarised in Table 9. Table 9 illus-
trates that the TBR value normally varies between 1 and
32 depending on the rigidity of the geocell, the number of
geocell layers, and pavement layer thicknesses.
Latha et al. [72] conducted field testing on geocell mate-
rial under a moving wheel load condition. This study stated
TBR value of 16.5 when the base layer is reinforced with a
geocell material. This was caused by the confining mecha-
nism within the geocell, which led to the lateral distribution
of stresses under the loading condition.
Concluding Remarks
The detailed literature review conducted for this study
widely illustrates the different methodologies for geocell-
reinforced analysis in geotechnical engineering. Several
studies were performed to study the impact of geocell con-
finement and its utilization on paved and unpaved roads.
The quantification of the increase in soil bearing capacity
due to the addition of geocells has been investigated through
parametric studies in both experimental and numerical simu-
lations over the years. The present review of the literature
shows that the improved performance due to geocell rein-
forcement depends on many factors, such as the relative
density of the fill material, the rigidity and geometry of the
geocells, the placement location of the geocell, and geo-
cell type. Additionally, a literature survey was presented to
quantify the performance enhancement of geocell-reinforced
pavement in terms of rut depth, vertical stress distribution,
resilient modulus, modulus improvement factor, and traffic
benefit ratio.
The important findings from a review of the relevant
literature indicate that the geocell provides confinement,
membrane effect, and larger stress distribution, resulting in
a greater load-carrying capacity and modulus of reinforced
soil. Due to the usage of geocells as a layer of reinforce-
ment, a 13 to 71% reduction in rut depth was observed in
a previous study. Also, the studies show that the modulus
Indian Geotech J
improvement factor ranged from 1.26 to 2.04 due to the
addition of the geocell layer. Moreover, the key governing
factors (i.e. rut depth, vertical stress distribution, resilient
modulus, modulus improvement factor, and traffic ben-
efit ratio) that indicate the performance improvement of
geocells depend on several aspects, such as the infill soil
properties, geocell materials, and geocell geometry. Traf-
fic benefit ratio value normally varies between 1 and 32
depending on the rigidity of the geocell, the number of
geocell layers, and pavement layer thicknesses. Also, the
modulus of the geocell-soil composite may improve by 2.5
to 3.5 times of modulus value of the unreinforced section
due to the increment of the geocell height. The dense infill
material offers enhanced load-bearing capacity, and as a
result, geocell reinforcement reduces vertical stress trans-
mitted to the poor subgrade by dispersing the load over a
larger region. Also, several experimental investigations on
geocell-reinforced soil have been conducted in the past,
with the conclusion that the geocell layer increased the
strength while being sustainable and cost-effective.
Previous studies have enhanced the understanding of
the function of geocell in road pavements. However, small-
scale triaxial compression tests or plate load testing in soft
clay or sand has been used in the majority of the studies.
But there is a scarcity of research using both large-scale
experiments and field studies to evaluate the real behav-
iour of geocell-reinforced soil in the field. Additionally,
there have only been a few numerical analysis studies that
have used geocells in their actual shape; however, research
that considers the actual stress–strain response of geo-
cells under load is still hard to find in the literature. Also,
the implementation of models like Modified Cam Clay
(MCC), which can describe volume changes in soft soils
more accurately than Mohr–Coulomb or Drucker Prager, is
limited in numerical investigations. In the future, a numer-
ical investigation should be done considering the MCC
model for soft soil conditions so that the actual effect of
the geocell layer over soft soil conditions can be captured.
However, the impacts of filler materials, stress dispersion
patterns, cell junction strength, and the geocell wall dis-
tortion effect on road pavement have yet to be thoroughly
investigated, which will provide a more accurate effect of
the geocell layer on road pavement.
Acknowledgements This research was funded by the "Performance
Study of Geocell Reinforced Road Pavement at Dholera Activation
Area" project sponsored by Dholera Industrial City Development
Ltd., A Government of Gujarat Undertaking, under Sanction No.
FT/05/299/2021.
Author Contributions SB was involved in study conceptualization,
methodology, writing original draft, BM helped in study conceptual-
ization, supervision, writing review and editing. JTS contributed to
supervision, writing review and editing.
