Geotextiles and Geomembranes 28 (2010) 475–482

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Geotextiles and Geomembranes

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

Bearing capacity of geocell reinforcement in embankment engineering

Ling Zhang, Minghua Zhao*, Caijun Shi, Heng Zhao
College of Civil Engineering, Hunan University, Changsha 410082, China

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

Article history: Soil reinforcement using geocells has been utilized in many areas of geotechnical engineering. In this
Received 15 July 2009 paper, a model and a simple bearing capacity calculation method for the geocell-supported embankment
Received in revised form on the soft subgrade were proposed based on the study of the reinforcement functions of a geocell layer
17 November 2009
in a road embankment. The model and calculation procedures considered both the ‘‘vertical stress
Accepted 7 December 2009
dispersion effect’’ and ‘‘membrane effect’’ of geocell reinforcement. They were verified by a laboratory
Available online 20 February 2010
experiment and compared with Koerner’s method. The results indicated that the calculated results
obtained from the present method were much closer to the experimental results than those from
Keywords:
Geocell Koerner’s method when the foundation settlement is large. The study also indicated that the installation
Embankment of the geocell onto the crushed stone cushion significantly increased the bearing capacity of the soft
Foundation treatment subgrade.
Bearing capacity Ó 2009 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
Modeling

1. Introduction
Constructing road embankments over soft soils is a challenge for
geotechnical engineers because of the low shear strength of
subgrade soil, which causes excessive consolidation settlements
and, sometimes, bearing capacity failure. A variety of ground-
improvement techniques, including vertical drains, grouting,
complete soil replacement, geosynthetic reinforcement, and piling,
have been developed to solve the problems (e.g. Liu et al., 2008;
Rowe and Taechakumthorn, 2008). Among these techniques, geo-
synthetic reinforcement has been increasingly used as basal rein-
forcement since it facilitates rapid construction at low costs (Rowe
and Li, 2005) although care is required when dealing with rate
sensitive soft soils (Li and Rowe, 2008).
A geocell is a geosynthetic product with a three-dimensional
cellular network constructed from thin polymeric strips. Many
investigators have reported the beneficial use of geocell layer at the
base of embankment: as an immediate working platform for the
construction, more uniform settlements, reduced construction
time and eliminated excavation and replacement costs, increased
bearing capacity and decreased settlements.
Despite the large amount of research and successful field
applications, geocell reinforcement is still not widely used at the
same level as conventional methods such as piling, soil replace-
ment, or traditional planar (geogrid or geotextile) basal
* Corresponding author. Tel./fax: þ86 731 88821590.
E-mail address: mhzhaohd@21cn.com (M.H. Zhao).
reinforcement, due to the lack of design procedures for the use of
geocells as basal reinforcement in many countries. In the past two
decades, some laboratory and field research projects have been
conducted to investigate the performance of the geocell-supported
embankments on soft subgrades. Cowland and Wong (1993)
reported a case study of the performance of a geocell mattress
supported embankment on soft clay. Yang and Yu (2004) and Xie
et al. (2004) reported field applications of geocells for treating
differential settlement of embankments constructed over soft
subgrades. Rajagopal et al. (1999) investigated the influence of
geocell confinement on the strength and stiffness behavior of
granular soils through a number of triaxial compression tests.
Krishnaswamy et al. (2000) carried out a series of laboratory tests
on geocell-reinforced cushion supported earth embankments. The
results indicated that with the provision of geocell reinforcement,
the magnitude of the ultimate bearing capacity of soft foundation
increased substantially. Moreover, the results also indicated that
the tensile strength of the geocell had a great effect on its rein-
forcement performance. Latha et al. (2006) and Latha and Murthy
(2007) conducted a series of compression tests to study the relative
efficiency of three forms (i.e. planar, discrete fiber and cellular
forms) of reinforcement in improving the shear strength of sand.
They investigated that the cellular reinforcement, which improved
the strength of soil by friction and all-round confinement, was
found to be more effective in improving the soil strength than the
planar reinforcement. Zhou and Wen (2008) also observed that
geocell was a superior form of reinforcement than the planar
reinforcement through triaxial compression tests. The results from
their study also indicated that with the provision of a geocell-

