Professional Documents
Culture Documents
3-Dimensional Numerical Analysis of Geocell
3-Dimensional Numerical Analysis of Geocell
ARTICLE
Three-dimensional numerical analysis of geocell-reinforced
soft clay beds by considering the actual geometry of geocell
pockets
Can. Geotech. J. Downloaded from www.nrcresearchpress.com by INDIAN INSTITUTE OF SCIENCE on 08/17/15
Abstract: Due to its complex honeycomb structure, the numerical modeling of the geocell has always been a big challenge.
Generally, the equivalent composite approach is used to model the geocells. In the equivalent composite approach, the geocell–
soil composite is treated as the soil layer with improved strength and stiffness values. Though this approach is very simple, it is
unrealistic to model the geocells as the soil layer. This paper presents a more realistic approach of modeling the geocells in
three-dimensional (3D) framework by considering the actual curvature of the geocell pocket. A square footing resting on geocell
reinforced soft clay bed was modeled using the “fast Lagrangian analysis of continua in 3D” (FLAC3D) finite difference package.
Three different material models, namely modified Cam-clay, Mohr–Coulomb, and linear elastic were used to simulate the
behaviour of foundation soil, infill soil and the geocell, respectively. It was found that the geocells distribute the load laterally
to the wider area below the footing as compared to the unreinforced case. More than 50% reduction in the stress was observed
in the clay bed in the presence of geocells. In addition to geocells, two other cases, namely, only geogrid and geocell with
additional basal geogrid cases were also simulated. The numerical model was systematically validated with the results of the
physical model tests. Using the validated numerical model, parametric studies were conducted to evaluate the influence of
various geocell properties on the performance of reinforced clay beds.
For personal use only.
Key words: geocells, geogrid, numerical modeling, fast Lagrangian analysis of continua in 3D (FLAC), soft clay, plate load test,
bearing capacity, footing.
Résumé : En raison de la structure en nid d’abeille complexe des géocellules, la modélisation numérique de celles-ci a toujours
été un grand défi. Généralement, l’approche du composite équivalent est utilisée pour modéliser les géocellules. Dans le cas de
l’approche du composite équivalent, le composite géocellule–sol est traité comme la couche de sol ayant des valeurs améliorées
de force et de rigidité. Quoique cette approche soit très simple, il est peu réaliste de modéliser les géocellules comme étant la
couche de sol. Cet article présente une approche plus réaliste pour modéliser les géocellules dans le cadre tridimensionnel en
considérant la courbure réelle de la poche de la géocellule. Une semelle carrée reposant sur un lit d’argile molle renforcé de
géocellules a été modélisée au moyen du progiciel en différences finies « fast Lagrangian analysis of continua in 3D » (FLAC3D).
Trois modèles de matériau différents, l’argile Cam modifié, le Mohr–Coulomb et l’élastique linéaire ont été utilisés pour simuler
le comportement du sol de fondation, du sol de remplissage et de la géocellule, respectivement. On a trouvé que les géocellules
distribuent la charge latéralement à la zone plus large au-dessous de la semelle par rapport au cas non renforcé. On a observé une
réduction de plus de 50 % de la contrainte dans le lit d’argile en présence de géocellules. En plus des géocellules, deux autres cas,
à savoir la géogrille seule et les géocellules avec géogrille de fond supplémentaire ont aussi été simulés. Le modèle numérique a
été systématiquement validé par les résultats des essais sur modèle physique. Le modèle numérique validé a servi à réaliser des
études paramétriques afin d’évaluer l’influence des diverses propriétés des géocellules sur la performance des lits d’argile
renforcés. [Traduit par la Rédaction]
Mots-clés : géocellules, géogrille, modélisation numérique, « fast Lagrangian analysis of continua in 3D » (FLAC), argile molle, essai
de charge avec plaque, capacité portante, semelle.