Funding This study was funded by Dholera Industrial City Devel-
opment Ltd. (Govt. of Gujarat), FT/05/299/2021, Bappaditya Manna
Data Availability All data, models, and code generated or used dur-
ing the study appears in the submitted article.
Declarations
Conflicts of interest The authors declare no conflict of interest.
References
1. AASHTO R50 (2009) Standard practice for geosynthetic rein-
forcement of the aggregate base course of flexible pavement
structures. American Association of Highway and Transporta-
tion Officials, Washington
2. AASHTO T307–99 (2007) Standard test method for determining
the resilient modulus of soils and aggregate materials. Washing-
ton, D.C
3. AASHTO (1993) Guide for design of pavement structures.
AASHTO, Washington
4. Al-Qadi IL, Hughes JJ (2000) Field evaluation of geocell use in
flexible pavements. Transp Res Rec 1709(1):26–35
5. Arias JL, Inti S, Tandon V (2020) Influence of geocell reinforce-
ment on bearing capacity of low-volume roads. Transp Deve
Econ 6(5):1–10. https://​doi.​org/​10.​1007/​s40890-​020-​0093-5
6. ASTM D (2010) Standard test method for density of plastics
by the density- gradient technique. ASTM international, West
Conshohocken
7. ASTM D1693 (2015) Standard test method for environmental
stress-cracking of ethylene plastics. ASTM international, West
Conshohocken
8. ASTM D5199 (2012) Standard test method for measuring the
nominal thickness of geosynthetics. American Society for Test-
ing and Materials. ASTM international, West Conshohocken
9. ASTM D5885 (2015) Standard test method for oxidative induc-
tion time of polyolefin geosynthetics by high pressure differential
scanning calorimetry. ASTM international, West Conshohocken
10. ASTM D6992 (2009). Standard test method for accelerated ten-
sile creep and creep- rupture of geosynthetic materials based
on time-temperature superposition using the stepped isothermal
method. ASTM international, West Conshohocken
11. ASTM E831 (2014) Standard test method for linear thermal
expansion of solid materials by thermomechanical analysis.
ASTM international, West Conshohocken
12. Bathrust RJ, Jarrett PM (1988) Large-scale model tests of geo-
composite mattresses over peat subgrades. Transp Res Rec
1188:28–36
13. Bathurst RJ, Knight MA (1998) Analysis of geocell rein-
forced soil covers over large span conduits. Comput Geotech
22(3–4):205–219
14. Behiry AEM (2014) Characterization of the layered pavement by
modelling and calibration of resilient modulus. Am J Civ Eng
2(3):74–86
15. Binquet J, Lee LK (1975) Bearing capacity tests on reinforced
earth slabs. J Geotech Eng Div 101(12):1241–1255
16. Biswas A, Krishna AM (2017) Geocell-reinforced foundation
systems: a critical review. Int J Geosynth Ground Eng 3(2):17
17. Biswas A, Krishna AM, Dash SK (2013) Influence of subgrade
strength on the performance of geocell-reinforced foundation
systems. Geosynth Int 20(6):376–388
18. Bortz B S, Hossain M, Halami I, and Gisi A (2012) Low-
volume paved road improvement with geocell reinforcement.
13

Transportation research board annual meeting, Transportation
Research Board, Washington
19. British Columbia ministry of transportation and infrastructure
(BC MTI) (2009) Pavement surface condition rating manual. 3rd
Ed., BC MTI, Victoria, BC
20. California Department of transportation (Caltrans) (2006) Main-
tenance manual, Vol. 1. Caltrans, http://​www.​dot.​ca.​gov/​hq/​
maint/​manual/​maint​man.​htm
21. Carter GR, Dixon JH (1995) Oriented polymer grid reinforce-
ment. Constr Build Mater 9(6):389–401
22. Central Massachusetts metropolitan planning organization
(CMPRC) (2006) Pavement management field guide to road
surface distresses. http://​www.​cmrpc.​org/​sites/​defau​lt/​files/​field​
guide.​pdf
23. Christopher BR, Schwartz C, Boudreau R (2006) Geotechni-
cal aspects of pavements. Federal highway administration,
Washington
24. Cowland JW, Wong SCK (1993) Performance of a road embank-
ment on soft clay supported on a geocell mattress foundation.