0266-1144/$ – see front matter Ó 2009 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
doi:10.1016/j.geotexmem.2009.12.011
476 L. Zhang et al. / Geotextiles and Geomembranes 28 (2010) 475–482
reinforced sand cushion, the subgrade reaction coefficient was
improved by 3 times, and the deformation was reduced by 44%.
Dash et al. (2001, 2003, 2007) investigated the reinforced perfor-
mance of geocell foundation mattress with varying cell sizes, infill
material properties and loading conditions. They found that the
effectiveness of the reinforcement depended not only on the
adequate load transmission to the fill material (via friction and
interlocking), but also on the stiffness of the reinforcement. Zhao
et al. (2009) reviewed the geocell-reinforced layers under
embankments and suggested that the main geocell layer functions
in three aspects: (a) lateral resistance effect, (b) vertical stress
dispersion effect, and (c) membrane effect.
(a) Lateral resistance effect
A geocell consists of three-dimensional cells that contain,
confine and reinforce a variety of filled materials within its cells
that completely arrest the lateral spreading and increase the shear
strength of filled materials. Moreover, interfacial resistances, which
result from the interaction between the geocell reinforcement and
the soils below and above the reinforcement, as shown in Fig. 1,
increase the lateral confinement and lower lateral strain, that result
in an increase in the modulus of the cushion layer and improving
vertical stress distribution on the subgrade which is called ‘‘vertical
stress dispersion effect’’ below, and reducing the vertical pressure
on the top of the subgrade correspondingly.
(b) Vertical stress dispersion effect
As mentioned above, the horizontal geocell-reinforced cushion
behaves as an immediate working platform that redistributes the
footing load per unit area over a wider area, as shown in Fig. 2. This
refers to herein as ‘‘stress dispersion effect’’. As a result, the soil-
pressure onto the soft subgrade soil surface is smaller than that
onto the subgrade soil in the absence of geocell.
(c) Membrane effect
The loads from the embankment deflect the geocell reinforce-
ment thus generate a further tension force, as shown in Fig. 3. The
vertical component of the tension force in the reinforcement is
helpful to reduce the pressure on the subgrade soil. Then the
vertical deformation of the soft subgrade is reduced and the
bearing capacity of the subgrade soil is enhanced as well. As
the depth of the ruts increases the deformed shape of the geocell
reinforcement, the reinforcement can provide a further tension
force duo to this membrane effect.
However, limited work has been done on the design of road
embankment supported by geocell-reinforced cushion. Jenner et al.
(1988) used a slip line theory to calculate the increase in the
bearing capacity of soft soil due to the provision of geocell cushion
at the base of embankment. In their method, plastic bearing failure
of the soil was assumed and the additional resistance due to geocell
layer was calculated using a non-symmetric slip line field in the soft
subgrade soil. This method was very complicated as it needed
Loads
Lateral restriction Lateral restriction
Frictional Tensile force of
T resisitance geocell T
Wall of geocell
Subgrade reaction
Fig. 1. Lateral resistance effect of geocell reinforcement.
bn
ps
θc θc
hc
pr
b n +2h c tanθ c
lc
Fig. 2. Vertical stress dispersion effect of geocell reinforcement.
construct a slip line field for every embankment problem. Koerner
(1998) presented a bearing capacity calculation method by adapt-
ing the conventional plastic limit equilibrium mechanism as used
in statically loaded shallow foundation bearing capacity. In his
method, the shear strength between geocell wall and soil contained
within it was considered as a bearing capacity increment on the
foundation soil due to the presence of the geocell reinforcement at
the base of the embankment. Latha et al. (2006) proposed a method
to design the geocell-supported embankments based on the study
of laboratory model tests. The method was based on the slope-
stability analysis, and the critical slip surfaces of embankments
should be checked by the slope-stability program for every design.
In their analysis, the geocell layer was treated as a foundation soil
layer with additional cohesive strength caused by confinement.
The present study proposes a simple bearing capacity calcula-
tion method for the geocell-supported embankment over soft soil,
with consideration of the main reinforcement functions of geocell
layer studied above. The calculation model and procedures are
verified by a laboratory study.
2. Calculation of bearing capacity of geocell-reinforced
embankment
In this study, the bearing capacity of geocell-reinforced foun-
dation prs is estimated by putting the bearing capacity of the
untreated foundation soil ps and the bearing capacity increment Dp
on the foundation soil due to the presence of the geocell-reinforced
cushion together. The methods to determine ps have been devel-
oped or proposed correspondingly in the literature (Lambe and
Whitman, 1969). It can be determined by empirical values or
equations, or site load testings. A method how to determine the
bearing capacity increment Dp is described in the following
sections.
As discussed above, the main reinforcement mechanisms of the
geocell in embankment engineering are ‘‘lateral resistance effect’’,
‘‘vertical stress dispersion effect’’ and ‘‘membrane effect’’. Gener-
ally, the effect of lateral resistance of geocell reinforcement is
mostly related to the resistance against the lateral deformations of
embankments. So, the ‘‘lateral resistance effect of geocell rein-
forcement has no direct effect on increasing the bearing capacity of
Tsinα Tsinα
T T
Load
α α
Tcosα Tcosα
Fig. 3. Membrance effect of geocell reinforcement.
 L. Zhang et al. / Geotextiles and Geomembranes 28 (2010) 475–482 477

the subgrade soil. The bearing capacity increment Dp on the o x

foundation soil can be made up of two aspects: (1) the bearing
capacity increment Dp1 due to the ‘‘vertical stress dispersion 2β
effect’’, and (2) the bearing capacity increment Dp2 due to the
‘‘membrane effect’’ of the geocell reinforcement. h0
2r 0
p
2.1. Bearing capacity increment Dp1 due to the ‘‘vertical stress road surface A B β
dispersion effect’’
embankment s0 y0
2r n h
According to Fig. 2, the geocell-reinforced cushion widens the
geocell
spreading of vertical stress, the subgrade soil can support more o' α
sn x'
upper loads than that without geocell-reinforced cushion. The T C D T
footing load per unit area increases from ps to pr. yn

