Computers and Geotechnics 37 (2010) 748–756

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Computers and Geotechnics

journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/compgeo

Analysis of geocell-reinforced mattress with consideration

of horizontal–vertical coupling
Ling Zhang a, Minghua Zhao a,*, Xiaowei Zou a,b, Heng Zhao a
a
College of Civil Engineering, Hunan University, Yuelu Mountain, Changsha 410082, China
b
Faculty of the Built Environment, University of New South Wales, Sydney NSW2052, Australia

a r t i c l e i n f o a b s t r a c t

Article history: Geocell reinforcement has been increasingly applied to road embankment engineering. Deformation cal-
Received 13 November 2009 culation is one of the major concerns during the design process. In this paper, the power-series method
Received in revised form 6 April 2010 was employed to investigate the performance of a geocell-reinforced mattress under symmetric loads.
Accepted 1 June 2010
The geocell-reinforced mattress was idealized as a beam on a Winkler foundation. In the analysis, the
Available online 26 June 2010
soil–foundation beam interface resistance, related to the horizontal deformation coupling with the ver-
tical deformation, was considered. Semi-analytic solutions were developed to assess the deformations
Keywords:
and internal forces of the foundation beam and verified against an existing finite element method [9].
Geocell-reinforced mattress
Winkler foundation
The results of the proposed method were close to the results from the finite element method. Moreover,
Power-series method the effects of various factors, such as height of embankment, horizontal and vertical foundation coeffi-
Interface resistance cients, composite elastic modulus and height of geocell-reinforced mattress, on the foundation beam set-
Horizontal–vertical coupling tlement and the tension force within the beam are discussed. It was found that the interface resistance
related to the horizontal deformation of the beam has a reduction effect on the embankment settlement,
and it is beneficial to reduce the embankment settlement by increasing the beam rigidity and strength-
ening the subgrade soil body.
Ó 2010 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

1. Introduction frictional resistance. Recent studies demonstrate that consider-

Over the past two decades, geocell, a geosynthetic product with
a three-dimensional cellular network constructed from thin poly-
meric strips, has been widely used in many geotechnical applica-
tions like highway, railway and airport runway embankments. A
large number of research projects and many successful projects
in the field have shown that the use of geocell reinforcement in
road embankments has the potential to reduce road construction
and operational costs and fill lateral deformation, which leads to
less periodic maintenance, increase soil bearing capacity and min-
imize differential and total settlements [3,8,10,17,11,15,20,16,22].
In some cases, the design of the embankment foundation is con-
trolled by settlement rather than bearing capacity [4,6,12]. Many
investigations have been reported on the deformation calculation
of geocell reinforcement in the literature. In those analyses, the
geocell-reinforced foundation mattress is always idealized as a
beam on elastic supports, and a beam-foundation model, such as
the Winkler foundation model or the Pasternak model, is applied
[1,5,13,18,19,21]. However, both the Winkler foundation model
and the Pasternak model do not include the soil–foundation beam
* Corresponding author. Tel./fax: +86 731 88821590.
E-mail address: mhzhaohd@21cn.com (M. Zhao).
ation of this interface resistance is indispensable. Tan [14] pro-
posed the partial solution of the infinite beam on an elastic
foundation by considering the effect of the horizontal resistance
and observed that this effect should not be ignored, especially in
the cases where the foundation soil body is hard and the contact
face between the beam and the soil bed below is rough. Yin
[18,19] obtained closed-form solutions for an infinite reinforced
Timoshenko beam subjected to a point load in the mid-span and
uniform pressure loading at any location of the infinite beam. Ma
and Ai [9] discussed the effects of the interface resistance on the
behavior of a subgrade beam by using a finite element method
(FEM). Zhou and Du [23] developed a modified Winkler foundation
model by employing an individual elastic horizontal spring system
into a beam–soil interaction system for finite element analysis.
Zhang et al. [21] presented power-series semi-analytic solutions
for the deformations and the internal forces of geocell reinforce-
ment while considering the influence of interface resistances,
while the interface resistance was assumed to be a constant and
unrelated to the relative displacement between geocell and the soil
bed below. Overall, there have been no analytic or semi-analytic
solutions for a geocell-reinforced mattress modeled as a finite
foundation beam while considering horizontal–vertical deforma-
tion coupling in the literature. However, the deformation behavior

0266-352X/$ - see front matter Ó 2010 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
doi:10.1016/j.compgeo.2010.06.001
 L. Zhang et al. / Computers and Geotechnics 37 (2010) 748–756 749

of foundation beam does in fact have a horizontal–vertical cou- respect to x, and E is the composite elastic modulus of the founda-
pling effect. tion beam. Thus,
The objectives of this study were to develop an appropriate (
model to simulate the performance of a geocell-reinforced mat-
uu ðxÞ ¼ u0 ðxÞ þ 2h w0 ðxÞ
ð5Þ
tress by considering the interface resistance and to present a corre- ud ðxÞ ¼ u0 ðxÞ  2h w0 ðxÞ
sponding semi-analytic solution based on Winkler foundation
Because the x-axis is a centroidal axis, and substituting Eq. (3)
beam theory by taking horizontal–vertical deformation coupling
into Eq. (4), the relationships among the internal forces and the
into account. Moreover, a parametric study was conducted to
stress of the cross section are
quantify the effects of various factors such as height of embank-
Z
ment, horizontal and vertical foundation coefficients, composite
elastic modulus and height of the geocell-reinforced mattress.
T¼ rx dA ¼ EAðu0 Þ0 ð6Þ
A
Z
M¼ rx z dA ¼ EIw00 ð7Þ
2. Calculation model and deformation differential equation A

