905

NOTE / NOTE

Behaviour of geocell-reinforced sand beds under

strip loading
Sujit Kumar Dash, K. Rajagopal, and N.R. Krishnaswamy

Abstract: A series of laboratory model tests have been performed to study the behaviour of geocell-reinforced sand
beds under strip loading. The strain in geocell walls, pressure transmitted to the subgrade soil, and deformations in
the subgrade were measured during the tests to develop an understanding of the mechanism of geocell reinforce-
ment. The pattern of strain variation in the geocell walls indicates that the geocell mattress behaves as a composite
beam supported by the subgrade soil. The load dispersion in the geocell mattress is found to be governed by factors
such as geometry of the geocell layer and its placement position under the footing.

Key words: soil reinforcement, geocell, sand, behaviour, strip loading.

Résumé : On a réalisé une série d’essais sur modèle en laboratoire pour étudier le comportement de lits de sable ar-
més de géocellules sous un chargement sur semelle filante. La déformation dans les murs de géocellules, la pression
transmise au sol de l’infrastructure et la déformation dans l’infrastructure ont été mesurées durant les essais pour déve-
lopper une compréhension du mécanisme de l’armature de géocellules. Le schéma de la variation de la déformation
dans les murs de géocellules indique que le matelas de géocellules se comporte comme une poutre composite supportée
par le sol de l’infrastructure. On trouve que la dispersion de la charge dans le matelas de géocellules est régie par des
facteurs tels que la géométrie de la couche de géocellules et l’endroit où elle est placée sous la semelle.
Mots-clés : armature de sol, géocellules, sable, comportement, chargement linéaire.
[Traduit par la Rédaction] Dash et al. 916

Introduction Laboratory model tests

The geocell foundation mattress consists of a series of in-
terlocking cells constructed from polymer grid reinforce-
ment, which contains and confines the soil within its pockets
(Rea and Mitchell 1978; Mitchell et al. 1979). A number of
researchers have reported an improvement in performance
owing to the provision of geocells and their applications
(e.g., Bathurst and Jarrett 1989; Bush et al. 1990; Cowland
and Wong 1993; El Sawwaf and Nazer 2005). The labora-
tory model studies by Dash et al. (2001a, 2001b) on a strip
footing supported by geocell-reinforced sand beds have
shown significant performance improvement. The objective
of this paper is to present some additional data from these
model tests relating to the behaviour of geocell mattresses.
Received 14 February 2006. Accepted 9 April 2007.
Published on the NRC Research Press Web site at cgj.nrc.ca
on 15 August 2007.
S.K. Dash.1 Department of Civil Engineering, Indian Institute
of Technology Guwahati, Guwahati-781 039, India.
K. Rajagopal and N.R. Krishnaswamy.2 Geotechnical
Engineering Division, Department of Civil Engineering, Indian
Institute of Technology Madras, Chennai-600 036, India.
1
Corresponding author (e-mail: sujit@iitg.ernet.in).
2
Retired.
The model tests were conducted in a steel tank with a
length of 1200 mm, a width of 332 mm, and a height of
700 mm. The two long sides of the tank were made of
15 mm thick Perspex sheets and they were braced laterally
on the outer surface with angle sections to avoid lateral de-
flection during the tests. The model footing, made of steel,
had a length of 330 mm, a width of 100 mm, and a thickness
of 25 mm. The footing was centered in the tank, with the
length of the footing parallel to the width of the tank. The
length of the footing was made almost equal to the width of
the tank to create plane strain conditions during the test
setup. A 1 mm wide gap was kept on each side of the tank to
prevent contact between the footing and the sidewalls.
The soil used in this study was angular dry river sand with
a coefficient of uniformity (Cu) of 2.318, a coefficient of
curvature (Cc) of 1.03, and a effective particle size (D10) of
0.22 mm. The soil can be classified as poorly graded sand
(SP) according to the Unified Soil Classification System.
The model footing tests were performed using sand with a
relative density (ID) of 70%. A fluviation process was used
to achieve uniform density of sand in the test tank. The peak
friction angle of the sand obtained from direct shear tests is
46° at 70% relative density.

