A8.2-Italy-Pietro Rimoldi-ISO-STANDARD-Highlighted

Pietro Rimoldi Civil Engineer
Corso Garibaldi 125, 20121 Milano, Italy

Tel – Fax +39-02-29061930
Cell. +39-329-6949120
Email [email protected]
PEC [email protected]
Fiscal Code RMLPTR59S13I625U
VAT Nr 07525890963
TO WHOM IT MAY CONCERN
TECHNICAL REPORT
THE USE OF GEOCELLS FOR STABILISATION OF ROADS AND RAILWAYS ON

SOFT SOIL
1. INTRODUCTION
The present Technical Report is aimed to share my 30 years experience in the development, testing,
design and practical use of geocells in applications related to the Stabilisation function.
My professional experience with geocells includes:
- I authored several international papers on design and applications of geocells (among such
papers: Rimoldi and Ricciuti, 1994; Coluzzi et al, 1995; Rimoldi and Recalcati, 1998);
- As active member of CEN TC 189 – Geosynthetics and ISO TC 221 – Geosynthetics, I
contributed to the development of the norms on tensile test ISO 10319 and on the tensile
creep test EN ISO 13431 (which are applicable to geocells as well), and I have written the
norm on junction strength of geocells ISO 13426-1;
- As member of ISO TC 221 WG2 I have contributed to the definitions of terminology and
symbols for geosynthetics, including obviously geocell, in the norms ISO 10318-1 and ISO
10318-2;
- As member of ISO TC 221 WG6 – Design with Geosynthetics, I contributed to the norm
ISO/DTR 18228-5. Geosynthetics. Design for stabilisation (whose publication is expected
soon), particularly for section related to geocell stabilsation;
- I have designed several projects with geocells for stabilisation of roads and railways, as well
as for erosion control on scope;
- As member of the Educational Committee of the International Geosynthetics Society IGS, I
have co-authored the document “Guide to the Specification of Geosynthetics”, which
includes a Section on the specification of geocells.
Addtionally, I have made research, published papers, and designed projects related to the control of
heave of expansive soils (see, as example, Rimoldi, 2018).
ISO 10318-1 contains the following definition of geocells:

geocell (GCE): three-dimensional, permeable, polymeric (synthetic or natural) honeycomb, or
similar cellular structure, made of linked strips of geosynthetics.
Practically, the geocell is a three-dimensional honeycomb geosynthetic, which is used since 1970s
(Han et al, 2013) within the base course to confine unbound aggregates.
_____________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
Geosynthetics, Geotechnics, Hydraulics, Hydrology, Roads, Structures, Environmental Reclamation, Landfills, Bioengineering
Design, Construction Management, Consultancy, Testing, Forensic Engineering
Chartered Civil Engineer in Milano, Italy, Nr. A13986; Certified Professional Erosion and Sediment Control, CPESC Nr 0761, USA
________________________________________________________________________________
ISO 10318-1 contains also the following definition of the stabilisation function:
Stabilization: improvement of the mechanical behaviour of an unbound granular material by
including one or more geosynthetic layers such that deformation under applied loads is reduced by
minimizing movements of the unbound granular material.
Geocells are delivered as flat panels to the building site, then stretched to the nominal length and
width, and filled creating the final geocell system (Alexiew, 2019). Their third dimension – the
height of 100 to 200 mm - provides a controlled fill confinement (Fig. 1). Based on this lateral
confinement a composite layer geocell - soil of increased stiffness and bearing capacity is obtained.
Due to its bending stiffness this layer also affords to minimise differential settlements or heaving.
A specific feature of geocells is the possibility of using as fill not only gravels, but also sand or even
fine cohesive and marginal soils.
Ngo et al (2017) reports that geocells were originally developed by the U.S. Army Corps of
Engineers to improve vehicular mobility over loose sandy subgrade. The performance of geocell
mattress stabilised with different types of infill soils has been carried out by many Authors (see the
Reference list). It is well recognized that the improved performance using geocells is mainly due to
increased confinement.
Figure 1. The geocell soil confinement mechanisms: single cell, left, and geocell system, right (from
Alexiew, 2019).
2. BASICS CONCEPTS
The mechanical behaviour of a geocell system as a composite is defined by the geomechanical

