Three dimensional finite element analyses of geocell reinforced

railway tracks
Lalima Banerjee & Sowmiya Chawla
Indian Institute of Technology (Indian School of Mines) Dhanbad, Dhanbad, Jharkhand, India
Sujit Kumar Dash
Department of Civil Engineering, Indian Institute of Technology Kharagpur, West Bengal, India

ABSTRACT
Railways are a form of regular transport for millions of people in India, which makes it an integral part of
transportation sector of our country. The modernization of railways is being carried out extensively in order to meet
the ever increasing demands of the population. Geosynthetics are being widely used worldwide as a reinforcement
material for various applications. Rail tracks are one of the most important and emerging areas where geosynthetics
can be used to fulfill the various requirements of reducing track maintenance costs as well as track degradation due
to excessive settlements. This paper attempts to investigate the improvement in geocell reinforced railway tracks
using three dimensional finite element modeling over unreinforced tracks. The sub-ballast heights and modulus of
geocell were varied using MIDAS GTS-NX,2016 which is a commercially available finite element analysis software,
to observe the effect of these parameters on the improvement in track-beds using geocell. The results of the FEM
analyses indicate that the performance of rail tracks can be improved using geocell as a track reinforcement
material.

1 INTRODUCTION 2 FEM MODELING OF TRACKS

Railways have always been an important transportation
mode for the people as well as freight. Research is
being carried out for modernization of railways with the
introduction of high speed trains, heavier axle loads and
laying of new tracks. Stabilization of rail track is
important for reducing maintenance costs resulting from
track degradation. Geosynthetics can be used for
improving stability of rail track (Bathurst and Raymond
1987; Indraratna et al., 2006; Brown et al. 2007). Planar
geosynthetics have already been utilized to reduce
vertical and lateral deformation of rail tracks (Indraratna
and Nimbalkar 2013, Chawla and Shahu 2016).
The use of three-dimensional geocells has been
studied as reinforcement for different applications such
as embankment (Latha et al. 2006) or footings (Dash et
al. 2004). The increase in confinement of aggregates
using geocells has been observed with the help of large
scale triaxial tests which showed considerable increase
in strength (Biabani et al. 2016).
The numerical modeling of geocell has been
challenging due to its three dimensional structure
(Satyal et al. 2018). In this context, the present study
has been carried out using three dimensional finite
element analyses of unreinforced as well as geocell
reinforced prototype tracks. Midas GTS NX, 2016 which
is commercially available finite element analysis
software has been used to carry out the finite element
simulations of prototype tracks to observe the variation
of stresses and displacements by using geocells. The
parameters studied include variation of sub-ballast
height and geocell modulus to study the effect of these
parameters on geocell reinforcement.
In this study, Midas GTS NX, 2016 software was used
for modeling and analysis of unreinforced as well as
geocell reinforced railway tracks. A subgrade height of
2.5 m was considered for modeling the prototype track
considering symmetry. Sub-ballast heights were varied
as 0.45 m and 0.6 m as per specifications of RDSO,
2007 for prototype tracks. Ballast height was kept
constant as 0.35 m. The height of prepared subgrade
was also kept constant at 0.5 m for all models. Geocell
was modeled within the sub-ballast to study the
reduction in settlements and lateral deformations by
providing geocell reinforcement for the track model. The
thickness of geocell was taken as 0.002 m. Ballast and
sub-ballast were modeled using Mohr-Coulomb drained
model while the subgrade and prepared subgrade were
modeled using the Mohr-Coulomb undrained model.
2.1 Material Model
Three-dimensional FEM models for prototype tracks
were simulated. Only one-half of the track was modeled
based on symmetry. The properties of materials used in
the FEM modeling are given in Table 1. The properties
of all track components like elastic modulus, Poisson’s
ratio, cohesion and friction angle have been taken from
Sowmiya, 2013. Geocell was modeled as linear elastic
material. The pocket size of geocell was taken as 0.5 m
for the prototype track as available in the market. Rail
and sleeper were modeled as linear elastic materials.
Sleepers were considered to be of concrete material
while rail was simulated as steel.

1
Table1. Material properties

Properties Rail Sleeper Ballast Sub-ballast Geocell Prepared Subgrade

Subgrade
Elastic Modulus (MPa) 200,000 30,000 6.24 3.07 100, 500, 2070 1.42 1.42
Poisson’s ratio 0.27 0.2 0.35 0.32 0.35 0.49 0.49
Cohesion (kPa) - - 0.1 0.1 - 8 8
Internal friction angle (⁰) - - 47.6 41.7 - 0.1 0.1
Thickness (m) 0.136 0.21 0.35 0.45, 0.6 0.002 0.5 2.5
Length (m) 4.55 1.775 - - - - -

2.2 Meshing & Boundary Conditions 3 RESULTS & DISCUSSIONS

The geometry of the prototype tracks were modeled by 3.1 Load-Settlement Behavior
varying sub-ballast heights and in either unreinforced or
reinforced conditions. In the 3D model, the running The load-settlement curves for unreinforced and geocell
length of 4.55 m was considered. After geometry reinforced tracks for sub-ballast height 450 mm are
modeling, mesh was generated for the entire track shown in Figure 2.
model using an auto-mesh generation option. Figure 1
shows the generated mesh for the entire track model for
prototype track with sub-ballast height of 0.45 m.