where T and M are the tension force and the bending moment of the
As shown in Fig. 1, a geocell-reinforced mattress at the base of
beam, respectively; A is the cross-section area of the beam, A = bh; I
an embankment on soft subgrade is modeled as a finite foundation 3
is the inertia moment revolved around the x-axis, I ¼ bh12
; and b and
beam with length 2l, width b, height h and elastic modulus E on an
h are the width and height of the foundation beam, respectively.
elastic foundation to sustain symmetrical loads including a uni-
To establish the governing differential equation of deformation
form load q (such as the self weight of the embankment material)
for the calculation of the geocell-reinforced mattress, which was
and point loads Fi acting at the point x = ai. The horizontal and ver-
idealized as an elastic foundation beam (Fig. 1), an element shown
tical soil reactions pux, pdx and pz in Fig. 1, which all result from the
in Fig. 2 was chosen for analysis.
interactions at the interfaces between the beam and the soils above
Due to symmetry, the element is chosen on the right half
and below, are assumed to have linear relationships with the cor-
(x P 0) of the model beam. All forces on the element are defined
responding relative deformations:
as positive, as shown by the direction of arrows in the figure. Be-

pux ¼ kux uu cause the element composite force in x-direction is zero, the fol-
ð1Þ lowing equation is derived:
pdx ¼ kdx ud
pz ¼ kz w ð2Þ dT ¼ ðpux þ pdx Þdx ð8Þ

where pux is the horizontal resistance between the foundation beam Substitution of Eqs. (1), (5), and (6) into Eq. (8) yields
and the soil above, pdx is the horizontal resistance between the h
foundation beam and the soil below, pz is the reaction of the vertical EAðu0 Þ00  ðkux þ kdx Þu0  ðkux  kdx Þ w0 ¼ 0 ð9Þ
2
subgrade soil, uu and ud are the horizontal deformations of the soils
above and below the foundation beam, respectively, and kux, and kdx By rearranging Eq. (9), the following expression is obtained:
are the corresponding foundation coefficients. kz and w are the ver- EAðu0 Þ00  ðkux þ kdx Þu0
tical foundation coefficient and the deformation of the subgrade w0 ¼ ð10Þ
ðkux  kdx Þ 2h
soil, respectively. The values of foundation coefficients kux, kdx and
kz may be based on local experience, empirical relationships or site Therefore, the ith-order partial derivative with respect to x can
load testing [2]. The units of the foundation coefficients kux, kdx and be written as
kz are kN/m2 in this paper. The force directions indicated by arrows
in Fig. 1 are positive. EAðu0 Þðiþ1Þ  ðkux þ kdx Þu0ði1Þ
wðiÞ ¼ ð11Þ
According to the Bernoulli–Euler beam theory, and assuming ðkux  kdx Þ 2h
that the stress rx of the foundation beam has an elastic relation-
where the superscript (i) denotes the ith-order partial derivative
ship with the strain ex, the following relationships should stand:
with respect to x, and i = 2,3,4,5, respectively.
uðx; zÞ ¼ u0 ðxÞ  zw0 ðxÞ ð3Þ Because the element composite force in the x-direction is zero,
0
rx ¼ Eex ¼ EðuÞ ð4Þ dQ ¼ ðpz  qÞdx ð12Þ
0 P
where u (x) is the horizontal deformation on the central line of the Considering M = 0 and omitting the influence of the second
foundation beam, ‘‘0 ” denotes the first-order partial derivative with differential dx2, the following equation can be obtained:

l l
a2 a2
a1 a1
F2 F1 F1 F2
q EI

pux geocell reinforced

mattress
o x
pdx
pz
z
Fig. 1. Simplified calculation model of a geocell-reinforced mattress.
750 L. Zhang et al. / Computers and Geotechnics 37 (2010) 748–756

dx Substituting Eq. (19) into Eq. (17) gives

q X
5
u0 ¼ bj U j ðxÞ ð20Þ
j¼0

p ux P
M in which U j ðxÞ ¼ 1 n
n¼0 C j;n x . In order to find a reasonable estimate of
M+dM the converged value in Uj, the number of the finite term n should be
more than N. N is determined by |Cj,N| 6 f, in which f is a minimum
T