Introduction ers have highlighted the beneficial effects of the geocells with the
Ground improvement using the soil reinforcement technique has help of 1g model tests (Sitharam et al. 2005; Dash et al. 2007;
grown substantially in the last three decades. The technique has Moghaddas Tafreshi and Dawson 2010; Dash and Bora 2013; Tanyu
grown from use of metal grids to use of geosynthetic products such et al. 2013; Hegde and Sitharam 2014a; Hegde et al. 2014). Some re-
as geogrids and geocells to reinforce soft soil. Nowadays, geocells are searchers in the past also studied the efficacy of geocells using the
being widely used in geotechnical engineering to strengthen soft full scale field tests and the case studies (Cowland and Wong 1993;
soil. General applications of geocell include pavements, foundations, Han et al. 2011; Kief et al. 2011; Yang et al. 2012; Moghaddas Tafreshi
and embankments. By virtue of its three-dimensional (3D) box-like et al. 2013, 2014; Sitharam and Hegde 2013). However, very few re-
structure, geocell provides additional confinement to the soil. Geo- searchers have attempted the numerical modeling of the geocells
cells offer faster, cheaper, sustainable, and environmentally friendly due to difficulty in modeling its complex honeycomb structure. Be-
solutions to many complex geotechnical problems. Many research- cause geocell applications are growing at a rapid rate nowadays; it is
Can. Geotech. J. 52: 1–12 (2015) dx.doi.org/10.1139/cgj-2014-0387 Published at www.nrcresearchpress.com/cgj on 14 February 2015.
Pagination not final (cite DOI) / Pagination provisoire (citer le DOI)
2 Can. Geotech. J. Vol. 52, 2015
high time to demonstrate the realistic approach of modeling the Fig. 1. Schematic view of test setup.
geocells. The design computations often require quick calculations
to understand the effect of the various key parameters in the design.
In such situations, one cannot always depend on the experimental
and field studies. Numerical modeling technique not only helps to
carry out quick calculations, but also provides the scientific repre-
sentation of the results.
In the recent past, the geocells have been modeled using the
equivalent composite approach and in which the geocell–soil
composite is treated as the soil layer with improved strength
Can. Geotech. J. Downloaded from www.nrcresearchpress.com by INDIAN INSTITUTE OF SCIENCE on 08/17/15
and stiffness values (Bathurst and Knight 1998; Madhavi Latha and
Rajagopal 2007; Madhavi Latha and Somwanshi 2009; Hegde and
Sitharam 2013; Mehdipour et al. 2013). Though this approach is
very simple, it is unrealistic to model geocells as the soil layer.
Because geocells have a 3D structure, it is always appropriate to
model them in a 3D framework. Han et al. (2008) carried out the
numerical simulation of a single cell geocell subjected to uniaxial
compression in FLAC3D. In their study, the cell was modeled as the
square box due to the difficulty in modeling the actual shape. For
the same reason, Hegde and Sitharam (2014b) adopted the circular
shaped pocket geometry while modeling the problem of the sin-
gle cell geocell subjected to uniaxial compression. In their study,
the researchers observed the deviation in the experimental and
numerical pressure–settlement response at the higher settlement.
The researchers had attributed this anomaly to the circular shaped
geometry used in the modeling process and emphasized the impor-
Fig. 2. Grain-size distribution curves for clay and sand.
tance of modeling the actual shape of the geocells. Saride et al. (2009)
adopted the square shaped geometry of the cell pocket while mod-
eling the multiple cell geocell in FLAC3D. A similar approach was also
For personal use only.
Aspect ratio 0.6 FLAC3D uses an explicit finite difference solution scheme to solve the
No. of cells/m2 40 initial and boundary value problems. It has several built-in material
Cell depth (mm) 150 models and structural elements to model the variety of geomaterials
Strip thickness (mm) 1.53 and the reinforcements. It provides the option to use the interface
Cell seam strength (N) 2150 (±5%) elements to accurately model the joints and the interfaces between
Density (g/cm3) 0.95 (±1.5%) two materials. FLAC3D also contains a powerful built-in program-
Short term yield strength (kN/m) 20 ming language called FISH that enables the user to define new vari-
Geogrid ables and functions.
