Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Experimental Evaluation on Behavior of Geocell–Geogrid Reinforced Sand Subjected to Combined Static and Cyclic Loading

  • Original Paper
  • Published:
Indian Geotechnical Journal Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

The effect of the geocell layer and the geocell with geogrid layer on the settlement Behavior of sand under static and cyclic loads is investigated in this experimental study. The parametric experiments were conducted to examine the effects of reinforcement type and spacing between reinforcement on footing settlement Behavior. Additionally, to ascertain how settlement varies under various circumstances, the load-settlement Behavior of square footings installed over both reinforced and unreinforced sand beds was investigated. According to the experimental investigation, the foundation resting over geocell-reinforced sand showed an improvement of about 150% in the sand bed's bearing capability. The reinforced sand bed sustained loading cycles twice that of the unreinforced sand. The results showed that construction and demolition waste performed best among the infill materials that were tested. When construction and demolition waste is used as an infill material, there is about a 94% increase in elastic uniform compression coefficient value and about a 30.4% increase in sand bed load-carrying capability. For waste foundry sand and a mixture of construction and demolition waste with waste foundry sand (50% each), there is about an 8.86% and 16.11% increase in the value of load carrying capacity as compared to when geocell is infilled with sand. For the geocell–geogrid reinforced sand bed, the maximum increase in the elastic uniform compression coefficient value is 17.9% with a 28.61% decrease in settlement value compared to when geocell is used alone in the sand bed.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1
Fig. 2
Fig. 3
Fig. 4
Fig. 5
Fig. 6
Fig. 7
Fig. 8
Fig. 9
Fig. 10
Fig. 11
Fig. 12
Fig. 13
Fig. 14
Fig. 15
Fig. 16
Fig. 17

Similar content being viewed by others

Data availability

The data associated with this study will be provided as per request.

Abbreviations

RD:

Relative density

WFS:

Waste foundry sand

C&D waste:

Construction and demolition waste

C u :

Elastic uniform compression co-efficient

s :

Settlement of footing

B :

Width of footing

D f :

Depth of footing

References

  1. Avesani Neto JO, Bueno BS, Futai MM (2013) A bearing capacity calculation method for soil reinforced with a geocell. Geosynth Int 20(3):129–142

    Article  Google Scholar 

  2. Dash SK (2010) Influence of relative density of soil on the performance of geocell reinforced sand foundations. J Mater Civ Eng 22(5):533–538

    Article  Google Scholar 

  3. Dash SK (2012) Effect of geocell type on load carrying mechanism of geocell-reinforced sand foundations. Int J Geomech 12(5):537–548

    Article  Google Scholar 

  4. Hegde TGS (2015) Use of bamboo in soft ground engineering and its performance comparison with geosynthetics: experimental studies. J Mater Civ Eng ASCE 27(9):1–9

    Article  Google Scholar 

  5. Juneja G, Sharma RK (2022) Numerical investigation of square footing positioned on geocell reinforced sand by using abaqus software. Civ Environ Eng Rep 32(2):154–173

    Google Scholar 

  6. Juneja G, Sharma RK (2022) Numerical study on the Behavior of geocell-reinforced sand layer overlying soft clay subgrade. Indian Geotech J 53:422–436

    Article  Google Scholar 

  7. Bhardwaj A, Sharma RK (2022) Bearing capacity evaluation of shallow foundations on stabilized layered soil using ABAQUS. Stud Geotech Mech 45:55–71

    Article  Google Scholar 

  8. Juneja G, Sharma RK (2022) Numerical analysis of square and circular skirted footings placed on sand using PLAXIS 3D software. J Min Environ 13:1049–1066

    Google Scholar 

  9. Hegde TGS (2016) Behavior of geocell reinforced soft clay bed subjected to incremental cyclic loading. Geomech Eng 10(4):405–422

    Article  Google Scholar 

  10. Hegde A, Sitharam TG (2013) Experimental and numerical studies on footings supported on geocell reinforced sand and clay beds. Int J Geotech Eng 7(4):346–354

    Article  Google Scholar 

  11. Nong Z, Park SS, Jeong SW, Lee DE (2020) Effect of cyclic loading frequency on liquefaction prediction of sand. Appl Sci 10(13):4502. https://doi.org/10.3390/app10134502

    Article  Google Scholar 

  12. Pokharel SK (2010) Experimental study on Geocell-reinforced bases under static and dynamic loading. D Phil Thesis, University of Kansas, USA