parameters of the fill and by the mechanical behaviour and geometry of the geocells.
Rajagopal et al. (1999) investigated the strength and stiffness behavior of granular soil confined in
single and multiple geocells and found that the apparent cohesive strength of granular soil increased
due to geocell confinement; however, geocell confinement had no effect on frictional strength of
granular soil. Mandal and Gupta (1994) conducted a series of static plate loading tests on geocell-
reinforced sand and found that geocell increased the bearing capacity and reduced the settlement.
Yuu et al. (2006) conducted a comprehensive literature review on geocells.
Han et al (2013) reported that the research team at the University of Kansas has conducted a series
of studies on geocell-reinforced base courses since 2006, providing a summary of research work
and findings based on studies for unpaved roads including static and cyclic plate loading tests, full-
scale moving wheel tests, numerical modeling, and development of design method. The research
work and findings on low-volume geocell-reinforced paved roads can be found in Acharya (2011).
Geocells were used to stabilise a variety of base course materials, ranging from poorly-graded
Kansas River sand (KR sand), well-graded AB-3 aggregate, quarry waste (QW), and recycled
asphalt pavement (RAP).
_____________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________________
Han et al (2015) reported the following conclusions from the summary of available research:
1) Geocell increased the bearing capacity and stiffness of granular bases. The degree of
improvement depended on the type of infill material and the degree of geocell confinement.
2) Geocell reduced the creep deformation of RAP bases. The amount and rate of creep deformation
of the RAP bases decreased with an increase in the degree of geocell confinement and a decrease in
the applied vertical stress.
3) Geocell improved the performance of the bases by reducing the permanent deformation, reducing
the vertical stress at the interface of base and subgrade, and increasing the elasticity of RAP bases.
The degree of improvement depended on the type of infill materials and the degree of geocell
confinement.
4) Geocell reduced the required thickness of the base course to achieve the same performance of the
unpaved road over weak subgrade.
5) Design methods are available to design geocell stabilised unpaved roads.
Recent research and numerical modeling of geocell stabilisation can be found in Biabiani et al
(2016), Ngo et al (2017), Satyana et al (2018).
When made from high-modulus novel polymeric alloy (NPA), geocell can be specifically designed
for heavy duty, long-term ground stabilization. NPA Geocells have a higher tensile stiffness, creep
resistance and more durability than conventional HDPE geocells to increase the lifespan of any
pavement under heavy cyclical loading. NPA geocell confinement is effective in sand stabilization
for stabilised bases, while the beam effect mattress is effective in saturated and expansive clay soils,
and more reliable than soil cement solutions.
NPA geocells ground stabilization method provides an ideal subgrade foundation improvement
solution for roadways, embankments and working platforms over unstable subgrades, such as soft
sands, saturated soils or expansive clay soils. Geocell ground stabilization design at the subbase-
subgrade interface stabilizes weak subgrade soil and increase its bearing capacity by several factors.
Geocells can increase the performance and lifespan of any roadway. Geocells also enables a
reduction in the thickness of structural layers by 50 % or more, and the use of local, marginal
granular soil and sand for structural infill.
3. GEOCELLS CONFINEMENT MECHANISM
ISO/DTR 18228-5:2019 reports that in typical applications of the stabilization function (e.g. paved
roads, unpaved roads, railways on soft soil), geosynthetics provide the following stabilising
mechanisms:
• lateral restrain mechanism for horizontal stresses generated by the self weight of soil;
• lateral restrain mechanism for horizontal stresses generated by wheel loading (or in general
by dynamic / cyclic loads applied at the top surface);
• Tensioned membrane mechanism at the subgrade interface.
Geocells are utilized to facilitate construction and improve the performance of unbound aggregate
layers over subgrades of varying strength. The benefits of geocells have been well documented in
numerous case histories. These cover the range of full-scale laboratory experiments to instrumented
field studies. Many of these are highlighted in the reference section of this report. In these cases, the
geosynthetic and aggregate together form a stabilised layer.
Further, this stabilisation of unbound aggregate leads to an enhancement in both the resilient
modulus of unbound layers and/or subgrade and in bearing capacity of the stabilised layer compared
to the bearing capacity of the unstabilized layer under the same geometry and loads. The composite
structure of aggregate fill, geosynthetic and subgrade must:
_____________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________________
(1) effectively withstand service-loading pressures,
(2) control subgrade and unbound aggregate layer deformation within a range suited to the in-
service requirements, and
(3) do so without progressively deteriorating over time through either aggregate deformation,
breakdown and/or contamination.
The corresponding functions of separation and filtration can also contribute to an improvement in
performance where site conditions require them to be provided.
The 3D confinement occurs when a certain volume of material is confined by the geocell three
dimensional system.
The geocell stabilisation mechanism limits horizontal infill soil deformation via the geocell walls
thereby confining the infill soil. The limitation of horizontal deformation is based on three factors:
a) hoop tension forces in the cell walls,
b) resistance from the surrounding cells, and
c) friction between cell walls and infill material
Under vertical loads, horizontal earth pressure is restrained by cell walls, activating hoop tension
forces (Figure 2). The resulting strains in the cell wall mobilise hoop stresses within the loaded cell.
The magnitude of the activated hoop stress depends on the geocell material, stress-strain behaviour
and load level, number of load cycles, the location of the applied load, the type of infill material,
and the subgrade characteristics.
The hoop stresses and resistance provided by surrounding cells restrict lateral deformation of the fill
by producing confining stresses σ3D (Fig. 3). The intensity of the confining stresses σ3D strongly
depends on the height to diameter ratio of the geocell.
1) External vertical stress
2) Lateral stress on cell walls
3) Lateral confinement /restraint - Hoop tensile stress in cell walls
Figure 2. Confinement Mechanisms in Geocells: Development of Cell Hoop Stress by External

Vertical Stress
_____________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________________
Key: σv0 = vertical stress applied at the top surface; σh = horizontal stress; σv = vertical stress at the
subgrade interface; σ3D = confining stress of geocells; GCE = geocells.
Figure 3. Geocell mode of interaction
4. DESIGN OF GEOCELLS FOR ROAD STABILISATION
Established design procedures for NPA geocells are available based on research, testing and
measurement programs over the recent 15 years (Emmersleben 2009, Han et al. 2007, 2013, Kief &
Rajagopal 2011, Leshchinsky 2008, Pokharel 2010, 2013, Yang 2010).
The main factors for design are cited below (Alexiew, 2019).
Fill:
Main factors are the angle of internal friction φ and the deformation modulus E as common in
geotechnical engineering. The unit weight γ is less critical. Note that lower φ and/or E (e.g. sand or
marginal fill) can be compensated by cell geometry and cell wall tensile stiffness (Fig. 1).
Geocells:
Geometrical factors:
- Cell diameter (usually 150 to 250 mm), cell height (usually 100 to 200 mm) and their ratio
(Fig. 1).
Mechanical factors:
- Cell wall roughness: the higher, the better.
- Cell wall (strip) tensile stiffness: of crucial importance, the higher, the better (Figure. 1), both
in the short term ("dynamic stiffness") and in the long term (low tensile creep of geocell strips
is extremely important).
Note that this is well known also from other geosynthetic reinforcement applications, see e.g.
Alexiew et al (2000), EBGEO (2011). According to the state-of-the-art for geocell systems
creep strain should be limited to less than 2 % at the end of design life. This corresponds to
similar limitations in established soil reinforcement Codes (EBGEO 2011, BS 8006 2010-
2016).
- Cell wall (strip) tensile strength: the higher, the better, as for the stiffness, also in the long
term (low creep).
- Strength of joints (strip to strip, forming the cell, Figure 1): it has to be high enough to avoid a
weak point which would reduce the cell efficiency.
_____________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________________
ISO/DTR 18228-5:2019 reports the following design methods for geocell stabilisation of road
bases.
4.1. Pokharel (2010) method for geocells