ðbn þ 2hc tan qc Þ

pr ¼ ps
bn y
where pr is the footing load due to the vertical stress dispersion Fig. 4. Calculation model of the geocell reinforced embankment.
effect; bn is the width of the uniform load ps, as shown in Fig. 2; hc
and qc are the height and the dispersion angle of geocell rein-
forcement, respectively. Thus, the bearing capacity increment Dp1 same as the diffusion directions of embankment fill under the
by the ‘‘vertical stress dispersion effect’’ can be calculated as follow: external load p, then,

2hc tan qc 2Ds0 r rn

Dp1 ¼ pr  ps ¼ ps (1) tan b ¼ ¼ 0 ¼ (6)
bn r0 h0 h0 þ h
where b is the angle depicted in Fig. 4; rn is the half of the chord
length of parabola depicted in Fig. 4; h is the height of the
2.2. Bearing capacity increment Dp2 due to the ‘‘membrane effect’’
embankment. Then,
As shown in Fig. 3, the bearing capacity increment Dp2 on the
r02 þ 2Ds0 h
foundation soil due to the tensile force of the geocell reinforcement rn ¼ (7)
can be estimated as follow: r0
The relative deformation equation of the geocell reinforcement
2T sin a shown in Fig. 4 is:
Dp2 ¼ (2)
bn
Dsn
where T is the tensile force of the reinforcement and can be yn ¼  x2 þ h0 þ h þ Dsn (8)
calculated as: rn2
where yn is the deformation of the geocell reinforcement; Dsn is the
T ¼ Ec 3hg (3)
maximum vertical deformation of the reinforcement.
where Ec is the tensile modulus of the geocell material and can be Be similar to Eq. (6), the following equation is obtained:
estimated by an indoor tensile test (ASTM D638); 3 is the tensile
strain of the geocell material; hg is the height of the geocell wall; tan a ¼ 2Dsn =rn (9)
a is the horizontal angle of the tensional force T. Thus,
Before calculating 3, the deformation shape of the reinforcement
should be determined. Sophisticated numerical analyses have   2 12
rn
shown that the shape of the deflected geocell is a catenary (BS8006, sina ¼ 1þ (10)
2Dsn
1995; Yin, 2000). However, at relatively small deflections the
catenary may be approximated by a parabola which simplifies the Then, the tensile strain of the geocell 3 is:
analysis procedure for determining the tensile force in the geocell.
As shown in Fig. 4, the deformation on the road surface is _  
CD  2rn 1 rn 2Dsn
3¼ ¼ dþ ln þd 1 (11)
Ds0 2rn 2 4Dsn rn
2
y0 ¼  x þ h0 þ Ds0 (4)
r02 where,
where, y0 is the deformation on the road surface; Ds0 is the "   #1=2
maximum differential settlement at the surface; h0 is the vertical 2Dsn 2
d ¼ 1þ (12)
distance from the origin of coordinates shown in Fig. 4 to the rn
embankment surface.
By differentiating Eq. (4), the following equation is obtained: By the way, the acceptance limit of the tensile strain 3 is controlled
by the ultimate tension strain of the geocell material and the
dy0 2Ds maximum permissible differential settlement of embankment
¼  2 0x (5) [Ds0].
dx r0
Dsn and Ds0 follow a relationship:
When x ¼ r0, dy0 =dx ¼ 2Ds0 =r0 . Supposing that the normal
directions of points A and B on the deformation parabola are the Ds0 ¼ Dsn þ Dc (13)
478 L. Zhang et al. / Geotextiles and Geomembranes 28 (2010) 475–482
in which, Dc is the compression of the embankment material under
the load p. Dc can be determined by layer-wise summation method
(Qian and Yin, 2003; Braja, 2008). If the embankment is not very
high, Dc is nearly zero (Rao and Zhao, 2002), and Dsn is close to the
differential settlement Ds0 on the embankment surface.
2.3. Bearing capacity of geocell-reinforced foundation
As mentioned earlier, the bearing capacity of the geocell-rein-
forced embankment foundation prs can be evaluated by putting the
bearing capacity of the untreated foundation soil ps and the bearing
capacity increment Dp on the foundation soil due to the placement
