Technical Note

Stability Analysis of Geocell-Reinforced Slopes Using the

Limit Equilibrium Horizontal Slice Method
Iman Mehdipour, S.M.ASCE1; Mahmoud Ghazavi2; and Reza Ziaie Moayed3
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by "Indian Institute of Technology, Hyderabad" on 10/06/23. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

Abstract: Given the three-dimensional confinement, the geocell reinforcement can act as a beam that can carry both bending and membrane
stresses compared with only the planar membrane effect of planar reinforcement. This study presents an analytical approach to determine the
factor of safety (FOS) of geocell-reinforced slope using the horizontal slice method (HSM). The geocell reinforcement composed of geocell
and infill soil was modeled as a composite beam filled with soil. The improvement in the FOS of the geocell-reinforced slope was expressed in
terms of vertical stress dispersion, vertical frictional resistance, and structural mechanisms provided by geocell reinforcement. The effect of
geocell pocket diameter on the soil confinement and FOS of geocell-reinforced slope was considered using hoop tension theory. The results of
the proposed analytical model were compared with those determined by numerical modeling using the strength reduction method (SRM). A
series of parametric analyses were also performed to evaluate the influence of the placement depth of the geocell layer, the number of geocell
layers, the pocket diameter and the height of geocell, and the slope angle and soil shear strength, on the stability of the geocell-reinforced slope.
The results indicate that the reinforcing mechanism of geocell reinforcement is considerably related to the geocell thickness. The mobilized
flexural strength and vertical frictional resistance magnify as the height of the geocell increases. Compared with planar reinforcement, a
smaller quantity of geocell reinforcement is required to achieve an equivalent FOS value. The results predicted from the present analytical
approach were found to be in good agreement with SRM results. DOI: 10.1061/(ASCE)GM.1943-5622.0000935. © 2017 American Society
of Civil Engineers.
Author keywords: Composite beam model; Geocell; Horizontal slice method (HSM); Numerical modeling; Planar reinforcement;
Slope stability.

Introduction Sitharam 2015b; Krishnaswamy et al. 2000; Latha and Murthy

Generally, geosynthetic reinforcements are used to enhance the ten-
sion resistance of the soil and reduce the soil deformation. In recent
years, various research studies have been undertaken to evaluate the
performance of reinforced walls and slopes, including the experi-
mental study (Chen et al. 2007; El-Emam and Bathurst 2007;
Kazimierowicz-Frankowska 2005; Latha and Krishna 2008; Yang
et al. 2009), numerical modeling (Hatami and Bathurst 2000;
Huang and Wu 2006; Rowe and Ho 1998; Rowe and Skinner
2001), and analytical models (Ahmadabadi and Ghanbari 2009;
Ghanbari and Taheri 2012; Nouri et al. 2006, 2008; Shahgholi
2001; Shekarian et al. 2008). The more recent advancement of soil
reinforcement is to provide three-dimensional (3D) confinement by
using geocell reinforcements. The geocell mattress consists of a se-
ries of interlocking cells that can effectively confine the soil within
its pockets. The effectiveness of using geocell to enhance load-
carrying capacity of the soil and reduce the footing settlement has
been thoroughly investigated (Dash et al. 2003, 2004; Hegde and
1
Graduate Research Assistant, Dept. of Civil, Architecture, and
Environmental Engineering, Missouri Univ. of Science and Technology,
Rolla, MO 65409 (corresponding author). E-mail: iman.mehdipour@mst
.edu
2
Professor, Faculty of Civil Engineering, K.N. Toosi Univ. of
Technology, Tehran 1969764499, Iran. E-mail: ghazavi_ma@kntu.ac.ir
3
Associate Professor, Faculty of Civil Engineering, Imam Khomeini
International Univ., Qazvin 3414916818, Iran. E-mail: ziaie@eng.ikiu.ac.ir
Note. This manuscript was submitted on August 31, 2016; approved
on February 8, 2017; published online on April 24, 2017. Discussion pe-
riod open until September 24, 2017; separate discussions must be submit-
ted for individual papers. This technical note is part of the International
Journal of Geomechanics, © ASCE, ISSN 1532-3641.
2007; Leshchinsky and Ling 2013b; Sireesh et al. 2009; Sitharam
and Hegde 2013; Tafreshi and Dawson 2010, 2012; Zhang et al.
2010a). Given the 3D confinement, the behavior of a geocell mat-
tress can be similar to a foundation beam or plate, which can carry
both bending and membrane stresses (Dash et al. 2001a, 2007;
Pokharel et al. 2010; Tang and Yang 2013; Thallak et al. 2007;
Zhang et al. 2009, 2010b). For example, Dash et al. (2007) reported
that the geocell mattress behaves as a flexural member in which
deep beam behavior becomes predominant as the height of the geo-
cell increases. Zhang et al. (2009, 2010b) modeled the geocell-
reinforced mattress as a beam on a Winkler foundation to analyze
the deformation behavior of the foundation. The authors found that
the modulus and the height of the geocell contribute to the rigidity
of the beam, which can result in a lower soil deformation compared
with the planar reinforcement. Dash (2010) pointed out that the geo-
cell mattress acts as a wide slab that transmits the footing pressure
to the underlying soil and redistributes over a wider area. Tang and
Yang (2013) investigated the flexural behavior of the geocell rein-
forcement by means of three-layered beam model testing. In the an-
alytical study, the geocell reinforcement was modeled as a continu-
ous beam sandwiched between two identical polywood beams.
Their results showed that the geocell reinforcement provides con-
siderable resistance to flexural deformation, especially for the
higher height-to-diameter ratio (aspect ratio) of a geocell. Zhang
et al. (2009) reported that the lateral resistance, vertical stress dis-
persion, and membrane effects are the main characteristics of geo-
cell reinforcement that can lead to a reduction in the deformation of
embankment.
In addition to the improvement in the bearing capacity, the geo-
cell reinforcement can be effectively used to reduce deformation of
the slope and walls. For example, Ling et al. (2009) reported that

© ASCE 06017007-1 Int. J. Geomech.

Int. J. Geomech., 2017, 17(9): 06017007

 the use of geocells resulted in a reduction in the lateral deformation
of gravity walls. Mehdipour et al. (2013) conducted numerical anal-
yses to investigate the stability of geocell-reinforced slope using the
strength reduction method (SRM). The authors found that the geo-
cell reinforcement acts as a slab or beam at which the mobilized
flexural resistance of geocell reinforcement can reduce the lateral
deformation of the slope. Therefore, under the geocell placement,
the lateral deformation and shear strain values of the slope decrease.
Chen et al. (2013) indicated that an increase in the geocell length at
certain depths of the retaining structure can result in lower wall
movement and settlement of the backfill. Latha (2000) proposed the
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by "Indian Institute of Technology, Hyderabad" on 10/06/23. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.
beam filled with soil by considering its main characteristics, includ-
ing vertical stress dispersion, vertical frictional resistance, and
structural mechanisms. The analytical model was validated with
SRM numerical analysis performed by Mehdipour et al. (2013). A
series of comparative analyses were performed to evaluate the influ-
ence of various factors, such as the placement depth of the geocell
layer, the number of geocell layers, the pocket diameter and the
height of geocell, and the slope angle and soil shear strength proper-
ties, on the FOS of geocell-reinforced slope.

equivalent composite approach to design the geocell-reinforced
embankment at which the geocell reinforcement is modeled as a
soil layer with additional cohesive strength and stiffness. A sum-
mary of the research studies performed to examine the performance
of geocell reinforcement for different geotechnical applications is
presented in Table 1. Despite numerous studies aiming to evaluate
the bearing capacity and settlement behavior of geocell-reinforced
soil, the potential benefit of using geocell reinforcement to improve
the slope stability has not been well documented (Bush et al. 1990;
Chen et al. 2013; Cowland and Wong 1993; Krishnaswamy et al.
2000; Latha 2000; Latha et al. 2006; Latha and Rajagopal 2007;
Mehdipour et al. 2013; Sitharam and Hegde 2013; Song et al.
2014).
The subject of this study is to examine the effectiveness of using
geocell reinforcement to improve the stability of geocell-reinforced
slope. A simple analytical model was proposed to determine the fac-
tor of safety (FOS) of slope reinforced with geocell reinforcement
using the horizontal slice method (HSM). In the proposed analytical
approach, the geocell reinforcement was modeled as a composite
Analytical Analysis and Assumptions
In the present study, the FOS of the geocell-reinforced slope was
determined using the limit equilibrium HSM proposed by
Shahgholi (2001). In this technique, the sliding wedge is divided
into a number of horizontal slices that do not intersect the reinforce-
ments; hence, the reinforcements have no direct influence on the
interslice forces. A number of different HSM formulations have
been investigated by Nouri et al. (2006, 2008) to analyze the planar-
reinforced slope. Based on their results, the (2n þ 1) formulation
(where n is the number of horizontal slices) by considering moment
equilibrium equation for the sliding wedge can provide acceptable
results with adequate accuracy (Nouri et al. 2006). Therefore, in the
study reported in this paper, the (2n þ 1) formulation was used to
determine the FOS of the geocell-reinforced slope. The list of equa-
tions and unknowns of the (2n þ 1) formulation is presented in
Table 2.
A log spiral failure mechanism was used to model the potential
failure surfaces of the geocell-reinforced slope. In this method, the

