Indian Geotech J (April 2023) 53(2):422–436
https://doi.org/10.1007/s40098-022-00689-x
ORIGINAL PAPER
Numerical Study on the Behaviour of Geocell-Reinforced Sand
Layer Overlying Soft Clay Subgrade
Gaurav Juneja1 • Ravi Kumar Sharma1
Received: 10 May 2022 / Accepted: 28 October 2022 / Published online: 18 November 2022
 The Author(s), under exclusive licence to Indian Geotechnical Society 2022
Abstract This study presents the load-carrying capacity of
the square footing placed on the geocell-reinforced sand
layer overlying soft clay subgrade by using finite element
analysis. A detailed numerical analysis was performed by
considering various parameters such as the thickness of the
sand layer overlying soft clay subgrade (H), height of the
geocell layer (h), relative density of the sand layer (Rd),
pocket-size of geocell (p), and stiffness of the geocell
(K) to investigate their effect on the improvement factor
and load-carrying capacity by using three-dimensional
ABAQUS software with Mohr–coulomb soil model (M–C).
Modelling of the geocell has been done by considering the
continuous membrane element in the ABAQUS software.
The numerical analysis results indicate that the inclusion of
the geocell reinforcement in the sand layer overlying soft
clay subgrade transfer the applied load to a lesser depth
compared to unreinforced soil and increases the bearing
capacity of the foundation system. The numerical analysis
results were also verified with the experimental results
available in the literature and multiple regression analysis
model. This study shows that the prediction of the accuracy
of the results was quite good with the experimental results
and generated regression model.
Keywords Geocell  Load-carrying capacity 
Finite element analysis  Clay subgrade  ABAQUS
& Gaurav Juneja
juneja.gaurav@nith.ac.in
Ravi Kumar Sharma
rksnithp61@gmail.com
1
Civil Engineering Department, NIT Hamirpur, Hamirpur,
HP, India
123
Introduction
Infrastructural expansion and urbanization have resulted in
a major increase in demand for land space in recent years.
This has forced the construction sector to upgrade soft soil
grounds that would otherwise be unsuitable for construc-
tion activity. There are various soil improvement tech-
niques developed by many geotechnical engineers, but out
of which geosynthetic reinforcement is the most accepted
soil improvement technique in recent days [1–3]. This is
mostly due to its ease of construction and overall economy,
which is popular among practicing engineers. Geosynthetic
reinforcements in various forms such as geotextile, geo-
grid, and geocell are available according to their require-
ments and suitability. In recent days, Geocell
reinforcement has been employed in various civil engi-
neering applications, including slope stability, retaining
structures, foundations, pavement construction, and so on
[4–10]. Geocells are 3-dimensional expanding panels-like
structures, made up of high-density synthetic materials.
Due to its three-dimensional structure, it offers all-around
confinement to the infill material which tends to increase
the bearing capacity and reduces the settlement of the
footing. There were various fields and experimental studies
had been done by various researchers to analyse the effect
of geocell reinforcement below the footing base [11–21].
The confinement effect offered by the geocell walls on the
infilled materials was examined by triaxial compression
studies [22–24]. Numerical analysis of geocell reinforce-
ment is difficult due to its intricate 3D honeycomb struc-
ture. Many researchers used analogous composite
techniques to simulate the geocell. In this technique, geo-
cell-soil composite acting as soil layer with enhanced
strength and stiffness characteristics [25–30]. For the
convenience of modelling, the geocell’s honeycomb form
Indian Geotech J (April 2023) 53(2):422–436 423

is treated as an analogous square box or cylindrical form in The chosen stratified soil model had dimensions of
various numerical studies [28, 31–33]. Geocells modelling 1000 mm along the length and breadth and 750 mm along
as a square and cylindrical form does not distribute the with the depth. To eliminate the boundary effect, a mini-
stresses uniformly along the perimeter of the geocell. mum of 6.5 times the footing width along with the x- and
However, [30, 34, 35] analysed the geocell reinforced sand y-directions and 4.5 times along the z-direction was pro-
foundation systems by modelling the actual curved hon- vided from the footing margins [37]. To incorporate the
eycomb shape of the geocell [36] modelled the hexagonal real ground condition, vertical side of the model was
geometry of the geocell in their study. In case of actual restricted from the horizontal movement and the base was
curved honeycomb geometry of geocell, the walls of the fixed in all the three translational and rotational degree of
geocell at the weld joints are not being completely utilized freedom, as shown in Fig. 1. The analysis of model has
in distributing the stresses uniformly. If the geocell is been done in three different steps. First step is initial
modelled as the hexagonal shape, all the six sides of the condition, in which boundary conditions are described and
geocell equally participate in distributing the stresses. In surcharge load is applied on the footing. During the gen-
the hexagonal geometry all the six sides are fixed perfectly eration of initial condition, a lateral earth pressure coeffi-
together compared to other polygon shapes and possesses cient (Ko) is calculated by using Jaky’s formula Ko = 1 -
the highest surface/perimeter ratio which results in Sin (Ø) for sand and Ko = 0.95 - Sin (Ø) for clay. In this
requiring the least amount of material to hold the maxi- study, different values of Ko were evaluated for sand and
mum weight and the stresses are uniformly distributed clay for different friction angle values. In the next step, the
along the perimeter of the geocell. Therefore, an attempt geostatic condition is applied in which the gravity load is
was made to model the hexagonal geometry of the geocell
in the present study. However, very limited studies are
available in the literature to analyse the effect of geocell
reinforced sand overlying soft clay by using numerical
analysis technique. As a result, substantial numerical
analysis was performed in this study to understand the
effect of geometric parameters of the geocell on the geo-
cell-reinforced sand bed overlying the soft clay by using
FEM base ABAQUS 3D software. In this study, the effect
of sand layer thickness (H), the relative density of sand
layer (Rd), height of geocell reinforcement (h), pocket size
of the geocell (p), and stiffness of the geocell reinforce-
ment (K) on the bearing capacity of the footing was
investigated by using finite element analysis. Sensitivity
analysis was also performed by considering various geo-
metric parameters of the geocell reinforcement affecting
the ultimate bearing capacity of the non-homogeneous
(sand overlying clay) foundation bed. A comparison of
numerical analysis results was attempted with the model
obtained from the multiple regression analysis. The model
equation obtained from the multiple regression analysis for
calculating the ultimate bearing capacity of the geocell
reinforced non-homogeneous foundation bed was finally
proposed in this paper.