  13. Kazerani B, Jamnejad G (1987) Polymer grid cell reinforcement in construction of pavement structures. Section 1A, unpaved and paved roads. In: Proceedings of the geosynthetics international conference, New Orleans, USA

  14. Zhao MH, Zhang L, Zou XJ, Zhao H (2009) Research progress in two direction composite foundation formed by geocell reinforced mattress and gravel piles. Chin J Highw Transp 22(1):1–10

    Google Scholar 

  15. Gao A, Zhang M (2022) Performance and application of geocell reinforced sand embankment under static and cyclic loading. Coatings 12:767. https://doi.org/10.3390/coatings12060767

    Article  Google Scholar 

  16. Tafreshi SNM, Dawson AR (2012) A comparison of static and cyclic loading responses of foundations on geocell-reinforced sand. Geotext Geomembr 32:55–68

    Article  Google Scholar 

  17. Rajagopal K, Veeraragavan A, Chandramouli S (2012) Studies on geocell reinforced road pavement structures. In: GEOSYNTHETICS ASIA 2012 5th Asian regional conference on geosynthetics 13 to 15 december Bangkok, Thailand

  18. Tafreshi SM, Dawson AR (2010) Behavior of footings on reinforced sand subjected to repeated loading–comparing use of 3D and planar geotextile. Geotext Geomembr 28(5):434–447

    Article  Google Scholar 

  19. Shin EC, Das BM, Lee ES, Atalar C (2002) Bering capacity of strip foundation on geogrid-reinforced sand. Geotech Geol Eng 20:169–180

    Article  Google Scholar 

  20. Sujatha ER, Vignesh J (2012) Improving the strength of sub-grade using geo-grids.

  21. Dhule SB, Valunjkar SS (2011) Improvement of flexible pavement with use of geo-grid. EJGE vol 16

  22. Shin EC, Kim DH, Das BM (2002) Geogrid-reinforced railroad bed settlement due to cyclic load. Geotech Geol Eng 20(3):261–271

    Article  Google Scholar 

  23. Moghaddas Tafreshi SN, Zarei SE, Soltanpour Y (2008) Cyclic loading on foundation to evaluate the coefficient elastic uniform compression in sand. In: Proceedings of 14th world conference on earthquake engineering, Beijing, China

  24. Zidan AF (2012) Numerical study of behavior of circular footing on geogrid-reinforced sand under static and dynamic loading. Geotech Geol Eng 30(2):499–510

    Article  Google Scholar 

  25. Sreedhar MV, Goud PK (2011) Behavior of geosynthetic reinforced sand bed under cyclic loading. In: Proceedings of Indian geotechnical conference, Kochi, India, pp 519–522

  26. Verma AK, Bhatt DR (2008) Design of machine foundations on reinforced sand. In: Proceedings of 12th international conference of IACMAG, Goa, India, pp 3583–3589

  27. Abu-Farsakh M, Chen QM, Sharma R (2013) An experimental evaluation of the Behavior of footings on geosynthetic-reinforced sand. Soils Found 53(2):335–348

    Article  Google Scholar 

  28. Sharma RK, Bhardwaj A (2019) Effect of construction demolition and glass waste on stabilization of clayey soil. In: Proceedings of the 1st international conference on sustainable waste management through design: IC_SWMD 2018 1 (pp 87–94). Springer International Publishing

  29. Bhardwaj A, Walia BS (2017) Influence of cement and polyester fibers on compaction and CBR value of clayey soil. In: Indian Geotechnical Conference

  30. Somvanshi A (2019) India drowns in construction, demolition debris. Down to Earth

  31. Santos ECG, Vilar OM (2008) Use of recycled construction and demolition wastes (RCDW) as backfill of reinforced soil structures. In: Proceedings of the 4th European conference on geosynthetics—EUROGEO 4, Edinburgh, UKIGS-UK Chapter, London, paper 199

  32. Mehrjardi GT, Azizi A, Haji-Azizi A, Asdollafardi G (2020) Evaluating and improving the construction and demolition waste technical properties to use in road construction. Transp Geotech 23:100349

    Article  Google Scholar 

  33. Pereira PM, Vieira CS, Lopes ML (2015) Characterization of construction and demolition wastes (C&DW)/geogrid interfaces. Wastes: solutions, treatments and opportunities—selected papers from the 3rd edition of the international conference on wastes: solutions, treatments and opportunities, 2015. CRC Press, pp 215–220. ISBN: 978-113802882–1