Table 1. Summary of Investigations on the Application of Geocell Reinforcement for Various Geotechnical Applications

Scope of study Experimental study
Foundation (Biswas et al. 2016; Dash 2012;
systems Dash et al. 2001a, b, 2003, 2004;
Dash and Bora 2013; Latha and
Murthy 2007; Latha and
Somwanshi 2009; Ling et al.
1997; Pokharel et al. 2010;
Rajagopal et al. 1999; Sireesh
et al. 2009; Tafreshi and Dawson
2010, 2012; Yang et al. 2012;
Zhou and Wen 2008)
Subballast and (Biabani et al. 2016a, b;
railway Indraratna et al. 2015;
Leshchinsky and Ling 2013a)
Protection of (Bathurst and Knight 1998;
buried pipeline Hegde et al. 2014; Hegde and
Sitharam 2015d; Mehrjardi et al.
2012, 2013; Sireesh et al. 2009;
Tavakoli Mehrjardi et al. 2015)
Retaining wall (Chen and Chiu 2008; Chen et al.
2013; Leshchinsky et al. 2009;
Ling et al. 2009; Song et al.
2014; Xie and Yang 2009)
Slope stability (Bush et al. 1990; Cowland and
and supporting Wong 1993; Krishnaswamy et al.
embankment 2000; Latha et al. 2006; Sitharam
and Hegde 2013; Zhang et al.
2010a)
Numerical modeling
Equivalent composite
Analytical study 3D numerical model model Beam model
(Hegde and Sitharam (Dash et al. 2003; Han (Latha et al. 2008, (Tang and Yang
2015a–c, Tafreshi et al. et al. 2008; Hegde and 2009) 2013; Zhang et al.
2015; Tang and Yang Sitharam 2015c; Latha 2009, 2010b, 2012)
2013; Zhang et al. 2009, and Somwanshi 2009;
2010b, 2012) Saride et al. 2009; Yang
et al. 2010)
(Indraratna et al. 2015) (Biabani et al. 2016a, b; — —
Leshchinsky and Ling
2013a, b)
— (Hegde and Sitharam — (Bathurst and
2015d; Tavakoli Knight 1998)
Mehrjardi et al. 2015)
— (Chen et al. 2013) — —
(Sitharam and Hegde — (Latha 2011; Latha et (Mehdipour et al.
2013; Zhang et al. al. 2006; Latha and 2013)
2010a) Rajagopal 2007)

© ASCE 06017007-2 Int. J. Geomech.

Int. J. Geomech., 2017, 17(9): 06017007

 Table 2. List of Equations and Unknowns in the ð2n þ 1Þ Formulation respectively. t t(x) and t b(x) represent the interface shear strengths
at the top and bottom of the geocell layer, respectively. Si and Ni
Unknowns Number Equations Number
P are the shear and normal forces acting on base of the ith slice,
Normal forces at the n Fy ¼ 0 (for each slice) n respectively, as indicated in Fig. 1(a).
base of each slice (Ni) Given 3D confinement, the geocell mattress can provide a beam
t
Shear forces at the base n t r ¼ FOS
f
(along the base n or slab mechanism compared with only the tensile membrane effect
of each slice (Si) of each slice) for planar reinforcement (Mehdipour et al. 2013; Tang and Yang
P
FOS 1 M ¼ 0 (for entire 1 2013; Zhang et al. 2009, 2010b). In the study presented in this pa-
wedge) per, the geocell reinforcement composed of soil and geocell mat-
Summation 2n þ 1 — 2n þ 1 tress was assumed to act as a composite beam filled with soil that is
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by "Indian Institute of Technology, Hyderabad" on 10/06/23. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

embedded in the slope. It is important to note that the composite

beam model used in this study to simulate the geocell reinforcement
was different from the equivalent composite approach at which geo-
cell reinforcement is modeled as a soil layer alone with additional
cohesive strength and stiffness. In this study, the performance
improvement of geocell-reinforced slope is primarily attributed to
three characteristics: vertical stress dispersion, vertical frictional re-
sistance, and structural mechanisms. The structural performance of
the geocell reinforcement refers to the mobilized tensile and flexural
resistances. A detailed elaboration of these three characteristics of
geocell reinforcement is discussed in the following section.

Characteristics of Geocell Reinforcement

Vertical Stress Dispersion Mechanism

Fig. 1. Schematic view of the (a) log spiral failure mechanism and
(b) acting forces on geocell reinforcement
The 3D geocell-soil composite can behave as a rigid slab (Pokharel
et al. 2010; Tang and Yang 2013). This can lead to a redistribution
of the applied load over a wider area, resulting in a reduction in
pressure induced by surcharge loads acting on the slope. The sche-
matic view of the vertical stress dispersion mechanism of geocell
reinforcement is illustrated in Fig. 2. As a result of the vertical stress
dispersion effect, a value of transferred pressure of P(y) at the bot-
tom of the geocell-soil composite is lower than q(y) acting on the
superface of the geocell layer. The influence of the vertical stress
dispersion mechanism of geocell reinforcement on the reduction of
pressure for underlying soil can be expressed as follows:

failure surface is defined by a center point (Point O) and an initial
radius (r0), as shown in Fig. 1(a). The radius of the spiral (r) varies
with the angle of rotation (u ), with respect to the center of the spiral,
as follows:
r ¼ r0 eu tan f
where f = internal friction angle of soil. For a homogenous slope
(which is the case in this study), the log spiral failure mechanism is
theoretically the widely used limit equilibrium method to determine
the critical failure surface (Duncan and Wright 2005; Leshchinsky
and Boedeker 1989). The base of the slope was assumed to be hard
and dense; hence, the failure surface passes through the toe of the
slope, as shown in Fig. 1(a). A spreadsheet solver tool was devel-
oped to determine the critical failure surface in which u and r0 pa-
rameters were adjusted to achieve the minimum possible FOS value
for a given slope.
Fig. 1(b) demonstrates the acting forces on the geocell-
reinforced slope. Tig and Mig refer to the tensile force and bending
moment, respectively, of the ith geocell reinforcement. Qig is the
vertical frictional resistance between infill soil and wall of the ith
geocell reinforcement. Because of the overburden pressure and
possible surcharge loads, the pressures q(y) and P(y) act on the
superface and the subgrade reaction of the geocell layer,
b
PðyÞ ¼ qy (2)
ðb þ 2hg tan λÞ ð Þ
where b = width of the acting pressure q(y) above the geocell layer
caused by the surcharge load; l = load dispersion angle within geo-
cell reinforcement, which typically varies between 30 and 60°
(1)
(Dash 2012); and hg = height of geocell reinforcement. It is impor-
tant to note that the vertical stress dispersion mechanism of geocell
reinforcement is mobilized when geocell-reinforced slope is sub-
jected to a surcharge loading. If there are no surcharge loads, then
the vertical stress dispersion mechanism associated with geocell
reinforcement can be ignored.
Vertical Frictional Resistance Mechanism
The 3D behavior of geocell reinforcement can arrest the lateral
spreading and provide all around confinement to the infill soil. The
active earth pressure on the cell wall generates hoop stress within
the wall and passive earth pressure on the adjacent walls
(Emersleben and Meyer 2009). The confinement effect of the geo-
cell is illustrated in Fig. 3(a). The confinement effect of the geocell
is based on three mechanisms: active earth pressure within the cell
(s 3), additional confining pressure due to passive earth pressure in
the adjacent cells (Ds 3), and the hoop stress (s c) within the cell
wall (Hegde and Sitharam 2015a). The additional confinement

© ASCE 06017007-3 Int. J. Geomech.