Based on studies of geocell stabilisation mechanisms, numerical modeling and field trials methods
for design with geosynthetics were modified and adapted to geocells. The modifications include
changing geosynthetic dependent parameters (such as torsional stiffness and tensile strength at 2 %
strain)to geocell dependent parameters (such as elastic stiffness, creep resistance less than 2% and
tensile strength).
Pokharel (2010) modified the Giroud and Han (2004) design methodology for geosynthetic
stabilization of unpaved roads by changing planar 2D geosynthetic dependent parameters (such as
aperture modulus) to geocell dependent parameters. These parameters were calibrated by laboratory
cyclic plate loading tests and full-scale moving wheel tests on NPA (Novel Polymeric Alloy in a
Nano matrix) based geocell stabilized granular bases over weak subgrade. In the design
methodology a maximum allowable rutting is set (together with all other parameters), and the
pavement thickness is determined by:
(6)
Where:
h = required base course thickness (m)
r = radius of tire contact area (m)
N = number of equivalent standard axle load (ESAL)
P = wheel load (kN)
cu = undrained cohesion of the subgrade soil (kPa)
RE = modulus ratio of base course to subgrade soil
m = bearing capacity mobilization factor
4.2. Mechanistic-Empirical method for geocells

For paved roads on soft or stable subgrades the design method for incorporating geocells can be
based on the elastic behavior of pavement structures following the Mechanistic-Empirical design
procedure (Kief, 2015). A mechanistic model of each pavement layer can be developed by
including its thickness, elastic modulus and Poisson’s ratio into commercially available layered-
elastic analysis programs for pavements; the mechanistic model produces an elastic response of
tensile and compressive strains for fatigue and rutting failure modes, respectively.
The Mechanistic-Empirical method applied to geocell stabilization of paved roads normally utilizes
the following parameters:
- Resilient modulus of subgrade
- Number of ESAL (80 kN equivalent single axle load) in the design life
- Modulus Improvement Factor (MIF)
The MIF of the layer stabilised with geocells relates to the improvement of the layer modulus (base
and/or sub-base), which is expressed by the following formula:
MIF = Ewith cellular confinement system / Ewithout cellular confinement system (1)
where:
Ewith cellular confinement system = modulus of geocell stabilized base / sub-base
Ewithout cellular confinement system = original modulus of the unstabilized base / subbase
_____________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________________
MIF for geocells is obtained through performance testing including validation of specific geocell
properties for the design life (Rajagopal, et al, 2014), specific infill type and Resilient modulus of
subgrade.
MIF is higher for:
- Smaller cell size
- Higher cell height
- Higher ratio of cell height to cell size
- Lower modulus of infill materials
- Higher resilient modulus of subgrade / support
- Higher tensile strength and stiffness of geocell strips
Measured MIF values for NPA (Novel Polymeric Alloy) geocell are typically in the range 1.8 - 4.5,
depending on the above factors.
The original modulus of the unstabilized base / subbase depends on:
- the bearing capacity of the underlying layers and subgrade;
- the layer thickness of the subbase.
With increasing values of bearing capacity of underlying medium and increasing thickness of the
subbase, the stiffness of a subbase in an unstabilized situation increases.
The chart in Fig. 5 (modified from Vega et al, 2018) can be used for a preliminary evaluation of the
MIF value as a function of the modulus of the unstabilized base / subbase and of the modulus of the
layer below. The MIF from the chart are based on geocells with perforated strips having tensile
strength (ISO 10319) higher than 16 kN/m with less than 3 % accumulated permanent deformation,
evaluated according to ASTM D6992 with three isothermal steps at 44⁰C, 51⁰C and 58⁰C (Vega et
al, 2018).
If additional unstabilized layers are placed above the geocell stabilized layer, then their modulus
may be improved as well due to the stronger support provided by the geocell stabilized layer.
Fig. 5. Chart providing the MIF value of NPA (Novel Polymeric Alloy) geocell stabilized layers as
a function of the modulus of the unstabilized base / subbase and of the modulus of the layer below
(modified from Vega et al, 2018).
5. DESIGN OF GEOCELLS FOR RAILWAY STABILIZATION
Ngo et Al (2017) reports that the main applications of geocells in railways is to stabilise subballast
because the hoop stress mobilised in the geocell provides an additional confinement which arrests
the lateral spreading of infill materials. The cost of track construction or maintenance can be
reduced significantly if appropriate reinforcement is used to stabilise track substructures.
_____________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________________
Preliminary studies carried out at the University of Wollongong (Australia) to investigate the
improved performance of subballast using geocells indicate that geocells improve the load carrying
capacity by increasing the rigidity of in-filled subballast, which then improves track performance.
A comprehensive field case study conducted by the US Federal Railway Administration showed
that geocell stabilisation performance extended the maintenance cycles (Palese, et al, 2017).
A primary contribution of geocells to a railway structure is the improved modulus (quantified by
MIF, defined in previous Section) of the stabilised layer, and of layers above it, if exist.
ISO/DTR 18228-5:2019 reports the following design methods for geocell for railway stabilisation.
Based on the MIF value, the geocell stabilization affords to increase the overall stiffness of the sub-
ballast structure. The stabilised sub-ballast layer can then be optimised in terms of reduced
thickness and/or the use of lower quality/marginal materials. The design criteria in such a structure
can include the required EV2 modulus (modulus of subgrade reaction measured in a plate loading
test) on top of the sub-ballast structure, according to railways standards (typically between 20 and
100 MPa).
The different layer moduli can be defined considering that the modulus of each layer is dependent
on the layer underneath it, as listed in Tab. 2 (from Livneh, 2013), where:
hsb = Subbase layer thickness [mm]
hb = Granular base layer thickness [mm]
Esg = Subgrade elastic modulus [MPa]
Esb = Subbase elastic modulus [MPa]
Eb = Granular base elastic modulus [MPa]
νb, νsb, νsg = Poisson’s ratio of base, subbase and subgrade, respectively
Table 2. Formulas for different layer moduli (Israel Road Authority, 2003)
After calculating Esg and Esb with the formulas in Tab. 2, it is possible to evaluate the MIF value
using the chart in Fig. 5 (valid only for NPA geocell) or with other charts if available in literature.
If the subbase is stabilized with geocells, the modulus of the stabilized subbase Esbs is:
Esbs = Esb · MIF (2)
Once the layer thicknesses and moduli of the unstabilized and geocell stabilized railway subballast
have been set, the vertical settlement on the sub-ballast surface and the vertical stress on the
subgrade surface below the centre of the sleeper can be calculated for both stabilized and
unstabilized railways structure using standard stress/strain software for railway design.
The stress - strain characteristic of a railway substructure is dependent on the frequency and the size
of the individual axle load applications. Accordingly, the loading on the subgrade is inversely
proportional to the number of loading cycles raised to a power λ, according to the following
formula:
_____________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________________
(3)
where:
σ1, σ2 = vertical stresses corresponding to N1, N2 loading cycles respectively
λ = exponent with a mean value of 0.2
If P denotes the load per axle and T denotes the daily traffic tonnage the equation above becomes:
(4)
For constant axle loads, P1 = P2 and the equation above becomes:
(5)
Where:
T1, T2 = daily traffic tonnage corresponding to N1, N2 loading cycles respectively.
Formulas (3), (4), and (5) allows to calculate the improvement in loading cycles and daily traffic
tonnage afforded by the geocell stabilization design.
6. DESIGN FACTORS
ISO/DTR 18228-5:2019 reports that the design factors are product and project specific, and would
normally be evaluated based on performance testing; factors to be considered for geocells usually
include the following:
• Lateral confinement of infill materials