of the geocell-reinforced cushion at the base of the embankment
together:
2hc tan qc 2T sin a
prs ¼ ps þ Dp ¼ ps þ Dp1 þ Dp2 ¼ ps þ ps þ
bn bn
(14)
3. Laboratory experiments
3.1. Experimental design and set-up
A laboratory study was conducted to verify the model and
calculation procedures proposed above. The influence of the geo-
cell-reinforced cushion on increasing the bearing capacity of the
soft subgrade soil was investigated as well. For comparison, two
experiments were conducted: (1) soft foundation without geocell-
reinforced cushion, the embankment was overlying the soft soil, (2)
foundation soil reinforced with geocell-reinforced cushion, the
embankment was overlying the geocell-reinforced cushion. The
experiments were conducted in a reinforced concrete tank with
inside dimension of 1300 mm  650 mm  1000 mm. The exper-
imental setup is illustrated in Fig. 5. On each wide side of the tank,
a 15 mm thick cystosepiment was placed to create lateral defor-
mation conditions. An impervious bag was paste onto the tank
walls to minimize the loss of soil water. As in the real embankment
practical situation, geocell-reinforced cushion is located at the base
of embankment, a 200 mm height embankment was placed in the
experiments. A rigid steel plate of 236 mm diameter and 10 mm
100 200 700
dial guage
15mm thick
236
cystosepiment
spc1 spc2
sm2
sm1
140
1000
subgrade
1300
Fig. 5. Physical dimension of the model groove (unite: mm).
Table 1
Characteristics of the geocell used.
Tensile modulus 55 MPa Height 30 mm
Flexural modulus 800 MPa Height (h) and width 2.0
(a) ratio(h/a)
thickness was placed on the embankment surface for loading tests.
In order to minimize the size effects on the experimental results,
the loading plate was centered in the tank. A hydraulic jack welded
against a reaction frame was used to provide surcharge load. Signs
‘‘spc1’’ and ‘‘spc2’’ in Fig. 5 stand for soil-pressure cells used to
measure the vertical soil pressures. Signs ‘‘sm1’’, ‘‘sm2’’ and ‘‘sm3’’
stand for displacement meters used to measure the vertical
deformations of the geocell under loads.
3.2. Materials used
The geocell used was from a resin application research institute
in China. The characteristics of the geocell are shown in Table 1. The
characteristics of the other materials used in the lab study are
summarized in Table 2. The particle size distribution of the crushed
stone used in the lab is illustrated in Fig. 6.
3.3. Testing procedures
The testing procedures in first experiment are as follows. The
tank was placed under a loading frame and was filled with soft clay
depth of 900 mm. The subgrade soil was placed in 3 layers with
300 mm thickness for each layer. Two soil-pressure cells (spc1 and
spc2 as shown in Fig. 5) were placed on the surface of clay bed to
measure the vertical soil pressures. After leveling the soft clay bed,
a 200 mm height embankment was constructed using clayey sand.
By the way, the soft clay in subgrade was mixed with pre-
determined amount of water and consolidated under the
embankment load. The soil bed was kept for about a week to
achieve uniform properties. In order to verify the uniformity of the
bed, some undisturbed samples were collected to determine unit
weight and water content of the clay soil. Both the cushion soil and
200 100
jack dial guage
rigid strain plate
rigid strain plate
200
geocell-reinforced
cushion
sm3
20 10
30
reinforced concrete tank
 L. Zhang et al. / Geotextiles and Geomembranes 28 (2010) 475–482 479

Table 2
Main properties of the materials used in testing.

Subgrade soil Soft clay Water content 46%

Density 1620 kg/m3
Infill material Crushed stone Maximum particle 10 mm
for geocell diameter
Embankment Clayey sand Water content 25%
Density 1810 kg/m3
Rigid strain Diameter 236 mm
plate