Int. J. Geomech., 2017, 17(9): 06017007


Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by "Indian Institute of Technology, Hyderabad" on 10/06/23. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.
Fig. 2. Schematic illustration of the vertical stress dispersion effect of
geocell reinforcement
Fig. 3. Schematic illustration of vertical frictional resistance mecha-
nism of geocell reinforcement for (a) the confinement effect of geocell
and (b) the mobilization of vertical frictional resistance
effect offered by the geocell can be determined using the hoop ten-
sion theory proposed by Henkel and Gilbert (1952). By considering
Hooke’s law, the additional confining pressure (Ds 3) provided by
the geocell can be obtained as follows:
 pffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffi
2s c 2M 1  1  ɛa
Ds 3 ¼ ¼ (3)
dg dg 1  ɛa
where s c and dg = circumferential stress (hoop stress) in the geocell
and the diameter of geocell pocket, respectively; and M = secant mod-
ulus of geocell material corresponding to the axial strain of « a in the
© ASCE 06017007-4
Int. J. Geomech., 2017, 17(9): 06017007
tensile stress-strain response. The additional confinement of the geo-
cell layer is significantly influenced by the geocell diameter; a geocell
with a lower pocket diameter results in a higher confining pressure.
When infill soil comes in contact with the geocell wall, vertical fric-
tional resistance will be mobilized between the infill soil and the geocell
wall, as indicated in Fig. 3(b). The vertical frictional resistance (Qig)
between the geocell wall and infill soil can be expressed as follows:
Qig ¼ t ig  hg ¼ ðs 3  Ds 3 Þtan d  hg
¼ ðka g zig  Ds 3 Þtan d  hg (4)
where Qig = vertical frictional resistance of the ith geocell reinforce-
ment; t ig = vertical frictional strength between infill soil and wall of
the ith geocell reinforcement; s 3 = active earth pressure exerted by
the infill soil on the geocell wall; and d = interface friction angle
between geocell wall and infill soil. In this study, d was assumed to
be 2/3 of the soil friction angle ( f ). This value is consistent with
other research studies (Biabani et al. 2016a; Leshchinsky and Ling
2013b; Saride et al. 2009; Yang et al. 2010). zig and g = placement
depth of the ith geocell reinforcement and unit weight of soil,
respectively; and ka = coefficient of active earth pressure, which is
calculated as follows:
ka ¼ tan 2 ð45  f =2Þ (5)
Structural Mechanism
Because of the shear and bending rigidity, the behavior of a geocell
reinforcement is similar to a beam filled with soil (Dash et al. 2007;
Pokharel et al. 2010; Thallak et al. 2007). The force analysis of
geocell-soil composite is illustrated in Fig. 4(a). The tensile force is
resisted by the geocell mattress, and this force is positioned in the mid-
dle height of the geocell reinforcement, regardless of the geocell bend-
ing moment. The mobilized tensile force in the ith geocell layer (Tig)
can be determined using a liner distribution of forces in the reinforce-
ments proposed by Ling et al. (1997). The assumption of triangular
distribution for reinforcement loads along the height of the slope has
been commonly used to evaluate the stability of reinforced slopes and
walls (Ahmadabadi and Ghanbari 2009; Ehrlich and Mirmoradi 2013;
Ghanbari and Taheri 2012; Hatami and Bathurst 2000; Nouri et al.
2006, 2008). In accordance with the AASHTO (1998) simplified
method, the mobilized tensile force in reinforcement can be estimated
as follows:
  
zt þ zb
Tig ¼ Sv ðs a Þave ¼ Sv ka g (6)
2
where Sv = vertical spacing between reinforcements; and (s a)ave =
average of horizontal soil stresses in the ith slice between depths of zt
and zb, as indicated in Fig. 4(b). The geocell-soil composite at the slip
surface is subjected to displacement, as shown in Fig. 1(b). The dis-
placement of geocell can lead to the mobilization of the bending
moment in the geocell-soil composite. Because of the flexural defor-
mation induced in the geocell and assuming the neutral axis in the mid-
dle height of the geocell (hg/2), the top and bottom halves of the com-
posite beam filled with soil are subjected to compression and tension,
respectively. Because of the tensionless nature of soil, it is hypothe-
sized that the flexural deformation is resisted by the bending moment
resulting from the tensile force provided by the beam element (i.e.,
geocell mattress) and compressive stresses due to the infill soil, as illus-
trated in Fig. 4(c). Because soil is typically capable of resisting com-
pressive stresses, the mobilized (s 3 − Ds 3) distribution is acting only
in the upper half of the geocell (i.e., above the neutral axis). This
behavior of soil is also referred to as a tensionless foundation
Int. J. Geomech.
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by "Indian Institute of Technology, Hyderabad" on 10/06/23. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

Fig. 4. Schematic illustration of the structural mechanism of geocell reinforcement for (a) the force analysis in geocell-soil composite, (b) the deter-
mination of tensile force in geocell reinforcement using internal equilibrium, and (c) the determination of the bending moment in geocell reinforce-
ment using internal equilibrium

( "  pffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffi#)
(Kaschiev and Mikhajlov 1995; Zhang and Murphy 2004). Therefore, hg 2M 1 1ɛa hg hg
the resisting bending moment (Mig) can be determined using the tensile Mig ¼ Tig  þ ka g zig    (8)
8 dg 1ɛa 2 4
stresses along the cell wall of the geocell mattress and compressive
stresses resulting from the infill soil with respect to the neutral axis of
the geocell-soil composite beam. The bending moment in the geocell- Substituting the value of Tig determined from Eq. (6) into Eq.
soil composite can be obtained using internal equilibrium, as follows: (8), the bending moment can be determined.
Tig hg hg hg hg
Mig ¼   þ ðs 3  Ds 3 Þ   (7)
hg 2 4 2 4 Determination of FOS Using Limit Equilibrium HSM

where Tig and Mig = tensile force and bending moment in the ith Fig. 5 plots the acting forces on the ith horizontal slice containing
geocell reinforcement, respectively. Substituting Eq. (3) into Eq. geocell reinforcement. The reinforcing mechanism of geocell rein-
(7), the resisting bending moment provided by the geocell-soil com- forcement and the (2n þ 1) HSM formulation proposed by Nouri et
posite can be expressed as follows: al. (2006) were used to determine the FOS of the geocell-reinforced

© ASCE 06017007-5 Int. J. Geomech.

Int. J. Geomech., 2017, 17(9): 06017007

Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by "Indian Institute of Technology, Hyderabad" on 10/06/23. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

Fig. 6. Schematic illustration of the anchorage pull-out length of the

geocell reinforcement

Fig. 5. Forces acting on the single horizontal slice containing geocell X

reinforcement MO ¼ 0 ðfor entire wedgeÞ
X
m X
m X
m X
n
) Tig ðRTi Þ þ Mig þ Qig ðRQi Þ  Wi ðRwi Þ
slope. In the (2n þ 1) HSM formulation approach, the vertical i¼1 i¼1 i¼1 i¼1
forces equilibrium for each horizontal slice, moment equilibrium X
n
for the entire sliding mass, and Mohr-Coulomb failure criteria along þ ½ðSi sin ai þ Ni cos ai ÞðXNS;O Þ
the base of each slice are applied, as presented in Table 2. The fol- i¼1
lowing assumptions were made to determine the FOS of the þ ðSi cos ai  Ni sin ai ÞðYNS;O Þ ¼ 0 (11)
geocell-reinforced slope:
1. The potential failure surface is log spiral and it passes through where n and m = number of horizontal slices and geocell reinforce-
the toe of the slope. This method is limited to homogeneous ments, respectively; RTi, RQi, and Rwi = coordinates of geocell ten-
slopes. sile force, vertical frictional resistance, and weight of the ith slice
2. Surcharge loading is not considered on the slope. with respect to the slip surface center; and YðNS;OÞi and XðNS;OÞi =
3. Ni and Si act at the middle of base of the ith slice. coordinates of the point, where Ni and Si act on the base of the ith
4. Geocell-soil composite reinforcement behaves as a composite slice, which are calculated as follows:
beam, and the location of neutral axis is assumed to be in the
middle of geocell height. hi
XðNS;OÞi ¼ ri cos u i  (12)
5. The distribution of tensile forces in geocell layers is linear 2 tan ai
along the height of the slope.
6. A minimum of three slices is needed to determine the FOS with hi
satisfactory accuracy. YðNS;OÞi ¼ ri sin u i þ (13)
2
To determine the FOS of the geocell-reinforced slope, the
vertical equilibrium equation for each slice and Mohr-Coulomb where ri, u i, and hi = radius of log spiral, angle of rotation with
failure criteria along the base of each slice were satisfied as respect to horizontal axis, and height of the ith slice, respectively.
follows: The Mohr-Coulomb failure criteria along the base of each slice
X are a function of Ni and Si. By substituting Eq. (10) into Eq. (9), the
Fy ¼ 0 ðfor each sliceÞ value of Ni is derived as a function of FOS. Then, by substituting
) Viþ1  Vi  Wi þ Si sin ai þ Ni cos ai þ Qig ¼ 0 Eq. (9) into Eq. (11), the value of FOS for a given geocell-
reinforced slope is determined. A detailed calculation of the FOS
(9) for a given geocell-reinforced slope is presented in the Appendix.
In all analyses presented in this study, the required length of geo-
cell reinforcement was adjusted to prevent pull-out failure of the
tf geocell reinforcement. The total geocell length required to prevent
tr ¼ ðalong the base of each sliceÞ
FOS pull-out failure is the summation of the anchorage length and length
falling within the shear zone. The total length of the ith geocell rein-
1 forcement can be expressed as follows:
) Si ¼ ðcli þ Ni tan f Þ (10)
FOS
LðigÞt ¼ LðigÞa þ LðiÞc (14)

where Vi, Wi, li, and ai = vertical interslice force, weight of the ith
slice, length of the ith slice base, and inclination angle of the slice
with respect to the horizontal axis, respectively; c and f = cohesive
strength and internal friction angle of soil; and t f and t r = available
and required shear strengths, respectively. The axial tension of geo-
cell reinforcement (Tig) and vertical frictional resistance (Qig) were
included in the Ni and Si. The moment equilibrium for the entire
sliding wedge was then satisfied with respect to the slip surface cen-
ter (Point O in Fig. 5), as follows:
Tig
LðigÞa ¼ (15)
2 ms vi tan f
where LðigÞt , LðigÞa , and LðiÞc = total length required to prevent pull-out
failure, anchorage length to mobilize tensile resistance, and length
located in the shear zone (distance between critical failure surface and
slope face) for the ith geocell reinforcement, respectively, as sche-
matically illustrated in Fig. 6; s vi = overburden pressure acting on the

© ASCE 06017007-6 Int. J. Geomech.