h
T+ d T value.
Q Q +dQ Therefore, the ith-order partial derivative with respect to x can
p dx be written as
X
5
pz ðu0 ÞðiÞ ¼ bj ðU j ðxÞÞðiÞ ð21Þ
j¼0
Fig. 2. Freebody diagram and forces (positive as shown).
in which the superscript (i) also denotes the ith-order partial deriv-
P
ative with respect to x, and ðU j ðxÞÞðiÞ ¼ 1 ðnÞ!
n¼i ðniÞ! C j;n x
ni
.
dM h Then, substituting Eqs. (11) and (21) into Eq. (14), the vertical
¼ Q  ðpux  pdx Þ ð13Þ
dx 2 deformation of the foundation beam can be calculated as
Differentiating Eq. (13) and substituting relationship Eqs. (1), q EI hX 5
0000
(2), (5), (7), and (12) into it lead to: w¼  bj Y j ðxÞ ð22Þ
kz kz ðkux  kdx Þ 2 j¼0
2
h 0 h
EIwð4Þ þ ðkz w  qÞ  ðkux  kdx Þ u0  ðkux þ kdx Þ w00 ¼ 0 ð14Þ Using Eqs. (6), (7), (13), (21), and (22) and the relationship
2 4 h = w0 , the following matrix equation is obtained:
Differentiating Eq. (14) gives 2 3 2 3
u0 b0
h 0 h
2 6 7 6 7
6 w  q=kz 7 6 b1 7
EIwð5Þ þ kz w0  ðkux  kdx Þ u0  ðkux þ kdx Þ w000 ¼ 0 ð15Þ 6 7 6 7
2 4 6 7 6 7
6h 7 6 b2 7
6 7 6 7
Substituting Eqs. (10) and (11) into Eq. (15) and eliminating the 6 7 ¼ XYðxÞ  6 7 ð23Þ
6T 7 6 b3 7
terms with w gives the following differential equation: 6 7 6 7
6 7 6 7
6M 7 6 b4 7
ðu0 Þð6Þ  A4 ðu0 Þð4Þ þ A2 ðu0 Þ00  A0 u0 ¼ 0 ð16Þ 4 5 4 5
  Q b5
1 h2 kz h2 kux kdx kz ðkux þkdx Þ
where A4 ¼ ðkux þ kdx Þ EA
þ 4EI
; A2 ¼ EI
þ EIEA
; A0 ¼ EAEI
. 2 3
1
6 7
3. Solution to the differential Eq. (16) 6 K=kz 7
6 7
6 7
6 K=EI 7
Eq. (16) is an ordinary differential equation with constant coef- 6 7
XYðxÞ ¼ 6 7
ficients. Using the power-series method, the solution to Eq. (16) 6 EA 7
6 7
can be written as 6 7
6 K 7
4 5
X
1
0 n
u ¼ bn x ð17Þ K
n¼0 2 3
U 0 ðxÞ U 1 ðxÞ U 2 ðxÞ U 3 ðxÞ U 4 ðxÞ U 5 ðxÞ
where bi (i = 0–n) are the unknown coefficients. 6 0000 0000 0000 0000 0000 0000 7
6 Y ðxÞ Y 1 ðxÞ Y 2 ðxÞ Y 3 ðxÞ Y 4 ðxÞ Y 5 ðxÞ 7
Differentiating u0 against x to the jth-order gives 6 0
6 00
7
7
6 X ðxÞ X 1 ðxÞ X 2 ðxÞ X 3 ðxÞ X 4 ðxÞ X 5 ðxÞ 7
00 00 00 00 00
X1
ðn þ jÞ! 6 0 7
ðu0 ÞðjÞ ¼ bnþj ðxÞn ð18Þ 6 0 7
n! 6 U ðxÞ U 01 ðxÞ U 02 ðxÞ U 03 ðxÞ U 04 ðxÞ U 05 ðxÞ 7
n¼0 6 0 7
6 000 7
6 X ðxÞ X 000 ðxÞ X 000
ðxÞ X 000
ðxÞ X 000
ðxÞ X 000
ðxÞ 7
where the superscript (j) in (u0)(j) denotes the jth-order partial 4 0 1 2 3 4 5 5
derivative with respect to x, j = 1–6. Y 000
0 ðxÞ Y 000
1 ðxÞ Y 000
2 ðxÞ Y 000
3 ðxÞ Y 000
4 ðxÞ Y 000
5 ðxÞ
Substituting Eqs. (17) and (18) into Eq. (16), the following rela- EI
tionship is obtained by comparing the coefficients bi (i = 0–n): in which h is the rotation angle of the foundation beam; K ¼ ðk h ;
ux kdx Þ2

8
" 2
!#
>
>
A0 b0 A2 21b2 þA4 4321b4 0000 ð5Þ h EA ð3Þ
< b6 ¼ ; n¼ 0 Y j ðxÞ ¼ EAU j ðxÞ  ðkux þ kdx Þ 1 þ U j ðxÞ;
654321 4 EI
>
> A b A ðnþ2Þðnþ1Þb þA ðnþ4Þðnþ3Þðnþ2Þðnþ1Þb
: bnþ6 ¼ 0 n 2 nþ2 4 nþ4
; n P1 2
ðnþ6Þðnþ5Þðnþ4Þðnþ3Þðnþ2Þðnþ1Þ kux kdx h 0
þ U j ðxÞ
EI
bn can be expressed by the following 6 coefficients b0, b1, b2, b3, b4, 00 00
X j ðxÞ ¼ EAU j ðxÞ  ðkux þ kdx ÞU j ðxÞ;
b5 when n P 6: 000
X 000 0
j ðxÞ ¼ EAU j ðxÞ  ðkux þ kdx ÞU j ðxÞ;
X
5 !
2
bnþ6 ¼ C j;nþ6 bj ðn P 0Þ ð19Þ 0000 h EA 00
j¼0
Y 000
j ðxÞ ¼ EAU j ðxÞ  ðkux þ kdx Þ 1 þ U j ðxÞ;
4 EI
A0 C j;n A2 ðnþ2Þðnþ1ÞC j;nþ2 þA4 ðnþ4Þðnþ3Þðnþ2Þðnþ1ÞC j;nþ4
in which C j;nþ6 ¼ ; 2
ðnþ6Þðnþ5Þðnþ4Þðnþ3Þðnþ2Þðnþ1Þ kux kdx h
 þ U j ðxÞ; j ¼ 0; 1; 2; 3; 4; 5:
1 i¼j EI
C j;i ¼ ; i; j ¼ 0; 1; 2; 3; 4; 5:
0 i–j When x = 0, the equation becomes
 L. Zhang et al. / Computers and Geotechnics 37 (2010) 748–756 751

2 3 2 0 3 2 3
b0 u0 u0 jx¼a 2 0 3
6b 7 6 w  q=k 7 6 1
7 u0
6 17 6 0 z7 6 wjx¼a  q=kz 7 6 w  q=k 7
6 7 6 7 6 1 7 6 0 z7
6 b2 7 6 h 7 6 7 6 7
6 7 ¼ ½XYð0Þ1  6 0 7 ð24Þ 6 hjx¼a 7 6 h0 7
6b 7 6T 7 6 7
6 37 6 0 7 6 1
7 ¼ XYXða1 Þ  6
6T
7
7 ð28Þ
6 7 6 7 6 Tjx¼a 7 6 0 7
4 b4 5 4 M0 5 6 1 7 6 7
6 7 4 M0 5
6 Mjx¼a 7
b5 Q0 4 1 5
Q jx¼a Q 0
where u00 , w0, h0, T0, M0 and Q0 are the horizontal and vertical defor- 1