Problem Description and Soil Properties

In the present study, ABAQUS software was used to

analyse the pressure-settlement behaviour of square footing
placed on geocell reinforced sand overlying soft clay
subjected to concentric vertical load. For the analysis of
stratified behaviour of the soil different thickness ratios of
Fig. 1 Numerical models of square footing placed on geocell
the soil layer was used. The square footing of 150 mm reinforced sand overlying clay (a) restrained geometry (b) embedded
width and 15 mm thickness has been used for the analysis. geocell geometry

123
424 Indian Geotech J (April 2023) 53(2):422–436

Table 1 Properties of sand and clay used in numerical analysis

Properties Loose sand (Rd = 30%) Medium sand (Rd = 50%) Dense sand (Rd = 70%) Clay

Friction angles, Ø 32.4 36 39.6 7

Unit weight, c (kN/m3) 13.5 15 16.5 20.2
Young’s modulus, E (MPa) 19.2 34.8 51.6 15
Dilation angle, W 2.4 6 39.6 –
Cohesion, c (kPa) 0 0 0 10
Poisson’s ratio, l 0.3 0.33 0.35 0.35

Table 2 Properties of geocell and footing used in numerical analysis

Properties Values limit (Lp), and mass density (c) of the bottom clay layer
was taken as 40%, 19% and 20.2 kN/m3 as per [29]. As per
Geocell
unified soil classification system the clay layer was clas-
Unit weight, c (kN/m3) 9.5
sified as clay with intermediate plasticity (CI). The detailed
Young’s modulus, E (MPa) 275
material parameters of sand and clay used in the numerical
Poisson’s ratio, l 0.45
analysis are summarized in Table 1. The interface strength
Cell size (mm) 60 9 62
factor (d) between sand and geocell wall was taken 0.8.
Strip thickness, t (mm) 1.53
The material properties of the geocell reinforcement as per
Footing
[29] and footing are tabulated in Table 2.
Unit weight, c (kN/m3) 23
Young’s modulus, E (MPa) 210,000
Soil Model and Finite Element Meshing
Poisson’s ratio, l 0.2

In the present study, a Mohr–Coulomb (M–C) material

applied to the model. In the third step, a vertical dis-
placement of s/B = 15% is applied on the top of the footing
where s is vertical settlement and B is the width of the
footing. The duration for the analysis steps were taken as
100 s for all the tests to avoid the sudden collapse of soil
body. The soil model consisted of two layers, the upper
layer was taken as sand and the bottom layer was clay. The
water table was believed to not affect the bearing capacity
calculation. The sand used in the base layer is classified as
poorly graded sand (SP) as per the unified soil classifica-
tion system. The friction angle (Ø) of the sand corre-
sponding to the relative densities (Rd) 30%, 50% and 70%
was calculated as 32.4, 36 and 39.6 by using the relation
Ø = 25 ? 0.18(Rd) given by [38]. The unit weights (c)
corresponding to these friction angles (Ø) was calculated
from the range recommended by [39]. Young’s modulus
(E) for sand was calculated by using the relation given by
[39] corresponding to the standard penetration resistance
(N) values as 1200 (N ? 6) kPa. The N values were taken
corresponding to the friction angle values as per [40]. The
values of dilation angle (W) for sand were calculated by
using relation W = Ø - 30 for different values of friction
angle of sand as per [41]. The values of Poisson’s ratio (l)
were varied from 0.3 to 0.35 as per the range recommended
by [42]. The subgrade layer used in the present study was
considered as soft clay layer. The liquid limit (Ll), plastic
model is used to model the stratified soil, which represents
the sand layer overlying clay soil. In common practice, the
M–C model is chosen since it is appropriate and incorpo-
rates only a few soil parameters that occur in soil [35]. The
failure condition of stresses is well defined in the M–
C criteria of failure when the effective properties of soil are
considered. The M–C model requires less computational
time compared to other soil models [37]. The behaviour of
the geocell was simulated using the linear elastic model.
The continuous membrane element (M3D4R) was used to
model the geometry of the geocell. The Mohr–Coulomb
yield criteria were used to describe the stress–strain beha-
viour of the interface between geocell and sand [35, 43].
An extremely fine mesh requires more processing time for
analysis and a very coarse mesh was enabled to capture the
complete characteristics of the specified problem. As a
result, finer to coarser meshes were utilised for numerical
modelling. Near the square footing, a finer mesh is
employed, while the coarser mesh is used as the distance
from the footing increases. Because of the geocell’s com-
plex honeycomb structure, the global mesh was employed
in the geocell model. For modelling, an 8-node linear brick
(C3D8R) element was employed for soil layered profile.
For the analysis, the number of elements obtained for the
sand layer was 44,100, for clay layer 60,745, for geocell
1775 and for footing was 450. The generated mesh
obtained for the numerical analysis are shown in Fig. 2.