Int. J. Geomech., 2017, 17(9): 06017007

Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by "Indian Institute of Technology, Hyderabad" on 10/06/23. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

Fig. 7. Model description of the geocell-reinforced slope used for SRM calculations

ith geocell layer; and m = soil-geocell interface coefficient, which typ- Table 3. Comparison between FOS Results Obtained by the Analytical
ically varies from 0.6 to 0.8 (Biabani et al. 2016a; Leshchinsky and Method and SRM
Ling 2013b; Saride et al. 2009; Yang et al. 2010). Number of FOS difference
hg geocell FOS (analytical FOS between two
Case (m) layers method) (SRM) methods (%)
Numerical Modeling
1 — 0 1.21 1.24 2.48
In the present study, the FLAC2D program is used to examine the 2 0.02 3 1.49 1.64 10.07
stability of the geocell-reinforced slope and compare the results 3 0.02 4 1.68 1.73 2.98
with those determined from the proposed analytical approach. 4 0.02 5 1.74 1.79 2.87
FLAC has been used by several researchers (Cheng et al. 2007; Wei 5 0.02 6 1.82 1.87 2.75
and Cheng 2009, 2010) to investigate the FOS of the reinforced 6 0.02 7 1.90 1.96 3.16
slope using the SRM technique. In the numerical simulation, differ- 7 0.02 8 1.97 2.06 4.57
ent failure modes such as pull-out failure and tensile failure were 8 0.02 9 2.00 2.10 5.00
also assessed, ensuring that the FOS of the modeled geocell- 9 0.2 3 1.64 1.73 5.49
reinforced slope is not dominated by such failure modes. A 30 m 10 0.2 4 1.78 1.84 3.37
high and 50 m long grid was considered to model slope in plane 11 0.2 5 1.92 2.05 6.77
strain analysis, as illustrated in Fig. 7. The bottom and lateral boun- 12 0.2 6 2.02 2.11 4.46
daries of the slope domain were taken long enough from the rein-
forcement to avoid any boundary effects. The bottom boundary was
fixed against movements in all directions, whereas the vertical and soil, respectively; and Fn = normal force at the interface. The
boundaries were restrained in the horizontal direction. friction and adhesion of the geocell-soil interface for both vertical
The elastic-perfectly plastic Mohr-Coulomb model was used to and horizontal directions were considered to be 2/3 f and 2/3c,
simulate the behavior of the soil. Geocell mattress filled with soil pro- respectively. This assumption is similar to other existing research
duces a reinforced composite layer that acts as a beam with significant studies (Biabani et al. 2016a; Leshchinsky and Ling 2013b; Saride
improved structural properties. In this study, therefore, the geocell et al. 2009; Yang et al. 2010). As mentioned previously, the linearly
reinforcement composed of geocell and infill soil was modeled as a elastic plate element was used to model the geocell-soil rein-
composite beam infilled with soil to simulate the geocell reinforce- forcement. The normal (kn) and the shear (ks) stiffness of the com-
ment as a flexible slab that can carry both bending and membrane posite beam element were calculated as follows:
stresses (Mehdipour et al. 2013; Tang and Yang 2013; Zhang et al.  
2009, 2010b). The beam element is a two-dimensional element with K þ 4=3 G
kn ¼ ks ¼ 10  max (17)
three degrees of freedom (x-translation, y-translation, and rotation) at zmin
each end node. In this study, the composite beam was assumed to
behave as a linearly elastic material with both axial tensile and com- where K and G = bulk and shear moduli, respectively; and Zmin =
pressive failure limits. Because of the thickness, a moment of inertia smallest width of an adjoining zone in the normal direction.
was assigned to the composite beam, which in turn acts as a flexible The numerical simulation presented in this paper was verified
member that takes flexural moment. The input parameters for the through laboratory model tests for geocell-supported embankments
beam element in FLAC include thickness (hg), second moment of conducted by Krishnaswamy et al. (2000). In this verification, the
area (Ig), elastic modulus (Eg), axial peak tensile yield strength embankment was constructed above a layer of geocell on top of a
[Fyg(ten)], axial compressive yield strength [Fyg(comp)], and density soft clay bed with a 600-mm thickness and the unit weight of 17
( g g). The interface shear stress-strain relationships between soil- kN/m3. A uniform settlement was applied on the surface of the
geocell at the top and bottom of the geocell mattress as well as embankment by applying equal vertical displacement at all nodes
between the geocell wall and infill soil were modeled using on the crest of the embankment. The comparison between experi-
Mohr-Coulomb sliding criterion according to Eq. (3) mental and numerical results exhibited good agreement in terms of
Fsmax ¼ ci  A þ Fn tan f i (16) lateral deformation and surface heave of geocell-reinforced slope
modeled by the composite beam. A more detailed explanation of
where Fsmax = shear force at the geocell-soil interface; ci, f i, and the simulated geocell-reinforced slope and verification procedure
A = adhesion, angle of friction, and contact area between geocell can be found in Mehdipour et al. (2013).

© ASCE 06017007-7 Int. J. Geomech.

Int. J. Geomech., 2017, 17(9): 06017007

 Verification of the Present Analytical Approach
The proposed analytical approach was validated by the results
from numerical analysis performed by Mehdipour et al. (2013)
to examine the influence of geocell reinforcement on the FOS
and critical failure surface of slopes using SRM analysis. In the
numerical modeling, the geocell-soil reinforcement was mod-
eled as a composite beam model filled with soil that can carry
both bending and membrane stresses. To model geocell reinforced
slope, a 30 m high and 50 m long grid with a slope angle of 30°
was considered, as shown in Fig. 7. The cohesion, friction angle,
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by "Indian Institute of Technology, Hyderabad" on 10/06/23. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.
analytical method were found to be in good agreement with
those determined by numerical modeling using FLAC2D.
Parametric Studies
A series of comparative analyses were performed to evaluate the
influence of geocell reinforcement on the FOS of slope. The investi-
gated parameters included placement depth of the first geocell layer
from the top of the slope (u), number of geocell layers (m), geocell
diameter (dg), geocell height (hg), and geocell secant modulus (M).

unit weight, and elastic modulus of the soil were taken as 2 kPa, To simplify the representations of results, all parameters were
30°, 20 kN/m3, and 40 MPa, respectively. Two different geocell expressed in nondimensional terms with respect to the slope height:
heights of 0.02 and 0.2 m with a secant modulus of 100 kN/m u/H = depth ratio for the first reinforcement layer, dr/H = reinforced
and geocell pocket diameter of 0.2 m were considered in all zone ratio, and hg/H = geocell height ratio. The influence of slope
analyses. The placement depth of the first geocell layer-to-slope angle ( b ) and soil shear strength properties on the performance of
height ratio (u/H), the reinforced zone-to-slope height ratio the geocell-reinforced slope was also investigated. Furthermore, the
(dr/H), and geocell length-to-slope height ratio (L/H) were con- performances of geocell and planar reinforcements were compared
sidered as 0.2, 0.9, and 2.0, respectively. The comparison of to evaluate the effect of different forms of reinforcements on the
FOS values determined by the analytical model and SRM analy- FOS of reinforced slopes. The performance improvement in terms
ses is presented in Table 3. The results from the present of the increase in the FOS value, due to the inclusion of reinforce-
ment, was quantified using a nondimensional improvement factor
Table 4. Characteristics of Soil and Geocell Used in This Study (IF), which is expressed as follows:
Material Property Quantity FOSðreinforcedÞ
IF ¼ (18)
3 FOSðunreinforcedÞ
Soil Unit weight ( g ) 20 kN/m
Young’s modulus (E) 40 MPa where FOS(reinforced) and FOS(unreinforced) = FOS for reinforced and
Poisson’s ratio 0.3 unreinforced slopes, respectively. The soil properties and characteris-
Shear strength parameter c: 2, 10, and 20 kPa tics of geocell reinforcement used in this investigation are summarized
f : 10, 20, and 30 degrees in Table 4. To have a more realistic representation of geocell reinforce-
Slope angle ( b ) 30 and 60 degrees ment, the majority of values used in the parametric analysis (Table 4)
Geocell Height (hg) 1, 10, 100, 200, and 500 mm were approximated by numerical and experimental published studies
reinforcement Secant modulus (M) 100, 200, and 300 kN/m
performed on geocell reinforcement, such as Hegde and Sitharam
Axial strain (« a) 2%
(2015b), Latha et al. (2008, 2009), Latha et al. (2006), and Latha and
Interface friction angle 2/3 f
Rajagopal (2007). The values of FOS and location of critical failure
between geocell wall
surfaces determined by the analytical model were compared with SRM
and infill soil (d )
results. For SRM analyses, the geocell layer was modeled as a compos-
Pocket diameter (dg) 200 and 500 mm
ite beam using FLAC2D (Mehdipour et al. 2013).

Fig. 8. Variation in IF with placement depth of the first geocell layer for (a) m = 1 and (b) m = 3

© ASCE 06017007-8 Int. J. Geomech.