mations, rotation angle, tension force, bending moment and shear Substituting Eqs. (27) and (28) into Eq. (25), the solutions for
force at the beam center (x = 0), respectively. the horizontal deformation u0, the vertical deformation w, the rota-
Substituting Eq. (24) into Eq. (23) gives tion angle h, the tension force T, the bending moment M and the
2 3 2 3 shear force Q of the foundation beam for the case a1 6 x 6 a2 can
u0 u00
6 7 6 7 be written as:
6 w  q=kz 7 6 w0  q=kz 7
6 7 6 7 2 3 8 2 0 3 2 39
6 7 6 7 u0 > u0 0 >
6h 7 6h 7 > >
6 7 ¼ XYðxÞ  ½XYð0Þ1  6 0 7 6 w  q=k 7 >
>
> 6 w  q=k 7 6 0 7> >
>
6 7 6 7 6 z7 >
> 6 0 z7 6 7 >
6T 7 6 T0 7 6 7 >
< 6 7 6 7> >
6
6M
7
7
6
6M
7
7 6h 7 6 h0 7 6 0 7=
4 5 4 0 5 6 7 ¼ XYXðx  a1 Þ  XYXða1 Þ  6 76 7 ;
6T 7 > 6T 7 6 0 7>
6 7 >
> 6 0 7 6 7>
Q Q0 6 7 >
> 6 7 6 7> >
ð25Þ 4M 5 >
> 4 M0 5 4 0 5> >
>
2 3 >
: >
;
u00 Q Q0 F1
6 7
6 w0  q=kz 7 ða1  x  a2 Þ
6 7
6 7
6 h0 7 ð29Þ
¼ XYXðxÞ  6
6
7;
7 ð0 6 x 6 a1 Þ
6 T0 7 Similarly, when a local coordinate system t2  z is established,
6 7
6M 7 in which t2 = x  a2, the following solutions can be obtained for
4 0 5
the case when a2 6 x 6 l:
Q0
2 3
where XYX(x) = XY(x)[XY(0)]1. 2 3 u0 jx¼a 2 3
u0 6 7 2 0
The above equations are the solutions for the deformations and 6 7 6 wj  7 60 7
6 w  q=k z7
6 x¼a 7 6 7
internal forces of the foundation beam in the case where 6 7 6 2
7 6 7
6h 7 6 hj  7 60 7
6 7 6 x¼a2 7
0 6 x 6 a1. 6 7 ¼ XYXðt2 Þ  6 7  XYXðt2 Þ  6
6 7
7
6T 7 6 Tj 7 60 7
To obtain the solutions for the case where a1 6 x < a2, a local 6 7 6 x¼a2 7 6 7
6 7 6 7 6 7
coordinate system t1  z is established, in which t1 = x  a1. Similar 4M 5 6 7 40 5
6 Mjx¼a 7
to the derivation steps for the case above, the following solutions 4 2 5
Q Q jx¼a F2
are obtained: 2
8 8 2 0 3
2 3 > > u0
2 3 u0aþ >
> >
>
u0 >
> >
> 6 7
6 1 7 >
> >
> 6 w0  q=kz 7
6 7 6 7 >
> >
> 6 7
6 w  q=kz 7 6 waþ  q=kz 7 < < 6h 7
6 7 6 1 7 6 0 7
6 7 6 7 ¼ XYXðx  a2 Þ  XYXða2  a1 Þ  XYXða1 Þ  6 7
6h 7 6 haþ 7 >
> >
> 6 T 7
>
> >
> 6 0 7
6 7 6 1 7 >
> >
> 6 7
6 7 ¼ XYXðt 1 Þ  6 7; ða1  x  a2 Þ ð26Þ >
>
>
>
>
>
4 M0 5
6T 7 6T þ 7 : :
6 7 6 a1 7 Q0
6 7 6 7
6M 7 6M þ 7 2 39 2 39
4 5 6 a1 7 0 > 0 >
4 5 >
> 6 7> >
6 0 7> 0 7>
Q Q aþ 6 7> > 6 >
>
6 7> > 6 7> >
1
6 0 7= 6 0 7>
> =
6 7 6 7
where u0aþ ;
waþ ; haþ ; T aþ ; Maþ ; and Q aþ and are the horizontal and  6 7  6 7 ; ða2 6 x 6 lÞ
6 0 7>
> 6 7>6 0 7>
1 1 1 1 1 1 6 7> >
vertical deformations, rotation angle, tension force, bending mo- 6 7> > 6 7> >
4 0 5>
>
> 4 0 5> >
>
ment and shear force, respectively, at the left end of the range >
; >
;
a1 6 x 6 a2. F1 F2
The continuity conditions at the point x = a1 are written as ð30Þ
2 3 2 3 Eq. (30) can be extended for the case where the number of the
u0 jx¼aþ u0 jx¼a
6
1
7 6
1
7 point load is much larger.
6 wj þ 7 6 wj  7 The four unknown coefficients u00 , w0, h0, T0, M0 and Q0 in Eqs.
6 x¼a1 7 6 x¼a1 7
6 7 6 7 (24)–(26) and (28)–(30) can be determined by following boundary
6 7 6 7
6 hjx¼aþ 7 6 hjx¼a 7 conditions:
6 1 7 6 1 7
6 7¼6 7 ð27Þ
6 Tj þ 7 6 Tj  7 8 8
6 x¼a1 7 6 x¼a1 7 0
6
6 Mj
7 6
7 6 Mj
7
7 < u jx¼0 ¼ 0
> < Tjx¼l ¼ 0
>
6 x¼aþ1 7 6 x¼a1 7 ðaÞ hjx¼0 ¼ 0 and ðbÞ Mjx¼l ¼ 0 ð31Þ
4 5 4 5 > >
: :
Qjx¼aþ Q jx¼a  F 1 Qjx¼0 ¼ 0 Qjx¼l ¼ 0
1 1

where u0a ;
wa1 ; ha1 ; T a1 ; Ma1 and Q a and are the corresponding The boundary conditions in group (a) are from the symmetry of the
1 1
variables at the right end of the range 0 6 x 6 a1, respectively, foundation beam, and the ones in group (b) are due to the free ends
which can be calculated by Eq. (25): of the foundation beam.
752 L. Zhang et al. / Computers and Geotechnics 37 (2010) 748–756

1222 kN 2076 kN 2076 kN 1222 kN

E D C B A

2.5 m 4m 4m 4m 4m 8m 2.5 m

29 m

Fig. 3. Elastic foundation beam with applied loads.