Geotext Geomembr 12:687–705
25. Crockford WW, Bendana LJ, Yang WS, Rhee SK, and Senad-
heera SP (1990) Modeling stress and strain states in pavement
structures incorporating thick granular layers. Final report, The
Texas Transportation Institute, The Texas A&M University, Col-
lege Station
26. Dash SK, Bora MC (2013) Improved performance of soft clay
foundations using stone columns and geocell-sand mattress. Geo-
text Geomembr 41:26–35
27. Dash SK (2010) Influence of relative density of soil on perfor-
mance of geocell reinforced sand foundations. J Mater Civ Eng
22(5):533–538
28. Dash SK (2012) Effect of geocell type on load carrying mech-
anism of geocell reinforced sand foundations. Int J Geomech
12(5):537–548
29. Dash SK, Krishnaswamy NR, Rajagopal K (2001) Bearing
capacity of strip footings supported on geocell-reinforced sand.
Geotext Geomembr 19:235–256
30. Dash SK, Rajagopal K, Krishnaswamy NR (2001) Strip footing
on geocell reinforced sand beds with additional planar reinforce-
ment. Geotext Geomembr 19:529–538
31. Dash SK, Rajagopal K, Krishnaswamy NR (2004) Performance
of different geosynthetic reinforcement material in sand founda-
tions. Geosynth Int 11(1):35–42
32. Dash SK, Sireesh S, Sitharam TG (2003) Model studies on cir-
cular footing supported on geocell reinforced sand underlain by
soft clay. Geotext Geomembr 21:197–219
33. Demir A, Yildiz A, Laman M, Ornek M (2014) Experimental
and numerical analyses of circular footing on geogrid-reinforced
granular fill underlain by soft clay. Acta Geotech 9(4):711–723
34. Deshmukh RR, Patel S, Shahu JT (2021) Field assessment of
improvement in composite modulus of geosynthetic-reinforced
pavements. Geosynth Int. https://d​ oi.o​ rg/1​ 0.1​ 680/j​ gein.2​ 1.0​ 0018
35. Elliott R P, and Thornton S I (1998) Resilient modulus and
AASHTO pavement design. Transportation research record,
1196
36. Emersleben A, and Meyer N (2008) Bearing capacity improve-
ment of gravel base layers in road constructions using geocells.
In: Proceedings of 12th international conference of international
association for computer methods and advances in geomechanics
(IACMG), Goa, India, 3538–3545
37. Fwa TF, Pasindu HR, Ong GP (2012) Critical rut depth for pave-
ment maintenance based on vehicle skidding and hydroplaning
consideration. J Transp Eng 138(4):423–429
38. Gedela R, Karpurapu R (2021) Assessment of load distribution
mechanism in geocell reinforced foundation beds using digital
13
Indian Geotech J
imaging correlation techniques. Transp Geotech. https://​doi.​org/​
10.​1016/j.​trgeo.​2021.​100664
39. Gedela R, Karpurapu R (2021) Influence of pocket shape on
numerical response of geocell reinforced foundation systems.