Int. J. Geomech., 2017, 17(9): 06017007

 Effect of Placement Depth of the First Geocell Layer
The variation in IF with u/H for m = 1of the geocell-reinforced slope
is shown in Fig. 8(a). The cohesion and friction angle of the soil
were set at 2 kPa and 30°, respectively, and the slope angle was con-
sidered as 30°. M, « a, and dg were assumed to be 100 kN/m, 2%,
and 200 mm, respectively. The IF value increased by increasing the
placement depth of the geocell reinforcement up to a certain thresh-
old value (u/H = 0.6), beyond which the IF sharply decreased. In the
case of u/H = 1, the inclusion of the geocell layer resulted in no
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by "Indian Institute of Technology, Hyderabad" on 10/06/23. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.
to 1.45, whereas a further increase in the placement depth of the first
geocell layer (u/H > 0.6) resulted in lower IF values from 1.45 to
1.28. A similar tendency was obtained for SRM analysis.
For a given number of reinforcement layers, the use of planar rein-
forcements resulted in lower IF values compared with the geocell rein-
forcement. For instance, in the case of m = 3 and u/H = 0.6, the geo-
cell-reinforced slope exhibited a 75% higher IF value compared with
the planar-reinforced slope. In other words, compared with the planar
reinforcement, a lower quantity of geocell mattress is required to
achieve a similar improvement in the FOS of a given slope. The loca-

improvement in the FOS of the geocell-reinforced slope. In this
case, the geocell layer is located out of the effective zone and is not
interested by the slip surface; thus, the reinforced slope behaves as
an unreinforced slope.
The variation in IF with u/H for m = 3 and dr/H = 0.9 is plotted in
Fig. 8(b). For m = 3, the second geocell layer was placed at the mid-
dle of first and third geocell reinforcements along the height of the
slope. Depending on the placement depth of the first geocell layer,
the use of geocell resulted in 28–45% improvement in the IF values.
As in the case of single geocell layer, for u/H < 0.6, the inclusion of
three geocell layers led to a significant increase in the IF from 1.26
tion of slip surfaces and maximum bending moment of geocell rein-
forcement obtained by the analytical method and SRM are illustrated
in Fig. 9. Generally, good agreement was observed for the location of
slip surfaces determined by the present method and SRM.
Effect of Number and Thickness of Geocell Layers
The variation in IF with the number of reinforcement layers is plot-
ted in Fig. 10(a). The slope geometry and soil properties were set
similar to the previous section. Generally, using a higher number of

Fig. 9. Comparison between the SRM and analytical method for u/H = 0.6

Fig. 10. Variations in IF with (a) number of reinforcement layers and (b) geocell thickness

© ASCE 06017007-9 Int. J. Geomech.

Int. J. Geomech., 2017, 17(9): 06017007

 Table 5. Comparison between FOS Results for Different Soil Shear Strength Properties and Slope Angles

FOS difference between

c U FOS (unreinforced FOS (analytical FOS FOS (planar FOS difference between different reinforcement
Slope angle Case (kPa) (degrees) slope) method) (SRM) reinforcement) two methods (%) form (%)
b ¼ 30 1 2 10 0.49 0.91 0.97 0.72 6.67 20.99
2 2 20 0.88 1.41 1.52 1.13 7.32 19.56
3 2 30 1.28 1.92 2.05 1.69 6.34 13.61
4 10 10 0.85 1.13 1.26 1.00 10.29 11.48
5 10 20 1.30 1.60 1.75 1.35 8.47 15.78
6 10 30 1.73 1.99 2.13 1.72 6.57 15.70
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by "Indian Institute of Technology, Hyderabad" on 10/06/23. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

7 20 10 1.21 1.53 1.65 1.31 7.30 14.17

8 20 20 1.71 1.96 2.18 1.75 9.79 10.61
9 20 30 2.11 2.35 2.53 2.02 7.11 16.34
b ¼ 60 10 2 10 0.28 0.68 0.79 0.58 14.12 14.86
11 2 20 0.48 0.97 1.06 0.77 8.70 20.43
12 2 30 0.61 1.58 1.72 1.08 8.14 46.30
13 10 10 0.53 0.86 0.97 0.68 11.43 21.12
14 10 20 0.73 1.16 1.25 0.98 7.41 15.23
15 10 30 0.93 1.49 1.66 1.25 10.24 19.20
16 20 10 0.81 1.17 1.28 0.96 8.70 17.52
17 20 20 1.15 1.33 1.51 1.19 11.66 10.85
18 20 30 1.28 1.81 1.96 1.47 7.65 23.13

geocell layers resulted in greater IF values. The comparison

between geocell and planar-reinforced slopes indicates that the
improvement in FOS is significantly affected by the form of
reinforcement. The difference in IF values for planar and geocell
reinforcements was shown to increase by increasing the number
of reinforcements. For example, in the case of m = 3, the geocell-
reinforced slope exhibited a 12% higher IF value compared with the
planar reinforcement, whereas an increase in the number of rein-
forcements from 3 to 10 resulted in a 16% higher FOS value. As
illustrated in Fig. 10(a), the number of planar reinforcements
required to achieve the IF value of 1.55 was eight layers compared
with the five layers for the geocell reinforcement. Fig. 10(b) shows
the variation in IF with geocell height. Geocell with a higher height
resulted in greater IF values. This is attributed to the mobilization of
vertical frictional resistance and structural mechanisms of geocell
reinforcement. For m = 3, an increase in the geocell height ratio from Fig. 11. Location of slip surfaces for geocell-reinforced slope for vari-
hg/H = 0.0001 to hg/H = 0.05 resulted in a 20% improvement in the ous soil shear strength properties
IF value. In the case of relatively low geocell height, the geocell rein-
forcement tends to behave as a thin beam, such as planar reinforce-
ment, as indicated in Fig. 10(b). cohesive strength of 20 kPa resulted in a 147% higher FOS value
compared with a slope with a cohesive strength of 2 kPa. The differ-
ence between geocell and planar reinforcements is considerably
Effect of Soil Shear Strength Properties and affected by varying soil shear properties, as presented in Table 5.
Slope Angle Depending on the cohesion and friction angle of the soil, the difference
in the FOS values for geocell and planar reinforcements varied from 10
Table 5 presents the FOS values determined by analytical method and to 46%.
SRM for a slope with various slope angles and soil shear strength Generally, good agreement was obtained for FOS values deter-
properties. The u/H, hg/H, and number of geocell layers were set at mined by the analytical method and SRM. The FOS values deter-
0.2, 0.02, and 5, respectively. The investigated soil shear strength mined by SRM analysis were 6–13% higher than those obtained by
properties included cohesive strength ranging between 2 and 20 kPa, the analytical method, especially in the case of a slope with higher
and the friction angle varied from 10 to 30°. The FOS of geocell- cohesion. The locations of the slip surfaces for the present method
reinforced slope was shown to be significantly affected by the soil and SRM for various soil shear strength properties are compared in
shear strength properties and slope angle. Generally, a higher friction Fig. 11. It is noted that the locations of critical failure surfaces for
angle and cohesion resulted in greater FOS values. For instance, in the SRM were obtained using FLAC2D. In the case of a slope with low
case of b = 30° and f = 10°, increasing cohesive strength from 2 to cohesion, the location of critical failure surface determined by the
20 kPa led to a 70% improvement in the FOS of geocell-reinforced SRM and present method were close, but a larger difference was
slope. The results of FOS for unreinforced slope are also presented in found for a slope with a higher cohesion, as indicated in Fig. 11. In
Table 5. The cohesive strength of soil had a significant influence on the case of c = 20 kPa and f = 10°, the upper endpoint of the failure
the FOS. For example, for b = 30°and f = 10°, a slope with a surface derived from SRM was 2.2 m away from the right endpoint

© ASCE 06017007-10 Int. J. Geomech.

Int. J. Geomech., 2017, 17(9): 06017007

 of the critical failure surface obtained by the analytical method.
Generally, by increasing the friction angle of the soil, the critical
failure surface is shallower and the upper end of the critical failure
surface moves closer to the slope crest. On the other hand, by
increasing the cohesion of soil, the critical failure surface becomes
deeper and the upper end of the slip surface is far away from the
slope crest. This can lead to a larger potential of failure volume
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by "Indian Institute of Technology, Hyderabad" on 10/06/23. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.
compared with the case with a lower cohesion and higher friction
angle.
Conclusions
An analytical model was proposed to determine the factor of safety
(FOS) of the geocell-reinforced slope using horizontal slice method
(HSM). In this approach, the geocell reinforcement composed of geo-
cell mattress and infill soil was modeled as a composite beam filled
with soil by considering its main characteristics, including vertical

