Behavior of Geocell-Reinforced Subballast Subjected to Cyclic

Loading in Plane-Strain Condition

Buddhima Indraratna, F.ASCE1; M. Mahdi Biabani2; and Sanjay Nimbalkar3
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by Indian Institute of Technology Patna on 06/16/19. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

Abstract: Large-scale cubical triaxial tests were conducted to investigate the behavior of reinforced and unreinforced subballast under cyclic
load. Granular material with an average particle size (D50 ) of 3.3 mm and geocell with a depth of 150 mm and nominal area of 46 3 103 mm2
were used in this study. The laboratory results proved that subballast stabilization was influenced by the number of cycles (N), the confining
pressure (s9),
3 and the frequency of train-caused vibration ( f ). The experimental results also confirmed that the geocells influenced the
subballast behavior under cyclic loading, particularly at low confining pressure and high frequency. The additional confining pressure induced
by the geocell reduced its vertical and volumetric strains. The optimum confining pressure required to reduce excessive volumetric dilation also
was identified in this study. An empirical model using a mechanistic approach is proposed to determine the additional confinement induced by
the geocells, as well as the practical implications of the experimental outcomes. DOI: 10.1061/(ASCE)GT.1943-5606.0001199. © 2014
American Society of Civil Engineers.
Author keywords: Subballast; Geocell; Dilatancy; Additional confinement.

Introduction insufficient confinement. Railway organizations do not usually use

The recent and rapid urbanization and frequent congestion of roads
has resulted in more attention being focused on rail for freight and
commuter transport. This attention has forced the railway industry
to build and maintain tracks using locally available materials,
some of which have low shear strength and stiffness. Using poor-
quality materials, such as ballast and subballast, causes excessive
lateral spreading that leads to differential track settlement and
costly maintenance. Conventional ballasted track substructure
is divided into three layers: (1) ballast, i.e., coarse, angular aggre-
gates (size 5 10e70 mm); (2) subballast, containing finer aggregates
(size 5 0:3e20 mm); and (3) subgrade (soil or rock). Subballast
typically consists of a broadly graded sand-gravel mixture (Selig and
Waters 1994; Dahlberg 2001; Indraratna et al. 2013) that is designed
to reduce the cyclic stress being transmitted to the subgrade layer.
Depending on the type of subgrade, subballast may vary in thick-
ness, unlike the consistent thickness of ballast (i.e., 300 mm in
Australia) that is usually adopted in track construction and
maintenance practices.
In fast freight networks, ballast and subballast undergo significant
lateral spreading that leads to substantial vertical strain owing to
1
Professor of Civil Engineering and Research Director, Centre for
Geomechanics and Railway Engineering, Faculty of Engineering, Univ.
of Wollongong, Wollongong City, NSW 2522, Australia (corresponding
author). E-mail: indra@uow.edu.au
2
Ph.D. Candidate, Centre for Geomechanics and Railway Engineering,
Faculty of Engineering, Univ. of Wollongong, Wollongong City, NSW
2522, Australia. E-mail: mmb958@uowmail.edu.au
3
Research Fellow, Centre for Geomechanics and Railway Engineering,
Faculty of Engineering, Univ. of Wollongong, Wollongong City, NSW
2522, Australia. E-mail: sanjayn@uow.edu.au
Note. This manuscript was submitted on April 1, 2014; approved on
August 25, 2014; published online on September 19, 2014. Discussion
period open until February 19, 2015; separate discussions must be submitted
for individual papers. This paper is part of the Journal of Geotechnical and
Geoenvironmental Engineering, © ASCE, ISSN 1090-0241/04014081
(16)/$25.00.
geocells to confine upper ballast because it may lead to problems with
track maintenance when machinery is used to replace the ballast.
Despite this, reinforcing the underlying subballast with geocells
(a three-dimensional form of geosynthetics) is an economic and fea-
sible alternative. Geocells originally were developed by the U.S.
Army COE to improve vehicular mobility over loose sandy subgrade
(Webster and Alford 1978). Since then, it has been recognized that
improved performance with geocells is attributed mainly to increased
confinement. During loading, additional confinement is mobilized in
the geocell that helps to arrest the granular mass from spreading
laterally. By increasing the infill rigidity, geocells also improve the
load-carrying capacity (Zhang et al. 2010; Sitharam and Hegde 2013),
which in turn improves track performance.
A conventional triaxial apparatus has been used widely to in-
vestigate the shear strength of sand reinforced by single and multiple
geocell arrangements (Rajagopal et al. 1999; Mengelt et al. 2006;
Tafreshi and Dawson 2010; Biswas et al. 2013). The improved
performance of sand reinforced by geocells was attributed to the
apparent cohesion between the granular material and the geocell
strips (Bathurst and Karpurapu 1993). The role of cyclic loads under
triaxial conditions has been investigated to examine how reinforced
granular media behave under various geotechnical and pavement
applications (Tseng and Lytton 1989; Cowland and Wong 1993;
Sekine et al. 1994; Haque et al. 2004; Kwon and Tutumluer 2009;
Palmeira and Antunes 2010; Al-Qadi et al. 2012; Yang et al. 2012;
Leshchinsky and Ling 2013; Indraratna and Nimbalkar 2013; Santos
et al. 2013). However, only limited studies have investigated the
behavior of granular material under a plane-strain environment that
is applicable for rail tracks (Peters et al. 1988; Radampola 2006;
Radampola et al. 2008; Wanatowski et al. 2008; Choudhury 2009).
The lateral stresses (s9,
2 s9)
3 cannot be controlled independently in
a cylindrical triaxial specimen (s92 5 s9),
3 per previous reports (Sãyao
and Vaid 1996; Ishikawa et al. 2011). The disparity in the boundary
conditions between field conditions and conventional laboratory
equipment leads to inaccurate stress-strain information. To obtain
a realistic laboratory simulation, the large-scale prismoidal triaxial
apparatus designed and built at the University of Wollongong
(Indraratna et al. 1998) was used in this study. The behavior of

© ASCE 04014081-1 J. Geotech. Geoenviron. Eng.