Geosynth Int 28(3):327–337. https://​doi.​org/​10.​1680/​jgein.​20.​
00042
40. George AM, Banerjee A, Puppala AJ, Saladhi M (2021) Perfor-
mance evaluation of geocell-reinforced reclaimed asphalt pave-
ment (RAP) bases in flexible pavements. Int J Pavement Eng
22(2):181–191. https://d​ oi.o​ rg/1​ 0.1​ 080/1​ 02984​ 36.2​ 019.1​ 58743​ 7
41. Giroud JP, Han J (2004) Design method for geogrid-reinforced
unpaved roads. I. Development of design method. J Geotech
Geoenviron Eng 130(8):775–786
42. Giroud JP, Han J (2004) Design method for geogrid-reinforced
unpaved roads. II Calibration of applications. J Geotech Geoen-
viron Eng 130(8):787–797
43. Giroud JP, Noiray L (1981) Geotextile-reinforced unpaved road
design. J Geotech Eng Div 107(9):1233–1254
44. Giroud J P (1986) From geotextiles to geosynthetics: a revolution
in geotechnical engineering. In: Proceedings of the 3rd interna-
tional conference on geotextiles, Vienna, vol. 1, 1–18
45. Gourc JP, Arab R, Giroud H (2001) Calibration and validation of
design methods for geosynthetic reinforced retaining structures
using partial factors. Geosynth Int 8(2):163–192
46. Han J, Pokharel SK, Yang X, Manandhar C, Leshchinsky D,
Halahmi I, Parsons RL (2011) Performance of geocell-reinforced
RAP bases over weak subgrade under full-scale moving wheel
loads. J Mater Civ Eng 23(11):1525–1534
47. Han J, Yang X, Leshchinsky D, Parsons R (2008) Behavior of
geocell-reinforced sand under a vertical load. Transp Res Rec J
Transp Res Board 2045:95–101
48. Hegde A, Sitharam TG (2013) Experimental and numerical stud-
ies on footings supported on geocell reinforced sand and clay
beds. Int J Geotech Eng 7(4):346–354
49. Hegde A, Sitharam TG (2015) Effect of infill materials on the
performance of geocell reinforced soft clay beds. Geomech Geo-
eng Int J 10(3):163–173
50. Hegde A, Sitharam TG (2015) Use of bamboo in soft ground
engineering and its performance comparison with geosynthetics:
experimental studies. J Mater Civ Eng 27(9):1–9
51. Hegde A, Sitharam TG (2015) Joint strength and wall deforma-
tion characteristics of a single cell geocell subjected to uniaxial
compression. Int J Geomech 15(5):1–8
52. Hegde A, Sitharam TG (2015) 3-dimensional numerical mod-
elling of geocell reinforced sand beds. Geotext Geomembr
43:171–181
53. Hegde A, Sitharam TG (2015) 3-Dimensional numerical analysis
of geocell reinforced soft clay beds by considering the actual
geometry of geocell pockets. Can Geotech J 52(9):1396–1407
54. Hegde A, Venkateswarlu H (2019) Mitigation of traffic induced
vibration using geocell inclusions. Front Built Environ 5:136.