stress dispersion, vertical frictional resistance, and structural mecha-

nisms. A series of parametric analyses were performed to evaluate
the influence of various key factors, such as placement depth of the
geocell layer, the number of geocell layers, the pocket diameter and
height of geocell, the slope angle, and the soil shear properties on the
FOS of geocell-reinforced slope. Based on the results presented in
this paper, the following conclusions can be drawn:
1. The results of FOS and locations of critical failure surfaces
determined by the analytical method and SRM were found to
be in good agreement. In most cases, the FOS values deter-
mined by the present analytical method were 3–12% lower than
those obtained by SRM analysis.
2. The form of reinforcement is shown to have significant influ-
ence on the stability of reinforced slope. For a given FOS value,
a lower quantity of geocell reinforcement is required compared
Fig. 12. Geocell-reinforced slope model used for the investigated with the planar reinforcement.
example 3. The reinforcing mechanism of geocell reinforcement is signifi-
cantly related to the geocell thickness. As the geocell height
elevates, the effectiveness of vertical frictional resistance and
Table 6. Parameters Used for the Investigated Example structural mechanisms to improve the stability of the reinforced
Soil properties Geocell characteristics slope increases.
3
4. The FOS of geocell-reinforced slope was found to be signifi-
g = 20 kN/m hg = 200 mm cantly affected by the soil shear strength properties and slope
f = 30° dg = 200 mm angle. Depending on the cohesion and friction angle of soil, the
c = 2 kPa « a = 2% difference in the FOS for geocell and planar reinforcements
H = 10 m M = 100 kN/m varied from 10 to 46%.
n=3 d = 2/3 f = 20 degrees 5. The geocell layer with a higher modulus and lower pocket
b = 60° m=3 diameter resulted in higher FOS values. A smaller pocket
size of the geocell offers higher confinement to the infill
materials.
Table 7. Soil Weights and Geocell Forces of Horizontal Slices for the
Although the results derived from this study provide encourage-
Investigated Example
ment for the use of the limit equilibrium method to estimate the FOS
Slice of geocell-reinforced slope, in a two-dimensional framework, this
number Wi (kN) Ds 3 (kPa) t ig (kPa) Tig (kN) Qig (kN) Mig (kN·m) method has certain limitations. The proposed analytical approach
1 332.12 10.25 0.52 82.50 0.11 11.22 for calculating the FOS of a geocell-reinforced slope underestimated
2 327.32 10.25 8.28 210.20 1.66 26.44 the stability of the geocell-reinforced slope compared with numeri-
3 212.83 10.25 16.08 347.10 3.21 51.13 cal modeling using the SRM approach; however, both methods
offered similar trends with changes in geocell characteristics. It

Fig. 13. (a) Free-body diagram and (b) force polygon of the second slice for investigated example (Note: All forces are expressed in kilonewtons)

© ASCE 06017007-11 Int. J. Geomech.

Int. J. Geomech., 2017, 17(9): 06017007

 should be noted that the present analytical/numerical results are c ¼ cohesion of soil;
based on the assumptions of using a composite beam model filled ci ¼ adhesion between geocell and soil;
with soil and fully mobilized tensile strength of geocell reinforce- dg ¼ diameter of geocell pocket;
ment. Furthermore, the effect of soil compaction and surcharge load- dr ¼ reinforced zone;
ing on the performance of geocell reinforcement were not taken into E ¼ Young’s modulus of soil;
consideration in this study. Construction procedure results in higher Eg ¼ elastic modulus of composite beam;
confining pressure at the lower part of the slope, leading to a pre- Fn ¼ normal force at interface between geocell
stressing of the reinforcement. Because of the vertical stress disper- and soil;
sion provided by the geocell, it is expected that the effect of sur- FOS(reinforced) ¼ factor of safety for reinforced slope;
charge loading on reduced slope stability is less pronounced for FOS(unreinforced) ¼ factor of safety for unreinforced slope;
geocell reinforcement compared with the planar-reinforced slope. Fsmax ¼ shear force at the geocell-soil interface;
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by "Indian Institute of Technology, Hyderabad" on 10/06/23. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

Moreover, the critical slip surface was assumed to be tangential to Fyg(comp) ¼ axial compressive yield strength of
the base, whereas in some cases slip surfaces can pass above the composite beam;
base or below the base (deep-seated failure). Finally, a better under- Fyg(ten) ¼ axial peak tensile yield strength of
standing of the limitations of the proposed limit equilibrium method composite beam;
would be helpful in developing a more comprehensive analytical G ¼ shear modulus of beam;
method that can accurately predict the stability of the geocell- H ¼ height of slope;
reinforced slope. Further research is required to validate the analyti- hg ¼ thickness of geocell reinforcement;
cal approach with full-scale and/or field test data to apply research hi ¼ height of the ith horizontal slice;
findings of this study to practical situations. Ig ¼ second moment of area of composite
beam;
IF ¼ improvement factor;
Appendix. An Example of Calculation
K ¼ bulk modulus of beam;
ka ¼ coefficient of active earth pressure;
A sample calculation for determining the FOS of a geocell-
kn ¼ normal stiffness of composite beam;
reinforced slope using the analytical model is provided in Eq. (19).
ks ¼ shear stiffness of composite beam;
A geocell-reinforced slope with three layers of geocell reinforce-
L(i)c ¼ length falling between slope face and
ment and slope height of 10 m were considered. The slope geometry
critical failure surface for the ith geocell
and location of the critical failure surface are illustrated in Fig. 12.
The soil properties and geocell characteristics used in this example reinforcement;
are listed in Table 6. The detailed calculation of geocell forces and L(ig)a ¼ anchorage length of the ith geocell
soil weights for each horizontal slice are presented in Table 7. By reinforcement;
substituting Eq. (10) into Eq. (9), the Ni associated with each hori- L(ig)t ¼ total length required to prevent pull-out
zontal slice can be derived as a function of the FOS as follows: failure for the ith geocell reinforcement;
li ¼ length of the ith slice base;
7:5 M ¼ secant modulus of geocell material;
88:2  Mig ¼ bending moment for the ith geocell
N1 ¼ FOS
0:44 reinforcement;
0:61 þ m ¼ number of geocell layers;
FOS
Ni ¼ normal force acting on the base of the ith
5:12
174:6  slice;
N2 ¼ FOS n ¼ number of horizontal slices;
0:34 P(y) ¼ subgrade reaction at bottom of geocell
0:61 þ
FOS reinforcement;
3:4 Qig ¼ vertical frictional resistance for the ith
648  geocell reinforcement;
N3 ¼ FOS (19)
0:1 q(y) ¼ acting pressure on superface of geocell
0:98 þ reinforcement;
FOS
RTi and RQi ¼ coordinate of the ith geocell tensile force
The determination of geocell forces and derived equations for Ni and vertical frictional resistance with
(as s function of FOS) enables the calculation of the FOS for geo- respect to the slip surface center;
cell-reinforced slope using moment equilibrium for the entire slid- RWi ¼ coordinates of the weight of the ith slice
ing wedge [Eq. (11)]. For this particular example, the value of FOS with respect to the slip surface center;
was calculated to be 1.21. To validate the equilibrium of derived r ¼ radius of the log spiral;
forces, the free-body diagram and force polygon of the second slice ri ¼ radius of the log spiral for the ith slice;
are illustrated in Fig. 13. The force polygon closure indicated an r0 ¼ initial radius of the log spiral;
appropriate accuracy. Si ¼ shear force acting on the base of the ith
slice;
Notation Sv ¼ vertical reinforcement spacing;
Tig ¼ tensile force for the ith geocell
The following symbols are used in this paper: reinforcement;
A ¼ contact area between geocell and soil; u ¼ placement depth of the first geocell
b ¼ width of acting pressure on top of geocell reinforcement from top of slope;
reinforcement; Vi ¼ vertical interslice force of the ith slice;

© ASCE 06017007-12 Int. J. Geomech.