123
Indian Geotech J (April 2023) 53(2):422–436 425

K on the bearing capacity were investigated, while other

parameters were maintained constant. Dash et al.
[5, 16, 44] reported that the optimum placement depth of
the geocell reinforcement lies in the range of 0.05–0.3
times the footing size. In all the tests, the placement depth
of the geocell was maintained at 0.1B below the footing
base.

Results and Discussion

The effect of the various factors considered for the analysis

Fig. 2 Generated mesh model of numerical analysis
Parameter Analysis Program
The detailed numerical analysis program by using different
input parameters such as (Rd), (H), (h), (p), and (K) are
summarized in Table 3. Five different series of numerical
analysis programs with different combinations were used to
study their impact on the bearing capacity. Series 1
includes the analysis of the unreinforced clay foundation
system. Series 2 includes the analysis of unreinforced
foundation system having different thicknesses of the sand
layer (H) overlying clay subgrade for different relative
densities of sand layer. Series 3 includes studying the effect
of H, h, and Rd with varying thickness of H, while p and
K were kept constant. In series 4 and 5, the effect of p and
on the failure behaviour and bearing capacity of footing
placed on unreinforced and geocell-reinforced sand is
described in the following sections. The results are reported
in the form of pressure versus footing settlement ratios (s/B
%). The improvement factor (If) was further used to discuss
the enhancement in soil bearing capacity caused by the
incorporation of the geocell reinforcement. Generally,
improvement in the bearing capacity of the foundation
system by provision of reinforcement should be examined
in terms of footing settlement [13, 17]. As a result, in the
current study, bearing capacity increases were assessed at
various settlement levels and reported as improvement
factors. Generally, improvement in the bearing capacity of
the foundation system by provision of the reinforcement
should be examined in terms of footing settlement. In this
study, the improvement factor for unreinforced and geo-
cell-reinforced sand overlying soft clay subgrade was
evaluated with respect to the uniform clay bed. The

Table 3 Details of numerical analysis program

Series Details Foundation system Rd (%) H/B h/B p/ K (kN/m)
B

1 Test on uniform clay Unreinforced

2 Test on unreinforced sand layer overlying clay Unreinforced 30 0.63
50 1.15
70 1.67
2.19
3 Effect of H/B, h/B and Rd Reinforced 30 0.63 0.53 0.4 1000
50 1.15 1.05
70 1.67 1.57
2.19 2.09
4 Effect of p/B Reinforced 30 2.19 2.09 0.4 1000
0.6
0.8
5 Effect of K Reinforced 30 2.19 2.09 0.4 200
500
1000
1500

123
426 Indian Geotech J (April 2023) 53(2):422–436

improvement factor for the unreinforced layer (Ifu) is

expressed as the ratio of bearing capacity of the unrein-
forced sand layer overlying clay subgrade (qsu) to that of
the clay layer only (qo), at the same displacement level,
expressed in Eq. 1.
Ifu½s=B ¼ ½qsu =qo s=B ð1Þ

Similarly, the improvement factor for the geocell-

reinforced layer (Ifg) is expressed as the ratio of bearing
capacity of the geocell-reinforced sand layer overlying clay
subgrade (qsg) to that of the clay layer only (qo), at the
same displacement level, expressed in Eq. 2.
 
Ifg½s=B ¼ qsg =qo s=B ð2Þ

The consequence of the several parameters such as the

effect of thickness of sand layer overlying soft clay
subgrade, height of the geocell reinforcement, relative
density of the sand layer, pocket size of the geocell,
stiffness of the geocell on the bearing capacity
improvement are discussed in the following sections.

Pressure-Settlement Response

The pressure-settlement behaviour of square footing placed

on unreinforced (Unf) and geocell-reinforced sands (Rf)
(with relative densities 30%, 50%, and 70%) overlying soft
clay are demonstrated in Fig. 3a–c. The improvement is
observed in the load-settlement behaviour of the geocell-
reinforced foundation system compared to unreinforced
ones. As we can see that, for unreinforced soil the reduc-
tion in slope of the pressure-settlement curve was observed
at 8–10% of the footing width, indicating the failure of the
foundation bed. The steep slope is observed at higher set-
tlement values especially in dense sand. In case of geocell
reinforced foundation bed, no clear-cut failure was
observed even at the large settlement of the soil. Provision
of geocell reinforcement increase the performance of the
footing in terms of bearing capacity and reduces the set-
tlement by providing lateral and vertical confinement and
stress dispersion resulting in spreading the load pressure
bulb up to a lesser depth. Due to this, the influence of
pressure bulb was limited up to the height of geocell and Fig. 3 Bearing pressure vs settlement for unreinforced (Unf) and
geocell reinforced (Rf) layer having different thicknesses (a) 30%
lesser stress is transferred to the subgrade, which may not (b) 50%, and (c) 70%
cause any failure to the subgrade. The obtained results
from the numerical analysis revealed different plots for to a 10% settlement ratio. In the double tangent method,
pressure-settlement behaviour, hence different methods the ultimate bearing capacity is considered at the inter-
were used to calculate the ultimate bearing capacity. If the section of the tangent drawn from the initial and final
definite peak in the curve is visible, then the ultimate points of the curve. In the present study, for unreinforced
bearing capacity is considered equivalent to the peak sand, the peak pressure was clearly observed in the case of
pressure. If the peak pressure is not clearly observed, then loose sand and for medium dense or dense sand the peak
the ultimate bearing capacity is computed by using the pressure was not clearly observed. Hence, the ultimate
double tangent method or a minimum value corresponding

123
Indian Geotech J (April 2023) 53(2):422–436 427

bearing pressure for medium-dense or dense sand can be

computed using the double-tangent method.