Table 1 Table 3
Comparison of node deformations with existing methods. Comparison of node bending moments with existing methods.

Calculation methods A B C D E Calculation methods A B C D E

Ma and Ai’s method (mm) 13.18 13.68 13.61 17.99 16.62 Ma and Ai’s method (kN m) 0 626.6 629.5 1487.0 552.3
Presented method (mm) 12.90 13.64 14.69 16.88 16.77 Presented method (kN m) 0 612.5 619.0 1700.0 318.2

4. Numerical validation of analysis
To validate the method proposed in this paper, the results from
the FEM method developed by Ma and Ai [9] were applied for com-
parison. As shown in Fig. 3, the analysis beam is 29,000 mm long,
3000 mm wide, and 1000 mm high. The values of the following
parameters such as elastic modulus, horizontal and vertical founda-
tion coefficients were chosen to be the same as those used by Ma and
Ai: E = 20,500 MPa, kdx = 22,500 kN/m2 and kz = 15,000 kN/m2. As in
the study of Ma and Ai, the soil–beam interaction only existed at the
interface between the beam and the soil below, and thus the value of
the horizontal foundation coefficient above the foundation beam kux
was chosen to be 0 kN/m2 when calculated with the present method.
The comparisons of the node deformations, shear forces and mo-
ments derived from the present method with those from the FEM
method are shown in Tables. 1–3. The values derived from the pres-
ent method are mostly close to the results of the FEM method [9].
5. Influence of selected parameters
From the analysis of the solutions for the deformations and
internal forces of the foundation beam (Eqs. (25), (29), and (30)),
the following influence factors all have effects on the behaviors
of the foundation beam: (1) the upper loads q and Fi; (2) the inter-
face resistances, which are relevant to horizontal foundation coef-
ficients kux and kdx; (3) the composite elastic modulus of the
foundation beam E; (4) the cross section size of the beam, which
is relevant to height h and width b; and (5) the vertical foundation
coefficient of the subgrade soil kz. In this paper, the uniform load q
acting on the foundation beam is the self weight of the embank-
ment fill, namely, q = cbhe, where c is the unit weight of the fill
material, c = 18 kN/m3, and he is an equivalent height of the
embankment when the trapeziform embankment load treated as
a rectangular load. Because the length of the embankment is much
larger than its width, b was chosen to be 1.0 m. The size of the cross
section of the foundation beam is only relevant to the height h. The
concentrated loads Fi are assumed to be invariable. As the horizon-
tal and vertical foundation coefficients kdx and kz are relevant to the
characteristic of the subgrade soil, the values of these two coeffi-
cients were assumed to be same, namely, kdx = kz. Then, the direct
influence parameters on the beam behaviors are (1) the equivalent
height of the embankment, he; (2) the horizontal foundation coef-
ficient above the foundation beam, kux; (3) the composite elastic
modulus, E; (4) the height of the geocell-reinforced mattress, h;
and (5) the vertical foundation coefficient of subgrade, kz.
The geocell-reinforced mattress modeled as an elastic founda-
tion beam illustrated in Fig. 4 was used to investigate the five influ-
ence parameters on the performance of the foundation beam. Due
to the symmetry, only the right half of the beam was chosen for
analysis.
Considering that the vertical deformation w and the tension
force T are much more important for road embankment than the
other deformations and internal forces such as u, h, M and Q, fol-
lowing study focused on investing the above five factors on the
vertical deformation and the tension force of the foundation beam.
Because the horizontal foundation coefficient is relevant to the
interface characteristics and the mechanical properties of embank-
ment material are always better than those of soft subgrade soil,
the value of the horizontal foundation coefficient above the foun-
dation beam was chosen to be much higher than that below the
beam in the following study.
5.1. Influence of equivalent height of embankment
The effect of the equivalent height of the embankment he on the
foundation beam response was studied by varying he from 2.5 m to
5 m to 7.5 m. The other parameters were assumed constant, and
they were the horizontal foundation coefficient above the founda-

Table 2
Comparison of node shear forces with existing methods.

Calculation methods A B/left B/right C D/left D/right E

Ma and Ai’s method (kN) 0 506.5 715.5 83.6 1034.6 1041.4 0
Presented method (kN) 0 498.1 723.9 120.7 1066.2 1009.8 0
 L. Zhang et al. / Computers and Geotechnics 37 (2010) 748–756 753

F1 F2
200 kN 200 kN 200 kN 200 kN
q= γ bhe kN/m

o x

z
0.5 m0.5 m
8.0 m 1.8 m 1.8 m 8.0 m

Fig. 4. Simplified calculation model of the geocell-reinforced mattress for the parameter study.

x (m) ment. The settlement of every point along the beam is increased
0 2 4 6 8 10
by about bckDzhe ¼ 9 mm when the equivalent height increases from
0 he to he + Dhe, where Dhe is the equivalent height increment of
the embankment. However, as shown in Fig. 6, the increase of
10 the embankment height has no effect on the tension force T. This
characteristic is in agreement with the trends estimated with
Eqs. (25), (29), and (30), which result from the assumption of an
20
elastic foundation.
w (mm)