embankment fill were compacted using a wooden rod. A surcharge

load was applied on the embankment using the hydraulic jack upon
the rigid steel plate. Load was gradually increased at a constant
increment. The first loading step was 1.5 kN and the load increment
in each step was 0.5 kN. The settlements on the embankment
surface were measured by four dial guages placed at four
quadrantal points of the rigid steel plate. In the absence of a clear-
cut failure, the loading was applied until the surface settlement of
around 55 mm reached.
After the first experiment was completed, all the soils and the
testing instruments were taken out from the tank. For comparison
purpose, the characteristics of the soft subgrade soil and the
embankment filling material in the second experiment were kept
the same as those in first experiment. The experimental procedures
were the same as those in the first one, except: (1) a geocell-rein-
forced cushion was installed between the embankment and the
clay bed. After leveling the soft clay bed, a 20 mm layer of crushed
stone was placed on the top of the clay bed and three displacement
meters (signed as sm1, sm2 and sm3 in Fig. 5) were placed. Then,
a geocell layer was placed on the granular cushion. After the
placement of the geocell layer, as shown in Fig. 7, the pockets of the
geocell were filled with crushed stone and compacted by
the wooden rod. Then, a 10 mm thick granular layer formed upon
the geocell-reinforced layer. After that, the embankment was con-
structed on the top of the geocell-reinforced crushed stone cushion,
which consisted of three layers: a 20 mm bottom layer of plain
crushed stone, a 30 mm middle layer of geocell-reinforced crushed
stone and a 10 mm top layer of plain crushed stone. (2) In the
loading process, the first loading step was 2.0 kN, then with a load
increment of 1.0 kN per step until the surface settlement of around
55 mm was reached.
3.4. Experimental results and discussions
Fig. 7. Placement of the geocell.
relationship went up from 2.0 mm to about 4.2 mm in the case of
geocell-reinforced foundation. Even at a settlement equal to about
20 mm, no clear signs of failure happened in the case of geocell-
reinforced foundation. The bearing capacity of the subgrade
enhanced with geocell-reinforced cushion was greater than that
without geocell-reinforced cushion. As illustrated in Fig. 8, the
ultimate bearing load of the embankment constructed on the soft
foundation soil was 114.3 kPa, and was 203.7 kPa for the embank-
ment constructed on the geocell-reinforced foundation. The use of
geocell-reinforced cushion increased the ultimate bearing load of
the embankment by 78.22%.
The difference between the two experiments in p–s curves is
due to the installation of the geocell-reinforced cushion. The
calculated increased bearing load Dp by using the presented
method is shown in the last row in Table 3. The intermediate
variables for the calculation of the increased bearing load are also
shown in Table 3.
The first row in Table 3 shows the loads in every loading step in
the second experiment. ps0 in the third row in Table 3 is the average
value of the soil-pressure at the bottom of embankment measured
by the two soil-pressure cells spc1 and spc2. With consideration of
the stress dispersion, ps in Eq. (2) can be expressed as follows:
bn
ps ¼ p0
bn þ 2hc tan qc s
Under every loading step:
2hc tan qc
Dp1 ¼ p0
bn þ 2hc tan qc s

Fig. 8 shows p–s curves of the load testing of the embankments

constructed on the subgrade soil with and without geocell-rein- p (kPa)
forced cushion, respectively. It could be observed that the p–s curve 0 20 40 60 80 100 120 140 160 180 200 220 240
was almost linear up to a settlement of about 2.0 mm in the case of 0
unreinforced foundation while this settlement limit for linear 5
10
15
100
90 20
settlement (mm)

80 25
percent finer (%)

70
30
60
50 35
40 40
30
20 45
10 50 first experiment: unreinforced
0
10 5 1 55 second experiment:reinforced
particle size (mm) 60

Fig. 6. The particle size distribution of the crushed stone used in the lab. Fig. 8. Load-settlement curves of the embankment surface.
480 L. Zhang et al. / Geotextiles and Geomembranes 28 (2010) 475–482

Table 3
Intermediate variables for the computation of increased bearing load.

Load step in second experiment (kPa) 0 22.86 45.72 68.58 91.44 114.30 137.16 160.02 187.60
Corresponding settlement (mm) 0 0.20 0.41 0.94 1.81 3.50 4.22 6.89 19.62
ps0 ¼(spc1 þ pc2)/2 (kPa) 3.45 17.18 30.88 45.15 58.22 72.56 87.45 101.25 118.24
2hc tan qc 0
ðDp1 ¼ p Þ(kPa)
bn þ2hc tan qc s
0.61 3.05 5.48 8.01 10.33 12.87 15.51 17.96 20.97

(Dsn ¼ sm2) (mm) 0 0.20 0.40 0.95 1.80 3.50 4.22 6.60 15.80

ðyn  h0  h ¼ sm1þsm3 2 Þ(mm) 0 0.19 0.31 0.59 1.15 2.25 2.80 3.50 11.50
qffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffi
ffi
Dsn x2
ðrn ¼ Ds ðy h hÞÞ(mm) – 626.10 295.15 227.43 232.97 234.26 241.35 204.28 263.99
n n 0

1
sin a ¼ ½1 þ ðrn =2Dsn Þ2 2 – 0.001 0.006 0.015 0.030 0.036 0.050 0.169 0.120

D ¼ ½1 þ 4ðDsn =rn Þ2 1=2 – 1.000000 1.000004 1.000035 1.000119 1.000446 1.000611 1.002086 1.007320
h i
2Dsn
3 ¼ 12D þ 4Drnsn ln rn þD 1 0 6.80E-08 1.22E-06 1.16E-05 3.98E-05 1.49E-04 2.04E-04 6.95E-04 2.44E-03