J. Geotech. Geoenviron. Eng., 2015, 141(1): 04014081

 reinforced and unreinforced subballast under monotonic and cyclic
loading was studied at a relatively low lateral (confining) pressure
under plane-strain conditions. In the field, only a small confining
pressure (,20 kPa) is available from shoulder ballast and sleepers
(Lackenby et al. 2007). Sleeper is the typical British/Australian term
for a tie (as used in North America), shown in Fig. 1. This paper
presents the laboratory results of unreinforced and reinforced sub-
ballast under cyclic loading.
Prototype Process Simulation
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by Indian Institute of Technology Patna on 06/16/19. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.
The area of the prototype process simulation prismoidal triaxial
apparatus (PSPTA) replicates the influence zone, or the unit cell area
defined diagrammatically in Fig. 1, for a standard gauge Australian
heavy haul track, by the following dimensions: (1) in the transverse
direction, 400 mm symmetrically on each side of one rail (i.e., 800 mm),
which is equal to one-third of the total sleeper length (l ) of 2,400 mm
[also termed as an effective sleeper length (Jeffs and Tew 1991),
Fig. 1(a)]; and (2) in the longitudinal direction of train passage,
a distance equaling the sleeper spacing of 600 mm [Fig. 1(b)].
Therefore, the PSPTA with movable sides does not suffer from
reduced scale effects or adverse boundary effects, unlike conven-
tional geotechnical equipment with a fixed rigid boundary. The
boundary conditions at its sides may vary slightly from the reality.
Fig. 1. (Color) (a) Simplified track geometry for tie/ballast contact pressure assessment (modified from Jeffs and Tew 1991); (b) typical track
substructure arrangement considered in this study
© ASCE 04014081-2
J. Geotech. Geoenviron. Eng., 2015, 141(1): 04014081
For instance, because of symmetry, the lateral movements on each
side of the unit cell in the transverse direction are about the same,
whereas in reality the lateral movements at the edge of the sleeper
[i.e., side BC in Fig. 1(b)] are expected to be slightly greater than
those at side AD subjected to higher confinement.
Laboratory Program
The subballast material (crushed basalt) was collected from Bombo
quarry near Wollongong, New South Wales, Australia. The particle-
size distribution (PSD) of the subballast used in this study (Fig. 2)
was similar to current Australian practices in the states of Queensland
and Victoria. Dry granular subballast material to a depth of 450 mm, as
shown in Fig. 3(a), was placed into the cubical triaxial chamber. The
Geoweb geocells (Presto Geosystems, Appleton, Wisconsin) used in
this study were made from strips of polyethylene polymer material
welded together at the joints to create a three-dimensional cellular
form, 150 mm deep. The tensile strengths of the geocell for the bulk
material and welded section were determined as 12:5 and 11 kN×m,
respectively, according to ASTM D4885 (ASTM 2011) and ASTM
D4437 (ASTM 2013). In this study, the geocell shape was assumed to
be elliptical, which is more realistic in relation to the actual honeycomb
shape (Pokharel et al. 2010). A summary of the geocell properties is
given in Table 1.
J. Geotech. Geoenviron. Eng.
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by Indian Institute of Technology Patna on 06/16/19. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.
Fig. 2. (Color) Grain size characteristics of laboratory subballast compared with typical materials used in track in various states in Australia
A total of 30 cyclic loading tests were carried out (Table 2) using
a large-scale prismoidal triaxial rig (800 mm long, 600 mm wide, and
600 mm high), as shown in Figs. 3(a and b). A predetermined amount
of subballast was compacted with a vibratory hammer in several
layers to achieve a representative field density of approximately
2,100 kg=m3 [relative density (RD ) of 77%, specific gravity 5 2:7,
initial void ratio ðe0 Þ 5 0:29]. The test arrangement consisted of
five geocells filled with the subballast. In the field, the same number
of geocells would be enclosed within the same area of influence
(Fig. 1). Also, the test chamber width (Wbox ) to the geocell diameter
ratio (D) (i.e., Wbox =D 5 2:5) was on par with the recommended
NSW RailCorp practices (Choudhury 2009).
Ten strain gauges were attached to the geocell strips at the height
of 75 mm [shown in Fig. 3(a)] to measure the circumferential and
vertical strains. The surface of geocell was brushed lightly with
cleaner and degreaser, and an industrial adhesive was applied before
mounting the strain gauges. The strain gauge was pressed into the
adhesive with an overlying thin plastic film with care to remove all
entrapped air. The strain gauges were then covered by flexible
sealant followed by waterproofing tape. The cable leads were
encased in flexible conduits to protect against any damage owing to
vibratory compaction and subsequent deformation of the geocells.
Miniature pressure cells were used to measure the lateral pressure on
the geocell strips and were made of stainless steel (10 mm in
thickness, 50 mm in diameter, range of 500 kPa, 99.7% accuracy).
A servohydraulic actuator provided the vertical cyclic loading,
which was transmitted to the subballast through a 100-mm-diameter
steel ram and a top solid platen (800 mm long, 600 mm wide, and
12 mm thick), as shown in Fig. 3(b).
A minor principal stress (s9)
3 was applied to the vertical walls of the
triaxial chamber through the horizontal jacks to simulate the lateral
pressure, which in a real track is generated by the weight of the crib and
shoulder ballast. The lateral movement of the vertical walls in the
direction of the intermediate principal stress (s9) 2 was prevented by
locking the castors (i.e., ɛ 2 5 0), while the vertical walls in the or-
thogonal (i.e., transverse) direction of minor principal stress (s9)3 were
allowed to move laterally, thereby ensuring plane-strain conditions as
expected of a long straight track section in reality. The lateral spreading
(ɛ 3 ) was recorded by a linear voltage differential transformer (LVDT).
Initially, a strain-controlled load was applied at a rate of 1 mm=s until
the mean level of cyclic deviator stress was attained. Then a cyclic load
with a maximum amplitude (smax ) of 166 kPa and a minimum am-
plitude (smin ) of 41 kPa was superimposed over the static load to
produce a comparable mean contact stress of s91 5 160e170 kPa at
© ASCE 04014081-3
J. Geotech. Geoenviron. Eng., 2015, 141(1): 04014081
the subballast-ballast interface, the details of which are given in
Appendix I. The stress-controlled cyclic tests were performed using
a periodic, positive full-sine waveform, and the corresponding geo-
static stresses were simulated using a constant confining pressure. The
subballast medium was allowed to spread laterally parallel to the
sleepers, while the plane-strain condition (ɛ 2 5 0) was maintained.
To examine the effects of frequency and confining pressure on
the behavior of subballast, cyclic drained triaxial tests were con-
ducted at confining pressures (s9) 3 of 5, 10, 15, 20, and 30 kPa and
frequencies ( f ) of 10, 20, and 30 Hz. The load frequency of a train is
expressed as f 5 v=l, where v is train speed and l is the characteristic
length between axles. A typical freight wagon has multiple axles
(e.g., four axles in New South Wales heavy haul) that impart in-
dependent load cycles. As the axle distance is much smaller than the
bogie distance, the two rear axles of a leading wagon and two front
axles of a trailing wagon would generate the maximum frequency
(Indraratna et al. 2014). Therefore, a train traveling at approximately
75 km=h represents a cyclic load frequency ( f ) of 10 Hz for an axle
distance just exceeding 2 m (Appendix I). To consider the effects of
increased train speeds (e.g., V 5 145 and 220 km=h), appropriate
frequencies of f 5 20 and 30 Hz were selected, respectively.
The volumetric strain was calculated by summing the lateral strains
measured in each vertical wall along the direction of minor principal
stress and vertical strains along the direction of major principal stress.
Because there were no failures, the magnitudes of vertical strain and
volumetric strain were obtained at the end of a certain number of
cycles (N). Half a million cycles were applied to each test. A physical
examination of geocells excavated from the subballast after testing
revealed minor surface damage but no ruputre at the seams or joints.
Except at very high frequencies, permanent deformation of subballast
usually was caused by frictional rearrangement and volumetric
compaction (i.e., cyclic densification) rather than by actual breakage
(Suiker and de Borst 2003). Within the scope of this study, particle
breakage was not considered for this subballast.
Results and Discussion
Vertical Strain of Subballast with and without Geocell
Effect of Number of Load Cycles (N)
Figs. 4(a and b) show vertical strains of unreinforced and reinforced
subballast plotted against the number of load cycles (N) at various
frequencies ( f ) and confining pressures (s9).
3 Based on these results,
J. Geotech. Geoenviron. Eng.
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by Indian Institute of Technology Patna on 06/16/19. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

Fig. 3. (Color) PSPTA designed and built at the University of Wollongong (images by Mohammad Mahdi Biabani)

vertical strains (ɛ 1 ) increased rapidly during the first few thousand
cycles owing to initial particle rearrangement [i.e., the unstable
zone in Fig. 4(a)]. This strain rate increase diminished in the
subsequent cycles beyond the unstable zone, and, at a very high
value of N, ɛ 1 approached a constant. This zone where the strains
(ɛ 1 ) stabilized is known as the stable zone, which was in accor-
dance with studies reported elsewhere (Yu and Sloan 1997;
Dahlberg 2001; Krabbenhoft et al. 2007; Trani and Indraratna
2010; Nimbalkar et al. 2012; Tafreshi et al. 2014). The laboratory
results for the unreinforced specimen did not show a definite
attainment of shakedown even after 500,000 cycles, although, at
s93 $ 15 kPa, almost constant strain occurred as N approached
a half million cycles.
Undoubtedly, geocell reinforcement definitely improved the
performance of subballast because, when it was reinforced with
geocell, subballast approached shakedown at a lower number of
cycles than the unreinforced subballast [Fig. 4(b)]. At relatively
low frequency, both unreinforced and reinforced specimens fell within
the stable zone at approximately N 5 100,000 cycles. However,
at low confining pressure (s93 # 15) and at a higher frequency

© ASCE 04014081-4 J. Geotech. Geoenviron. Eng.