• Infill stiffness
• Vertical confinement due to frictional resistance between infill and cell walls
• Magnitude, type and frequency of loading
• Distribution of lateral and vertical stresses
• Aggregate movement and attrition
• Junction and strip properties of the geocell,
• 3D zone of influence above and below the cellular confinement system where the
stabilisation mechanism is active
• Increased load spreading angle of applied loads
• Height of geocell and cell diameter to cell height ratio
• Location and number of geosynthetics in the stabilized layers
6.1. Key Properties for Geocells

The impact of geocell stabilisation have been quantified through laboratory testing and large-scale
field tests (Pokharel et al, 2011 & Yang et al, 2011). Geocells were found to stiffen granular
_____________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________________
materials layers by 3D confinement, thereby increasing the modulus of the stabilized layer. This
benefit is quantified as the Modulus Improvement Factor (MIF), as detailed in previous Sections.
Geocells provide 3D confinement through:
a) hoop tension forces in the cell walls,
b) resistance from the surrounding cells, and
c) friction between cell walls and infill material
The geometry and material properties of the geocell are key properties to maximize the magnitude
of stabilisation and to validate it for the design life of the project.
The key material properties of the geocell, related to hoop tension forces in the cell walls, are its
elastic stiffness and resistance to permanent deformation; these properties determine the magnitude
of the stabilisation for the design life.
Other key properties include junction strength (ISO 13426-1 Part 1, Method C) and cell wall
friction (EN ISO 12957-1). The stiffer the geocell, the higher the hoop tension stress will be, and,
thus, the higher the MIF. Short term tensile properties can be measured by hoop tensile test on
wide-width perforated cell wall and junction (ISO 10319).
Long term properties include the resistance of geocells to tensile creep and dynamic fatigue: in fact
the improvement of the geocell stabilized layer for entire design life is dependent on the short and
long term geocell properties (tensile stiffness, dynamic stiffness and creep) to assure very low
deformation of the confining cell walls, i.e., less than 2 % accumulated strain for the entire design
life (a higher value may invalidate stabilisation).
The accelerated creep test for geocells should be performed with wide-width perforated cell walls at
a fixed load that simulates the applied hoop tension forces according to the location of the geocell
layer in the pavement structure (ASTM D6992 modified for geocells).
The stiffness modulus of a material is a measure of its elastic deformation behavior and it is an
indication of the relationship between the force exerted on a material and the associated elastic
deformation. The elastic deformation behavior is the main mechanical property for all types of
pavement bases, from unbound to bound. The same principle applies to base stabilization with
geocells. Tensile dynamic loading on a geocell may result in a reduction in strength referred to as
fatigue. Fatigue testing of materials is frequently investigated by applying high dynamic loads,
establishing the relationship between the load and number of cycles and then extrapolating the
number of cycles to failure [Huang 2004].
Simulating elastic vs. plastic behavior is important to ensure performance in long-term applications,
since polymers tend to lose elastic modulus (stiffness) over time, particularly under dynamic
loading, and enter the plastic (viscous) range [Greenwood 2012].
A geocell must maintain stiffness under dynamic loading without significant permanent
deformation or loss of geometry, which could result in a loss of confinement, invalidate design
parameters or cause failure. In project design, the stiffer the geocell is (at short and long term), the
less lateral and vertical movement there is, and therefore the confining compressive stress σ3D (se
Fig. 2C) is increased.The dynamic elastic behavior is relevant to the improvement of geocell
performance as follow (Pokharel & Kief, 2018):
-Wider elastic zone – endures higher stress without permanent deformation
-Lower elastic deformation – enables a higher modulus improvement factor (MIF) and lower
settlements of confined infill soil
- Durability for cyclical loading – resistance to polymeric fatigue
The net dynamic stiffness modulus (DMA test) for geocells can be determined by NEN-ISO 6721-
1 or ASTM E2254 (Vega et al 2018).The test measures the polymer stiffness in the elastic region,
that is the capacity of the geosynthetic to resist dynamic fatigue stresses without permanent
_____________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________________
deformation. In fact the elastic stiffness of polymers decreases over time under dynamic loads
generating fatigue in the material. An excessive decrease in dynamic stiffness leads to unacceptable
reduction in the stabilizing effect of geosynthetics. Higher dynamic stiffness values result in lower
permanent deformations even at higher temperatures and better structural behavior in the long term.
The DMA test should provide results at ambient and elevated temperatures to monitor the behaviour
of the material in an accelerated mode. Typically at least 3 different temperature-based
measurements are required to explore the behaviour of the elastic stiffness.
7. LESSONS LEARNED FROM PROJECTS OF GEOCELL STABILISATION
In the construction of roads and railways the placing and compacting of the granular soil for base or
subbase can easily become problematic, because the granular soil may tend to slide in front of the
compactor, making it difficult to obtain the prescribed compacted density.
Also during the operational life of the road or railway, the repeated application of acceleration and
braking by heavy vehicles would produce displacement and deformations of the structure:
particularly in roads, the lateral shear stresses produced by the torsional forced generated by the
wheels of heavy vehicles would produce horizontal displacements and lateral deformations of the
road structure.
Hence the use of geocells for stabilisation and confinement of the granular layers appears as a sound
design solution.
The inclusion of geocells for road base stabilisation can be designed with the modified AASHTO
1993 method, where the geocell contribution is considered through the Modulus Improvement
Factor (MIF), as specified in the recent Dutch Standard SBS/CUR 2017 “Geokunststoffen als
funderingswapening in ongebonden funderingslagen (Geosynthetics for Reinforcement of Unbound
Base and Subbase Pavement Layers)”.
It has to be noted that the draft document ISO/DTR 18228-5:2019. Design Using Geosynthetics:
Part 5 – Stabilisation clarifies that the MIF of the layer stabilised with geocells relates to the
improvement of the layer modulus (base and/or sub-base); MIF for geocells is obtained through
performance testing including validation of specific geocell properties for the design life, specific
infill type and Resilient modulus of subgrade. MIF is higher for higher tensile strength and stiffness
of geocell strips
Measured MIF values for NPA (Novel Polymeric Alloy) geocell are typically in the range 1.8 - 4.5,
depending on the above factors.
Therefore the MIF is not a general property of geocells, but it is specific to each geocell, and it shall
be evaluated based on extensive tests, since MIF depends on the mechanical properties and
geometry of each geocell, the type of infill, the bearing capacity of subgrade, and the loading
conditions.
The lessons learned from worldwide projects of geocell stabilisation brings to the following
conclusions:
- the MIF used in the design calculation requires that the geocells shall provide high tensile
strength at short term and very low creep elongation at long term; therefore the Strength at
Yield – perforated (ISO 10319 Wide-width Tensile Test) should be higher than 16 kN/m,
and the Cumulative Permanent Deformation (Creep Resistance by Stepped Isothermal
Method, SIM, at load of 4.4 kN/m, ASTM D-6992 accelerated SIM creep test) should be
lower than 3.0 % ;
- geocell for stabilisation will be subject to hundred thousands or even millions cyclic loading,
that is the geocells will be subject to fatigue stress; the test used to characterize the fatigue
resistance of polymeric materials is Dynamic Mechanical Analysis (DMA) at sample
elevated temperatures ISO 6721-1 or ASTM E2254; considering the highest mean monthly
_____________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________________
temperature of 30°C, it appears that the DMA value highr than 750 MPa at 30°C shall be
regarded as absolutely minimum requirement;
- the stabilisation function of geocells depends on the capacity of geocells to confine the
compacted infill; the confinement capacity would be impaired if the junctions between
adjacent cells break during fill compaction and due to internal pressure for the whole design
life; the Seam Weld Strength is the fundamental property to ensure that geocell junctions
will not break; hence the Seam Weld Strength in Weld Splitting conditions (ISO-13426-1
Part 1 Method C) should be higher than 16 kN/m;
- only geocells affording all design specification would ensure that the calculated resistance to
traffic load is provided; if geocells with lower mechanical properties would be used, all
calculations would need to be performed again, based on the properties of such geocells;
obviously it can be easily anticipated that higher quantities of less performing geocells will
be required.
8. GEOCELLS USED ON EXPANSIVE SOILS
8.1. Behaviour of expansive soils