30
5.2. Influence of horizontal foundation coefficient
40
he= 2.5 m The effect of the horizontal foundation coefficient above the
50 he= 5.0 m beam on the performance of the foundation beam was investigated
he= 7.5 m by varying the horizontal foundation coefficient kux from 0 kN/m2,
10,000 kN/m2, 20,000 kN/m2 to 40,000 kN/m2. The equivalent
60
height of embankment, the composite elastic modulus of the foun-
dation beam, the height of the geocell-reinforced mattress and the
Fig. 5. Effect of the equivalent height of the embankment he on the foundation vertical foundation coefficient of the subgrade were kept constant:
beam settlement w. he = 5 m, E = 50 MPa, h = 0.6 m and kz = 5000 kN/m2. The horizontal
foundation coefficient below the beam kdx was 5000 kN/m2, except
in the case when kux = 0 kN/m2. Because kux and kdx cannot be zero
x (m) at the same time in order for Eqs. (10), (11), (22), and (23) to have
0 2 4 6 8 10 meanings, kdx was chosen to be an extremely small value
-20 0.0001 kN/m2 when kux = 0 kN/m2, which means that no interface
resistance was taken into account.
The effects of the horizontal foundation coefficient kux and the
-10
soil–foundation beam interface resistance on the foundation beam
responses are shown in Figs. 7 and 8. Fig. 7 displays the foundation
beam settlement w along the length of the beam. It can be seen
0
that the overall trend shows that the foundation beam settlement
T (kN)

decreases with increasing distance away from the embankment

10

x (m)
he= 2.5 m
20 0 2 4 6 8 10
he= 5.0 m
15
he= 7.5 m
30 20

Fig. 6. Effect of the equivalent height of the embankment he on the tension force T. 25

30
w (mm)

tion beam, kux = 20,000 kN/m2; the composite elastic modulus of 35

the foundation beam, E = 50 MPa; the height of the geocell-rein-
40 2
kux = 0 kN/m , kdx = 0.0001 kN/m
2
forced mattress, h = 0.6 m; the vertical foundation coefficient of
subgrade, kz = 5000 kN/m2; and the horizontal foundation coeffi- 45
2
kux = 10,000 kN/m , kdx = 5000 kN/m
2

cient below the foundation beam, kdx = kz = 5000 kN/m2. 2 2

50 kux = 20,000 kN/m , kdx = 5000 kN/m
The foundation beam settlement and the tension force along the
2 2
beam were calculated by Eqs. (25), (29), and (30). The results are kux = 40,000 kN/m , kdx = 5000 kN/m
55
displayed in Figs. 5 and 6. From Fig. 5, the foundation beam settle-
ment w increases with the increase of the height of the embank- Fig. 7. Effect of the horizontal coefficient kux on the foundation beam settlement w.
754 L. Zhang et al. / Computers and Geotechnics 37 (2010) 748–756

x (m) x (m)
0 2 4 6 8 10 0 2 4 6 8 10
-30 -30

-20 -20

-10 -10

0 0
T (kN)

T (kN)
10 10

20 20
2 2
kux = 0 kN/m , kdx = 0.0001 kN/m E = 10 MPa
30 2 2 30
kux = 10,000 kN/m , kdx = 5000 kN/m E = 50 MPa
40 2 2
40
E = 200 MPa
kux = 20,000 kN/m , kdx = 5000 kN/m
2 2
50 kux = 40,000 kN/m , kdx = 5000 kN/m 50

Fig. 8. Effect of the horizontal coefficient kux on the tension force T. Fig. 10. Effect of the composite elastic modulus E on the tension force T.

center x. The interface resistance does not affect the trend of the
overall response. The maximum foundation beam settlement oc-
curs at the center of the beam (x = 0). By comparing to the case
without considering the interface resistance (kux = 0 kN/m2,
kdx = 0.0001 kN/m2), the maximum beam settlement wmax de-
creases from 51.93 mm for kux = 0 kN/m2 (kdx = 0.0001 kN/m2) to
50.21 mm for kux = 10,000 kN/m2 (kdx = 5000 kN/m2). The reduc-
tion is 3.31%. This reduction increases to 4.41% (wmax = 49.64 mm)
for kux = 20,000 kN/m2 (kdx = 5000 kN/m2) and to 5.55%
(wmax = 49.05 mm) for kux = 40,000 kN/m2 (kdx = 5000 kN/m2).
Thus, the soil–foundation beam interface resistance can reduce
the foundation beam peak settlements. However, the increment
of the horizontal foundation coefficient kux has little effect on fur-
ther reduction of the foundation beam settlement w.
Fig. 8 indicates the tension force T along the length of the foun-
dation beam. It is clear that the tension force within the beam is
increased significantly with the increase of kux. Because the tension
force in the foundation beam is generated by the interface resis-
tances at the top and bottom of the geocell-reinforced mattress,
when no interface resistance is taken into account (kux = 0 kN/m2,
kdx = 0.0001 kN/m2), the tension force T along the length of the
beam is zero (Fig. 8). When kux increases from 10,000 kN/m2 to
40,000 kN/m2, the maximum tension force is increased from
11.93 kN to 38.92 kN, a massive increase of 226.2%.
x (m)
0 2 4 6
15
20
25
30
w (mm)
The value of the horizontal foundation coefficient above the
beam kux is relevant to the characteristics of the embankment fill.
For the same fill material, kux is relevant to the compression of the
material. Therefore, we can conclude that it is not necessary to
compress the embankment material to the greatest extent to re-
duce the embankment settlement, at the cost of difficult construc-
tion and a large reinforcement tension force.
5.3. Influence of composite elastic modulus of the geocell-reinforced
mattress
The influence of the composite elastic modulus of the founda-
tion beam on the beam behavior was investigated by varying the
beam modulus E = 10, 50 and 200 MPa. The other parameters were
kept constant: he = 5 m, kux = 20,000 kN/m2, h = 0.6 m, and kdx = kz =
5000 kN/m2. The calculation results of the foundation beam settle-
ment and the tension force within the beam are shown in Figs. 9
and 10. From the elastic foundation beam theory [7], the maximum
settlement will occur at the middle of the foundation beam under
the single uniform load q. However, the presence of the point load
(including its location and value) has an effect on the performance
of the foundation beam, and its effect is quite obvious when the
foundation beam is flexible. As shown in Figs. 9 and 10, under
the loads shown in Fig 4, when the composite elastic modulus E
is lower, such as E = 10 MPa, both the foundation beam settlement
w and the tension force T within the beam have two peaks along
8 10 the length of the beam. The first peak of the foundation settlement
is at the middle point between the embankment center and the
loading point of F1, (x = 0.25). The second peak is at the loading
point of F2 (x = 2.3). The two peaks of the tension forces are at
the loading points of F1 (x = 0.5) and F2 (x = 2.3), respectively. When
the modulus increases, such as E = 200 MPa, the first peak of the
foundation settlement tends to the center of the beam (x = 0) while