ðT ¼ Ec 3hg Þ (kN/m) 0.00 0.00 0.02 0.21 0.72 2.68 3.67 12.52 43.99

ðDp2 ¼ 2TsinaÞ (kPa) 0.00 7.45E-06 6.32E-04 0.02 0.11 0.51 0.97 11.14 27.78
bn

(Dp ¼ Dp1 þ Dp2) (kPa) 0.61 3.05 5.48 8.02 10.44 13.38 16.48 29.09 48.75

sm1, sm2 and sm3 in Table 3 are the settlement data measured by
the three settlement meters sm1, sm2 and sm3 as shown in Fig. 5.
Using the bearing capacity calculation method proposed above, the
shape of the deformation of geocell reinforcement is supposed to
be a catenary in the form of:
Dsn
yn  h0  h ¼  x 2 þ D sn :
rn2
Dsn measured by the settlement meter sm2. rn can be calculated
as follows:
sffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffi
x2
rn ¼
Dsn  ðyn  h0  hÞ
are shown in Table 3, in which x is 140 mm, yn  h0  h is the
average value of the settlements measured by the settlement
meters sm1 and sm3. In the presented literature, the value of
dispersion angel is varied from 25 to 60 (Gabr et al., 1998; Huang
et al., 2004). In the following calculations of Dp1 and T, the
dispersion angle qc is chosen as 35 . The influence of the value of on
the calculation results is illustrated in Fig. 10.
Table 4 and Fig. 9 show the comparisons of the bearing capacity
increments on the foundation soil due to the presence of geocell
reinforcement at different load-settlement levels from the experi-
ments with the calculated results from the present method and
bearing capacity increment Δ p (kPa)
0 10 20 30 40 50
0
Koerner’s method (1998). In the Koerner’s method, the bearing
capacity increment on the foundation soil is calculated as follows:
Dp ¼ 2s;
in which s is the shear strength between geocell wall and soil
contained within it, s ¼ p tan2 ð45  f=2Þ tan 4, p is the applied
vertical pressure acting on the geocell reinforcement, f is the
friction angle of soil with the geocell reinforcement, 4 is the angle
of shearing resistance between soil and the cell wall material
(y15–20 between sand and HDPE, y25–35 between sand and
the nonwoven geotextile). In this paper, p is the same as ps0 in Table
3, f ¼30 and 4 ¼ 18 .
It can be observed from Table 3 and Fig. 9, when the settlement
is small, the stress of the geocell reinforcement is nearly zero, the
contribution from the vertical portion of the reinforcement tensile
force to the bearing capacity increment is almost zero, and the
increased bearing capacity is mainly induced by the ‘‘vertical stress
dispersion effect’’ of the geocell-reinforced cushion. Namely,
Dp z Dp1. When the settlement increases with the increase of the
upper load, the differential settlement and the tensile strain
increase correspondingly. As a result, the proportion of the
contribution from the reinforcement tensile force to increasing the
bearing capacity of the subgrade soil increases. As shown Fig. 9,
bearing capacity increment Δ p (kPa)
0 10 20 30 40 50 60
0.0
60 70 80 2.5
5.0
Δ p from experiment;
7.5
settlement (mm)

Δ p from present method;

5 Δ p from Korner's method;
10.0
Δ p1 from present method;
settlement (mm)

Δ p2 from present method; 12.5

10
15.0
17.5 Δ p from experiments
15 20.0 Δ p from present method, θ c=25°
Δ p from present method, θ c=35°
22.5
20 Δ p from present method, θ c=45°
25.0
Δ p from present method, θ c=55°

Fig. 9. Comparison with the measured and calculated Dp–s cures. Fig. 10. Calculated Dp–s cures with different dispersion angles.
 L. Zhang et al. / Geotextiles and Geomembranes 28 (2010) 475–482 481

Table 4
Comparisons of the increased bearing loads with different methods.

Load step in second experiment (kPa) 0 22.86 45.72 68.58 91.44 114.30 137.16 160.02 187.60
Corresponding settlement (mm) 0 0.20 0.41 0.94 1.81 3.50 4.22 6.89 19.62
Dp-from Load-settlement curves (kPa) 0 2.98 9.31 10.43 15.01 18.25 35.64 44.36 59.17
Dp-Present method (kPa) 0.61 3.05 5.48 8.02 10.44 13.38 16.48 29.09 48.75
Dp-Koerner’s method (kPa) 0.75 3.72 6.69 9.78 12.61 15.72 18.94 21.93 25.61