Expansive soils are characterized by the presence of swelling clay minerals that are highly prone to
moisture absorption, and can pose a significant hazard to support foundations for buildings and
infrastructures built over these types of soils. The most obvious way in which expansive soils and
clays can damage a structure is by the uplift action they produce as they swell with increasing
moisture absorption.
The amount of moisture absorbed varies with the gradation of particles and the content of swelling
clay minerals within the soil. Swelling soils can lift up and cause distress in road and railway
structures.
Expansive clay soils (also known as heavy clay or fat clay soil) undergo large volumetric changes
due to seasonal moisture fluctuations. They absorb water and expand (swell) when wet and shrink
when dry. The cyclical or seasonal change in volume results in shear stresses causing significant
lateral and vertical pressures – these slowly lead to cracking and buckling of roads and railways
built over such soils. Damages and repairs from expansive clays cost billions of dollars every year.
Expansive soils are characterized as problematic as they exhibit swelling with the absorption of
water and shrinking with its adsorption. Such changes in volume caused by swelling and shrinkage
movements often distress an infrastructure that is not designed to withstand those movements. In
addition to swelling, shrinkage-related changes in volume are critical in influencing the overall
changes in the volume properties of the soil. Field conditions that promote shrinkage or shrinkage-
induced crack formation include environmental changes, the construction process, and surcharge
loading. Environmental changes include freezing (the growth of ice lenses), differential swelling
(coupled with the weakening of interparticle forces during rapid wetting), and drying (shrinkage of
a clay mass).
8.2 Geocell solution for structures on expansive soils

According to Phanikumar and Amrutha (2010), expansive soils are problematic because of their
volume change behaviour corresponding to changes in moisture content. To counteract this
problem, many foundation techniques were devised: like Sand cushion method, CNS layer, lime
stabilization, under-reamed piles and granular pile-anchors (GPA) are quite effective in
counteracting heave and improving the engineering behaviour of the system. Anyway it was found
that heave could be considerably reduced by stabilisng the expansive soils with geocells.
_____________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________________
Structural geocells made from novel polymeric alloy (NPA) material afford high flexibility, very
low creep and high tensile strength properties.
The NPA geocell has been used as stabilising solution for expansive clay subgrade soils in several
projects in roadways, railways and ports around the world. For example in railways using the
geocell solution over weak expansive clays, track alignment measurements over long periods of
time show very low and even negligible settlement, which results in a dramatic decrease in
maintenance cycles and costs.
The typical solution for structures on expansive clay soils consists in a dual layer of NPA geocells,
sometimes with the addition of a biaxial geogrid placed on the subgrade – subbase (or subballast)
interface.
NPA geocells are capable of sustaining large hoop stress and cyclical loading with relatively small
strains without losing its dimensional stability, and therefore can maintain long-term confinement.
The stiff geogrid increases the effectiveness of the stiff NPA by increasing the MIF of the stabilised
layers.
The combined stiff stabilised layers restrain expansive clays by reducing differential heave, thank to
the beam effect created by the geocells which reduces the differential swelling of the clay and
effectively restrains heaving. In facts, the semi-rigid slab provided by the stabilising geosynthetics
highly restrains the volume change potential of expansive soils and prevents contraction cracks to
reflect up.
8.3. Examples of trafficability problems on soft swelling subsoil solved with geocells
8.3.1. Nahariya railway line

Alexiew (2019) reports that the Nahariya-Acre Rail line is part of the Israeli Coastal Rail main line.
Due to insufficient capacity a new parallel eastern track had to be added to the older western track
in 2013. Although rehabilitated some years earlier, the western track deformed again and again
significantly causing reduced trafficability and high maintenance costs.
It was decided to develop a solution with NPA geocells. The design philosophy was as follows:
Implement in the upper zone of the bearing system a geocell layer creating a new compound layer
with a much higher modulus E than for the unconfined soil. The final solution with geocells in the
case here is shown in Fig. 6: it includes a baiaxial geogrid at subbalast – subgrade interface, and 2
layers of NPA geocells with 150 mm thickness. This optimized design reduced the total bearing
layers thickness to 950 mm, that is 40 % less in comparison to the conventional solution.
Figure 6. Geocell solution for the Naharya railway (modified from Alexiew, 2019)
Alexiew (2019) reports that since 2014 systematic measurements of settlement and deflection of the
old western track and the new eastern one with the thinner dual NPA geocells plus geogrid solution
_____________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________________
are conducted. For the old track both settlement and heave of about - / + 10 mm are registered,
depending on the season. For the new track these changes are negligible. There are no problems
with the trafficability performance, and the maintenance intervals are significantly longer.
8.3.2. Rubkona Airfield upgrade works, South Sudan

Alexiew (2019) reports that the Rubkona Airfield is essential to the transport infrastructure for
humanitarian aid efforts. The airfield provides a primary access which is used when delivering aid
for the United Nations Mission in South Sudan (UNMISS). The airstrip had to be upgraded for
heavier aircrafts (C130 Hercules) ensuring also longterm permanent trafficability. The foundation
soil directly below the airfield consists of alluvial clay deposits known as “Black Cotton Soil”:
expansive clays with a potential for shrinking or swelling, sensitive to water content. For
construction purposes some sandy silts are available in the vicinity. A design life of 10 years was
required by the owner. NPA geocells were used due to their high tensile stiffness and low creep
strain. In that case the creep strain was limited to max 1.2 % for 10 years under load resulting in
high system modulus and low surface settlement despite the marginal fill used. The final design
layout is shown in Fig. 7.
Alexiew (2019) reports that the upgraded Rubkona airfield is permanently under operation, no
trafficability or maintenance problems of any type are known until now.
Figure 7. Marginal local soils used as geocell fill (marked by a dashed line) and as sublayer
9. CONCLUSIONS
In the last 30 years the use of geocells for the stabilisation function has been exploited throught the
development of specific test norms and design method.
At the same time the mechanical properties of geocells have been dramatically improved with the
introduction of novel polymeric alloy (NPA), which affords much higher tensile strength, much
lower creep strain, and much higher resi stance to fatigue stresses under dynamic loads.
Based on these technical and technological improvements, design engineers ( including myself as
the first enthusiast) can reliably design geocell solutions even in very challenging conditions, like in
case of roads and railways on expansive soils. Anyway, the enforcement of strict design
specification is fundamental for the success of critical projects with geocells used for the
stabilisation function.
_____________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________________
REFERENCES
Acharya, B. (2011). Experimental Study of Geocell-reinforced Flexible Pavements with Recycled