the second peak disappears. Thus, the tension force varies with
35
increasing modulus.
40 E = 10 MPa By comparison with the case where E = 10 MPa, the maximum
E = 50 MPa vertical deformation wmax decreases from 51.50 mm at x = 0.25 m
45 E = 200 MPa to 49.64 mm at x = 0 m for E = 50 MPa. The reduction is 3.61%. This
reduction increases to 7.42% (wmax = 47.68 mm at x = 0 m) for
50 E = 200 MPa. The maximum tension force Tmax increases from
20.77 kN at x = 2.3 m for E = 10 MPa to 25.64 kN at x = 0 m for
55
E = 50 MPa; the increase is 23.45%. This increment increases to
Fig. 9. Effect of the composite elastic modulus E on the foundation beam settlement 118.0% (Tmax = 45.28 kN at x = 0 m) for E = 200 MPa. Because the
w. composite elastic modulus of the beam in tension mainly depends
 L. Zhang et al. / Computers and Geotechnics 37 (2010) 748–756 755

on the geocell material, a higher tension strength of the geocell
material is required with a higher tension modulus.
5.4. Influence of height on the foundation beam
The influence of the height of the foundation beam on the beam
behavior was investigated by varying the height of beam h from
0.3 m to 0.6 m to 1.2 m. The other parameters were kept constant:
he = 5 m, kux = 20,000 kN/m2, E = 50 MPa and kdx = kz = 5000 kN/m2.
The effects of the beam height on the foundation beam settle-
ment and the tension force within the beam are shown in Figs. 11
and 12. The effect of the height of the foundation beam h on the
beam performance is quite similar to that of the composite elastic
modulus E discussed above. When the beam height h is lower, the
foundation beam settlement w and the tension force T within the
beam have two peaks along the beam. When the beam height is in-
creased, the maximum vertical deformation wmax is reduced from
55.67 mm at x = 0.25 m for h = 0.3 m to 43.78 mm at x = 0 m for
h = 1.2 m. The reduction is 21.36%. The reinforcement tension force
T is increased from 24.42 kN at x = 2.3 m for h = 0.3 m to 47.32 kN
at x = 0 m for h = 1.2 m. The increase is 93.78%.
Because the modulus E and the height h contribute to the
rigidity of the foundation beam, it is beneficial to reduce the
embankment settlement by increasing the rigidity of the geocell-
reinforced mattress. However, the effect on reducing the embank-
ment settlement by further increasing rigidity of the beam was
also less efficient when considering construction difficulties and
high cost.
5.5. Influence of foundation coefficients of soft subgrade, kz and kdx
In this paper, the effect of the characteristics of the soft sub-
grade soil body on the performance of the foundation beam was
represented by two coefficients, kz and kdx, which were assumed
to have same values and vary from 1000 kN/m2 to 5000 kN/m2 to
40,000 kN/m2. The other parameters were kept constant:
he = 5 m, kux = 20,000 kN/m2, E = 50 MPa and h = 0.6 m.
As shown in Figs. 13 and 14, both the foundation beam settle-
ment w and the tension force within the beam T are reduced shar-
ply with the increase of the subgrade foundation coefficients kz and
kdx. The maximum foundation beam settlement wmax (for
kz = kdx = 40,000 kN/m2) is reduced to 2.93% of its value for
kz = kdx = 1000 kN/m2. The maximum tension force within the
foundation beam Tmax (for kz = kdx = 5000 kN/m2) is reduced to
20.48% of its value when kz = kdx = 1000 kN/m2. However, by com-
paring with the case where kz = kdx = 1000 kN/m2 or the case where
kz = kdx = 5000 kN/m2, the direction of tension force T was opposite
when kz = kdx = 40,000 kN/m2, which means that the foundation
beam was in axial compression. Therefore, if the geocell-reinforced

x (m)
x (m) 0 2 4 6 8 10
0 2 4 6 8 10 0
15
30
20
60
25

30 90
w (mm)
w (mm)

35 120

40 150
2
h = 0.3 m kz = kdx= 1000 kN/m
45
h = 0.6 m 180 2
kz = kdx= 5000 kN/m
50 h = 1.2 m 2
210 kz = kdx= 40,000 kN/m
55
240
60
Fig. 13. Effect of the foundation coefficients kz and kdx on the foundation beam
Fig. 11. Effect of the beam height h on the foundation beam settlement w. settlement w.

x (m) x (m)
0 2 4 6 8 10 0 2 4 6 8 10
-30 -80
-60
-20
-40
-10
-20
0 0
T (kN)
T (kN)