Polymer Polypropylene In the present study, the dimension of the model was kept the
Aperture size (mm × mm) 35 × 35 same as that of the test bed used in the experiments. The modified
Ultimate tensile strength (kN/m) 20 Cam-clay model was used to simulate the behaviour of the soft
Mass per unit area (g/m2) 220 clay bed and the Mohr–Coulomb model was used to simulate the
Shape of aperture opening Square
behaviour of the infill soil, i.e., sand. The geocell was modeled using
the geogrid structural element. The geogrid structural elements can
Fig. 4. Tensile stress–strain behaviour of geocell and geogrid. resist the membrane stresses, but cannot resist the bending stresses.
The rigid nature of the geocell joint was simulated by fixing the
nodes representing the joints. A linear elastic model was used to
simulate the behaviour of the geocell. The interfaces between the
geocell and the soil were linearly modeled with Mohr–Coulomb yield
criterion as shown in Figs. 5a–5b. Only a quarter portion of the test
bed was modeled using symmetry to reduce the computational ef-
fort. The quarter symmetric model of size 0.45 m × 0.45 m × 0.6 m
was discretised into 9216 zones. Analyses were carried out under
controlled velocity of a magnitude of 2.5 × 10−5 m/step. The displace-
ment along the bottom boundary (which represents the tank bot-
tom) was restrained in both horizontal as well as vertical directions.
The side boundaries (which represent the tank sides) were restrained
only in the horizontal direction, such that the displacements were
allowed to occur in the vertical direction. By providing the lateral
resistance to the soil nodes representing the area of the footing,
roughness of the footing was simulated. Similar to the laboratory
studies, the undrained test condition was maintained during the
the depth of 0.1B (where B is the width of the footing). The cell pock- modeling process.
ets were filled up with the clean sand using pluviation technique to
maintain uniform density. A layer of geotextile was used as a sepa- Determination of model parameters
rator between the soft clay bed and the sand overlaying it. Upon Table 2 represents properties of different materials used in the
filling the geocell with the sand, the footing was placed on top and numerical simulations. An isotropic triaxial compression test was
the load was applied. The footing was placed such that it rested on conducted to determine the Cam-clay parameters: slope of the
the center of the geocell pocket. normal consolidation line (), slope of the swelling line (), and
Fig. 5. Interface shear behaviour between infill soil and geocell (Itasca 2008): (a) shear stress, , versus shear displacement, u; (b) shear stress,
, versus normal stress, .
Can. Geotech. J. Downloaded from www.nrcresearchpress.com by INDIAN INSTITUTE OF SCIENCE on 08/17/15
Table 2. Properties of different materials used in nu- Fig. 6. Cam-clay: (a) v versus lnp; (b) critical state line.
merical modeling.
Parameter Value
Clay
Shear modulus, G (MPa) 1.36
Friction constant, M 0.68
Slope of NCL, 0.22
Slope of swelling line, 0.09
Specific volume at reference pressure, v 1.78
Pre-consolidation pressure, pc 100
Unit weight, ␥ (kN/m3) 20
For personal use only.
Sand
Shear modulus, G (MPa) 5.77
Bulk modulus, K (MPa) 12.5
Poisson’s ratio, 0.3
Cohesion, C (kPa) 0
Friction angle, (°) 36
Geocells
Young’s modulus, E (MPa) 275
Poisson’s ratio, 0.45
Interface shear modulus, ki (MPa/m) 2.36
Interface cohesion, ci (kPa) 0
Interface friction angle, i (°) 30
Thickness, ti (mm) 1.5
Geogrids
Young’s modulus, E (MPa) 210
Poisson’s ratio, 0.33
Interface shear modulus, ki (MPa/m) 2.36
Interface cohesion, ci (kPa) 0
Interface friction angle, i (°) 18
Thickness, ti (mm) 1.5
Note: NCL, normal consolidation line.