Can. Geotech. J. 44: 905–916 (2007) doi:10.1139/T07-035 © 2007 NRC Canada

906
The geogrid used for forming the geocells is a biaxial
geogrid made of an oriented polymer with an aperture open-
ing size of 35 mm × 35 mm. The properties of the geogrid
determined from standard wide-width tension tests as per
ASTM D4595 (ASTM 1986), carried out at a strain rate of
5% per minute, are: ultimate tensile strength, 20 kN/m; se-
cant modulus at 5% strain, 160 kN/m; and secant modulus at
10% strain, 125 kN/m. The geocell mattresses were prepared
by cutting the geogrids to the required length and height
from full rolls and placing them in transverse and diagonal
directions with joints at the connections (Bush et al. 1990).
The joints of the geocells were formed using 6 mm wide and
3 mm thick plastic strips, cut from commercially available
bodkins made of low-density polypropylene. All the tests
were performed with a single layer of geocell reinforcement.
The raining of sand was temporarily ceased at desired depth
(as per the test configuration), and the geocell mattress was
placed on the surface of the prepared sand bed. The sand
raining was then restarted until the desired level was
reached. Figure 1 shows the geometry of the problem con-
sidered in this investigation.
A hand-operated hydraulic jack, supported against a reac-
tion frame, was used for applying vertical loads on the test
footing. The loads transferred to the footing were recorded
through a proving ring installed between the hydraulic jack
and the test footing. The load was applied in small incre-
ments. To achieve a certain load increment, the footing was
pushed into the soil at a rate of nearly 0.5 mm/min. Upon
reaching the target, the load was kept constant until the foot-
ing settlements reached the steady state. In the absence of a
clear-cut failure, the footing was loaded until a maximum
settlement of 50 mm was reached. More details on the ex-
perimental setup, materials used in the tests, and the test
procedure are reported in Dash et al. (2001a).
The strains developed in the geocell reinforcement were
measured through electrical resistance-type strain gauges of
10 mm gauge length. All the strain gauges were mounted on
the transverse members of the geocell reinforcements. A
typical layout of strain gauges on the geocell wall is shown
in Fig. 1. At each gauge location, the geogrid surface was
mildly roughened using sand paper and then wiped clean
with a clean cloth and neutralizing solution. Next, the strain
gauges were pasted with quick setting adhesive. It should be
mentioned here that, unlike the planar reinforcement system,
the geogrid in the geocell reinforcement is held by bodkin
joints that arrest the cross-plane bending. In the absence of
cross-plane bending, most of the strain induced in the rein-
forcement is due to in-plane axial deformation. A single
strain gauge was used at each instrumentation point to mea-
sure in-plane axial strain in the geocell walls. To nullify the
effects due to temperature, each strain gauge was supple-
mented by a dummy gauge fixed to a piece of geogrid em-
bedded in a separate sand bed outside the test tank. The
strain measurements are reported at various normalized foot-
ing load levels, expressed in terms of the bearing pressure
ratio (BPR). The BPR is defined as the ratio between the
footing pressure with geocell (q) and the ultimate footing
pressure (qult) in tests on unreinforced soil with 70% relative
density. The compressive strains are reported with a negative
sign and the tensile strains have a positive sign.
Can. Geotech. J. Vol. 44, 2007
The vertical earth pressure (σ) transmitted to the subgrade
soil was measured by placing strain-gauge-type earth pres-
sure cells immediately below the geocell layer. The overall
diameter and thickness of the pressure cells were 60 mm and
10 mm, respectively. The radius of the diaphragm of the
pressure cells (R) was 20 mm and the thickness (t) was
1.5 mm. The diaphragms were made of steel whose modulus
of elasticity (Ecell) was 2.1 × 105 N/mm2. The modulus of
the elasticity of soil (Esoil) with placement density the same
as that in the model tests was 35 N/mm2. The flexibility ra-
tio (i.e., F = Esoil × R3/Ecell × t3), which represents the rela-
tive stiffness of the pressure cell diaphragm with respect to
the soil (Clayton and Bica 1993), was found to be 0.39.
Clayton and Bica (1993) suggest that for accurate measure-
ments, F should be <0.25. The reported pressure cell data
are only qualitatively discussed because the pressure cells
used in this investigation had a relatively higher value of F
(i.e., 0.39). The earth pressure cells were calibrated (both
under fluid pressure and by embedding the cell in the sand
bed), placed inside a calibration chamber, and then uniform
pressures were applied as described by Dunnicliff (1988).