J. Geotech. Geoenviron. Eng., 2015, 141(1): 04014081

 ( f $ 20), the reinforced specimen reached the stable zone at ap-
proximately N 5 200,000 cycles. In contrast, the rate of vertical
strain in the unreinforced specimen still was observed to be in-
creasing significantly. The geocell confinement resulted in a
quasi-rigid mattress that minimized the lateral spreading of
infilled subballast (Huang and Tatsuoka 1990), which proved that
the reinforced composite material had a higher load-carrying
capacity with reduced settlement under cyclic loading, as shown
in Fig. 4(b).
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by Indian Institute of Technology Patna on 06/16/19. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.
and then tested at higher confining pressures (s93 5 20e30 kPa)
resulted in much less or even negligible vertical strain at various
frequencies, as shown in Fig. 4(b). These results reveal no ap-
preciable difference between the reinforced and unreinforced
subballast at s93 5 30 kPa, so it can be concluded that this opti-
mum confining pressure is enough to control the strains, a result
that is in agreement with a previous study (Lackenby et al. 2007).
Effect of Frequency ( f )
At low frequency ( f 5 10 Hz), the unreinforced subballast caused
considerable vertical strain at very low confining pressure (s93

Effect of Confining Pressure (s9) 3 5 5e15 kPa), and this behavior was more pronounced at higher
Substantial vertical strains had developed in the unreinforced frequency (i.e., f 5 20e30 Hz). As evident from Figs. 4(a and b),
subballast at very low confinement (s93 # 15 kPa). The results at an increased frequency (i.e., f 5 20e30 Hz) the strains (ɛ 1 )
also showed that using geocells had markedly decreased the strain increased substantially, especially at low confining pressure (s93
rates of specimens tested at lower confining pressure (s93 # 15 kPa). These results indicate that geocells had a profound
# 15 kPa), but had diminishing returns at higher confining influence on the specimens tested at higher frequencies, i.e., f
pressures (s93 5 20e30 kPa). Specimens reinforced with geocells 5 20e30 Hz, as shown in Fig. 4(b); this occurred because these
specimens yielded a significant lateral strain, which in turn mobilized
higher tension in the geocell strips. Therefore, geocells generated
Table 1. Physical Characteristics and Technical Specification of Geocell a substantial additional confining pressure proving more effective at
Used for the Study higher applied frequency.
Characteristics Properties Values/details
Physical Material Polyethylene
Volumetric Strain of Subballast with and
Aperture size 320 3 287
without Geocell
(length 3 width) (mm)
Wall type Perforated, textured Effect of Number of Load Cycles (N)
Cell wall open area 16.8 The lateral strains were recorded parallel to the minor principal stress
(percentage) (s9);
3 but, in the orthogonal lateral direction, a plane-strain condition
Nominal area (mm2 ) 46 3 103 was maintained (i.e., ɛ 2 5 0). The complementary strain invariant,
Cells (per m2 ) 21.7 i.e., volumetric strain ɛ v , has been defined by Timoshenko and
Cell depth (mm) 150 Goodier (1970) as ɛ v 5 ɛ 1 1 ɛ 2 1 ɛ 3 . For the special case of plane
Weld spacing (mm) 445 strain, the strain invariants for the nonaxisymmetric triaxial speci-
Thickness (mm) 1.3a mens (s92  s93 and ɛ 2 5 0) were expressed as ɛ v 5 ɛ 1 1 ɛ 3 . In
Color Black, from carbon black concurrence with a previous study (Suiker et al. 2005), during the
(1.5–2% by weight) first few thousand cycles, unreinforced subballast experienced
Technical Ultimate tensile strength — a steady increase in the volumetric strains until it reached the stable
(kN × m) zone, as shown in Figs. 5(a and b); but, as the number of cycles
Bulk material 9.5b increased further, the rates at which the volumetric strain increments
Seam 8c increased were reduced substantially.
Minimum cell seam strength 2.13
(kN × m)
Density (g=cm3 ) 0.95d Effect of Confining Pressure (s9) 3 and Frequency ( f )
a
ASTM (2012). Cyclic loading leads to a reorientation of subballast that results in
b
ASTM (2011). volumetric strain (i.e., compression or dilation) that depends on
c
ASTM (2013). the initial condition of the material. In this study, dilative volu-
d
ASTM (2010). metric strain was considered to be positive. As Figs. 5(a and b)

Table 2. Summary of Cubical Triaxial Tests on Subballast

Material type Mean stress, smean (kPa) scyc 5 smax 2 smin (kPa) Confining pressure, s39 (kPa) Frequency, f (Hz)
Subballast 104 125 5 10, 20, 30
104 125 10 10, 20, 30
104 125 15 10, 20, 30
104 125 20 10, 20, 30
104 125 30 10, 20, 30
Geocell 1 subballast 104 125 5 10, 20, 30
104 125 10 10, 20, 30
104 125 15 10, 20, 30
104 125 20 10, 20, 30
104 125 30 10, 20, 30

© ASCE 04014081-5 J. Geotech. Geoenviron. Eng.

J. Geotech. Geoenviron. Eng., 2015, 141(1): 04014081

Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by Indian Institute of Technology Patna on 06/16/19. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

Fig. 4. Variation of vertical strain (ɛ 1 ) against number of cycles: (a) unreinforced subballast; (b) reinforced subballast

show, the confining pressure (s9) 3 had a significant impact on
the volumetric strain of the subballast such that, at very low
confinement (s93 # 15 kPa), excessive dilation developed in the
unreinforced specimens at the same frequency. Moreover, the
results showed that specimens with s93 $ 20 kPa were not influenced
as much, even by higher frequencies, because confinement of
s93 $ 20 kPa was large enough to prevent the subballast from ex-
cessive dilation.
Based on the results of this study, the behavior of geocell-
reinforced granular medium varies significantly depending on
the applied cyclic frequencies. For instance, higher frequency
loading tended initially to cause increased lateral spreading of
material, which in turn induced tension of the geocell wall and an
associated increase in an additional confinement. This increased
confinement and geocell tension then provided a self-stabilizing
ring of infill material. Under low frequencies, the geocells still
provided some confinement, but the cellular assembly was not
fully activated until the hoop stress attained a threshold value at an
increased frequency. In addition, increasing the frequency induced
significant volumetric strains into the specimen; but, when geocell
reinforcement was provided, the volumetric dilation reduced to an
acceptable degree.
Final Vertical and Volumetric Strains
The effect of confining pressures on the permanent strains of
subballast can best be evaluated by comparing the final values
of vertical (ɛ 1 ) and volumetric (ɛ v ) strains at N $ 500,000.
Figs. 6(a and b) show the beneficial use of geocells for a specimen
tested at low confining pressure and at different frequencies.
Indeed, the results show that increasing the confining pressure to
s93 5 20e30 kPa at the desired frequency led to a marked reduction
of strains (ɛ 1 and ɛ v ) for both reinforced and unreinforced sub-
ballast. Increasing the frequency from 10 to 30 Hz for specimens at
a given confining pressure (s93 5 5 kPa) resulted in a 25–30%
increase in vertical strain [Fig. 6(a)]. Nevertheless, the percentage
decrease in vertical strain was substantial by only increasing the
confining pressure from s93 5 5 to 30 kPa at a given frequency.
Fig. 6(b) shows that using the geocell as a cellular confinement
markedly reduced the volumetric strain, and, for a desired fre-
quency at s93 5 5e10 kPa, geocell reinforcement reduced the
volumetric strain by 15–25% compared with the unreinforced
specimen. Again, these results prove that the benefits of using
geocells are optimum at relatively low confining pressure
(s93 5 15 kPa), and, therefore, are used ideally in the field where the
ballast and subballast confinement has not been increased by other

© ASCE 04014081-6 J. Geotech. Geoenviron. Eng.