Effect of Thickness of Sand Layer

The effect of thickness of the sand layer on the bearing

capacity improvement factor of unreinforced and geocell-
reinforced sand overlying soft clay subgrade for different
relative densities of sand (30%, 50%, and 70%) are pre-
sented in Fig. 4a–c. The thickness of the sand layer was
varied from 0.63 to 2.19B (B is the size of the footing) as
presented in Table 3 (Series 3). The obtained results reveal
that the improvement factor increases significantly with
increasing the thickness of the sand layer over the clay
subgrade. For unreinforced sand having a relative density
of 30%, the improvement factor was increased from 1.07 to
5.04 with increasing the thickness of sand from 0.63 to 2.19
B. Similarly, for 50% and 70% relative density of sand, the
improvement factor was increased from 2.55 to 10.16 and
2.46 to 10.34, respectively. A similar observation has been
observed for reinforced sand. It is because for the lesser
thickness of the sand layer the influence of the pressure
bulb is transmitted to the subgrade and the higher stress is
transferred to the weak subgrade, resulting in failure of the
subgrade layer. However, with increasing the thickness of
the base layer the depth of the influence of the stress is
lesser in the subgrade layer and the pressure bulb is limited
to the sand layer or within the depth of the geocell for the
reinforced case. From the results shown in Fig. 4a–c, it can
be observed that the maximum improvement for geocell-
reinforced sand compared to unreinforced sand is observed
in loose sand because for the dense sand the soil was ini-
tially compacted and lesser stress is transferred to the
subgrade in unreinforced sand compared to loose sand. For
dense sand, with the downward displacement of footing
develops a complete plastic zone and leads to considerable
bulging of soil adjacent to the footing. A general shear
(c)
failure is observed accompanied by tilting of footing. In the
case of reinforced sands, the improvement factor was Fig. 4 Bearing capacity improvement factor for different thicknesses
increased significantly for all types of sands. The inclusion of sand layer (a) 30% (b) 50%, and (c) 70%
of the geocell reinforcement provides the all-around con-
finement for the infill material. The pockets of the geocell Effect of Height of the Geocell
reinforcement restrict the lateral mobilization of the sand
particles, as a result, the failure zone lies below the footing The numerical analysis was performed with different h/B
base and reduces surface deformation. The walls of the ratios of the geocell to analyse the effect of the height of
geocell reinforcement provide additional frictional resis- the geocell reinforcement as presented in Table 3 (Series
tance for the in-filled sand, which leads to an increase the 3). Figure 3 presents the pressure-settlement response for
performance. Dash et al. and Biswas et al. [6, 16] have the various height of the geocell embedded with sand
reported the same observation for their studies on geocell- having different relative densities. The height of the geo-
reinforced sand overlying clay bed. cell reinforcement was extended up to the maximum
thickness of the sand layer overlying soft clay. The height
of the geocell reinforcement was selected including the
sand cushion (u = 0.1 B) between the footing base and

123
428 Indian Geotech J (April 2023) 53(2):422–436

Fig. 5 Bearing capacity improvement factor for different height of the geocell (a) 30% (b) 50% (c) 70%

Fig. 6 a Bearing capacity versus settlement plots for different relative density. b Variation of BCR for different relative density for different
settlement ratios