The same sand used in the test tanks was used in the calibra-
tion tests. Calibration test data for a typical earth pressure
cell is shown in Fig. 2.
In total, three pressure cells were used in each test—one
below the center of the footing and the other two at a distance
of 1.5B on either side of the footing centerline, where B is the
width of the footing (i.e., 100 mm). To avoid any abnormal
pressure readings due to stress concentration effects, the earth
pressure cells were placed below the pocket openings of the
geocell rather than below its walls. In the case of unreinforced
sand beds, the earth pressures were measured at various
depths (corresponding to the base levels of different geocells)
for direct comparison with those measured below the
geocells. At the required depth, raining of the sand was tem-
porarily stopped and the earth pressure cells were then set on
the fill surface after which the sand raining was continued.
Hadala (1967) reported that this method of placement of earth
pressure cells (i.e., cells simply set on the surface, followed
by the normal construction procedure to complete the fill) is
the best in the case of sand beds. The pressures were recorded
using a digital display unit. The measured pressures were nor-
malized with respect to the applied footing pressure (q). The
normalized pressure (σ/q), which represents the percentage of
the footing pressure transmitted to the base of the geocell
mattress, is presented (Fig. 6; Table 2) at different footing
loads expressed in terms of BPR.
The deformation pattern of the subgrade below the geocell
layer was observed by placing thin horizontal layers of white
coloured sand at 50 mm vertical intervals. This technique
has been used by many researchers (Jumikis 1961; Selig and
McKee 1961; Hanna and Abdel-Rahman 1998). On comple-
tion of each test, the deformed shape of the coloured lines at
different depths was recorded through the transparent
Perspex walls of the test tank.
In total, five series of tests were conducted by varying the
pocket size of the geocells (d), depth (h) and width (b) of the
geocell mattress, and placement position of the geocell layer
(u). The pocket size (d) of the geocells is taken as the diame-
ter of an equivalent circular area of the geocell pocket open-
ing. The details of the various tests are given in Table 1.
© 2007 NRC Canada
Dash et al.
Fig. 1. Geometric parameters and typical layout of strain gauges on the geocell mattress.
Fig. 2. Calibration test data of a typical earth-pressure cell.
907
Results and discussion
The pressure–settlement behaviour and the surface defor-
mations of strip footings supported on geocell-reinforced
sand beds were reported by Dash et al. (2001a). It was ob-
served that the footing did not fail even at bearing pressures
eight times higher than those on unreinforced sand. The ulti-
mate bearing pressure of a sand bed with reinforcement in
the form of a planar geogrid is typically four times higher
than that of the unreinforced one (Dash et al. 2004). The re-
corded deformations indicated that the geocell reinforcement
can reduce the footing rotation and heaving on the fill sur-
face to practically negligible levels. The following subsec-
tions discuss the different data recorded during these tests.
Strain variation along the width of the geocell mattress
Figure 3 shows typical horizontal strain variations at the
top, middle, and bottom of the transverse member of the
geocell mattress for test series D with b/B = 8, where b is
the width of the geocell mattress. A similar pattern of strain
variation was observed in most of the other test cases.
It can be seen that the pattern of strain variation along the
width of the geocell mattress is almost similar over the en-
© 2007 NRC Canada
908
Table 1. Details of model tests performed.
Test series Details
A Tests on unreinforced sand with relative density (ID) of 70%
B Variable parameter
Constant parameters
C Variable parameter
Constant parameters
D Variable parameter
Constant parameters
E Variable parameter
Constant parameters
Note: b, width of the geocell mattress; B, width of the footing; d, pocket size of the geocell; h, depth
of the geocell mattress; u, depth of placement of the geocell layer.
tire depth of the geocell. The tensile strain in the reinforce-
ment is the highest at the center of the footing and decreases
rapidly away from the footing. Examination of the exhumed
geocells showed that the geocell walls directly below the
footing had undergone severe buckling over the full depth of
the geocell. Beyond this region there was no visible defor-
mation in the geocell. Furthermore, compressive strains
were induced near the two free ends of the geocell mattress.
It is of interest to note that even in the case of earth beds
with planar reinforcement, compressive strains develop in
the reinforcement layers at some depth below the footing