  34. Vieira CS, Pereira PM (2015) Interface shear properties of geosynthetics and construction and demolition waste from largescale direct shear tests. Geosynth Int 23(1):62–70

    Article  Google Scholar 

  35. Vieira CS, Pereira PM, Lopes ML (2016) Recycled construction and demolition wastes as filling material for geosynthetic reinforced structures. Interface properties. J Clean Prod 124:299–311

    Article  Google Scholar 

  36. Mahima D, Sini T (2022) Performance evaluation of demolition waste infilled geocell-reinforced subgrade by flexural and rutting analysis. Road Mater Pavement Des 23(8):1746–1761. https://doi.org/10.1080/14680629.2021.1924233

    Article  Google Scholar 

  37. ASTM Standard D422 (2007) Standard test method for particle size analysis of soils. ASTM International, West Conshohocken. www.astm.org

  38. ASTM D 4253 (2006) Standard test methods for maximum index density and unit weight of soils using a vibratory Table. ASTM International, West Conshohocken. www.astm.org

  39. ASTM D 4254 (2006) Standard test methods for minimum index density and unit weight of soils and calculation of relative density. ASTM International, West Conshohocken. www.astm.org

  40. ASTM D 854 (2000) Standard test for specific gravity of soil solids by water pycnometer. ASTM International, West Conshohocken. www.astm.org

  41. ASTM D 3080 (1998) Standard test method for direct shear test of soils under consolidated drained conditions. ASTM International, West Conshohocken. www.astm.org

  42. ASTM D7181-20 (2020) Standard test method for consolidated drained triaxial compression test for soils. ASTM International, West Conshohocken. https://doi.org/10.1520/D7181-20

  43. Dash SK, Krishnaswamy NR, Rajagopal K (2001) Bearing capacity of strip footings supported on geocell-reinforced sand. Geotext Geomembr 9(4):235–256. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0266-1144(01)00006-1

    Article  Google Scholar 

  44. Dash SK, Sireesh S, Sitharam TG (2003) Model studies on circular footing supported on geocell-reinforced sand underlain by soft clay. Geotext Geomembr 21(4):197–219. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0266-1144(03)00017-7

    Article  Google Scholar 

  45. Chowdhury S, Patra NR (2021) Settlement behavior of circular footing on geocell- and geogrid-reinforced pond ash bed under combine static and cyclic loading. Arab J Geosci 14:1063. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12517-021-07424-5

    Article  Google Scholar 

  46. Yamamuro JA, Abrantes AE, Lade PV (2011) Effect of strain rate on the stress-strain behavior of sand. J Geotech Geoenviron Eng 137(12):1169–1178

    Article  Google Scholar 

  47. Hegde A, Sitharam TG (2016) Behavior of geocell reinforced soft clay bed subjected to incremental cyclic loading. Geomech Eng 10(4):405–422. https://doi.org/10.12989/gae.2016.10.4.405

    Article  Google Scholar 

  48. Moghaddas Tafreshi SN, Tavakoli Mehrjardi G, Ahmadi M (2011) Experimental and numerical investigation on circular footing subjected to incremental cyclic loads. Int J Civ Eng 9(4):265–274

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Funding

There is no outside funding received for this research investigation.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. National Institute of Technology Hamirpur, Hamirpur, Himachal Pradesh, India

    Vinay Thakur

  2. Department of Civil Engineering, National Institute of Technology Hamirpur, Hamirpur, Himachal Pradesh, India

    Ravi Kumar Sharma

Authors
  1. Vinay Thakur
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Ravi Kumar Sharma
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Vinay Thakur.

Ethics declarations

Conflict of interest

The authors affirm that they do not have any conflict of interest.

Additional information

Publisher's Note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Rights and permissions

Springer Nature or its licensor (e.g. a society or other partner) holds exclusive rights to this article under a publishing agreement with the author(s) or other rightsholder(s); author self-archiving of the accepted manuscript version of this article is solely governed by the terms of such publishing agreement and applicable law.

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Thakur, V., Sharma, R.K. Experimental Evaluation on Behavior of Geocell–Geogrid Reinforced Sand Subjected to Combined Static and Cyclic Loading. Indian Geotech J (2023). https://doi.org/10.1007/s40098-023-00815-3

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s40098-023-00815-3

Keywords

Search

Navigation