J. Geotech. Geoenviron. Eng., 2015, 141(1): 04014081

Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by Indian Institute of Technology Patna on 06/16/19. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

Fig. 5. Variation of volumetric strain (ɛ v ) against number of load cycles: (a) unreinforced subballast; (b) reinforced subballast

Fig. 6. Final (a) vertical strain (ɛ 1 ) and (b) volumetric strain (ɛ v ) after 500,000 cycles (N)

© ASCE 04014081-7 J. Geotech. Geoenviron. Eng.

J. Geotech. Geoenviron. Eng., 2015, 141(1): 04014081


means, such as side restraints and altered sleeper shapes, as pro-
posed by Lackenby et al. (2007).
Resilient Modulus of Unreinforced and
Reinforced Subballast
The resilient modulus (MR ) is defined as
scyc
MR ¼
ɛ 1e
where scyc 5 cyclic deviator stress; and ɛ e1 5 elastic vertical
strain during unloading. The effect of the number of cycles (N),
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by Indian Institute of Technology Patna on 06/16/19. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.
confining pressure (s9),
3 and frequency ( f ) on resilient modulus
of reinforced and unreinforced subballast were assessed in this
study. It was found that the resilient modulus increased with the
increasing number of cycles, as shown in Fig. 7. At a very large
number of cycles (N $ 100,000), the magnitude of the plastic
deformation of both reinforced and unreinforced specimens
decreased substantially, which represents a relatively constant
value of MR . The MR for reinforced subballast increased by 10–
18% compared with unreinforced subballast. Figs. 8(a and c)
show the impact of the frequency and confining pressure on
the observed results. By increasing the confining pressure and
frequency, the MR of reinforced and unreinforced subballast
increased by approximately 20%. Frequency affects the MR of
the specimen reinforced with geocells slightly more than the
unreinforced specimen, because the geocells help to stabilize the
infill subballast under high frequency cyclic loading and, thus,
improve its resilient modulus.
It is well known that the resilient modulus of granular material
can be determined by (Uzan 1985)

k2
k3
u toct
MR ¼ k1 Patm þ1 (2)
Patm Patm
where t oct 5 shear stress; Patm 5 atmospheric pressure; and u 5 bulk
stress of the subballast, as defined by
u ¼ s1 þ s2 þ s3
Fig. 7. Variation of resilient modulus (MR ) of the unreinforced and
reinforced subballast at different numbers of load cycles (N)
© ASCE
J. Geotech. Geoenviron. Eng., 2015, 141(1): 04014081
qffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffi
1
toct ¼ ðs1 2 s2 Þ2 þ ðs1 2 s3 Þ2 þ ðs2 2 s3 Þ2 (4)
3
In Eq. (2), k1 , k2 , and k3 are the experimental parameters (Table 3). A
best-fit regression analysis was performed to backcalculate the
values of these empirical parameters using the experimental data
(coefficient of regression, r2 $ 0:97). Figs. 8(b and d) show the
predicted values of the resilient modulus of unreinforced and
(1)
reinforced subballast based on the empirical model [Eq. (2)]. It is
evident here that the predictions made by the empirical model agree
with the test data obtained from the plane-strain condition. This
means the model can capture variations in the resilient modulus for
different s93 and f .
Angles of Friction and Dilatancy
The mobilized friction angle and angle of dilatancy can be measured
by (Bolton 1986)
s91 2 s93
sin fm ¼ (5)
s91 þ s93

dɛ 1p þ xdɛ 3p dɛ vp dɛ 1p
sin cm ¼ ¼    (6)
dɛ 1p 2 xdɛ 3p 2 2 dɛ vp dɛ 1p
where fm 5 mobilized friction angle; s91 5 normal stress; s93
5 confining pressure (kPa); cm 5 mobilized dilation angle; ɛ vp
5 plastic volumetric strain; ɛ 1p 5 plastic vertical strain at the re-
quired number of cycles (N); and x 5 1 for plane-strain condition
(Indraratna and Nimbalkar 2013).
In an earlier study, Leshchinsky and Ling (2013) found that the
confining pressure had almost no effect on the angle of friction or the
angle of dilation. Figs. 9(a and b) show that the mobilized friction
angle and the angle of dilation decrease as the confining pressure and
frequency increase within the range of 38–44°. The reinforced
(3) subballast had lesser values of fm and cm than the unreinforced
aggregates owing to induced additional confinement. Nevertheless,
increasing the confining pressure to 30 kPa, the difference between
fm of unreinforced and reinforced subballast became marginal
owing to noneffectiveness of the geocells. As expected, the variation
of fm with s93 was relatively small compared with the variation of cm
because of the low confining pressures adopted in this study. Under
higher ranges of confining pressures, the friction angle could reduce
substantially and render a more prominent nonlinear variation
(Indraratna et al. 1998). Assessing track stability using the strain-
based approach (dilation angle preferred over friction angle) is more
appropriate when tracks are subjected to almost uniform stress, albeit
sensitive to deformations owing to insufficient confining pressure
and high frequency loading. The results shown in Fig. 9(b) imply
that, for a real rail track with geocell confinement and s93 5 30 kPa,
subballast dilation can be controlled effectively, even at higher
speeds ( f $ 20 Hz).
Axial Strain and Lateral Pressure Mobilized in Geocells
Fig. 10 shows the variation of strains recorded using strain gauges
attached to the geocell pockets plotted against the number of load
cycles, N. An increase in axial strain was observed with increasing
N, which implies the occurrence of vertical (axial) compression
coupled with lateral (outward) expansion of the geocell pocket.
Moreover, increased strains were observed at higher frequencies.
04014081-8 J. Geotech. Geoenviron. Eng.
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by Indian Institute of Technology Patna on 06/16/19. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

Fig. 8. Variation of resilient modulus at different confining pressures and given frequency: (a) experimental results of unreinforced subballast;
(b) model prediction of unreinforced subballast; (c) experimental results of reinforced subballast; (d) model prediction of reinforced subballast

Additional Confinement where Mm 5 mobilized geocell modulus at a different number of

cycles; D 5 diameter of an equivalent circular area of the geocell
A semiempirical model for determining additional confinement in
pocket; ng 5 Poisson’s ratio of geocell; and k 5 ratio (k 5 ɛ cp =ɛ 3p
a geocell mattress is presented. The derived equations are based on
5 0:45). The detailed derivation of Eq. (7) is given in Appendix II.
mobilized strength for an ideal, elastic, and isotropic material in terms
By considering a permanent deformation relationship for cyclic
of stress component given by Hooke’s law. In these equations, em-
loading, as proposed by Indraratna and Nimbalkar (2013), the per-
pirical parameters for axial and lateral strains based on the stress di-
manent vertical strain can be defined in terms of the load cycles as
latancy approach have been adopted. For a geocell mattress (multiple
p  
geocell), an additional confining pressure is ɛ 1p ¼ ɛ 1,1 1 þ a log N þ 0:5b log N 2 (8)
 
2Mm 1 2 ng k þ n g p
where ɛ 1,1 5 settlement of the granular material after the first load
dðDs93Þ ¼ ×  
D 1 þ ng 1 2 2ng cycles; and a and b 5 empirical coefficients representing the stable


 and unstable zones, respectively. By differentiating Eq. (8) and re-
ng scyc 1 þ sin cm
× 2 þ dɛ 1p  (7) arranging Eq. (7), the equivalent additional confinement in a geocell
dMR 1 2 sin cm mattress can be proposed by

© ASCE 04014081-9 J. Geotech. Geoenviron. Eng.