123
Indian Geotech J (April 2023) 53(2):422–436
placement depth of the geocell to avoid immediate contact
between the footing and geocell. From the obtained results,
it could be observed that a considerable improvement in the
load-carrying capacity of the foundation system takes place
with the provision of the geocell reinforcement. For 30%
relative density of sand, the bearing capacity was increased
from 66.82 to 152.17 kPa with increasing the height of the
geocell from 0.53 to 2.10 B. For 50% and 70% relative
density of sand, the bearing capacity was increased from
102.37 to 207.26 kPa and 122.79 to 256.12 kPa. It can be
observed that with the increase in the height of the geocell
provides greater confinement for the lateral mobilization of
the sand particles and the whole assembly behave as a
composite material with enhanced stiffness for the load
transmission, resulting in higher bearing capacity [17].
Apart from this, with an increase in the height of the
geocell, the surface area gets increased resulted in greater
frictional resistance on the wall of the geocell, eventually
stopping the downward movement of the soil, as a result,
the geocell-soil composite system behaves as a rigid sur-
face to carrying the substantial load and dispersing it more
evenly to the underlying soft soil [6]. During loading, the
walls of the geocell exert an upward reaction and reduce
the net stress on the subgrade soil. The semi-rigid surface
effect of the geocell-reinforced sand layer distributes the
load evenly and effectively over a wider area resulting in
increasing bearing capacity and reduced settlement. Fig-
ure 5 presents the improvement factor for different h/B
ratios at different settlements. From the given results, it is
observed that the improvement factor increases signifi-
cantly with increases in the height of the geocell for all
settlement ratios.
Effect of Sand Relative Density
The numerical analysis was performed to study the effect
of relative density on the load-carrying capacity of
Fig. 7 Bearing capacity-settlement plots for different pocket sizes of
geocell
429
Fig. 8 Bearing capacity-settlement plots for different stiffness of the
geocell
reinforced or unreinforced sand as presented in Table 3
(Series 3). Figure 6a presents the pressure-settlement
response of geocell-reinforced foundation bed with a sand
layer thickness (H) of 2.19 B for various relative densities
(30%, 50% and 70%). The pressure settlement response
presented in Fig. 6a shows a smooth slope curve without
showing any failure until a settlement of 15% of the footing
width. The enhancement in bearing capacity with the
provision of geocell reinforcement is presented in terms of
bearing capacity ratio (BCR) for different relative densi-
ties. BCR is defined as the ratio of bearing capacity of the
foundation bed with the geocell reinforcement to the
unreinforced foundation bed. The variation of BCR for
different relative density values at different settlement
ratios are shown in Fig. 6b. The results presented in Fig. 6b
shows that BCR increases with increasing relative density
values. During the application of load, compression in
loose sand due to large number of voids subjected to
deformation and higher strain in required before any stress
is transmitted to the geocell reinforcement. In the case of
higher density of sand, due to the dilation behaviour leads
to mobilize greater strength from the geocell reinforcement
leading to improving the performance of the foundation
bed. BCR increases with increasing the relative density of
sand and footing settlement ratios. At lower settlement
ratios (s/B = 2%), very marginal improvement was
observed in the BCR and for higher settlement ratios
remarkable improvement in the BCR was observed with
increasing the relative density due to increasing the con-
finement pressure and load distribution. From Fig. 6b, it is
observed that very gentle slope is obtained for BCR with
increasing the relative density for a settlement ratio (s/B) of
2%. This conclude that equal increment is observed in
BCR values for all relative densities. Thus, for small set-
tlements, increasing the relative density of infilled sand is
not economical. And for higher footing settlement ratios,
enhancement in bearing capacity of geocell reinforcement
is greater for higher density infilled soil compared to loose
123
430
sand. The increment in BCR lies in the range of 1.63—3.42
for relative densities of infilled sand varying from 30 to
70% at settlement ratios of 2–15%. Fazeli Dehkordi et al.
[21, 45] reported the same observation in their study on the
behaviour of geocell reinforcement at different relative
densities.
Effect of Pocket Size of the Geocell
The numerical analysis was performed for different pocket
(p) sizes of the geocell reinforcement as presented in
Table 3 (Series 4). Regular hexagonal geometry is used for
the pocket of the geocell. The pocket-size (p) of the geocell
is taken as the area of the regular hexagon. According to
several researchers [5, 30, 33] the bearing capacity
improvement is observed with a decrease in the pocket size
of the geocell. In the present study, the pocket size of the
geocell was varied from 0.4 to 0.8 B as presented in Series
4. Figure 7 presents the pressure-settlement behaviour of
the geocell-reinforced foundation bed for different pocket
sizes of the geocell. The obtained results shows that the
bearing capacity increases with a decrease in the pocket
size of the geocell. As the pocket size of the geocell gets
decreases tends to increase the confinement area per unit
volume resulting in increasing the soil modulus inside the
infill sand. For smaller pocket size of the geocell the
number of interconnecting cells under the footing plate
increases. The geocell-reinforced sand layer behaves like a
semi-rigid layer with enhanced stiffness which results in
more passive resistance offered by the infilled soil com-
pared to large pocket size. Furthermore, the interaction
coefficient between sand and geocell gets increases with a
decrease in the pocket size of the geocell which leads to an
increase in the performance of the geocell.
Effect of Stiffness of Geocell
The numerical analysis was performed to study the effect
of stiffness (K) of the geocell reinforcement as presented in
Table 3 (Series 5). Four different values of the geocell
stiffness, i.e. 200 kN/m, 500 kN/m, 1000 kN/m, and
1500 kN/m were considered in the present study taken
from the study of [33] to investigate their impact on the
bearing capacity. Figure 8 presents the pressure-settlement
response for the geocell-reinforced foundation system
having different stiffness values of the geocell. According
to the results presented in Fig. 8, the bearing capacity is
increased with increasing the stiffness of the geocell. The
reason is that the lesser stiffer material is not capable to
generate maximum resistance for the mobilized soil parti-
cles and resulting in deformation of reinforcement with the
soil particle. On the other hand, higher stiffer geocell
material offered higher resistance for the mobilized soil
123
Indian Geotech J (April 2023) 53(2):422–436
particles and does not deform. The stiffer geocell rein-
forcement offers greater confinement for the infilled soil
and restrained the lateral mobilization of the sand particles
inside the geocell. The additional confinement pressure
increased the apparent cohesion between the sand and
geocell and tends to increase the modulus of sand inside the
geocell, resulting in enhancing the performance of the
geocell. In the present study, the maximum beneficial
effect of the geocell stiffness is obtained for K = 1000 kN/
m, further increasing the stiffness of the geocell, a very
marginal improvement in the bearing capacity was
observed. It is due to because for the same settlement
ratios, K = 1000 kN/m shows the maximum resistance for
the mobilization of the soil particles. Further increasing the
stiffness of the geocell does not create much difference in
the pressure-settlement response. According to various
researchers [30, 33, 46], the stiffness of the geocell sig-
nificantly improves the bearing capacity of the geocell
reinforced foundation system.
Validation of Numerical Model
To check the validity of the numerical models, the results
obtained from the numerical analysis have been compared
with the experimental results reported by [29]. In the
experimental work reported by [29], a small-scale labora-
tory setup was used to access the behaviour of geocell-
reinforced sand overlying soft clay. The test setup con-
sisted of a tank having dimensions 900 mm in length,
900 mm in width, and 600 mm in height with a square
footing of the size of 150 mm used to execute the experi-
mental work. The material property of the subgrade clay
layer and geocell material is same as used in the numerical
analysis work. The friction angle of sand Ø = 36 corre-
sponding to the relative density 50% is used for the com-
parison of results. The height ratio (h/B) of the geocell for
the comparison of reinforced sand were taken as h/B = 1.5
with equal placement depth of geocell, i.e. u = 0.1. The
comparison of results for geocell reinforced sand overlying
Fig. 9 Comparison of present numerical study with literature
Indian Geotech J (April 2023) 53(2):422–436 431