(Huang and Tatsuoka 1990; Kurian et al. 1997).
These results indicate the following points:
(1) The reinforcing effect of the geocell mattress is the larg-
est beneath the footing. In this zone the tensile strength
of the geocell wall is highly mobilized.
(2) The extended portions of the geocell mattress beyond
the footing width contribute in a secondary manner to
the increase in the bearing capacity by virtue of arrest-
ing the potential failure planes and deriving anchorage
from the soil as has been observed by Dash et al.
(2001a).
The compression in the geocell wall could be attributed to
the following factors:
(1) Owing to footing penetration induced deformation and
dilation induced volume expansion of the sand, the soil
below the footing tends to move downward and laterally
away from the footing. This lateral expansion is re-
strained by the adjacent stable zone of soil mass. Such a
restraint may be considered to be equivalent to the ap-
plication of a confining pressure thereby creating a con-
fined compression state within the soil mass. The
geocell walls lying in this compression zone are sub-
jected to compression. Similar behaviour has also been
observed by Kotsovos (1990) in concrete beams.
(2) The direction of strain measurement in the geocell rein-
forcement is closer to the direction of potential major
principal strains in compression in the soil, as observed
by Huang and Tatsuoka (1990) in the case of planar re-
inforcement.
The compressive strain is found to be the highest at mid-
depth of the geocell. Practically negligible compression is
noticed at the top part of the geocell layer. This may be be-
cause of low overburden pressure at that level leading to
marginal compressive stresses. The compression at the bot-
tom part of the geocell layer is also very small. This is at-
Can. Geotech. J. Vol. 44, 2007
d/B = 1.2, 1.5, 2.7
h/B = 0.8, b/B = 12, u/B = 0.1
h/B = 0.8, 1.2, 1.6, 2.0, 2.75, 3.14
d/B = 1.2, b/B = 12, u/B = 0.1
b/B = 1, 2, 4, 6, 8, 10, 12
d/B = 1.2, h/B = 2.75, u/B = 0.1
u/B = 0.0, 0.1, 0.25, 0.5, 0.75, 1.0, 1.5
d/B = 1.2, h/B = 2.75, b/B = 8
tributed to the reduced intensity of footing pressure at
deeper depth, which gives rise to a reduction in the magni-
tude of dilation and hence to a reduction in the induced com-
pression. Further it was observed that for geocells of
relatively smaller width (i.e., b/B ≤ 4) and for the case of fill
soil having low relative density (i.e., ID = 30%) such com-
pressive strains were not observed in the geocell wall. This
may be because the geocell mattress with the shorter width
is away from the dilation-induced compression zone in the
sand bed. Since loose soils do not dilate, the compression
zones would not have developed in this case.
Strain variation along the depth of the geocell mattress
The variation of horizontal strain over the depth of the
geocell mattress at its midsection for different depth ratios
(h/B, where h is the depth of the geocell mattress) is shown
in Fig. 4. It can be seen that in the case of smaller depth
(h/B = 1.2) the strains vary almost linearly with depth, with
maximum strain happening at the bottom. However, in the
case of deep geocells (h/B = 3.14) the peak strains happen at
some depth near the top and thereafter decrease towards the
bottom of the geocell mattress. This qualitative difference in
the variation of strains for geocell mattresses of different
depths is similar to that observed in the variation of flexural
strains in shallow and deep beams (Cheung and Chan 1990).
Furthermore, it can be seen that in the case of geocell mat-
tresses of relatively smaller depth (h/B = 1.2), the strain at
the top of the geocell wall is compressive in the initial stages
of loading and becomes tensile thereafter. The compression
at the top and the tension at the bottom suggests that the
geocell mattress deflects like a centrally loaded beam under
the footing loading. The little tension developed at the top
may be due to local effects such as some sort of clamping
developed in the geogrid beyond the loaded region through
mobilization of frictional (or adhesive) resistance at the soil–
geogrid interface and passive force on the geogrid ribs. This
tension might have counteracted the compressive strain de-
veloped at the top of the geocell wall (owing to its beam-like
deflection) thereby bringing about a net tensile strain.
From the measured strain data in the geocell wall it was
observed that tension in the top fiber (at (0, 0), Fig. 1) in-
creases with the increase in depth of the geocell mattress (h).
This could be ascribed to the deep beam effect that gradually
becomes prominent with the increase in depth of the geocell
mattress. Cheung and Chan (1990) reported from investiga-
tions on concrete beams with different span-to-depth ratios
© 2007 NRC Canada
Dash et al. 909