J. Geotech. Geoenviron. Eng., 2015, 141(1): 04014081

 ð lim
N5N  
the test, so, owing to geocell reinforcement, the mobilized angle of
2Mm 1 2 ng k þ ng n s dilation decreased as the tensile strength increased with respect to the
Ds93 ¼ ×   × 2 g cyc
D 1 þ ng 1 2 2ng dMR number of cycles. For a given cyclic stress (scyc ), by considering
N51


 variation of resilient modulus (MR ) and dilation angle (cm ) against
p a9 b9 1 þ sin cm number of cycles (N), the current model is able to provide more accurate
þ ɛ 1,1 þ  dN (9)
N N 1 2 sin cm predictions than the model proposed by Henkel and Gilbert (1952).
To highlight how additional confinement can affect reinforced
where Nlim 5 number of cycles required to reach the stable zone. In the specimens, the normalized additional confinement is defined by
current model, an additional confining pressure Ds93 can now be de- a dimensionless ratio as
termined by integrating Eq. (9) and considering the properties of un- Ds93
reinforced subballast (i.e., cm and ɛ 1,1p
) along with Mm and D for ks ¼ (10)
s93
geocell mattress at the desired number of load cycles, confining pres-
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by Indian Institute of Technology Patna on 06/16/19. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

sure, and frequency. Also, it may be noted that the geocell modulus where Ds93 5 calculated additional confinement (kPa); and s93
(Mm ) and angle of dilation (cm ) were not assumed to be constant during 5 applied confining pressure (kPa). Fig. 11(a) shows the comparison
between Ds93 as determined by the proposed model and that of Yang
and Han (2013). The current model gives a higher confining pressure
Table 3. Input Parameters for Geocell-Reinforced Subballast initially than Yang and Han (2013), which can be justified because the
modulus (Mm ) mobilized under cyclic loading reaches a higher value
Yang and Han
initially and then an ultimate value depending on strains reached during
Input parameter Current model (2013) model
cyclic load application. The model by Yang and Han (2013) also has
Frequency, f (Hz) 20, 30 — some limitations: (1) ignoring the effect of frequency, and (2) ignoring
Confining pressure, s39 (kPa) 5, 10 5, 10 variations in the resilient modulus and the dilation angle versus the
Sample diameter, D (cm) 0.24 0.24 number of load cycles. The present model incorporates these variations
Geocell height, h (mm) 150 150 in the mobilized modulus (Mm ) and the angle of mobilized dilatancy
a9 0.55 — (cm ) under varying frequency and load cycles (N) (Table 3).
b9 0.85 — As shown in Fig. 11(a), a geocell mattress offers maximum
dɛ 0 =dɛ r — 50 additional confinement at s93 5 5 kPa at any given frequency, and, as
r — 1,000 expected, by increasing the confining pressure (s93 5 20e30 kPa),
b — 0.2 the value of Ds93 was reduced by approximately 40% at a given
Geocell modulus, Mm (kN × m) 328 (ultimate) 328 frequency. As shown in Fig. 11(b), frequency has a profound impact
600 (initial)a on Ds9. 3 Increasing the frequency leads to an increase in ks , and, as
k1 3.5 ( f 5 10 Hz) 3.5 a result, the apparent confining pressure applied to the sample
4.375 ( f 5 20 Hz) [s93ðeffectiveÞ5 s93ðapparentÞ 1 Ds9]
3 also increases. It is necessary to note
5.25 ( f 5 30 Hz) that the proposed model [Eq. (9)], which was derived from
k2 5.75 (10 # f # 30 Hz) 5.75 a mechanistic analysis, can be applied for a wide range of materials
k3 20:1 (10 # f # 30 Hz) 20:1 and stress levels. The measured values of lateral pressures are
Poisson’s ratio (n) 0.3 — shown in Fig. 11(b). The comparison of measured data against
Number of cycles, Nlim N 5 500,000 N 5 500,000 predicted values of extra confinement offered by geocell, as shown
a in Fig. 11(b), reveals acceptable accuracy of the analytical model
The geocell modulus varies from the initial to the ultimate value depending
on the strains reached during each stage of cyclic loading. proposed in the current study.

Fig. 9. Variation of (a) mobilized friction angle (fm ) and (b) mobilized angle of dilatancy (cm ) at different confining pressures

© ASCE 04014081-10 J. Geotech. Geoenviron. Eng.

J. Geotech. Geoenviron. Eng., 2015, 141(1): 04014081

Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by Indian Institute of Technology Patna on 06/16/19. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

Fig. 10. Axial strain recorded by strain gauges

Practical Implications: Empirical Design Factors

The outcome of this study is certainly valuable for constructing or
modernizing rail track on subgrade material with low shear strength
and insufficient confinement. The results of the current study proved
that, by using geocell reinforcement, the subballast can be confined
to the degree required for enhanced track performance, including
increased train speeds. Indeed, this study has shown that geocells
can yield maximum additional confinement (Ds9) 3 and, hence, sig-
nificant improvement in track performance at very low confining
pressure (s93 # 15 kPa) that is otherwise available in the field.
Furthermore, geocells improve the vertical and lateral stabilities
(increased resilient modulus, reduced angle of dilatancy, reduced
vertical deformation) of tracks.
The frequency-velocity relationship, as described previously,
was used to obtain the train speed at the corresponding frequency of
cyclic loading. Fig. 12 shows the variation between train speed (and
frequency) and settlement at a given number of load cycles
(N 5 500,000). It is evident that using geocells can decrease set-
tlement at the same confining pressure and frequency, and, as Fig. 11. (a) Comparison of present study model with that of Yang and
a further consequence, a train with a much higher speed can be Han (2013); (b) normalized additional confinement (ks ) for reinforced
allowed on track with reinforced subballast at a given confining subballast at N 5 500,000 cycles
pressure and allowable settlement, as shown in Fig. 12.
The values of improved resilient modulus [FðMR Þ], settlement
reduction ratio [FðSa,p Þ], and speed improvement factor (Fv ) are By using this simple analytical approach, it is now possible to pre-
plotted against the ks shown in Fig. 13. The relative increase in dict the improvement in speed for a given rail track when it is sta-
FðMR Þ helps to decrease the value of FðSa,p Þ and the associated bilized with geocells at any given confining pressure.
increase in train speed. The FðMR Þ shows a rapid increase followed
by a dramatic decrease at higher values of ks , which implies the
subballast was stiffer as a result of using geocells. The percentage
Conclusions
decrease in settlement and percentage increase in train speed follow
the same trend; therefore, train speeds can be increased sub-
The behavior of subballast with and without geocell was in-
stantially by using geocells owing to increasing lateral restraints. By
vestigated using large-scale prismoidal test apparatus and under
performing a regression analysis on the test data, an empirical
cyclic loading at low confining pressures (5 # s93 # 30 kPa). The
equation is proposed to predict the speed improvement ratio as
results showed that the plane-strain response was governed by three
follows:
main factors: (1) the number of load cycles (N), (2) the confining
pressure (s9),
3 and (3) the frequency of cyclic loading ( f ). The
Fv ¼ 4:0928 lnðks Þ þ 22:089 (11) following conclusions were drawn from this study:

© ASCE 04014081-11 J. Geotech. Geoenviron. Eng.