https://​doi.​org/​10.​3389/​fbuil.​2019.​00136
55. Hegde AM, Palsule PS (2020) Performance of geosynthetics
reinforced subgrade subjected to repeated vehicle loads: experi-
mental and numerical studies. Front Built Environ. https://​doi.​
org/​10.​3389/​fbuil.​2020.​00015
56. Hicks R G, and Monismith C L (1971) Factors influencing the
resilient properties of granular materials. Transportation research
record 345, National research council, Washington, pp. 15–31
57. Huang CC, Tatsuoka F (1990) Bearing capacity of reinforced
horizontal sandy ground. Geotext Geomembr 9(1):51–82
58. IRC: SP:59 (2019) Guidelines for use of geosynthetics in road
pavements and associated works. 1st Rev. Indian roads congress,
New Delhi
59. IRC-37 (2018) Guidelines for the design of flexible pavements.
Indian roads congress, New Delhi
Indian Geotech J
60. ISO 11359–2 (1999) Determination of coefficient of linear ther-
mal expansion and glass transition temperature. Geneva
61. Itani SY (1990) Behavior of base materials containing large-
sized particles. PhD Thesis, School of civil and environmental
engineering, Georgia institute of technology
62. Keif O, and Rajagopal K (2008) Three dimensional cellular con-
finement system contribution to structural pavement reinforce-
ment. Geosynthetics India ’08 seminar, Hyderabad, India
63. Keif O (2015) Structural pavement design with geocells made of
novel polymeric alloy. Geosynthetics, Portland
64. Keif O, Rajagopal K, and Chandramouli S (2011) Modulus
improvement factor for geocell-reinforced bases. Geosynthetics
India, Chennai
65. Khalaj O, Tafreshi MSN, Mask B, Dawson AR (2015) Improve-
ment of pavement foundation response with multi- layers of
geocell reinforcement: cyclic plate load test. Geomech Eng
9(3):373–395
66. Koerner RM (2012) Designing with geosynthetics, 6th edn.
Xlibris Publishing Co., New York
67. Krishnaswamy NR, Rajagopal K, Latha GM (2000) Model stud-
ies on geocell supported embankments constructed over a soft
clay foundation. Geotech Test J 23(1):45–54
68. Lambert S, Nicot F, Gotteland P (2011) Uniaxial compressive
behaviour of scrapped tire and sand filled wire netted geocell
with a geotextile envelop. Geotext Geomembr 29:483–490
69. Latha GM, Rajagopal K (2007) Parametric finite element
analyses of geocell supported embankments. Can Geotech J
44(8):917–927
70. Latha GM, Somwanshi A (2009) Effect of reinforcement form
on the bearing capacity of square footing on sand. Geotext
Geomembr 27:409–422
71. Latha GM, Dash SK, Rajagopal K (2009) Numerical simulation
of the behaviour of geocell reinforced sand foundations. Int J
Geomech 9(4):143–152
72. Latha GM, Nair A, Hemalatha M (2010) Performance of geosyn-
thetics in unpaved roads. Int J Geotech Eng 4(3):337–349
73. Leshchinsky B, Ling H (2013) Effects of geocell confinement on
strength and deformation behaviour of gravel. J Geotech Geoen-
viron Eng 139(2):340–352
74. Mamatha KH, Dinesh SV (2019) Performance evaluation of
geocell-reinforced pavements. Int J Geotech Eng 13(3):277–286
75. Mandal JN, Gupta P (1994) Stability of geocell reinforced soil.
Constr Build Mater 8:55–62
76. Mengelt M, Edil TB, Benson CH (2006) Resilient modulus and
plastic deformation of soil confined in a geocell. Geosynth Int
13(5):195–205. https://​doi.​org/​10.​1680/​gein.​2006.​13.5.​195
77. Mhaiskar SY, Mandal JN (1992) Soft clay subgrade stabilization
using geocells. Grouting. ASCE, Soil improvement and geosyn-
thetics, pp 1092–1103
78. Mhaiskar SY, Mandal JN (1996) Investigations on soft clay
subgrade strengthening using geocells. Constr Build Mater
10(4):281–286
79. NCHRP 1–37A (2004) Mechanistic-empirical pavement design
guide. Draft report, Part 2 Design Inputs
80. Neto JOA, Bueno BS, Futai MM (2013) A bearing capacity cal-
culation method for soil reinforced with a geocell. Geosynth Int
20(3):129–142
81. Ohio state deptartment of transportation (ODOT) (2006) Pave-
ment condition rating system, Columbus, OH
82. Perkins S (1999) Mechanical response of geosynthetic-reinforced
flexible pavements. Geosynth Int 6(5):347–382
83. Perkins SW, Ismeik M (1997) A synthesis and evaluation of
geosynthetic-reinforced base layers in flexible pavements: part
I. Geosynth Int 4(6):549–604
84. Pezo R F (1993) A general method of reporting resilient modulus
tests of soils—a pavement engineer’s point of view. Paper no:
93082, 72nd annual meeting of the transportation research board,
Washington
85. Pokharel SK, Han J, Leshchinsky D, Parsons RL (2018) Experi-
mental evaluation of geocell-reinforced bases under repeated
loading. Int J Pavement Res Technol 11(2):114–127
86. Pokharel S K, Han J, Leshchinsky D, Parsons R L, and Halahmi
I (2009) Behaviour of geocell-reinforced granular bases under
static and repeated loads. International foundation congress and
equipment expo, 409–416
87. Pokharel SK, Han J, Leshchinsky D, Parsons RL, Halahmi I
(2010) Investigation of factors influencing behavior of single
geocell-reinforced bases under static loading. Geotext Geomembr
28:570–578
88. Pokharel SK, Han J, Manandhar C, Yang XM, Leshchinsky D,
Halahmi I, Parsons RL (2011) Accelerated pavement testing of
geocell-reinforced unpaved roads over weak subgrade. Transp
Res Record J Transp Res Board 2204:67–75
89. Rai M (2010) Geocell-sand mattress overlying soft clay sub-
grade: behaviour under circular loading. PhD thesis, IIT guwa-
hati, India-Dought
90. Rajagopal K, Chandramouli S, Parayil A, Iniyan K (2014)
Studies on geosynthetic reinforced road pavement structures.