Fig. 7. FLAC3D model for different cases: (a) unreinforced; (b) geogrid reinforced; (c) geocell reinforced; (d) geocell and geogrid reinforced.
Can. Geotech. J. Downloaded from www.nrcresearchpress.com by INDIAN INSTITUTE OF SCIENCE on 08/17/15
For personal use only.
modulus value (ki) of 2.36 MPa/m was considered in the analysis for where, v is the specific volume corresponding to the reference
geocells and geogrids (Itasca 2008). pressure; pc is the pre-consolidation pressure; p1 is the reference
The Cam-clay model in FLAC3D is only applicable to material in pressure equal to 1 kPa; pm is the maximum mean effective stress
which the stress state corresponds to a compressive mean effective applied during the loading cycle of the isotropic compression test;
stress. Hence, a minimum value of compressive mean effective stress and po is the initial mean effective stress. Similarly, the initial
was initialized at the beginning. Given an initial mean effective pres- value of the bulk modulus (K) was calculated using eq. (2) and the
sure, po , the initial specific volume, vo, must be consistent with the same was used in the analysis.
choice of parameters , , p1, and pc . The initial value vo was calcu-
lated corresponding to po on the swelling line using eq. (1) and the vo po
same value was used in the analysis (refer Fig. 6a). (2) K⫽
(1) vo ⫽ v ⫺ ln 冉冊 冉 冊 冉 冊
pc
p1
⫺ ln
pm
pc
⫹ ln
pm
po
Preliminary analyses carried out revealed that the boundary dis-
tances did not influence the results as deformations and stresses
were contained within the boundaries. It is understood that the geo- Fig. 8. Bearing pressure–settlement behaviour.
cell is made of multiple interconnected cells and the shape of all the
cells is similar from one to another. Hence, a photograph of the
single cell was taken and it was digitized to obtain the actual curva-
ture of the cell. The coordinates were deduced from the curvature
and the same were used in the FLAC3D to model the actual shape of
the geocell. Figure 7a–7d shows the FLAC3D models of the different
cases considered in the study. In addition to geocells, the geocell with
additional basal geogrid case and only geogrid cases were also mod-
eled. The numerical results were compared with the results of the
Can. Geotech. J. Downloaded from www.nrcresearchpress.com by INDIAN INSTITUTE OF SCIENCE on 08/17/15
Fig. 10. Vertical stress distribution: (a) unreinforced; (b) geogrid only; (c) geocell only; (d) geocell and geogrid.
Fig. 11. Pressure bulb of 0.1qu: (a) unreinforced; (b) geocell and geogrid reinforced.
Can. Geotech. J. Downloaded from www.nrcresearchpress.com by INDIAN INSTITUTE OF SCIENCE on 08/17/15
For personal use only.
tilting of the footing was observed at very high loads. However, exerted on the infill soil under same lateral deformation. The addi-
numerical studies did not reveal any such findings. According to tional confining pressure leads to the increase in the bearing capac-
the authors, this particular anomaly is due to the assigning of the ity of the foundation bed.