Asphalt Pavement (RAP) Bases under Cyclic Loads. MS thesis, CEAE Department, the
University of Kansas, 123.
Alexiew D. (2019). Geocells: Technical aspects under local African soil conditions. Proceedings of
the 17th African Regional Conference on Soil Mechanics and Geotechnical Engineering. 7, 8 &
9 October 2019 – Cape Town.
Biabani, M., Indraratna, B., Ngo, N. T. (2016). Modelling of geocell-reinforced subballast subjected
to cyclic loading. Geotextiles and Geomembranes 44 (2016), 489-503. Elsevier, UK.
Coluzzi, E., Rimoldi, P., Soccodato, C., Ultimo, S. (1995). Stabilizzazione superficiale del ciglio
della rupe di Orvieto mediante geocelle (Stabilisation of the edge of the Orvieto cliff using
geocells). Proc. Italian Geotechnical Conference, Pavia, Italy (in Italian).
Emmersleben, A. (2009). Lastabtragungsverhalten von Geozellen zur Stabilisierung mineralischer
Tragschichten unter statischen und zyklischen Belastungen (Bearing behaviour of geocells for
stabilization of mineral bearing layers under static and cyclic loads, in German). Ph.D.
Dissertation, Technical University Clausthal: Germany. 237p.
Fattah M. Y., Omari R. A., Ali H. A. (2015), Numerical simulation of the treatment of soil swelling
using grid geocell columns. Slovak Journal of Civil Engineering Vol. 23, 2015, No. 2, 9 – 18
Han Jie, Jitendra K. Thakur, Robert L. Parsons, Sanat K. Pokharel, Dov Leshchinsky, and
Xiaoming Yang (2013). A Summary of Research on Geocell-Reinforced Base Courses. Proc. Int.
Conf. on Design and Practice of Geosynthetic-Reinforced Soil Structures. Bologna, Italy
ISO 10318-1. Geosynthetics - Part 1: Terms and definitions. ISO, Geneve, Switzerland.
ISO 10318-1. Geosynthetics - Part 2: Symbols and Pictograms. ISO, Geneve, Switzerland.
ISO 10319. Geosynthetics — Wide-width tensile Test. ISO, Geneve, Switzerland.
ISO 13426-1. Geotextiles and geotextile-related products — Strength of internal structural
junctions —Part 1: Geocells. ISO, Geneve, Switzerland.
ISO 13431. Geotextiles and geotextile-related products. Determination of tensile creep and creep
rupture behaviour. ISO, Geneve, Switzerland.
ISO/DTR 18228-5:2019. Design Using Geosynthetics: Part 5 – Stabilisation. ISO, Geneve,
Switzerland.
Kief, O. & Rajagopal, K. (2011). Modulus Improvement Factor for PRS-Neoweb-Reinforced
Bases. Proc. Conf. on Geosynthetics India 2011, Chennai.
Kief, O. Schary, Y. & Pokharel, S.K. (2014). High-modulus geocells for sustainable highway
infrastructure. Indian Geotechnical Journal, Springer, 14 September.
Kief, O. (2015). Hybrid Geosynthetic Solution for rail track on expansive clay, Proc. Geosynthetics
2015 Conference, Portland, February 15-18.
Kief, O. (2016). Rail track pavements on expansive clay restrained by hybrid geosynthetic solution.
Proc. GeoAmericas 2016 – The 3rd Pan-American Conference on Geosynthetics, 10-13 April,
Miami Beach.
Mandal, N.J. and Gupta, P. (1994). “Stability of geocell-reinforced soil.” Construction and Building
Materials, 8 (1), 55-62.
Leshchinsky, D. (2008). Technical review of geocell-reinforced base courses over weak subgrade.
In Bathurst, R.J. and Palmeira, E.M. (eds). Proc. First Pan American Geosynthetics Conference
& Exhibition, Cancún, Mexico, March 2-5, 2008: 1022-1030.
Leshchinksy, B. and Ling H. (2013). Numerical Modeling of Behavior of Railway Ballasted
Structure with Geocell Confinement. Geotextiles and Geomembranes, Vol. 36, February, pages
33-43.
_____________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________________
Livneh, M. (2013 edition). Design Guidelines for Upper and Lower Railway Structures, Israel
Railway Authority, Development Division, Planning Branch, November (in Hebrew).
Ngo, N., Indraratna, B., Rujikiatkamjorn, C. (2017). Stabilization of track substructure with
geoinclusions— experimental evidence and DEM simulation. International Journal of Rail
Transportation, 5 (2), 63-86.
Palese, J.W., Zarembski, A.M., Thompson, H., Pagano, W., and Ling, H.I. (2017) Life Cycle
Benefits of Subgrade Reinforcement Using Geocell on a Highspeed Railway – a Case Study,