clay subgrade and unreinforced clay bed are presented in
Fig. 9. From the compared results it is observed that the
numerical modelling obtained results are in good agree-
ment with the experimental results reported in the
literature.
Regression Analysis
The nonlinear multiple regression analysis has been per-
formed on the whole dataset for the geocell-reinforced
foundation bed using DataFit 9.1 (trial version) software.
The regression equation obtained from the analysis are
shown below as Eq. 3 and the performance metrics that
were computed are represented in Table 4.
qult ¼ e½0:56ð B Þþ0:0215/þ0:068cþ0:825
H
ð3Þ
here H/B is the thickness ratio of the sand layer in terms of
footing width, Ø is the friction angle of sand, and c is the
apparent cohesion. Various researchers reported that the
provision of geocell reinforcement results in increasing the
apparent cohesion of the infilled materials due to
confinement offered by the walls of the geocell [29, 47].
The increase in apparent cohesion of the infilled sand layer
is calculated by using Eqs. (4) and (5) given by [47]. The
improvement in confining pressure (Dr3) for the infilled
sand due to the membrane confining effect of geocell is
given by.
2M h pffiffiffiffiffi i bution of stresses for all the cases remained within the
Dr3 ¼ 1  na=1  na ð4Þ
p specified lateral and vertical boundaries considered for the
here M is the secant modulus of the geocell material at
axial strain na. The value of M is generally considered
from the load-strain results of geocell material at axial
strain of 2%. In the present study, the value of M is
considered as 435 kN/m as per [29]. p is the pocket size of
the geocell reinforcement. The increase in apparent
cohesion (c) of the infilled sand due to geocell
reinforcement is given as:
Dr3 pffiffiffiffiffiffi
C¼ Kp ð5Þ
2
where Kp is the passive earth pressure coefficient value
calculated from the friction angle of infilled sand. The
additional confining pressure (Dr3) and apparent cohesion
values for geocell-reinforced sand layer were calculated
from Eqs. (4) and (5). The ultimate bearing capacity (qult)
of non-homogeneous (sand overlying clay) soil was given
as a dependent variable in this study. The coefficient of
determination (R2) was used to determine the degree of
adjustment of the regression line to the data, which is
defined as the ratio of the sum of squares to the regression
to the sum of squares about the mean. As presented in
Fig. 10, the coefficient of determination (R2) is observed as
0.9457, which indicated that the estimation obtained with
the model was quite reasonable. The proposed equation
obtained from the multiple regression analysis is helpful to
estimate the ultimate bearing capacity of the non-homo-
geneous (sand overlying clay) foundation bed reinforced
with geocell reinforcement.
Vertical Stress Contours
Figure 11 presents the vertical stress contours of unrein-
forced and geocell reinforced foundation system corre-
sponding to different relative density of sand (30%, 50%
and 70%). The given stress contours are represented at the
applied vertical stress equal to the ultimate bearing
capacity of the unreinforced foundation bed. The distri-
numerical analysis. For all the cases of unreinforced sand,
the distribution of stresses was extended up to a greater
depth compared to unreinforced case. Higher magnitude of
the pressure bulb was observed in case of loose sand
compared to dense sand. The magnitude of stresses is
transferred to a lesser depth with increasing the relative
density of the sand layer. For the geocell-reinforced sand
layer, the stresses are transferred in the lateral direction and
the infilled interconnected pockets of the geocell layer
behaves as a semi rigid slab and transferred the applied

Table 4 Performance measures for multiple regression analysis

model
Performance measures Multiple regression analysis

Correlation coefficient, r 0.92

Coefficient of determination, R2 0.9457
Mean square error 20804.62
Root mean square error 423.56
Mean absolute error 198.23
Mean absolute percentage error 49.14
Fig. 10 Variation of observed and predicted bearing capacity

123
432 Indian Geotech J (April 2023) 53(2):422–436

Fig. 11 Vertical stress contours for different relative densities of sand (a) a, d for 30% Rd (b) b, e for 50% Rd and (c) c, f for 70% Rd

load to a wider area and very small stress is transferred to
the subgrade layer which results in increasing the perfor-
mance of the foundation bed.
Displacement Contours
Figure 12 presents the vertical displacement contours of
unreinforced and geocell-reinforced foundation system
corresponding to different relative densities of sand as

123
Indian Geotech J (April 2023) 53(2):422–436 433

Fig. 12 Displacement contours for different relative densities of sand (a) a, d for 30% Rd (b) b, e for 50% Rd and (c) c, f for 70% Rd

30%, 50%, and 70% respectively. The given displacement the foundation bed. The given figures illustrate the entire
contours of reinforced foundation system are representing displacement contours and their significance is to analyse
at the height ratio (h/B) of 2.09. The given displacement the real displacement under load. The vertical displacement
contours are represented at the ultimate bearing capacity of contours data is helpful to determine the vertical settlement