when the embankment settlement is 6.89 mm, the proportion of reinforcement increases, until the reinforcement experiences
the bearing capacity increment Dp2 due to the reinforcement tensile failure or the embankment foundation is destroyed. When
tensile force to the total increased bearing capacity Dp is 38.3%, the influence of tension membrane effect of the reinforcement was
while the settlement increases to 19.62 mm, the proportion of Dp2 considered, the results obtained from the proposed method were
to Dp increases to 57.0%. The contribution from the reinforcement much closer to the experimental results than those from Koerner’s
tensile force to increasing the subgrade bearing capacity will not method when the embankment settlement was large.
stop until the geocell reinforcement is tensile failure or the
embankment foundation is destroyed.
As shown in Fig. 9, when the embankment settlement is small, Acknowledgements
both the Dp–s curves from Koerner’s method and the present
method are close to the measured results. When the settlement This research was funded through the Chinese National 863
increases to larger than 5 mm in Fig. 9, the Dp–s cure from the High-Tech Research and Development Project (Contract No.
presented method is much closer to the measured curve than that 2006AA11Z104), and the Ministry of Education 985 Project.
from Koerner’s method. It was investigated that the trend of Dp1
(the bearing capacity increment due to the stress dispersion effect) Notations
along the settlement from the presented method is similar to Dp
(the total increased bearing capacity) from Koerner’s method. In
other words, if only the vertical stress dispersion effect of the bn width of the uniform load ps;
geocell-reinforced cushion is considered in the present method, Ec tensile modulus of the geocell material;
the bearing capacity increment on the foundation soil due to the h height of the embankment;
position of the geocell reinforcement is quite close to the bearing hc height of the geocell-reinforced cushion;
capacity increment from Koerner’s. It can be seen that the influence hg height of the geocell wall;
of tension membrane effect of the reinforcement are not taken into h0 vertical distance from the origin of coordinates shown in
account is the main reason why the bearing capacity increment Fig. 4 to the surface of embankment;
from Koerner’s method deviates from measured results when the pr footing load due to the vertical stress dispersion effect;
embankment settlement is large. prs bearing capacity of the geocell-reinforced foundation;
The calculated Dp–s curve from the proposed method cannot ps bearing capacity of the untreated foundation soil;
match the measured curve at all settlement levels. This might be ps0 the average value of the soil-pressure at the base of
caused by several factors, such as the dispersion angle, geocell embankment measured by the two soil-pressure cells
tensional strength, infill material properties, etc. Dispersion angle spc1 and spc2;
has very significant effects on the calculated results. Fig. 10 illus- rn half of the chord length of parabola depicted in Fig. 4;
trated different Dp–s curves from the proposed method with T tensile force of the geocell reinforcement;
different dispersion angles, while the other calculation parameters y0 deformation on the road surface;
are the same as in Fig. 9. Selection of a proper dispersion angle will yn deformation of the geocell reinforcement;
be mainly dependent on geocell tensional strength, infill material a horizontal angle of the tensional force T;
properties and geocell size. The proposed method in this study does b the angle depicted in Fig. 4;
implicate how geocell reinforcement affects the bearing capacity of d calculation parameter;
foundation clearly. 3 tensile strain of the geocell material;
f friction angle of soil with the geocell;
4. Conclusions 4 angle of shearing resistance between soil and the cell wall
material;
In this paper, a calculation method for the bearing capacity of qc dispersion angle of the geocell reinforcement;
the soft subgrade soil treated with geocell reinforcement at the s shear strength between geocell wall and the soil
bottom of embankment was proposed based on the study of the contained within it;
reinforcement mechanisms of geocell in embankment engineering. Dc compression of the embankment material under external
It was verified through laboratory experiments. In the calculation load;
method, the total bearing capacity increment on subgrade soil is Dp total bearing capacity increment on the foundation soil
made up of the bearing capacity increments induced by the due to the presence of the geocell reinforcement;
‘‘vertical stress dispersion effect’’ and ‘‘membrane effect’’ of Dp1 bearing capacity increment due to the ‘‘vertical stress
the geocell-reinforced cushion. In the initial loading stage, the dispersion effect’’ of the geocell reinforcement;
embankment settlement is small, the increased bearing capacity is Dp2 bearing capacity increment due to the ‘‘membrane effect’’
mainly induced by the ‘‘vertical stress dispersion effect’’ of the of the geocell reinforcement;
reinforced cushion. The tensional forces of the reinforcement are Ds0 maximum differential settlement at the ground surface;
interrelated with the differential embankment settlements. As the and
embankment settlement increases, the proportion of the increased Dsn maximum vertical deformation of the geocell
bearing capacity induced by ‘‘membrane effect’’ of the geocell reinforcement.
482 L. Zhang et al. / Geotextiles and Geomembranes 28 (2010) 475–482