Rail
Sleeper
Ballast

0.35 m Sub-ballast
0.45 m Geocell
0.5 m Prepared Subgrade

2.5 m

Subgrade

Figure 2. Load-settlement behavior of geocell reinforced

tracks for sub-ballast height of 0.45 m

Figure 1. Generated mesh for the entire model
Auto-meshing was done using an adaptive seeding
option available in Midas GTS-NX, 2013. Triangular
elements were used for mesh generation. Roller
supports were applied on the vertical faces of the
model. No support was applied on the sloping faces of
ballast, sub-ballast or prepared subgrade as well as the
faces of sleeper & geocell that were in continuation with
the sloping faces of the model. The bottom face of
subgrade in the model was kept as fixed.
Loading was done considering a double axle load of
325 kN with 1.5 impact factor; which means the total
axle load applied was 243.75 kN for each wheel. The
value of impact factor taken is specified in RDSO, 2007
for 160 km/h train speed.
For computational purpose, the default
computational control parameters were kept same, with
the exception of displacement norm which was changed
to 0.01.
From Figure 2, it can be observed that the
unreinforced track shows a much higher displacement
as compared to geocell reinforced tracks. For geocell
reinforced track having geocell modulus 100 MPa,
43.08 % reduction in displacement was observed at the
ultimate capacity of unreinforced tracks. For the same
model, an increase in geocell modulus to 500 MPa
further reduced the vertical displacement by 17.1 % at
the same load. Further increase in geocell modulus to
2070 MPa decreased the vertical settlement by 20.92
%.
Similar behavior was observed for models of sub-
ballast height 0.6 m as shown in Figure 3. Geocell
reinforced tracks showed an improvement over
unreinforced tracks. For geocells with elastic modulus
of 100 MPa, 41.29 % reduction in vertical settlements
was achieved. For geocells of elastic modulus 500
MPa, further reduction in vertical settlement of 18.75 %
was observed. Further decrease in vertical settlement
of 22.82 % was observed using geocells of highest
elastic modulus 2070 MPa. From Figures 2 & 3, it can
be observed that as the sub-ballast height increases,
the vertical settlement reduces even for unreinforced
tracks. Further improvement is possible using geocell

2

Figure 3. Load-settlement behavior of geocell reinforced
tracks for sub-ballast height of 0.6 m
as reinforcement. The improvement in vertical
settlement depends on the elastic modulus of the
geocell. The improvement increases as geocell of
higher modulus are used.
3.2 Lateral Displacement of Sub-ballast
In the three-dimensional prototype track model, the
geocell was used to confine the sub-ballast material.
Figure 4 shows the improvement in lateral displacement
of sub-ballast using geocell for sub-ballast of 0.45 m
height.
Figure 4. Lateral displacement behavior of geocell
reinforced tracks for sub-ballast height of 0.45 m
Figure 4 shows that at the mid-height of sub-ballast,
83.33 % reduction in lateral displacement of sub-ballast
could be achieved using geocell of elastic modulus 100
MPa. For geocell of higher elastic modulus 500 MPa,
further reduction in lateral displacement of sub-ballast
that could be achieved was 46.67 %. A higher geocell
elastic modulus of 2070 MPa gave further 58.75 %
reduction in vertical settlement. This behavior shows
that using geocell as reinforcement can reduce the
lateral displacement of the sub-ballast to a considerable
extent. The geocell due to its three-dimensional
structure confines the sub-ballast within its pockets
thereby reducing the lateral displacement of sub-ballast
which are helpful in improving track performance.
Figure 5 shows the lateral displacement behavior of
prototype tracks with sub-ballast height of 0.6 m. From
the figure it can be observed that for increased sub-
ballast height from 0.45 m to 0.6 m, presence of geocell
improves the performance of tracks.
Figure 5. Lateral displacement behavior of geocell
reinforced tracks for sub-ballast height of 0.6 m
From Figure 5 it can be observed that compared to
unreinforced tracks, the lateral displacement of sub-
ballast decreased by 79.4 % using geocell of 100 MPa.
Geocells of higher elastic modulus 500 MPa further
reduced the vertical settlement by 50 %. This shows
that geocell of higher elastic modulus is effective in
further reducing the lateral displacement of sub-ballast
of railway tracks than geocell with lower elastic
modulus. This was further confirmed using geocells of
higher elastic modulus of 2070 MPa where the lateral
displacement further reduced by 57.14 %.
3.3 Vertical Displacement & Stress Contours
The vertical displacement contours obtained for the
entire track model as shown in Figure 6 clearly indicate
the effectiveness of geocell in reducing the vertical
displacement for the whole track as compared to the
unreinforced track. The displacement contours clearly
indicate that geocell reinforcement can be used for
reducing the vertical displacement to a large extent.
The comparison of unreinforced track with reinforced
track model in Figure 6 shows that while for
unreinforced tracks, the highest displacement observed
was 0.439 m, for reinforced track model of height 0.6 m,
the displacement obtained was 0.063 m which is much
lower.
Figure 7 shows the vertical stress contours for the
unreinforced as well as geocell reinforced track of 0.6 m
sub-ballast height. The vertical stress contours indicate
that using geocell as reinforcement for prototype track
sections can reduce the stresses to a large extent for
the whole track model. A comparison between the
unreinforced track and geocell reinforced track as
shown in Figure 7 shows that for unreinforced track,
major portion of the model track experienced a stress of
3
 Higher displacement
for unreinforced track
Lower displacement for
geocell reinforced track