Fig. 3. Strain in the geocell reinforcement along the width (test series D, b/B = 8).

that compression at the top decreases with the decrease in
length-to-depth ratio. Such a reduction of compression in the
case of a geocell mattress might be the cause of the increase
in tensile strain at its top, with the increase in its depth (for a
constant “b”). It should be mentioned here that for geocell
mattress geometry resembling that of a shallow beam, a
maximum deformation was observed at the bottom rib of the
transverse wall of the exhumed geocell layer with the top rib
showing no visible deformation. These observations estab-
lish that the geocell mattress behaves as a beam under the

© 2007 NRC Canada

910 Can. Geotech. J. Vol. 44, 2007

Fig. 4. Strain in the geocell reinforcement along the depth at mid-width for different values of h/B—test series C.

© 2007 NRC Canada

Dash et al.
Fig. 5. Strain in the geocell reinforcement along the depth at mid-width for u/B = 0.75—test series E.
footing loading and at higher depth ratio (h/B > 2) the deep
beam effect becomes predominant.
Figure 5 shows the pattern of horizontal strain variation
over depth (h) at the midsection of the geocell mattress be-
ing placed at a relatively larger distance from the base of the
footing (i.e., u/B = 0.75, where u is the depth of placement).
A similar pattern of strain variation was also observed for all
other cases with u/B > 0.25. It should be mentioned here that
the geometry of the geocell mattress in this test series (test
series E) resembles that of a deep beam (h/B = 2.75 and
b/B = 8). It was observed that with shallow depth of place-
ment (u/B ≤ 0.25) the strain variation is of the type shown in
Fig. 4b (i.e., initially increases from the top towards the bot-
tom to reach a peak value at some depth beyond which there
is a gradual decrease). However, for the cases with u/B >
0.25 the strain varies from a maximum value at the top to a
minimum value at the bottom of the geocell mattress. This
may be because at shallow depth of placement, the top sand
cover and the geocell mattress behave as an integral body
owing to the friction of rough base of the footing and the in-
terlocking within the geocell pockets that holds the top soil
layer against shearing. In such a condition, the geocell mat-
911
tress may have behaved as a composite beam under footing
loads, thereby producing a typical deep beam (h/B = 2.75)
pattern of strain variation as discussed earlier. However, be-
yond certain depth of placement (u) the beam-like behaviour
diminishes drastically owing to the shearing of the cover
soil. The geocell mattress and the top soil layer behave as
two different entities, and the direct effect of footing that
pushes the geocell mattress down and thereby inducing
strain in it becomes marginal. Hence the underlying geocell
layer just carries the dispersed footing load. As the dispersed
load intensity decreases with the increase in depth, corre-
spondingly it gives rise to a gradually decreasing pattern of
strain variation from top to bottom over the height of the
geocell wall.
Pressure distribution below the geocell mattress
Typical variation of the normalized vertical pressure (σ/q,
where σ is the vertical pressure transmitted to the subgrade
soil and q is the vertical pressure applied on the footing) at
the base of the geocell layer for two different depths of
geocell mattress, h/B = 1.6 and 3.14 (test series C), is pre-
sented in Fig. 6. It may be seen that the percentage of normal
© 2007 NRC Canada
912 Can. Geotech. J. Vol. 44, 2007

Fig. 6. Vertical pressure at the base of the geocell mattress for different values of h/B—test series C.