References Latha, G.M., Rajagopal, K., Krishnaswamy, N.R., 2006. Experimental and theoretical
investigations on geocell-supported embankments. International Journal of
Geomechanics 6 (1), 30–35. ASCE.
Braja, M.D., 2008. Advanced Soil Mechanics, third ed. Taylor & Francis, New York.
Li, A.L., Rowe, R.K., 2008. Effects of viscous behaviour of geosynthetic reinforcement
BS8006, 1995. British standard: code of practice for strengthened/reinforced soils
and foundation soils on embankment performance. Geotextiles and Geo-
and other fills.
membranes 26 (4), 317–334.
Cowland, J.W., Wong, S.C.K., 1993. Performance of a road embankment on soft clay
Liu, S.Y., Han, J., Zhang, D.W., Hong, Z.S., 2008. A combined DJM-PVD method for soft
supported on a geocell cushion foundation. Geotextiles and Geomembranes 12,
ground improvement. Geosynthetics International 15 (1), 43–54.
687–705.
Qian, J.H., Yin, Z.Z., 2003. Geotechnique Principles and Calculations, second ed.
Dash, S.K., Krishnaswamy, N.R., Rajagopal, K., 2001. Bearing capacity of strip footings
China Water-Power Press, Beijing.
supported on geocell-reinforced sand. Geotextiles and Geomembranes 19,
Rajagopal, K., Krishnaswamy, N.R., Latha, Madhavi, 1999. Behavior of sand confined
235–256.
with single and multiple geocells. Geotextiles and Geomembranes 17 (3),
Dash, S.K., Sireesh, S., Sitharam, T.G., 2003. Model studies on circular footing sup-
171–184.
ported on geocell reinforced sand underlain by soft clay. Geotextiles and Geo-
Rao, W.G., Zhao, C.G., 2002. Simulation of sheet deformation about residual
membranes 21, 197–219.
settlement of composite foundation. Chinese Journal of Applied Mechanics 19
Dash, S.K., Rajagopal, K., Krishnaswamy, N.R., 2007. Behavior of geocell reinforced
(2), 23–27.
sand beds under strip loading. Canadian Geotechnical Journal 44, 905–916.
Rowe, R.K., Li, A.L., 2005. Geosynthetic-reinforced embankments over soft foun-
Gabr, M.A., Doson, R., Collin, J.G., 1998. A study of stress distribution in geogrid-
dations. Geosynthetics International 12 (1), 50–85.
reinforced sand. In: Proceeding of Geosynthetics in Foundation Reinforcement
Rowe, R.K., Taechakumthorn, C., 2008. Combined effect of PVDs and reinforcement
and Erosion Control Systems (GSP 76), ASCE, October 1998, Massachusetts,
on embankments over rate-sensitive soils. Geotextiles and Geomembranes 26
America, pp. 62–76.
(3), 239–249.
Huang, S.Z., Qi, L.S., Bai, X.H., 2004. Study of stress distribution in belt geosynthetic-
Xie, Y.L., Yu, Y.H., Yang, X.H., 2004. Application study of treating differential
reinforced gravel on soft soil. Chinese Journal of Rock Mechanics and Engi-
settlement of subgrade with geocell. Chinese Journal of Highway and Transport
neering 23 (17), 2292–2997.
Jenner, C.G., Basset, R.H., Bush, D.I., 1988. The use of slip line fields to asses the 17 (4), 7–10.
Yin, J.H., 2000. Comparative modeling study of reinforced beam on elastic foun-
improvement in bearing capacity of soft ground given by cellular foundation
dation. Journal of Geotechnical and Geoenvironmental Engineering 126 (3),
cushion installed at the base of an embankment. In: Proceedings of Interna-
265–271. ASCE.
tional Geotechnical Symposium on Theory and Practice of Earth Reinforcement.
Yang, X.H., Yu, Y.H., 2004. Application of treating differential settlement of subgrade
October 1988, Fukuoka, Japan, pp. 209–214.
by geocell at Taigu highway. Journal of Chongqing Traffic University 123 (15),
Krishnaswamy, N.R., Rajagopal, K., Madhavi, L.G., 2000. Model studies on geocell
27–29. 111.
supported embankments constructed over soft clay foundation. Geotechnical
Zhao, M.H., Zhang, L., Zou, X.J., Zhao, H., 2009. Research progress in two-direction
Testing Journal 23, 45–54. ASTM.
composite foundation formed by geocell reinforced mattress and gravel piles.
Koerner, R.M., 1998. Designing with Geosynthetics. Prentice Hall, New Jersey.
Chinese Journal of Highway and Transport 22 (1), 1–10.
Lambe, T.W., Whitman, R.V., 1969. Soil Mechanics. John Wiley & Sons, New York.
Zhou, H.B., Wen, X.J., 2008. Model studies on geogrid- or geocell-reinforced sand
Latha, G.M., Murthy, V.S., 2007. Effects of reinforcement from on the behavior of
mattress on soft soil. Geotextile and Geomembranes 26, 231–238.
geosynthetic reinforced sand. Geotextiles and Geomembranes 25, 23–32.