accepted for AREMA Conference (American Railway Engineering and Maintenance-of-Way
Association), September.
Phanikumar, B.R. Amrutha, K. (2010). Vertical Heave Resistant Geocell – A New Approach for
Controlling Heave. Proc. Indian Geotechnical Conference – 2010. Mumbai, India
Pokharel, S.K. et al. (2013). Causeway design with PRS-Neoweb geocells. Proc. Design and
Practice Geos. Reinf. Soil Structures, Bologna, October 2013.
Pokharel, S.K. (2010). Experimental Study on Geocell-Reinforced Bases under Static and Dynamic
Loading. PhD dissertation. Civil, Environmental, and Architectural Engineering and Graduate
Faculty of the University of Kansas, USA.
Pokharel, S.K., Han, J., Manandhar, C., Yang, X.M., Leshchinsky, D., Halahmi, I., and Parsons,
R.L. (2011). “Accelerated Pavement Testing of Geocell-Reinforced Unpaved Roads over Weak
Subgrade.” Journal of Transportation Research Board, the 10th International Conference on
Low-Volume Roads, July 24-27, Lake Buena Vista, Florida, USA
Pokharel, S.K., Kief, O. (2018). Evaluation of the Elastic Modulus of Geocells for Structural
Contribution in Pavement Stabilization. Accepted for Publication, International Journal of
Engineering Research and Application.
Pokharel, S.K., Martin, I., Norouzi, M., and Breault, M. (2015). “Validation of Geocell Design for
Unpaved Roads.” Geosynthetics Conference Proceedings, Portland, OR, US, Feb 15-18, 2015.
pp 711-719.
Pokharel, S.K., Martin, I., Norouzi, M., and Breault, M. (2016). Sustainable Road Construction for
Heavy Traffic Using High Strength Polymeric Geocells, Resilient Infrastructure Conference
Proceedings, London. 118-1 to 9.
Rajagopal, K., Krishnaswamy, N.R., Latha, G.M. (1999). Behaviour of sand confined with single
and multiple geocells. Geotextiles and Geomembranes 17 (3), 171 -184.
Rimoldi, P. and Ricciuti, A. (1994). Design Method for Three-Dimensional Geocells on Slopes.
Proc. Fifth International Conference on Geotextiles, Geomembranes and Related Products,
Singapore.
Rimoldi, P. and Recalcati, P. (1998). Avoding installation problems regarding geocells on slopes
and river banks. Proc. XII GRI Conference, Philadelphia, USA.
Rimoldi, P. (2018). Geotextile encased columns for reducing the heave potential of expansive clays;
proc. 11th Int. Conf. On Geosynthetics, Seoul, Korea.
Satyala S.R., Leshchinsky, B., Han, J., Neupaned, M. (2018). Use of cellular confinement for
improved railway performance on soft subgrades. Geotextiles and Geomembranes 46 (2018),
190–205. Elsevier, UK.
Thakur, J.K., Han, J., and Parsons, R.L. (2012). Creep behavior of geocell-reinforced recycled
asphalt pavement (RAP) bases. ASCE Journal of Materials in Civil Engineering (accepted).
Thakur, J.K., Han, J., Pokharel, S.K., and Parsons, R.L. (2012). “Performance of geocell- reinforced
recycled asphalt pavement (RAP) bases over weak subgrade under cyclic plate loading.”
Geotextiles and Geomembranes, 35, 14-24
Vega, E., van Gurp, C., Kwast, E. (2018). Geokunststoffenals Funderingswapening in Ongebonden
Funderingslagen (Geosynthetics for Stabilisation of Unbound Base and Subbase Pavement
Layers), SBRCURnet (CROW), Netherlands.
_____________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________________
Yang, X.M. (2010). Numerical Analyses of Geocell-Reinforced Granular Soils under Static and
Repeated Loads. Ph.D. dissertation, CEAE Department, the University of Kansas, 192p.
Yang, X., Han, J., Pokharel, S.K., Manandhar, C., Parsons, R.L., Leshchinsky, D., and Halahmi, I.
(2011). Accelerated Pavement Testing of Unpaved Roads with Geocell-Reinforced Sand Bases,
Transportation Research Board (TRB) Annual Meeting, Washington, D.C., January 23-27.
Yuu, J., Han, J., Rosen, A., Parsons, R.L., and Leshchinsky, D. (2008). “Technical review of
geocell-reinforced base courses over weak subgrade.” Proceedings of the First Pan American
Geosynthetics Conference & Exhibition, Cancún, Mexico, March 2-5, 2008, Bathurst, R.J. and
Palmira, E.M. (editors), 1022-1030.
_____________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