J. Geotech. Geoenviron. Eng., 2015, 141(1): 04014081

Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by Indian Institute of Technology Patna on 06/16/19. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

Fig. 12. Variation of velocity and subballast settlement

1. An increased confinement offered by geocells helped to reduce

the vertical and volumetric strains of subballast. The geocell
benefit was observed mainly at low confining pressure (s93
# 15 kPa) and at higher frequency ( f $ 20 Hz). The geocells
had relatively no impact on the behavior of subballast at an
optimum confining pressure (s93 5 30 kPa) but were enough to
reduce dilation. At this confining pressure no tensile strains were
mobilized in the geocell (i.e., no extra confinement).
2. Increased frequency led to higher vertical strain at the same
number of cycles. At higher frequencies, the zone of stable
shakedown in the subballast was reached at a higher number of
cycles. Whereas unreinforced samples did not reach a level of
stable shakedown even after half a million cycles, the geocell-
reinforced specimen reached shakedown depending on the
frequency. At a higher confining pressure (s93 5 30 kPa),
frequency had less influence on the behavior of unreinforced Fig. 13. Normalized additional confinement (ks ) against (a) improved
and reinforced subballast. resilient modulus FðMR Þ; (b) settlement reduction ratio FðSa,p Þ;
3. By reinforcing subballast with geocells, the allowable train (c) speed improvement factor (Fv ) for geocell-reinforced subballast at
speed can be increased by approximately 5–25% to that appli- given velocity
cable for track that usually has low confinement in the field.
4. Geocells were found to have a profound influence on improv-
pressure, a nominal axle load of 294 kN (30 t) was assumed, and this is
ing resiliency (i.e., increased resilient modulus) and also de- equivalent to a vertical pressure of 147 kN. Based on recommendations
creased the corresponding settlement by approximately
by the American Railway Engineering Association (AREA), the design
12–25% compared with unreinforced subballast.
wheel load can then be calculated using the following (Li and Selig
1998):
Appendix I. Calculation of Applied Stress at the Pd ¼ f × Ps (12)
Ballast-Subballast Interface
where Ps 5 static wheel load (kN); Pd 5 design wheel load (kN); and
The maximum contact pressure on the top of subballast surface was f 5 impact factor (dimensionless) given as follows (Indraratna et al.
determined as an input parameter for cyclic testing. For calculating this 2011):

© ASCE 04014081-12 J. Geotech. Geoenviron. Eng.

J. Geotech. Geoenviron. Eng., 2015, 141(1): 04014081

 Appendix II. Determination of Additional Confinement
Offered by the Geocell in Plane-Strain Condition

Additional confinement offered by the geocell may be computed

using hoop tension theory. By considering Hooke’s law, the cir-
cumferential stress is described as follows:

M  
sc ¼   m  × 1 2 ng ɛ c þ ng ðɛ 3 þ ɛ z Þ (17)
1 þ ng × 1 2 2ng

where ɛ c and ɛ 3 5 circumferential and radial strains; and sc

5 circumferential stresses using a cylindrical polar coordinate system;
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by Indian Institute of Technology Patna on 06/16/19. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

for the plane-strain condition (ɛ 2 5 0), Eq. (17) can be simplified to

Mm  
sc ¼    1 2 n g ɛ c þ ng ɛ 3 (18)
1 þ ng 1 2 2ng

Referring to Fig. 15(a), additional confinement can be presented

as follows:

2sc
Ds93 ¼ (19)
D
Fig. 14. Typical schematic of axle load to the track
In the current analysis, a constant ratio between circumferential
and lateral strains was assumed for a given deflection profile
f ¼ ð0:0052V=Dw Þ þ 1 (13) [Fig. 15(b)] in a plane-strain condition (ɛ c 5 k × ɛ 3 ). By substituting
Eq. (18) into Eq. (19), the additional confinement stress Ds93 for
By setting train speed (V) at 73 km=h (corresponding to f a geocell mattress can be presented as follows:
5 10 Hz) (Fig. 14) and wheel diameter Dw at 0.97 m, the design  
wheel load Pd was determined to be 204 kN. Considering 50% of 2Mm 1 2 ng k þ n g
pressure transmitted to the adjacent sleepers [varies from 50 to 60%, Ds93 ¼    ð2ɛ 3 Þ (20)
D 1 þ ng 1 2 2ng
as shown by Atalar et al. (2001)], the rail seat load (qr ) was obtained
as 102 kN. Assuming uniform distribution of stress, the contact where Ds93 5 additional confining stress (kPa) in each pocket; D
pressure at the ballast-sleeper interface (Pa ) can then be computed as 5 diameter of an equivalent circular area of the geocell pocket; and
follows (Jeffs and Tew 1991): Mm 5 mobilized modulus of the geocell.
qr The total strain rate dɛ ij is the sum of a plastic, nonreversible
Pa ¼ F2 (14) component (dɛ ijp ) and an elastic, reversible component (dɛ eij ), in-
BL
dicated by e and p, respectively, such that
where F2 5 factor depending on track maintenance and sleeper type
dɛ 3 ¼ dɛ e3 þ dɛ 3p (21)
(F2 5 1); B 5 width of sleeper (B 5 260 mm); l 5 total length of
sleeper (l 5 2,400 mm); and L 5 effective length of sleeper. By
assuming the effective length of sleeper as one-third of the total The lateral elastic strain ɛ e3 can be expressed as ng ɛ e1. The elastic
sleeper length (Jeffs and Tew 1991), Eq. (14) becomes strain rate dɛ e3 is
ng scyc

 dɛ e3 ¼ (22)
3qr dMR
Pa ¼ F2 (15)
Bl
By using the dilatancy equation [Eq. (22)], the plastic strain rate dɛ 3p
can be defined as follows:
According to Japanese track standards, considering L as 2d,
where d is the distance between the rail head center and the sleeper

1 þ sin cm
edge (d 5 500 mm), the following equation can be used to obtain Pa 2dɛ 3p ¼ dɛ 1p (23)
1 2 sin cm
(Atalar et al. 2001):
qr Substituting Eqs. (22) and (23) into the differential form of
Pa ¼ F2 (16) Eq. (20), an additional confining pressure for a geocell mattress is
2dB
obtained as follows:
Considering Eqs. (14)–(16), a maximum of Pa (i.e., Pa 5 490:4 kPa)
was considered. Considering the sleeper area (L 5 800 mm, B  
5 260 mm) and a ballast depth of 300 mm, the stress on top of the 2Mm 1 2 ng k þ n g
dðDs93Þ ¼ ×  
subballast then can be determined as 166 kPa using Boussinesq’s elastic D 1 þ ng 1 2 2ng
theory. A minimum amplitude (smin ) of 41 kPa was selected to rep-


ng scyc 1 þ sin cm
resent in situ unloaded track state (such as rail, sleeper, and ballast × 2 þ dɛ 1p  (24)
weights) and to prevent undesirable actuator behavior (impact loading). dMR 1 2 sin cm

© ASCE 04014081-13 J. Geotech. Geoenviron. Eng.