© 2007 NRC Canada

Dash et al. 913

Table 2. Summary of measured vertical pressures (σ/q) at centerline (x/B = 0).

Vertical pressure (σ/q) below geocell mattress at, x/B = 0

Variable parameter 0.378* 1.136* 1.894* 2.652* 3.409* 4.167* 4.925* 5.683* 6.440* 7.198*
Test series C
h/B
0.80 0.329 0.467 0.528 0.551 0.606 0.662 — — — —
1.60 0.327 0.394 0.433 0.481 0.518 0.525 0.510 0.500 — —
2.00 0.318 0.392 0.391 0.391 0.348 0.300 0.279 0.276 0.272 0.270
2.75 0.224 0.232 0.245 0.251 0.254 0.254 0.251 0.237 0.220 0.207
3.14 0.218 0.191 0.177 0.176 0.176 0.175 0.170 0.158 0.146 0.139
Test series D
b/B
12 0.224 0.232 0.245 0.251 0.254 0.254 0.251 0.237 0.220 0.207
10 0.227 0.235 0.247 0.263 0.279 0.290 0.292 0.286 0.277 0.267
8 0.253 0.257 0.276 0.298 0.320 0.344 0.360 0.362 0.346 0.319
6 0.268 0.280 0.299 0.323 0.346 0.372 0.378 0.368 0.352 0.334
4 0.295 0.301 0.319 0.329 0.363 0.376 0.385 0.381 0.358 0.343
2 0.326 0.343 0.350 0.352 0.367 0.387 0.386 0.383 — —
1 0.336 0.352 0.360 0.371 0.385 0.390 — — — —
Note: b, width of the geocell mattress; B, width of the footing; h, depth of the geocell mattress; q, vertical pressure applied on the footing; x, distance
from the center of the footing as shown in Fig. 1; σ, vertical pressure transmitted to the subgrade soil.
*value of bearing pressure ratio.

stress transmitted to the underlying soil layer reaches maxi-
mum at the center of the footing and is appreciably low in the
region beyond the loaded area. This is to be expected because
of the load dispersion from the footing edges. The values of
pressure (σ/q) recorded at the center of the geocell mattress
(i.e., x/B = 0) for test series C and D are presented in Table 2.
It can be observed (Fig. 6; Table 2) that, for smaller depths
of the geocell mattress (i.e., h/B ≤ 1.6), there is a gradual in-
crease in the normalized pressure with increasing footing
pressure (BPR). However, for larger mattress depths (h/B ≥ 2)
it is found to decrease with increaseing footing pressure. In
other words, the percentage of the footing pressure transmit-
ted to the underlying sand layer below the geocell mattress in-
creases with increasing footing pressure for lower depths of
the geocell mattress but decreases with increasing footing
pressure for higher depths of the geocell mattress. This may
be because the geocell mattress at smaller depths bends like a
centrally loaded shallow beam that deflects more with in-
creased footing pressure and hence exerts more pressure on
the underlying soil layer. In the case of higher depths of the
geocell mattress, the end anchorage that develops owing to
frictional and passive resistance of the soil is high enough to
hold the geocell mattress against downward deflection owing
to the footing pressure thereby reducing the percentage of the
vertical pressure transmitted to its base. Besides, because of
the deep beam behaviour of the mattress (which manifests at
higher geocell depths) the deflection and hence pressure at the
base may have reduced with increasing depth of the geocell
layer. It can also be observed (Fig. 6) that the percentage of
pressure transmitted to the side pressure cells (placed at 1.5B
distance from the center of the footing) is higher for higher
depths of the geocell mattress. This indicates a relatively uni-
form load distribution owing to the increase in the rigidity of
the mattress. For h/B = 3.14 it is noticed that the pressure
variation curves almost superpose over each other up to a
moderate level of footing pressure (BPR = 4.167). This estab-
lishes the elastic response of the geocell mattress that exits in
the initial stages of loading.
A reduction in the value of the normalized pressure for
the case of h/B = 1.6 is noticed in the later stages of loading
(BPR > 4.167; Fig. 6; Table 2). A possible reason for this is
that at a higher loading stage there is local shearing of the
sand immediately below the footing. As such, the geocell re-
inforcement starts sharing a higher proportion of the load,
thereby bringing forth a reduction in the pressure transmitted
through the encapsulated soil to the pressure cell below. For
higher depths of the geocell (h/B ≥ 2; Table 2) where the
normalized pressure decreases with increasing footing pres-
sure owing to end anchorage; this local effect of pressure re-
duction might have further added to it.
From Table 2 through test series D, it may be observed
that for b/B = 12, at relatively higher stages of loading
where the influence of geocell reinforcement becomes domi-
nant, there is a decrease in the normalized pressure (σ/q)
with increasing footing pressure. But, for b/B ≤ 10 it in-
creases with increasing footing pressure. This is because
with the decrease in geocell area, the end anchorage reduces.
As this anchorage was holding the mattress against bending
under the footing pressure, with its reduction, the geocell
mattress deflects more, thereby bringing forth an increase in
the pressure at the base of the mattress. It can also be ob-
served that the percentage of the pressure transmitted to the
base of the geocell mattress increases with decreasing width
of the mattress. With reduction in its width, the area of the
geocell mattress that transmits the footing pressure to the
subgrade reduces leading to an increase in the pressure on
the subgrade soil. For the cases of b/B ≤ 10, the decrease in
normalized pressure in the later stages of the loading is at-
tributed to the local shearing of the sand below the footing
as has been discussed earlier.