123
434 Indian Geotech J (April 2023) 53(2):422–436

in the footing design is within an acceptable limit or not effect of various parameters such as the thickness of the
under the given load. From the analysis of displacement sand layer overlying clay subgrade, the height of the geo-
contours, it is observed that the geocell reinforcement cell, the relative density of the sand layer, the pocket size
reduced the vertical settlement of the footing and heaving of the geocell, and the stiffness of the geocell on the
of soil surrounding the footing compared to unreinforced bearing capacity were investigated and further validated
cases. The maximum reduction in the settlement is with the experimental data. Based on the findings, the
observed in the case of dense sand having a relative density following conclusions are presented:
of 70%. The confinement offered by the geocell walls
• The findings of the numerical analysis performed by
decreases the heaving of the sand surrounding the footing.
three-dimensional ABAQUS software using the Mohr–
Pokharel et al. [14, 30] reported that the frictional forces
coulomb model (M–C) correlate well with the exper-
between sand and geocell walls opposes the vertical
imental results reported by Biswas et al. [16]. It shows
movement of sand. Furthermore, for all the cases of
that the numerical modelling of the geocell-reinforced
unreinforced and geocell reinforced foundation system the
foundation system was precisely modelled using
displacement contours remained within the specified lateral
ABAQUS software.
and vertical boundaries. This signifies that the horizontal
• The incorporation of the geocell layer in the sand
and vertical boundaries chosen for the specified problem
overlying soft clay subgrade spread the applied load to
were adequate.
a lesser depth compared to the unreinforced case,
results in preventing the subgrade failure.
• The bearing capacity improvement factor for unrein-
Limitation of Study
forced and geocell-reinforced sand layer overlying clay
subgrade increases significantly with increasing the
The numerical analysis results reported in the present study
thickness of the sand layer. The improvement factor
with the small-scale model are susceptible to scale effect.
increases from 1.07 to 10.34 for unreinforced soil and
According to [48] the results of the small-scale model tests
2.55–17.41 for reinforced soil for different sand layer
can be used for the prototype case by applying the suit-
thicknesses.
able scale factors. To obtain the similarity of the stresses
• The bearing capacity of the foundation system increases
and settlement of the footing, it is necessary to maintain
significantly with increasing the height ratio (h/B) of the
similar geometric dimensions and similar stiffness of the
geocell. The bearing capacity increased from 66.82 to
material between small scale model and prototype.
256.12 kPa for different heights of the geocell layer.
According to [49] if ‘N’ is the scale factor, then the stiff-
• The effectiveness of the geocell reinforcement
ness of the soil used in the small-scale model is taken as (1/
increases with increasing the relative density (Rd) of
N)a times the stiffness of soil used in the prototype model,
the sand.
where a is the material constant. Similarly, the load cal-
• The load-carrying capacity of the geocell-reinforced
culated in case of a small-scale model is (1/N)1-a times the
foundation system is greatly affected by the pocket size
load in the prototype model. As a consequence, the
(p) of the geocell. The decrease in the pocket size of the
extrapolated findings may be used for limited prototype
geocell tends to increase the confinement area per unit
uses. Accordingly, despite the limitations, the small-scale
volume resulting in increasing the soil modulus inside
model numerical analysis conducted in the present work
the infill sand.
are moreover enough to demonstrate the effectiveness of
• The stiffness of the geocell layer greatly affects the
the geocell reinforcement used in the sand layer overlying
load-carrying capacity of the geocell-reinforced foun-
soft clay. The findings of the present study are helpful in
dation system. From the given results, the optimum
analysing the general mechanism as well as the failure
stiffness of the geocell reinforcement was obtained as
trends of the results. The results might be used to provide
1000 kPa.
the basic regulations for the design of a geocell reinforced
sand layer overlying soft clay for the large-scale model
tests and generation of analytical model.
Funding No funding was received for carrying out the present
research work.

Conclusion Declarations

This paper presents the three-dimensional numerical anal- Conflict of interest The authors declare that they have no conflict of
interest.
ysis results to describe the mechanism and performance of
geocell-reinforced sand layer overlying clay subgrade. The