(a) (b)

Figure 6. Vertical displacement contours for (a) unreinforced and (b) geocell reinforced tracks for 0.6 m sub-ballast
height

Higher stress concentration for major Lower stress concentration for major
portion of unreinforced track portion of unreinforced track

(a) (b)

Figure 7. Vertical stress contours for (a) unreinforced and (b) geocell reinforced tracks for 0.6 m sub-ballast height

a much higher stress than for the geocell reinforced reducing the vertical settlements. It is also useful in
track. reducing the lateral displacement of sub-ballast when
used for confining the sub-ballast.

4 CONCLUSIONS 5 REFERENCES

In the present study, the response of prototype tracks
with geocell reinforcement was obtained using three
dimensional finite element analyses of prototype tracks
for two different sub-ballast heights and varying geocell
modulus. From the results, it was observed that
increase in sub-ballast height, for the unreinforced track
or tracks with same geocell modulus, reduces the
vertical settlement of the entire track model as well as
lateral displacement of the sub-ballast. For geocells of
varying elastic modulus, using geocell of higher elastic
modulus can improve the performance of track-beds by
Bathurst, R.J. and Raymond, G.P. 1987. Geogrid
reinforcement of ballasted track, Transportation
Research Record, National Research Council,
Washington, D.C., 1153: 8-14.
Biabani, M.M., Indraratna, B. and Ngo, N.T. 2016.
Modelling of geocell-reinforced subballast subjected
to cyclic loading, Geotextiles and Geomembranes,
44(4): 489–503.
Brown, S.F., Kwan, J. and Thom, N.H. 2007.
Identifying the key parameters that influence geogrid
reinforcement of railway ballast, Geotextiles and

4
 Geomembranes, 25(6): 326-335.
Chawla, S. and Shahu,J.T. 2016. Reinforcement and
mud-pumping benefits of geosynthetics in railway
tracks: Model tests, Geotextiles and
Geomembranes, 44(3): 366-380.
Dash, S.K., Rajagopal, K. and Krishnaswamy, N.R.
2004. Performance of different geosynthetic
reinforcement materials in sand foundations,
Geosynthetics International, 11(1): 35-42.
Indraratna, B., Khabbaz, H., Salim, W. and Christie, D.
2006. Geotechnical properties of ballast and the role
of geosynthetics in railway track stabilization,
Ground Improvement, 10(3): 91-101.
Indraratna, B. and Nimbalkar, S. 2013. Stress-strain
degradation response of railway ballast stabilized
with Geosynthetics, Journal of Geotechnical and
Geoenvironmental Engineering, 139(5): 684-700.
Madhavi Latha, G., Rajagopal, K. and Krishnaswamy,
N.R. 2006. Experimental and Theoretical
Investigations on Geocell-Supported Embankments,
International Journal of Geomechanics, 6(1): 30-35.
Midas. 2016. Midas/GTS-NX (Geotechnical and Tunnel
Analysis System) Reference Manual for Modeling,
Integrated Design and Analysis, Midas Corporation.
RDSO. 2007. Guidelines for Use of Geosynthetics on
Railway Formation Including Specifications, Indian
Railways.
Satyal, S.R., Leshchinsky, B., Han, J. and Neupane, M.
2018. Use of cellular confinement for improved
railway performance on soft subgrades, Geotextiles
and Geomembranes, 46: 190-205.
Sowmiya, L. S. 2013. Analysis and experimental
investigations of railway tracks with and without
geosynthetic reinforcement, Doctoral Thesis, Indian
Institute of Technology, Delhi, India.