Int J Geotech Eng 8(3):287–298
91. Rajagopal K, Krishnaswamy NR, Latha GM (1999) Behaviour
of sand confined with single and multiple geocells. Geotext
Geomembr 17(3):171–184
92. Rajagopal K, Veeraragavan A, Chandramouli S (2012) Studies
on geocell reinforced road pavement structures. Geosynthetics
Asia, Thailand
93. Rea C, and Mitchell J K (1978) Sand reinforcement using paper
grid cells. Proceedings symposium on earth reinforcement,
ASCE annual convention, Pittsburgh, PA, pp. 644–663
94. Saride S, Gowrisetti S, Sitharam TG, Puppala AJ (2009)
Numerical simulations of sand and clay. Proceed Inst Civ Eng
Ground Improve 162(GI4):185–198
95. Saride S, Rayabharapu V, Vedpathak S (2014) Evaluation of
rutting behavior of geocell reinforced sand subgrades under
repeated loading. Indian Geotech J 45(4):378–388
96. Seed H B, Mitry F G, Monismith C L, and Chan C K (1967)
Prediction of flexible pavement deflections from laboratory
repeated load tests. NCHRP report 35, Highway research
board, national research council, Washington
97. Shackel B (1973) Repeated loading of soils–a review. Aust
Road Res 5(3):22–49
98. Shahin MY (1994) Pavement management for airports, roads
and parking lots. Chapman and Hall, New York
99. Sharma M, Inti S, Tirado C, and Tandon V (2016) Evaluating
the benefits of geocell reinforcement of the base course in flex-
ible pavement structures using 3-d finite element modeling. In:
International conference on transportation and development,
pp. 728–739
100. Sheikh IR, Shah MY (2020) Experimental study on geocell
reinforced base over dredged soil using static plate load test.
Int J Pavement Res Technol 13:286–95
101. Sheikh IR, Mandhaniya P, Shah MY (2021) A parametric study
on pavement with geocell reinforced rock quarry waste base on
dredged soil subgrade. Int J Geosynth Ground Eng 7:32
102. Siabil SMAG, Tafreshi MSN, Dawson AR (2020) Response
of pavement foundations incorporating both geocells and
expanded polystyrene (EPS) geofoam. Geotext Geomembr
48:1–23
103. Sireesh S, Sitharam S, Dash SK (2009) Bearing capacity of cir-
cular footing on geocell-sand mattress overlying clay bed with
void. Geotext Geomembr 27:89–98. https://​doi.​org/​10.​1016/j.​
geote​xmem.​2008.​09.​005
13

104. Sitharam TG, Hegde A (2013) Design and construction of geo-
cell foundation to support the embankment on soft settled red
mud. Geotext Geomembr 41:55–63
105. Sitharam TG, Sireesh S (2005) Behaviour of embedded footings
supported on geocell reinforced foundation beds. Geotech Test J
28(5):452–463
106. Sitharam TG, Hegde AM, Kolathayar S (2020) Geocells
advances and applications. Springer, Cham
107. Sitharam TG, Sireesh S, Dash SK (2005) Model studies of a cir-
cular footing supported on geocell-reinforced clay. Can Geotech
J 42(2):693–703
108. Suku L, Prabhu SS, Ramesh P, Babu GS (2016) Behavior of
geocell reinforced granular base under repeated loading. Transp
Geotech 9:17–30. https://​doi.​org/​10.​1061/​41023​(337)​52
109. Tafreshi SNM, Dawson AR (2010) Comparison of bearing capac-
ity of a strip footing on sand with geocell and with planar forms
of geotextile reinforcement. Geotext Geomembr 28(1):72–84.
https://​doi.​org/​10.​1016/j.​geote​xmem.​2009.​09.​003
110. Tafreshi SNM, Dawson AR (2012) A comparison of static and
cyclic loading responses of foundations on geocell reinforced
sand. Geotext Geomembr 32:55–68
111. Tafreshi SNM, Khalaj O, Dawson AR (2014) Repeated loading
of soil containing granulated rubber and multiple geocell layers.