10 20

20 40
60
30 kz = kdx= 1000 kN/m
2

h = 0.3 m 80
2
40 h = 0.6 m kz = kdx= 5000 kN/m
100
50 h = 1.2 m kz = kdx= 40,000 kN/m
2
120
60 140

Fig. 12. Effect of the beam height h on the tension force T. Fig. 14. Effect of the foundation coefficients kz and kdx on the tension force T.
756 L. Zhang et al. / Computers and Geotechnics 37 (2010) 748–756
mattress is on a hard foundation soil with only a 5 m high embank-
ment and four 200 kN concentrated loads, as shown in Fig. 4, the
geocell loses its reinforcement effect. In other words, the subgrade
soil can support such loads by itself.
6. Conclusions
The Winkler foundation model and power-series method were
employed to investigate the behavior of a geocell-reinforced mat-
tress under symmetrical vertical point loads and embankment uni-
form loads. The geocell-reinforced mattress was modeled as a
foundation beam on an elastic foundation. The effects of the soil–
foundation beam interface resistance and the horizontal–vertical
coupling of the beam deformation were taken into account in the
Winkler model. Power series semi-analytical solutions were pre-
sented to assess the horizontal and vertical deformations, rotation
angle, tension force, bending moment and shear force of the foun-
dation beam. The validity of the method was verified by the FEM
method of Ma and Ai [9]. The comparison of results indicated that
the proposed solutions were valid.
The effects of the various influence factors, such as the height of
embankment, horizontal and vertical foundation coefficients, com-
posite elastic modulus and height of the geocell-reinforced mat-
tress, on the performances of the reinforced mattress were
discussed. The results illustrated that (a) the soil–foundation beam
interface resistance has a reduction effect on the vertical deforma-
tion of geocell reinforcement or embankment settlement; (b) the
uniform load only affected the deformation of the geocell-rein-
forced mattress at the base of the elastic foundation model; and
(c) it is beneficial to reduce the subgrade settlement by increasing
the rigidity of the geocell-reinforced mattress and strengthening
the foundation soil body within a certain range.
Acknowledgements
This research was funded through the Chinese National 863
High-Tech Research and Development Project (Contract No.
2006AA11Z104) and the Ministry of Education 985 Project.
References
[1] Bourdeau PL. Modeling of membrane action in a two-layer reinforced soil
system. Comput Geotech 1989;7(1–2):19–36.
[2] Bowles JE. Foundation analysis and design. 5th ed. New York: Mc Graw-Hill
Book Company; 1996.
[3] Cowland JW, Wong SCK. Performance of a road embankment on soft clay
supported on a geocell mattress foundation. Geotext Geomembranes
1993;12:687–705.
[4] Edgar TV, Puckett JA, Sherman WF, Groom JL. Utilizing geotextiles in highway
bridge approach embankments. Geotext Geomembranes 1987;5(1):3–16.
[5] Ghosh C, Madhav MR. Reinforced granular fill-soft soil system: confinement
effect. Geotext Geomembranes 1994;13(5):727–41.
[6] Han J, Oztoprak S, Parsons RL, Huang J. Numerical analysis of foundation
columns to support widening of embankments. Comput Geotech
2007;34(6):435–48.
[7] Long YQ. Calculation of the elastic foundation beam. Beijing: People Education
Press; 1981.
[8] Mhaiskar SY, Mandal JN. Investigations on soft clay subgrade strengthening
using geocells. Construct Build Mater 1996;10(4):281–6.
[9] Ma F, Ai ZY. The finite element method of elastic subgrade beam with the
contact friction effect considered. Rock Soil Mech 2002;23(1):93–6.
[10] Koerner RM. Designing with geosynthetics. New Jersey: Prentice Hall; 1998.
[11] Krishnaswamy NR, Rajagopal K, Madhavi LG. Model studies on geocell
supported embankments constructed over soft clay foundation. Geotech Test
J, ASTM 2000;23:45–54.
[12] Shahira H, Pak A. Estimating liquefaction-induced settlement of shallow
foundations by numerical approach. Comput Geotech 2010;37(3):267–79.
[13] Shukla SK, Chandra S. A study of settlement response of a geosynthetic-
reinforced compressible granular fill-soft soil system. Geotext Geomembranes
1994;13(9):627–39.
[14] Tan ZM. Solution method for beam with horizontal resistance on elastic
foundation. Mech Practice 1997;19(3):33–5.
[15] Xie YL, Yu YH, Yang XH. Application study of treating differential settlement of
subgrade with geocell. China J Highway Transport 2004;17(4):7–10.
[16] Yan CG, Yang XH, Shi YL, et al. Testing and application of geocell in loess slopes
of highway. Chinese J Rock Mech Eng 2006;25(Supp.1):3235–8.
[17] Ye GZ, Yao LS, Li ZM. Introduction to road and bridge engineering. Beijing:
China Communications Press; 1999.
[18] Yin JH. Comparative modeling study of reinforced beam on elastic foundation.
J Geotech Geoenviron Eng 2000;126(3):265–71.
[19] Yin JH. Closed-form solution for reinforced Timoshenko beam on elastic
foundation. J Eng Mech 2000;126(8):868–74.
[20] Zhang S, Zhao HH. Study on application of cellular geogrid system in soft
ground treatment. J Highway Transport Res Develop 2004;21(4):37–9. 46.
[21] Zhang L, Zhao MH, Zou XW, Zhao H. Deformation analysis of geocell
reinforcement using winkler model. Comput Geotech 2009;36:977–83.
[22] Zhao MH, Zhang L, Zou XJ, Zhao H. Research progress in two-direction
composite foundation formed by geocell reinforced mattress and gravel piles.
China J Highway Transport 2009;22(1):1–10.
[23] Zhou JK, Du QQ. Modified Winkler foundation model with horizontal force
taken into account. J Hohai Univ 2004;32(6):669–73.