© 2007 NRC Canada

914 Can. Geotech. J. Vol. 44, 2007

Fig. 7. Observed failure surface below the geocell mattress (test series D, b/B = 8).

Load dispersion within the geocell layer Table 3. Summary of load dispersion angles (α).
For a geocell mattress of relatively smaller depth (i.e.,
h/B ≤ 1.2) placed close to the footing (u ≤ 0.1B), a classical Variable parameter Load dispersion angle α (°)
general shear-failure-type rupture surface was noticed in the Test series B
subgrade soil. However, for geocell mattresses of larger d/B
depth (h/B > 1.6), shearing of the underlying sand layer did 1.2 41.6
not take place even with the footing settlement equal to 1.5 38.8
about 50% of its width. It is observed that the soil displace- 2.7 33.6
ment along the footing center line at 2.85B depth is of the
order of 8% of the footing width (width of the footing (B) = Test series C
100 mm) and at a depth of 3.85B it is around 2% of the foot- h/B
ing width. Whereas, in the case of strip footing on the 0.8 41.6
unreinforced sand bed, the maximum depth of failure wedge 1.2 52.6
has been observed to be in the range of 0.9B to 1.1B 1.6 39.4
(Jumikis 1961; Selig and McKee 1961; Chummar 1972). 2.0 30.9
Further, Adams and Collin (1997) reported from instru- 2.75 22.5
mented footing load tests that there was no measurable verti- 3.14 21.85
cal strain below a depth of 2B. This establishes that the Test series D
geocell mattress intersects the potential failure planes, and b/B
its rigidity forces them deeper into the underlying soil layer. 1 4.0
The geocell mattress by virtue of its rigidity transmits the 2 10.8
footing pressure to the underlying soil layer and redistributes 4 19.7
over a larger width (B + ∆B) as depicted in Fig. 7. The value 6 19.8
of (B + ∆B) was deduced from the observed rupture surface 8 20.6
in the sand subgrade delineated through the discontinuity in 10 21.9
the white-coloured sand layers. The load dispersion angle is 12 22.5
calculated as follows:
Test series E
∆B
[1] tan α = u/B
2( h + u) 0 21.8
0.1 20.6
It should be mentioned here that the load dispersion angle 0.25 17.5
(α), so deduced, may be an approximation in view of the 0.5 12.1
measurement technique adopted. The load dispersion angle 0.75 8.08
α, calculated based on the observations made at the end of
Note: b, width of the geocell mattress; B, width of the
each test, for different cases, is presented in Table 3. Since α footing; d, pocket size of the geocell; h, depth of the
is deduced from measurements after completion of the tests, geocell mattress; u, depth of placement of the geocell layer.
it can only be applied with confidence to the loading levels
close to the ultimate state. However, Ilamparuthi and
Muthukrishnaiah (1999) observed that the inclination of the