Geotext Geomembr 42:25–38
112. Tafreshi SNM, Siabil SMAG, Azizian M (2021) EPS geofoam
pavement foundations overlaid by geocell-reinforced soil under
static loading: large-scale tests and numerical modeling. J Mater
Civ Eng. https://​doi.​org/​10.​1061/​(ASCE)​MT.​1943-​5533.​00036​
15
113. Takemura J, Okamura M, Suesmasa N, and Kimura T (1992)
Bearing capacity and deformations of sand reinforced with
geogrids. In: Proceedings of earth reinforcement practice,
Balkema, Fukuoka, Kyushu, Japan, 695–700
114. Tanyu BF, Aydilek AH, Lau AW, Edil TB, Benson CH (2013)
Laboratory evaluation of geocell-reinforced gravel sub base over
poor subgrades. Geosynth Int 20(2):46–71
115. Tavakoli M, Tafreshi SNM, Dawson AR (2012) Combined use
of geocell reinforcement and rubber soil mixtures to improve
performance of buried pipes. Geotext Geomembr 34:116–130
116. Thakur JK, Han J, Parsons RL (2016) Factors Influencing defor-
mations of geocell-reinforced recycled asphalt pavement bases
under cyclic loading. J Mater Civ Eng 29(3):04016240
117. Thakur JK, Han J, Pokharel SK, Parsons RL (2012) Perfor-
mance of geocell-reinforced recycled asphalt pavement (RAP)
bases over weak subgrade under cyclic plate. Geotext Geomembr
35:14–24
118. Thallak SG, Saride S, Dash SK (2007) Performance of surface
footing on geocell reinforced soft clay beds. J Geotech Geol Eng
25:509–524
13
View publication stats
Indian Geotech J
119. Uzan J (1985) Characterization of granular material. Transporta-
tion research record 1022, National research council, Washing-
ton, pp. 52–59
120. Walker D (2002) Pavement surface evaluation and rating
(PASER): Asphalt roads. In: Entine L (ed) Wisconsin transpor-
tation information center. Madison
121. Washington state department of transportation (WSDOT) 1999
Pavement surface condition field rating manual for asphalt pave-
ments. Olympia, WA
122. Webster S L (1979) Investigation of beach sand trafficability
enhancement using sand-grid confinement and membrane rein-
forcement concepts. Technical report, report number: GL-79–20
(1), U.S. army engineer waterways experiment station, Vicks-
burg, Mississippi
123. Witczak MW, and Uzan J (1988) The universal airport pavement
design system. Report I of V: granular material characterization,
department of civil engineering, university of Maryland, College
Park, Maryland
124. Yang X, Han J, Leshchinsky D, Parsons RL (2013) A three
dimensional mechanistic-empirical model for geocell-reinforced
unpaved roads. Acta Geotech 8(2):201–213
125. Yang X, Han J, Parsons RL, Leshchinsky D (2010) Three-dimen-
sional numerical modelling of single geocell reinforced sand.
Front Architecture Civ Eng China 4(2):233–240
126. Yang X, Han J, Pokharel SK, Manandhar C, Parsons RL,
Leshchinsky D, Halahmi I (2012) Accelerated pavement testing
of unpaved roads with geocell reinforced sand bases. Geotext
Geomembr 32:95–103
127. Yoon YW, Heo SB, Kim KS (2008) Geotechnical performance
of waste tires for soil reinforcement from chamber tests. Geotext
Geomembr 26:100–107
128. Zhang L, Zhao M, Shi C, Zhao H (2010) Bearing capacity of
geocell reinforcement in embankment engineering. Geotext
Geomembr 28:475–482
129. Zhang MX, Javadi AA, Min X (2006) Triaxial tests of sand rein-
forced with 3D inclusions. Geotext Geomembr 24:201–209
130. Zhou H, Wen X (2008) Model studies on geogrid-or geocell-
reinforced sand cushion on soft soil. Geotext Geomembr
26(3):231–238
Publisher’s Note Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to
jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.
Springer Nature or its licensor (e.g. a society or other partner) holds
exclusive rights to this article under a publishing agreement with the
author(s) or other rightsholder(s); author self-archiving of the accepted
manuscript version of this article is solely governed by the terms of
such publishing agreement and applicable law.