J. Geotech. Geoenviron. Eng., 2015, 141(1): 04014081

Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by Indian Institute of Technology Patna on 06/16/19. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

Fig. 15. (Color) (a) Stress profile and (b) deflection profile of geocell under plane-strain environment

Acknowledgments Notation

The financial support received from the Cooperative Research Cen- The following symbols are used in this paper:
tre (CRC) for Rail Innovation to conduct this research is gratefully a9, b9 5 empirical constants;
appreciated. Mr. Alan Grant, laboratory manager, and Mr. Ritchie B 5 width of sleeper (mm);
McLean, technical officer in the School of Civil, Mining, and Envi- Cc 5 coefficient of curvature;
ronmental Engineering at the University of Wollongong, assisted Cu 5 uniformity coefficient;
during laboratory testing, and an undergraduate student, Mr. Anthony D 5 diameter of an equivalent circular area of
Finbarr Jones, also assisted in sample preparation and testing. The geocell pocket (m);
authors are grateful for their help. Dmax 5 maximum particle size (mm);

© ASCE 04014081-14 J. Geotech. Geoenviron. Eng.

J. Geotech. Geoenviron. Eng., 2015, 141(1): 04014081

 Dw 5 wheel diameter (m);
D50 5 average particle size (mm);
d 5 distance between the rail head center and edge of
the sleeper (mm);
dɛ 0 =dɛ r , b, r 5 permanent deformation parameters;
FðMR Þ 5 improved resilient modulus;
FðSa,p Þ 5 settlement reduction factor;
Fv 5 speed improvement factor;
F2 5 factor depends of track maintenance and
sleeper type;
f 5 frequency (Hz);
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by Indian Institute of Technology Patna on 06/16/19. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.
h 5 geocell height (mm);
ks 5 normalized confinement ratio;
k1 , k2 , k3 5 resilient modulus constants;
L 5 effective length of sleeper supporting the
load (mm);
l 5 total length of sleeper (mm);
Mm 5 mobilized geocell modulus (kN × m);
MR 5 resilient modulus (MPa);
N 5 number of cycles;
Pa 5 average contact pressure between sleeper and
ballast (kPa);
Patm 5 atmosphere pressure (kPa);
Pd 5 design wheel load (kN);
Ps 5 static wheel load (kN);
qmax 5 maximum amplitude (kPa);
qmean 5 mean load (kN);
qmin 5 minimum amplitude (kPa);
qr 5 maximum rail seat load (kN);
RD 5 relative density;
V 5 train velocity (km=h);
Wbox 5 chamber width (mm);
Ds93 5 additional confining pressure (kPa);
ɛ c 5 circumferential strain (percentage);
ɛ 1e 5 elastic vertical strain (percentage);
ɛ vp 5 plastic volumetric strain (percentage);
ɛ 1p 5 plastic vertical strain (percentage);
p
ɛ 1,1 5 settlement after first load cycle (mm);
ɛ v 5 volumetric strain (percentage);
ɛ 1 5 vertical strain (percentage);
ɛ 3 5 radial strain (percentage);
u 5 bulk stress (kPa);
l 5 distance between axles (mm);
ng 5 Poisson’s ratio of geocell;
r 5 density (kg=m3 );
scyc 5 cyclic deviator stress (kPa);
s91 5 major principal stress (kPa);
s92 5 intermediate principal stress (kPa);
s93 5 minor principal stress (kPa);
t oct 5 shear stress (kPa);
f 5 dimensionless impact factor;
fm 5 mobilized friction angle (degrees); and
cm 5 mobilized dilation angle (degrees).
References
Al-Qadi, I. L., Dessouky, S. H., Kwon, J., and Tutumluer, E. (2012).
“Geogrid-reinforced low-volume flexible pavements: Pavement re-
sponse and geogrid optimal location.” J. Transp. Eng., 10.1061/(ASCE)
TE.1943-5436.0000409, 1083–1090.
© ASCE
J. Geotech. Geoenviron. Eng., 2015, 141(1): 04014081
ASTM. (2010). “Standard test method for density of plastics by the density-
gradient technique.” D1505-10, West Conshohocken, PA.
ASTM. (2011). “Standard test method for determining performance strength
of geomembranes by the wide strip tensile method.” D4885-01(2011),
West Conshohocken, PA.
ASTM. (2012). “Standard test method for measuring the nominal thickness
of geosynthetics.” D5199-12, West Conshohocken, PA.
ASTM. (2013). “Standard practice for non-destructive testing (NDT) for
determining the integrity of seams used in joining flexible polymeric
sheet geomembranes.” D4437-08(2013), West Conshohocken, PA.
Atalar, C., Das, B. M., Shin, E. C., and Kim, D. H. (2001). “Settlement of
geogrid-reinforced railroad bed due to cyclic load.” Proc., 15th Int. Conf.
on Soil Mechanics and Geotechnical Engineering, Vol. 3, CRC Press,
Boca Raton, FL, 2045–2048.
Bathurst, R. J., and Karpurapu, R. (1993). “Large-scale triaxial compression
testing of geocell-reinforced granular soils.” Geotech. Test. J., 16(3),
296–303.
Biswas, A., Krishna, A. M., and Dash, S. K. (2013). “Influence of subgrade
strength on the performance of geocell-reinforced foundation systems.”
Geosynthetics Int., 20(6), 376–388.
Bolton, M. D. (1986). “The strength and dilatancy of sands.” Géotechnique,
36(1), 65–78.
Choudhury, J. (2009). “Track reconditioning guidelines.” TMC 403 engi-
neering manual, RailCorp, Chippendale, NSW, Australia.
Cowland, J. W., and Wong, S. C. K. (1993). “Performance of a road em-
bankment on soft clay supported on a geocell mattress foundation.”
Geotext. Geomembr., 12(8), 687–705.
Dahlberg, T. (2001). “Some railroad settlement models—A critical review.”
J. Rail Rapid Transit, 215(4), 289–300.
Haque, A., Bouazza, A., and Kodikara, J. (2004). “Filtration behaviour of
cohesionless soils under dynamic loading.” Proc., 9th Australia New
Zealand Conf. on Geomechanics, Univ. of Auckland, Auckland, New
Zealand, 867–873.
Henkel, D. J., and Gilbert, G. D. (1952). “The effect measured of the rubber
membrane on the triaxial compression strength of clay samples.”
Géotechnique, 3(1), 20–29.
Huang, C.-C., and Tatsuoka, F. (1990). “Bearing capacity of reinforced
horizontal sandy ground.” Geotext. Geomembr., 9(1), 51–82.
Indraratna, B., Ionescu, D., and Christie, H. D. (1998). “Shear behavior of
railway ballast based on large-scale triaxial tests.” J. Geotech. Geo-
environ. Eng., 10.1061/(ASCE)1090-0241(1998)124:5(439), 439–
449.
Indraratna, B., and Nimbalkar, S. (2013). “Stress-strain degradation
response of railway ballast stabilized with geosynthetics.” J. Geotech.
Geoenviron. Eng., 10.1061/(ASCE)GT.1943-5606.0000758, 684–
700.
Indraratna, B., Nimbalkar, S., and Neville, T. (2013). “Performance as-
sessment of reinforced ballasted rail track.” Proc. Inst. Civ. Eng. Ground
Improv., 167(1), 24–34.
Indraratna, B., Nimbalkar, S., and Rujikiatkamjorn, C. (2014). “From theory
to practice in track geomechanics—Australian perspective for synthetic