123
Indian Geotech J (April 2023) 53(2):422–436
References
1. Dallqua GP, Ghataora GS, Ling UK (2010) Behaviour of fibre-
reinforced and stabilized clayey soils subjected to cyclic loading.
Stud Geotech Mech 32(3):3–16
2. Denine S, Della N, Muhammed RD, Feia SA, Canou J, Dupla JC
(2016) Effect of geotextile reinforcement on shear strength of
sandy soil: laboratory study. Studia Geotech Mech 38(4):3
3. Useche-Infante D, Aiassa Martinez G, Arrúa P, Eberhardt M
(2022) Experimental study of behaviour of circular footing on
geogrid-reinforced sand. Geomech Geoeng 17(1):45–63.
https://doi.org/10.1080/17486025.2019.1683621
4. Bush DI, Jenner CG, Bassett RH (1990) The design and con-
struction of geocell foundation mattresses supporting embank-
ments over soft grounds. Geotext Geomembr 9(1):83–98
5. Dash SK, Rajagopal K, Krishnaswamy NR (2001) Strip footing
on geocell reinforced sand beds with additional planar rein-
forcement. Geotext Geomembr 19(8):529–538
6. 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(4):197–219
7. Dash SK, Rajagopal K, Krishnaswamy NR (2004) Performance
of different geosynthetic reinforcement materials in sand foun-
dations. Geosynth Int 11(1):35–42
8. Zhang L, Zhao M, Shi C, Zhao H (2010) Bearing capacity of
geocell reinforcement in embankment engineering. Geotext
Geomembr 28(5):475–482
9. Indraratna B, Biabani MM, Nimbalkar S (2015) Behavior of
geocell-reinforced subballast subjected to cyclic loading in plane-
strain condition. J Geotech Geoenviron Eng 141(1):04014081
10. Mehdipour B, Hashemolhosseini H, Mirmohamadsadeghi M
(2020) Investigating the effect of geocell changes on slope sta-
bility in unsaturated soil. Tehnički Glasnik 14(1):66–75
11. Mhaiskar SY, Mandal JN (1996) Investigations on soft clay
subgrade strengthening using geocells. Constr Build Mater
10(4):281–286
12. Zhou H, Wen X (2008) Model studies on geogrid-or geocell-
reinforced sand cushion on soft soil. Geotext Geomembr
26(3):231–238
13. Sireesh S, Sitharam TG, Dash SK (2009) Bearing capacity of
circular footing on geocell–sand mattress overlying clay bed with
void. Geotext Geomembr 27(2):89–98
14. 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(6):570–578
15. Tanyu BF, Aydilek AH, Lau AW, Edil TB, Benson CH (2013)
Laboratory evaluation of geocell-reinforced gravel subbase over
poor subgrades. Geosynth Int 20(2):47–61
16. Biswas A, Murali Krishna A, Dash SK (2013) Influence of sub-
grade strength on the performance of geocell-reinforced foun-
dation systems. Geosynth Int 20(6):376–388
17. Sherin KS, Chandrakaran S, Sankar N (2017) Effect of geocell
geometry and multi-layer system on the performance of geocell
reinforced sand under a square footing. Int J Geosynt Ground Eng
3(3):1–11
18. Fazeli Dehkordi P, Ghazavi M, Ganjian N, Karim UFA (2019)
Effect of geocell-reinforced sand base on bearing capacity of twin
circular footings. Geosynth Int 26(3):224–236
19. Fazeli Dehkordi P, Karim UFA (2020) Behaviour of circular
footings confined by rigid base and geocell reinforcement. Arab J
Geosci 13(20):1–12
20. 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(3):286–295
435
21. Fazeli Dehkordi P, Ghazavi M, Karim UF (2021) Bearing
capacity-relative density behavior of circular footings resting on
geocell-reinforced sand. Eu J Environ Civ Eng 26:5088
22. Rajagopal K, Krishnaswamy NR, Latha GM (1999) Behaviour of
sand confined with single and multiple geocells. Geotext Geo-
membr 17(3):171–184
23. Zhang MX, Javadi AA, Min X (2006) Triaxial tests of sand
reinforced with 3D inclusions. Geotext Geomembr
24(4):201–209
24. Benessalah I, Sadek M, Villard P, Arab A (2020) Undrained
triaxial compression tests on three-dimensional reinforced sand:
effect of the geocell height. Eur J Environ Civ Eng 26:1694
25. Bathurst RJ, Knight MA (1998) Analysis of geocell reinforced-
soil covers over large span conduits. Comput Geotech
22(3–4):205–219
26. Madhavi Latha G, Dash SK, Rajagopal K (2008) Equivalent
continuum simulations of geocell reinforced sand beds supporting
strip footings. Geotech Geol Eng 26(4):387–398
27. Latha GM, Dash SK, Rajagopal K (2009) Numerical simulation
of the behavior of geocell reinforced sand in foundations. Int J
Geomech 9(4):143–152
28. Hegde A, Sitharam TG (2013) Experimental and numerical
studies on footings supported on geocell reinforced sand and clay
beds. Int J Geotech Eng 7(4):346–354
29. Hegde A, Sitharam TG (2014) Effect of infill materials on the
performance of geocell reinforced soft clay beds. Geomech
Geoeng 10(3):163–173
30. Hegde A, Sitharam TG (2015) 3-Dimensional numerical mod-
elling of geocell reinforced sand beds. Geotext Geomembr
43(2):171–181. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.geotexmem
31. Han J, Yang X, Leshchinsky D, Parsons RL (2008) Behavior of
geocell-reinforced sand under a vertical load. Transp Res Rec
2045(1):95–101
32. Leshchinsky B, Ling HI (2013) Numerical modeling of behavior
of railway ballasted structure with geocell confinement. Geotext
Geomembr 36:33–43
33. Yünkül K, Usluoğulları ÖF, Gürbüz A (2021) Numerical analysis
of geocell reinforced square shallow horizontal plate anchor.
Geotech Geol Eng 39(4):3081–3099
34. Biabani MM, Indraratna B, Ngo NT (2016) Modelling of geocell-
reinforced subballast subjected to cyclic loading. Geotext Geo-
membr 44(4):489–503
35. Gedela R, Karpurapu R (2021) Laboratory and numerical studies
on the performance of geocell reinforced base layer overlying
soft subgrade. Int J Geosynth Ground Eng 7(1):1–18
36. Khalaj O, Nejad SA, Jenicek S (2020) The effect of geocell
reinforced embankment construction on the behaviour of beneath
soil layers using numerical analysis. In IOP Conf Ser Earth
Environ Sci. https://doi.org/10.1088/1755-1315/609/1/012015
37. Acharyya R, Dey A (2017) Finite element investigation of the
bearing capacity of square footings resting on sloping ground.
INAE Lett 2(3):97–105
38. Das BM, Sivakugan N (2016) Fundamentals of geotechnical
engineering. Cengage Learning
39. Bowles JE (1988) Foundation analysis and design
40. IS 6403 (1981) Code of practice for determination of breaking
capacity of shallow foundations. Bureau of Indian Standard, New
Delhi
41. Bolton MD (1986) The strength and dilatancy of sands.
Geotechnique 36(1):65–78
42. Kulhawy FH, Mayne PW (1990) Manual on estimating soil
properties for foundation design. Electric Power Research Insti-
tute, Palo Alto
43. Hegde A, Sitharam TG (2017) Experiment and 3D-numerical
studies on soft clay bed reinforced with different types of cellular
confinement systems. Transp Geotech 10:73–84
123
436
44. Tafreshi SM, Dawson AR (2010) Comparison of bearing capacity
of a strip footing on sand with geocell and with planar forms of
geotextile reinforcement. Geotext Geomembr 28(1):72–84
45. 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
46. Kargar M, Mir Mohammad Hosseini SM (2018) Influence of
reinforcement stiffness and strength on load-settlement response
of geocell-reinforced sand bases. Eur J Environ Civ Eng
22(5):596–613
47. Rajagopal K, Krishnaswamy NR, Madhavi Latha G (1999)
Behavior of sand confined with single and multiple geocells.
Geotext Geomembr 17:171–181
123
Indian Geotech J (April 2023) 53(2):422–436
48. Fakher A, Jones CJFP (1996) Discussion: bearing capacity of
rectangular footings on geogrid-reinforced sand. J Geotech Eng
122:326–327
49. Wood DM (2004) Geotechnical modelling, Abingdon
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.