same material properties to the entire test bed. Uniform settle-
ments are expected as long as the foundation material properties Effect of basal geogrid modulus
are homogeneous and the rate of application of the footing pres- Based on the baseline case illustrated in Fig. 7d and Table 2, the
sure is constant. However, in experiments, it is very difficult to modulus of the basal geogrid was changed to one-fifth of its orig-
prepare the entire test bed of homogeneous material properties. inal modulus (i.e., 42 MPa) and five times its original modulus (i.e.,
At very high loads, even a small change in the density of the test 1050 MPa). The pressure–settlement behaviours of three different
bed is sufficient to cause the tilting of the footing. Because of this cases are compared in the Fig. 13b. The bearing capacity of the
limitation, the model predicted only a small amount of heaving in reinforced bed increased with the increase in the modulus of the
the geocell and geogrid reinforced case. A similar observation was basal geogrid. A similar observation was made by Sitharam and
also made by Hegde and Sitharam (2015) while carrying out the 3D Hegde (2013) with the help of analytical studies. As the tensile
numerical simulation of geocell reinforced sand beds. With the strength of the basal geogrid increases, the resistance offered by the
increase in loading, the surface heaving was found to increase in geogrid to the downward movement of the soil also increases. How-
the model. To induce the settlement of S/B = 30%, the geocell and ever, the effect of basal geogrid modulus is not as prominent as the
geogrid reinforced clay bed was subjected to larger loading as geocell modulus.
compared to the geocell reinforced clay bed.
Height of geocell mattress
Factors affecting performance of reinforced clay The height of the geocell used in the baseline case illustrated in
beds Fig. 7d and Table 2 is 0.15 m. The height of the geocell was reduced
In this section, the effects of various geocell properties, which to two-thirds (0.1 m) and one-third (0.05 m) of its original height to
could affect the performance of the reinforced clay bed are dis- match the height of commercial geocells available in the market.
cussed with the help of the validated numerical model. The key The pressure–settlement behaviours of three different cases are
parameters studied are the (i) elastic modulus of the geocell, compared in the Fig. 13c. The bearing capacity of the geocell rein-
(ii) elastic modulus of the basal geogrid, (iii) height of the geocell, forced foundation bed increased with an increase in the height of
(iv) pocket size of the geocell, and (v) interface friction angle. How- the geocell. Similar types of observations were also made by Dash
ever, the effects of the foundation bed parameters are not consid- et al. (2001) using experimental investigations. As the height of the
ered in the present study. geocell increases, the footing load will be dispersed to larger ar-
eas. As a result of this, the pressure transmitted to the soil re-
Effect of geocell modulus duces, which leads to improvement in the overall performance of
Based on the baseline case illustrated in Fig. 7d and Table 2, the the foundation bed.
modulus of the geocell was changed to one-fifth of its original
modulus (i.e., 55 MPa) and five times its original modulus (i.e., Pocket size of geocell
1375 MPa). The pressure–settlement behaviours of three different The equivalent pocket diameter of the geocell used in the pres-
cases are compared in Fig. 13a. The bearing capacity of the reinforced ent study is 0.22 m. The other pocket sizes of the geocells consid-
bed increased with the increase in the modulus of the geocell. As the ered in the analysis are 0.2, 0.25, and 0.3 m. The pocket sizes are
geocell modulus increases, the higher confining pressure will be selected to match the pocket sizes of the commercial geocells
9
Pagination not final (cite DOI) / Pagination provisoire (citer le DOI)
10 Can. Geotech. J. Vol. 52, 2015
Fig. 13. Bearing pressure–settlement curves: (a) different modulus of geocell; (b) different modulus of basal geogrid; (c) different height of
geocell; (d) different pocket sizes of geocell; (e) different interface friction angles.
Can. Geotech. J. Downloaded from www.nrcresearchpress.com by INDIAN INSTITUTE OF SCIENCE on 08/17/15
For personal use only.
available on the market. Figure 13d represents pressure–settlement rect shear test was 30° and the same was used in the baseline model.
behaviour of the foundation bed reinforced with geocells with Most of the other types of geocells available on the market have a
different pocket sizes. The bearing capacity of the foundation bed smooth surface. Hence, the corresponding interface friction angle
increased with a decrease in the pocket size of the geocell. As the will be lesser in those cases than the present case. Hence, in the
cell size decreases the confinement offered per unit volume in- present study, different values of the friction angles lower than
creases, which leads to increase in the load carrying capacity of
the present value are considered. The other values considered in
the foundation bed.