Int. J. Geomech., 2017, 17(9): 06017007

 Wi ¼ weight of the ith slice;
YNS,O and XNS,O ¼ coordinates of the point where Ni and Si
act on the base of the slice;
Zmin ¼ smallest width of an adjoining zone in
the normal direction;
zig ¼ placement depth of the ith geocell
reinforcement;
Ds 3 ¼ additional confining pressure provided
by geocell reinforcement;
ai ¼ inclination angle of the base of the ith slice;
b ¼ inclination angle of slope;
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by "Indian Institute of Technology, Hyderabad" on 10/06/23. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.
g ¼ unit weight of soil;
g g ¼ density of composite beam;
d ¼ interface friction angle between geocell
wall and infill soil;
« a ¼ geocell axial strain at failure;
u ¼ angle of rotation with respect to r0;
u i ¼ angle of rotation with respect to
horizontal axis for the ith slice;
l ¼ load dispersion angle within geocell
reinforcement;
m ¼ soil-geocell interface coefficient;
(s a)ave ¼ average of horizontal soil stresses in the
ith slice;
s c ¼ circumferential stress in geocell
mattress;
s vi ¼ overburden pressure acting on the ith
geocell reinforcement;
s 3 ¼ active earth pressure exerted by the infill
soil on the geocell wall;
t b(x) ¼ interface shear strength at bottom of
geocell;
t f ¼ available shear strength;
t ig ¼ vertical frictional strength between infill
soil and wall of the ith geocell
reinforcement;
t r ¼ required shear strength;
t t(x) ¼ interface shear strength at top of geocell;
f ¼ internal friction angle of soil; and
f i ¼ angle of friction between geocell and soil.
References
AASHTO. (1998). Bridge design specifications, Washington, DC.
Ahmadabadi, M., and Ghanbari, A. (2009). “New procedure for active earth
pressure calculation in retaining walls with reinforced cohesive-
frictional backfill.” Geotext. Geomembr., 27(6), 456–463.
Bathurst, R. J., and Knight, M. A. (1998). “Analysis of geocell reinforced-soil
covers over large span conduits.” Comput. Geotech., 22(3), 205–219.
Biabani, M. M., Indraratna, B., and Ngo, N. T. (2016a). “Modelling of geo-
cell-reinforced subballast subjected to cyclic loading.” Geotext.
Geomembr., 44(4), 489–503.
Biabani, M. M., Ngo, N. T., and Indraratna, B. (2016b). “Performance eval-
uation of railway subballast stabilised with geocell based on pull-out
testing.” Geotext. Geomembr., 44(4), 579–591.
Biswas, A., Krishna, A., and Dash, S. K. (2016). “Behavior of geosynthetic
reinforced soil foundation systems supported on stiff clay subgrade.”
Int. J. Geotech., 10.1061/(ASCE)GM.1943-5622.0000559, 04016007.
Bush, D. I., Jenner, C. G., and Bassett, R. H. (1990). “The design and con-
struction of geocell foundation mattresses supporting embankments
over soft grounds.” Geotext. Geomembr., 9(1), 83–98.
Chen, H. T., Hung, W. Y., Chang, C. C., Chen, Y. J., and Lee, C. J. (2007).
“Centrifuge modeling test of a geotextile-reinforced wall with a very
wet clayey backfill.” Geotext. Geomembr., 25(6), 346–359.
© ASCE 06017007-13
Int. J. Geomech., 2017, 17(9): 06017007
Chen, R. H., and Chiu, Y. M. (2008). “Model tests of geocell retaining struc-
tures.” Geotext. Geomembr., 26(1), 56–70.
Chen, R. H., Wu, C. P., Huang, F. C., and Shen, C. W. (2013). “Numerical
analysis of geocell-reinforced retaining structures.” Geotext. Geomembr.,
39(Aug), 51–62.
Cheng, Y. M., Lansivaara, T., and Wei, W. B. (2007). “Two-dimensional
slope stability analysis by limit equilibrium and strength reduction meth-
ods.” Comput. Geotech., 34(3), 137–150.
Cowland, J. W., and Wong, S. C. K. (1993). “Performance of a road
embankment on soft clay supported on a geocell mattress foundation.”
Geotext. Geomembr., 12(8), 687–705.
Dash, S. K. (2010). “Influence of relative density of soil on performance of
geocell-reinforced sand foundations.” J. Mater. Civ. Eng., 10.1061
/(ASCE)MT.1943-5533.0000040, 533–538.
Dash, S. K. (2012). “Effect of geocell type on load-carrying mechanisms of
geocell-reinforced sand foundations.” Int. J. Geomech., 10.1061
/(ASCE)GM.1943-5622.0000162, 537–548.
Dash, S. K., and Bora, M. C. (2013). “Improved performance of soft clay
foundations using stone columns and geocell-sand mattress.” Geotext.
Geomembr., 41(Nov), 26–35.
Dash, S. K., Krishnaswamy, N. R., and Rajagopal, K. (2001a). “Bearing
capacity of strip footings supported on geocell-reinforced sand.”
Geotext. Geomembr., 19(4), 235–256.
Dash, S. K., Rajagopal, K., and Krishnaswamy, N. R. (2001b). “Strip foot-
ing on geocell reinforced sand beds with additional planar reinforce-
ment.” Geotext. Geomembr., 19(8), 529–538.
Dash, S. K., Rajagopal, K., and Krishnaswamy, N. R. (2004). “Performance
of different geosynthetic reinforcement materials in sand foundations.”
Geosynth. Int., 11(1), 35–42.
Dash, S. K., Rajagopal, K., and Krishnaswamy, N. R. (2007). “Behaviour of
geocell-reinforced sand beds under strip loading.” Can. Geotech. J.,
44(7), 905–916.
Dash, S. K., Sireesh, S., and Sitharam, T. G. (2003). “Model studies on cir-
cular footing supported on geocell reinforced sand underlain by soft
clay.” Geotext. Geomembr., 21(4), 197–219.
Duncan, J. M., and Wright, S. G. (2005). Soil strength and slope stability,
John Wiley and Sons, Hoboken, NJ.
Ehrlich, M., and Mirmoradi, S. H. (2013). “Evaluation of the effects of fac-
ing stiffness and toe resistance on the behavior of GRS walls.” Geotext.
Geomembr., 40(Oct), 28–36.
El-Emam, M. M., and Bathurst, R. J. (2007). “Influence of reinforcement
parameters on the seismic response of reduced-scale reinforced soil
retaining walls.” Geotext. Geomembr., 25(1), 33–49.
Emersleben, A., and Meyer, N. (2009). “Interaction between hoop stresses
and passive earth resistance in single and multiple geocell structures.”
Proc., GIGSA GeoAfrica 2009 Conf., Geosynthetic Interest Group of
South Africa, Edenglen, South Africa, 1–10.
FLAC2D [Computer software]. Itasca Consulting Group, Inc., Minneapolis.
Ghanbari, A., and Taheri, M. (2012). “An analytical method for calculating
active earth pressure in reinforced retaining walls subject to a line sur-
charge.” Geotext. Geomembr., 34(Oct), 1–10.
Han, J., Yang, X. M., Leshchinsky, D., Parsons, R. L., and Rosen, A.
(2008). “Numerical analysis for mechanisms of a geocell-reinforced
base under a vertical load.” Proc., 4th Asian Regional Conf. on
Geosynthetics, Springer, New York, 741–746.
Hatami, K., and Bathurst, R. J. (2000). “Effect of structural design on funda-
mental frequency of reinforced-soil retaining walls.” Soil Dyn.
Earthquake Eng., 19(3), 137–157.
Hegde, A., Kadabinakatti, S., and Sitharam, T. G. (2014). “Protection
of buried pipelines using a combination of geocell and geogrid
reinforcement: Experimental studies.” Ground Improvement and
Geosynthetics, Geotechnical Special Publication 238, ASCE, Reston,
VA, 289–298.
Hegde, A., and Sitharam, T. G. (2015a). “Joint strength and wall deforma-
tion characteristics of a single-cell geocell subjected to uniaxial com-
pression.” Int. J. Geomtech., 10.1061/(ASCE)GM.1943-5622.0000433,
04014080.
Hegde, A., and Sitharam, T. G. (2015b). “Experimental and analytical stud-
ies on soft clay beds reinforced with bamboo cells and geocells.” Int. J.
Geosynth. Ground Eng., 1(2), 1–11.
Int. J. Geomech.
 Hegde, A., and Sitharam, T. G. (2015c). “3-Dimensional numerical modelling
of geocell reinforced sand beds.” Geotext. Geomembr., 43(2), 171–181.
Hegde, A. M., and Sitharam, T. G. (2015d). “Experimental and numerical
studies on protection of buried pipelines and underground utilities using
geocells.” Geotext. Geomembr., 43(5), 372–381.
Henkel, D. J., and Gilbert, G. D. (1952). “The effect measured of the rubber
membrane on the triaxial compression strength of clay samples.”
Geotechnique, 3(1), 20–29.
Huang, C. C., and Wu, S. H. (2006). “Simplified approach for assessing
seismic displacements of soil-retaining walls. Part I: Geosynthetic rein-
forced modular block walls.” Geosynth. Int., 13(6), 219–233.
Indraratna, B., Biabani, M. M., and Nimbalkar, S. (2015). “Behavior of geo-
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by "Indian Institute of Technology, Hyderabad" on 10/06/23. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.
cell-reinforced subballast subjected to cyclic loading in plane-strain con-
dition.” J. Geotech. Geoenviron. Eng., 10.1061/(ASCE)GT.1943-5606
.0001199, 04014081.
Kaschiev, M. S., and Mikhajlov, K. (1995). “A beam resting on a tension-
less Winkler foundation.” Comput. Struct., 55(2), 261–264.
Kazimierowicz-Frankowska, K. (2005). “A case study of a geosynthetic re-
inforced wall with wrap-around facing.” Geotext. Geomembr., 23(1),
107–115.
Krishnaswamy, N. R., Rajagopal, K., and Latha, G. M. (2000). “Model
studies on geocell supported embankments constructed over a soft clay