inclusions.” Transp. Geotech., in press.
Indraratna, B., Salim, W., and Rujikiatkamjorn, C. (2011). Advanced rail
geotechnology—Ballasted track, CRC Press, Boca Raton, FL.
Ishikawa, T., Sekine, E., and Miura, S. (2011). “Cyclic deformation of
granular material subjected to moving-wheel loads.” Can. Geotech. J.,
48(5), 691–703.
Jeffs, T., and Tew, G. P. (1991). A review of track design procedures:
Sleepers and ballast, Vol. 2, Railways of Australia BHP Research,
Melbourne Laboratories, Melbourne, Australia.
Krabbenhoft, K., Lyamin, A. V., and Sloan, S. W. (2007). “Bounds to
shakedown loads for a class of deviatoric plasticity models.” Comput.
Mech., 39(6), 879–888.
Kwon, J., and Tutumluer, E. (2009). “Geogrid base reinforcement with
aggregate interlock and modeling of associated stiffness enhancement in
mechanistic pavement analysis.” Transportation Research Record
2116, Transportation Research Board, Washington, DC, 85–95.
Lackenby, J., Indraratna, B., McDowell, G., and Christie, D. (2007). “Effect
of confining pressure on ballast degradation and deformation under
cyclic triaxial loading.” Géotechnique, 57(6), 527–536.
04014081-15 J. Geotech. Geoenviron. Eng.
 Leshchinsky, B., and Ling, H. (2013). “Effects of geocell confinement on
strength and deformation behavior of gravel.” J. Geotech. Geoenviron.
Eng., 10.1061/(ASCE)GT.1943-5606.0000757, 340–352.
Li, D., and Selig, E. T. (1998). “Method for railroad track foundation design. I:
Development.” J. Geotech. Geoenviron. Eng., 10.1061/(ASCE)1090-
0241(1998)124:4(316), 316–322.
Mengelt, M., Edil, T. B., and Benson, C. H. (2006). “Resilient modulus and
plastic deformation of soil confined in a geocell.” Geosynthetics Int.,
13(5), 195–205.
Nimbalkar, S., Indraratna, B., Dash, S. K., and Christie, D. (2012).
“Improved performance of railway ballast under impact loads using
shock mats.” J. Geotech. Geoenviron. Eng., 10.1061/(ASCE)GT.1943-
5606.0000598, 281–294.
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by Indian Institute of Technology Patna on 06/16/19. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.
Palmeira, E. M., and Antunes, L. G. S. (2010). “Large scale tests on geo-
synthetic reinforced unpaved roads subjected to surface maintenance.”
Geotext. Geomembr., 28(6), 547–558.
Peters, J. F., Lade, P. V., and Bro, A. (1988). “Shear band formation in
triaxial and plane strain tests.” Advanced triaxial testing of soil and rock,
R. T. Donaghe, R. C. Chaney, and M. L. Silver, eds., ASTM, West
Conshohocken, PA, 604–627.
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.
Radampola, S. S. (2006). “Evaluation and modelling performance of capping
layer in rail track substructure.” Ph.D. thesis, Central Queensland Univ.,
Rockhampton, QLD, Australia.
Radampola, S. S., Gurung, N., McSweeney, T., and Dhanasekar, M. (2008).
“Evaluation of the properties of railway capping layer soil.” Comput.
Geotech., 35(5), 719–728.
Rajagopal, K., Krishnaswamy, N. R., and Madhavi Latha, G. (1999).
“Behaviour of sand confined with single and multiple geocells.” Geotext.
Geomembr., 17(3), 171–184.
Santos, E. C. G., Palmeira, E. M., and Bathurst, R. J. (2013). “Behaviour of
a geogrid reinforced wall built with recycled construction and demolition
waste backfill on a collapsible foundation.” Geotext. Geomembr.,
39(Aug), 9–19.
Sãyao, A., and Vaid, Y. P. (1996). “Effect of intermediate principal stress on
the deformation response of sand.” Can. Geotech. J., 33(5), 822–828.
Sekine, E., Muramoto, K., and Tarumi, H. (1994). “Study on properties of
road bed reinforced with geocell.” Railway Tech. Res. Inst. Q. Rep.,
35(1), 23–31.
Selig, E. T., and Waters, J. M. (1994). Track geotechnology and sub-
structure management, Thomas Telford, London.
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.
© ASCE 04014081-16
J. Geotech. Geoenviron. Eng., 2015, 141(1): 04014081
Suiker, A. S. J., and de Borst, R. (2003). “A numerical model for the cyclic
deterioration of railway tracks.” Int. J. Numer. Methods Eng., 57(4),
441–470.
Suiker, A. S. J., Selig, E. T., and Frenkel, R. (2005). “Static and cyclic triaxial
testing of ballast and subballast.” J. Geotech. Geoenviron. Eng.,
10.1061/(ASCE)1090-0241(2005)131:6(771), 771–782.
Tafreshi, S. N. M., and Dawson, A. R. (2010). “Laboratory model tests for
a strip footing supported on geocell reinforced sand bed.” Proc., Geo-
Shanghai 2010: Ground Improvement and Geosynthetics, Geotechnical
special publication 207, A. J. Puppala, J. Huang, J. Han, and L. R. Hoyos,
eds., ASCE, Reston, VA, 353–360.
Tafreshi, S. N. M., Khalaj, O., and Dawson, A. R. (2014). “Repeated loading
of soil containing granulated rubber and multiple geocell layers.”
Geotext. Geomembr., 42(1), 25–38.
Timoshenko, S. P., and Goodier, J. N. (1970). Theory of elasticity, McGraw
Hill, New York.
Trani, L. D. O., and Indraratna, B. (2010). “Assessment of subballast fil-
tration under cyclic loading.” J. Geotech. Geoenviron. Eng., 10.1061/
(ASCE)GT.1943-5606.0000384, 1519–1528.
Tseng, K.-H., and Lytton, R. L. (1989). “Prediction of permanent de-
formation in flexible pavement materials.” Implication of aggregates in
the design, construction, and performance of flexible pavements, H. G.
Schreuders and C. R. Marek, eds., ASTM, West Conshohocken, PA,
154–172.
Uzan, J. (1985). “Characterization of granular material.” Transportation
Research Record 1022, Transportation Research Board, Washington,
DC, 52–59.
Wanatowski, D., Chu, J., and Lo, R. S. C. (2008). “Strain-softening be-
haviour of sand in strain path testing under plane-strain conditions.” Acta
Geotech., 3(2), 99–114.
Webster, S. L. and Alford, S. J. (1978). “Investigation of construction
concepts for pavements across soft ground.” Technical Rep. S-78-6,
U.S. Army Engineer Waterways Experiment Station, Vicksburg,
MS.
Yang, X., et al. (2012). “Accelerated pavement testing of unpaved roads
with geocell-reinforced sand bases.” Geotext. Geomembr., 32(Jun),
95–103.
Yang, X., and Han, J. (2013). “Analytical model for resilient modulus and
permanent deformation of geosynthetic-reinforced unbound granular
material.” J. Geotech. Geoenviron. Eng., 10.1061/(ASCE)GT.1943-
5606.0000879, 1443–1453.
Yu, H. S., and Sloan, S. W. (1997). “Finite element limit analysis of
reinforced soils.” Comput. Struct., 63(3), 567–577.
Zhang, L., Zhao, M., Shi, C., and Zhao, H. (2010). “Bearing capacity of
geocell reinforcement in embankment engineering.” Geotext. Geo-
membr., 28(5), 475–482.
J. Geotech. Geoenviron. Eng.