the present analysis are 12°, 18°, and 24°. The bearing capacity
Interface friction angle of the reinforced foundation bed marginally increased with an
The geocell used in the present study had a rough texture on its increase in the interface friction angle as shown in Fig. 13e. As the
surface. The interface friction angle obtained from the modified di- interface friction angle increases, the friction force will develop
between the inner surface of the geocell and the infill soil. The model has certain limitations. The model fails to capture the tilt-
developed friction force will act in the upward direction and helps ing failure of the footing.
to resist the imposed load, leading to improved performance of
the foundation bed. This mechanism is known as lateral resis- Acknowledgements
tance mechanism offered by the geocells. Due to this mechanism, The authors are thankful to Xiaoming Yang, Oklahoma State
the textured geocell always yields better performance than the University, USA, and Jie Han, University of Kansas, USA, for their
geocell with smooth surface. valuable suggestions through email correspondence during the
initial stage of the work.
Scaling issues
The results of the 1g model tests are prone to scale effects. As References
Can. Geotech. J. Downloaded from www.nrcresearchpress.com by INDIAN INSTITUTE OF SCIENCE on 08/17/15
suggested by Fakher and Jones (1996), the results of the small scale ASTM. 2011. Standard practice for classification of soils for engineering purposes
model tests can be extrapolated to prototype cases by carefully (Unified Soil Classification System). ASTM standard D2487. American Society
for Testing and Materials, West Conshohocken, Pa.
applying the scaling laws. If “N” is the scaling factor, then the Bathurst, R.J., and Knight, M.A. 1998. Analysis of geocell reinforced-soil covers
tensile strength of the geocell and geogrid to be used in the pro- over large span conduits. Computers and Geotechnics, 22(3–4): 205–219. doi:
totype application is N2 times the tensile strength of the geocell 10.1016/S0266-352X(98)00008-1.
and geogrid used in model tests (Viswanadham and König 2004; Cowland, J.W., and Wong, S.C.K. 1993. Performance of a road embankment on
soft clay supported on a geocell mattress foundation. Geotextiles and
Sireesh et al. 2009). In model studies, commercial geocells and Geomembranes, 12: 687–705. doi:10.1016/0266-1144(93)90046-Q.
geogrids with tensile strength of 20 kN/m were used. Hence, the Dash, S.K., and Bora, M.C. 2013. Improved performance of soft clay foundations
extrapolated results are applicable to limited prototype applica- using stone columns and geocell-sand mattress. Geotextiles and Geomem-
tions. The present results can be extrapolated to a prototype case branes, 41: 26–35. doi:10.1016/j.geotexmem.2013.09.001.
with scaling factor (N) maximum up to 2. In that case, the tensile Dash, S.K., Krishnaswamy, N.R., and Rajagopal, K. 2001. Bearing capacity of strip
footings supported on geocell-reinforced sand. Geotextiles and Geomem-
strength of the prototype geocell material falls in the range of branes, 19: 235–256. doi:10.1016/S0266-1144(01)00006-1.
80 kN/m. Generally, bamboo has the tensile strength in that range. Dash, S.K., Rajagopal, K., and Krishnaswamy, N.R. 2007. Behaviour of geocell-
The 3D cells and planar grids prepared from bamboo known as reinforced sand beds under strip loading. Canadian Geotechnical Journal,
“bamboo cells” and “bamboo grids” could be used in the place of 44(7): 905–916. doi:10.1139/t07-035.
Fakher, A., and Jones, C.J.F.P. 1996. Discussion: bearing capacity of rectangular
geocells and geogrids respectively, in prototype applications. It is footings on geogrid-reinforced sand. Journal of Geotechnical Engineering,
advised to carry out the chemical treatment of the bamboo using 122: 326–327. doi:10.1061/(ASCE)0733-9410(1996)122:4(326).
impregnation techniques to increase the durability. The further de- Han, J., Yang, X., Leshchinsky, D., and Parsons, R.L. 2008. Behavior of geocell-
tails of bamboo cells – bamboo grids and their application in soft reinforced sand under a vertical load. Transporation Research Record: Jour-
For personal use only.