foundation.” Geotech. Test. J., 23(1), 45–54.
Latha, G. M., Dash, S., and Rajagopal, K. (2009). “Numerical simulation of
the behavior of geocell reinforced sand in foundations.” Int. J.
Geomech., 10.1061/(ASCE)1532-3641(2009)9:4(143), 143–152.
Latha, G. M., Rajagopal, K., and Krishnaswamy, N. R. (2006). “Experimental
and theoretical investigations on geocell-supported embankments.” Int. J.
Geomech., 10.1061/(ASCE)1532-3641(2006)6:1(30), 30–35.
Latha, G. M. (2000). “Investigations on the behaviour of geocell supported
embankments.” Ph.D. dissertation, Indian Institute of Technology
Madras, Chennai, India.
Latha, G. M. (2011). “Design of geocell reinforcement for supporting
embankments on soft ground.” Geomech. Eng., 3(2), 117–130.
Latha, G. M., Dash, S. K., and Rajagopal, K. (2008). “Equivalent continuum
simulations of geocell reinforced sand beds supporting strip footings.”
Geotech. Geol. Eng., 26(4), 387–398.
Latha, G. M., and Krishna, A. M. (2008). “Seismic response of reinforced
soil retaining wall models: Influence of backfill relative density.”
Geotext. Geomembr., 26(4), 335–349.
Latha, G. M., and Murthy, V. S. (2007). “Effects of reinforcement form on
the behavior of geosynthetic reinforced sand.” Geotext. Geomembr.,
25(1), 23–32.
Latha, G. M., and Rajagopal, K. (2007). “Parametric finite element analyses
of geocell-supported embankments.” Can. Geotech. J., 44(8), 917–927.
Latha, G. M., and Somwanshi, A. (2009). “Effect of reinforcement form on
the bearing capacity of square footings on sand.” Geotext. Geomembr.,
27(6), 409–422.
Leshchinsky, B., and Ling, H. (2013a). “Effects of geocell confinement on
strength and deformation behavior of gravel.” J. Geotech. Geoenviron.
Eng., 10.1061/(ASCE)GT.1943-5606.0000757, 340–352.
Leshchinsky, B., and Ling, H. I. (2013b). “Numerical modeling of behavior
of railway ballasted structure with geocell confinement.” Geotext.
Geomembr., 36(Feb), 33–43.
Leshchinsky, D., and Boedeker, R. H. (1989). “Geosynthetic reinforced soil
structures.” J. Geotech. Eng., 10.1061/(ASCE)0733-9410(1989)115:
10(1459), 1459–1478.
Leshchinsky, D., Ling, H. I., Wang, J. P., Rosen, A., and Mohri, Y. (2009).
“Equivalent seismic coefficient in geocell retention systems.” Geotext.
Geomembr., 27(1), 9–18.
Ling, H. I., Leshchinsky, D., Wang, J. P., Mohri, Y., and Rosen, A. (2009).
“Seismic response of geocell retaining walls: Experimental studies.” J.
Geotech. Geoenviron. Eng., 10.1061/(ASCE)1090-0241(2009)135:
4(515), 515–524.
Ling, H. I., Leshchinsky, D., and Perry, E. B. (1997). “Seismic design and
performance of geosynthetic-reinforced soil structures.” Geotechnique,
47(5), 933–952.
Mehdipour, I., Ghazavi, M., and Moayed, R. Z. (2013). “Numerical study
on stability analysis of geocell reinforced slopes by considering the
bending effect.” Geotext. Geomembr., 37(Apr), 23–34.
© ASCE 06017007-14
Int. J. Geomech., 2017, 17(9): 06017007
Mehrjardi, G. T., Tafreshi, S. M., and Dawson, A. R. (2012).
“Combined use of geocell reinforcement and rubber–soil mixtures
to improve performance of buried pipes.” Geotext. Geomembr.,
34(Oct), 116–130.
Mehrjardi, G. T., Tafreshi, S. M., and Dawson, A. R. (2013). “Pipe response
in a geocell-reinforced trench and compaction considerations.”
Geosynth. Int., 20(2), 105–118.
Nouri, H., Fakher, A., and Jones, C. (2006). “Development of horizontal
slice method for seismic stability analysis of reinforced slopes and
walls.” Geotext. Geomembr., 24(3), 175–187.
Nouri, H., Fakher, A., and Jones, C. (2008). “Evaluating the effects of the
magnitude and amplification of pseudo-static acceleration on reinforced
soil slopes and walls using the limit equilibrium horizontal slices
method.” Geotext. Geomembr., 26(3), 263–278.
Pokharel, S. K., Han, J., Leshchinsky, D., Parsons, R. L., and Halahmi, I.
(2010). “Investigation of factors influencing behavior of single geocell-
reinforced bases under static loading.” Geotext. Geomembr., 28(6),
570–578.
Rajagopal, K., Krishnaswamy, N. R., and Latha, G. M. (1999). “Behaviour
of sand confined with single and multiple geocells.” Geotext.
Geomembr., 17(3), 171–184.
Rowe, R. K., and Ho, S. K. (1998). “Horizontal deformation in reinforced
soil walls.” Can. Geotech. J., 35(2), 312–327.
Rowe, R. K., and Skinner, G. D. (2001). “Numerical analysis of geosyn-
thetic reinforced retaining wall constructed on a layered soil founda-
tion.” Geotext. Geomembr., 19(7), 387–412.
Saride, S., Gowrisetti, S., Sitharam, T. G., and Puppala, A. J. (2009).
“Numerical simulation of geocell-reinforced sand and clay.” Proc. Inst.
Civ. Eng. Ground Improv., 162(4), 185–198.
Shahgholi, M. (2001). “Horizontal slice method of analysis.” Geotechnique,
51(10), 881–886.
Shekarian, S., Ghanbari, A., and Farhadi, A. (2008). “New seismic parame-
ters in the analysis of retaining walls with reinforced backfill.” Geotext.
Geomembr., 26(4), 350–356.
Sireesh, S., Sitharam, T. G., and Dash, S. K. (2009). “Bearing capacity of
circular footing on geocell–sand mattress overlying clay bed with void.”
Geotext. Geomembr., 27(2), 89–98.
Sitharam, T. G., and Hegde, A. (2013). “Design and construction of geocell
foundation to support the embankment on settled red mud.” Geotext.
Geomembr., 41(Nov), 55–63.
Song, F., Xie, Y. L., Yang, Y. F., and Yang, X. H. (2014). “Analysis of fail-
ure of flexible geocell-reinforced retaining walls in the centrifuge.”
Geosynth. Int., 21(6), 342–351.
Tafreshi, S. M., and Dawson, A. R. (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.
Tafreshi, S. M., and Dawson, A. R. (2012). “A comparison of static and
cyclic loading responses of foundations on geocell-reinforced sand.”
Geotext. Geomembr., 32(Jun), 55–68.
Tafreshi, S. M., Shaghaghi, T., Mehrjardi, G. T., Dawson, A. R., and
Ghadrdan, M. (2015). “A simplified method for predicting the settle-
ment of circular footings on multi-layered geocell-reinforced non-
cohesive soils.” Geotext. Geomembr., 43(4), 332–344.
Tang, X., and Yang, M. (2013). “Investigation of flexural behavior of geo-
cell reinforcement using three-layered beam model testing.” Geotech.
Geol. Eng., 31(2), 753–765.
Tavakoli Mehrjardi, G., Moghaddas Tafreshi, S. N., and Dawson, A. R.
(2015). “Numerical analysis on Buried pipes protected by combination
of geocell reinforcement and rubber-soil mixture.” Int. J. Civ. Eng.,
13(2), 90–104.
Thallak, S. G., Saride, S., and Dash, S. K. (2007). “Performance of surface
footing on geocell-reinforced soft clay beds.” Geotech. Geol. Eng.,
25(5), 509–524.
Wei, W. B., and Cheng, Y. M. (2009). “Strength reduction analysis for slope
reinforced with one row of piles.” Comput. Geotech., 36(7), 1176–1185.
Wei, W. B., and Cheng, Y. M. (2010). “Soil nailed slope by strength reduc-
tion and limit equilibrium methods.” Comput. Geotech., 37(5),
602–618.
Int. J. Geomech.
 Xie, Y., and Yang, X. (2009). “Characteristics of a new-type geocell flex-
ible retaining wall.” J. Mater. Civ. Eng., 10.1061/(ASCE)0899
-1561(2009)21:4(171), 171–175.
Yang, G., Zhang, B., Lv, P., and Zhou, Q. (2009). “Behaviour of geogrid re-
inforced soil retaining wall with concrete-rigid facing.” Geotext.
Geomembr., 27(5), 350–356.
Yang, X., et al. (2012). “Accelerated pavement testing of unpaved roads
with geocell-reinforced sand bases.” Geotext. Geomembr., 32(Jun),
95–103.
Yang, X., Han, J., Parsons, R. L., and Leshchinsky, D. (2010). “Three-
dimensional numerical modeling of single geocell-reinforced sand.”
Front. Archit. Civ. Eng. China, 4(2), 233–240.
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by "Indian Institute of Technology, Hyderabad" on 10/06/23. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.
Zhang, L., Zhao, M., Shi, C., and Zhao, H. (2012). “Nonlinear analysis of a
geocell mattress on an elastic–plastic foundation.” Comput. Geotech.,
42(May), 204–211.
Zhang, L., Zhao, M., Zou, X., and Zhao, H. (2009). “Deformation analysis
of geocell reinforcement using Winkler model.” Comput. Geotech.,
36(6), 977–983.
Zhang, L., Zhao, M., Zou, X., and Zhao, H. (2010b). “Analysis of geocell-
reinforced mattress with consideration of horizontal–vertical coupling.”
Comput. Geotech., 37(6), 748–756.
Zhang, Y., and Murphy, K. D. (2004). “Response of a finite beam in contact
with a tensionless foundation under symmetric and asymmetric load-
ing.” Int. J. Solids Struct., 41(24), 6745–6758.

Zhang, L., Zhao, M., Shi, C., and Zhao, H. (2010a). “Bearing capacity of Zhou, H., and Wen, X. (2008). “Model studies on geogrid-or geocell-
geocell reinforcement in embankment engineering.” Geotext. Geomembr., reinforced sand cushion on soft soil.” Geotext. Geomembr., 26(3),
28(5), 475–482. 231–238.

© ASCE 06017007-15 Int. J. Geomech.

Int. J. Geomech., 2017, 17(9): 06017007