A8.2-Italy-Pietro Rimoldi-ISO-STANDARD-Highlighted

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

A8.2-Italy-Pietro Rimoldi-ISO-STANDARD-Highlighted

Uploaded by

Document Information

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

A8.2-Italy-Pietro Rimoldi-ISO-STANDARD-Highlighted

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Pietro Rimoldi Civil Engineer

Corso Garibaldi 125, 20121 Milano, Italy

TO WHOM IT MAY CONCERN

THE USE OF GEOCELLS FOR STABILISATION OF ROADS AND RAILWAYS ON

ISO 10318-1 contains the following definition of geocells:

The mechanical behaviour of a geocell system as a composite is defined by the geomechanical

3. GEOCELLS CONFINEMENT MECHANISM

1) External vertical stress

2) Lateral stress on cell walls

3) Lateral confinement /restraint - Hoop tensile stress in cell walls

Figure 2. Confinement Mechanisms in Geocells: Development of Cell Hoop Stress by External

4. DESIGN OF GEOCELLS FOR ROAD STABILISATION

4.1. Pokharel (2010) method for geocells

4.2. Mechanistic-Empirical method for geocells

5. DESIGN OF GEOCELLS FOR RAILWAY STABILIZATION

For constant axle loads, P1 = P2 and the equation above becomes:

• Lateral confinement of infill materials

6.1. Key Properties for Geocells

7. LESSONS LEARNED FROM PROJECTS OF GEOCELL STABILISATION

8. GEOCELLS USED ON EXPANSIVE SOILS

8.1. Behaviour of expansive soils

8.2 Geocell solution for structures on expansive soils

8.3.1. Nahariya railway line

8.3.2. Rubkona Airfield upgrade works, South Sudan

Acharya, B. (2011). Experimental Study of Geocell-reinforced Flexible Pavements with Recycled

You might also like