Moghaddas Tafreshi, S.N., Khalaj, O., and Dawson, A.R. 2013. Pilot-scale load footing supported on geocell-reinforced clay. Canadian Geotechnical Jour-
tests of a combined multilayered geocell and rubber-reinforced foundation. nal, 42(2): 693–703. doi:10.1139/t04-117.
Geosynthetics International, 20(3): 143–161. doi:10.1680/gein.13.00008. Tanyu, B.F., Aydilek, A.H., Lau, A.W., Edil, T.B., and Benson, C.H. 2013. Laboratory
Moghaddas Tafreshi, S.N., Khalaj, O., and Dawson, A.R. 2014. Repeated loading of evaluation of geocell-reinforced gravel sub base over poor subgrades. Geo-
soil containing granulated rubber and multiple geocell layers. Geotextiles synthetics International, 20(2): 46–71. doi:10.1680/gein.13.00001.
and Geomembranes, 42: 25–38. doi:10.1016/j.geotexmem.2013.12.003. Viswanadham, B.V.S., and König, D. 2004. Studies on scaling and instrumenta-
Saride, S., Gowrisetti, S., Sitharam, T.G., and Puppala, A.J. 2009. Numerical sim- tion of a geogrid. Geotextiles and Geomembranes, 22: 307–328. doi:10.1016/
ulation of geocell-reinforced sand and clay. Ground Improvement, 162(4): S0266-1144(03)00045-1.
185–198. doi:10.1680/grim.2009.162.4.185. Yang, X., Han, J., Parsons, R.L., and Leshchinsky, D. 2010. Three-dimensional
Sireesh, S., Sitharam, T.G., and Dash, S.K. 2009. Bearing capacity of circular numerical modeling of single geocell-reinforced sand. Frontiers of Architec-
footing on geocell sand mattress overlying clay bed with void. Geotextiles ture and Civil Engineering in China, 4(2): 233–240. doi:10.1007/s11709-010-
and Geomembranes, 27(2): 89–98. doi:10.1016/j.geotexmem.2008.09.005. 0020-7.
Can. Geotech. J. Downloaded from www.nrcresearchpress.com by INDIAN INSTITUTE OF SCIENCE on 08/17/15
Sitharam, T.G., and Hegde, A. 2013. Design and construction of geocell founda- Yang, X., Han, J., Pokharel, S.K., Manandhar, C., Parsons, R.L., Leshchinsky, D.,
tion to support the embankment on soft settled red mud. Geotextiles and and Halahmi, I. 2012. Accelerated pavement testing of unpaved roads with
Geomembranes, 41: 55–63. doi:10.1016/j.geotexmem.2013.08.005. geocell-reinforced sand bases. Geotextiles and Geomembranes, 32: 95–103.
Sitharam, T.G., Sireesh, S., and Dash, S.K. 2005. Model studies of a circular doi:10.1016/j.geotexmem.2011.10.004.
For personal use only.
1. A.M. Hegde, T.G. Sitharam. 2015. Experimental and numerical studies on protection of buried pipelines and underground utilities
using geocells. Geotextiles and Geomembranes 43, 372-381. [CrossRef]
2. S.N. Moghaddas Tafreshi, T. Shaghaghi, Gh. Tavakoli Mehrjardi, A.R. Dawson, M. Ghadrdan. 2015. A simplified method for
predicting the settlement of circular footings on multi-layered geocell-reinforced non-cohesive soils. Geotextiles and Geomembranes
43, 332-344. [CrossRef]
Can. Geotech. J. Downloaded from www.nrcresearchpress.com by INDIAN INSTITUTE OF SCIENCE on 08/17/15
For personal use only.