© 2007 NRC Canada

Dash et al.
rupture plane, and hence the magnitude of the load disper-
sion angle remains the same at different stages of loading.
From Table 3 it can be observed that the load dispersion
angle decreases with the increase in size of the geocell
pocket opening. The geocell layer becomes more flexible as
the pocket size increases, as stated earlier. Therefore, the
footing load is transferred to the soil locally around the foot-
ing. The value of α is found to increase with the increase in
depth of the geocell mattress until h/B = 1.2, beyond which
there is a decrease in it with increasing depth (h). Although
there will be an increase in overall stiffness of the geocell–
soil composite beam with an increase in its depth and hence
an increase in load-spreading angle, after a certain level (i.e.,
h/B > 1.2) a proportionate increase in ∆B is not observed
owing to local buckling of the geocell wall and punching of
the sand below footing, which gives rise to a decrease in α
with an increase in geocell depth. The load dispersion angle
(α) increases with the increase in the width of the geocell
mattress up to b/B = 4, beyond which the increase in load
dispersion angle is marginal (test series D). This shows that
the geocell layer beyond b/B = 4 does not significantly con-
tribute to an improvement in performance. Dash et al.
(2001a) have also observed a similar influence from the
width of geocell mattresses on the performance of geocell-
reinforced sand beds. The angle of load dispersion (α) is
found to decrease with the increase in the value of u/B, indi-
cating that the contribution of the geocell reinforcement de-
creases with the increase in its depth of placement. For u/B ≥
1.0, no visible deformation was observed in the coloured
sand layers (below the geocell layer) until the end of the
tests. This clearly shows that the rupture planes are com-
pletely contained within the top soil, and hence the contribu-
tion of the geocell to the improvement of the foundation soil
is marginal when it is placed at large depth.
Conclusions
This paper has presented the results obtained from labora-
tory model tests on strip footings supported by a homoge-
neous sand bed reinforced with geocell mattresses. Since
these tests were carried out on relatively small-scale models,
the influence of the scale effect on the results is apparent
and it depends on the sensitivity of the system to the test pa-
rameters. Based on the test results from the present study the
following conclusions can be made about the behaviour of
geocell-reinforced sand beds under strip loading.
(1) The strain in the geocell wall is the largest at the center
and much smaller in the extended portions outside the
footing width. This suggests that the reinforcing effec-
tiveness of the geocell layer is at a maximum below the
footing and that the end portions contribute only in a
secondary manner by deriving anchorage from the soil
through mobilization of soil passive resistance and
geogrid–soil interfacial frictional resistance.
(2) The patterns of strain variation in the geocell wall indi-
cate that the geocell mattress behaves as a subgrade sup-
ported composite beam under the footing loading and
for larger depth of the mattress (h), the deep beam effect
becomes predominant.
(3) The observed displacement pattern in the subgrade soil
indicates that the geocell reinforcement intersects the
915
potential failure planes in the foundation soil and its ri-
gidity forces them deeper into the underlying soil layer
thereby transmitting the footing pressures to a deeper
depth.
(4) The load dispersion angle (α) that represents the
quasirigid nature of the geocell mattress is found to be
governed by factors such as pocket size of the geocell,
height and width of the geocell layer, and depth of place-
ment of the geocell layer from the base of the footing.
Acknowledgements
Department of Science and Technology, Government of
India and Netlon India, a Division of Parry & Co. Ltd.,
Vadodara are gratefully acknowledged for financial support
and supplying different products, respectively. The authors
would like to thank Dr. N. Kumar Pitchumani for his valu-
able comments and suggestions.
References
Adams, T.M., and Collin, J.G. 1997. Large model spread footing
load tests on geosynthetic reinforced soil foundations. Journal of
Geotechnical and Geoenvironmental Engineering, ASCE, 123:
66–72.
ASTM. 1986. Standard test method for tensile properties of
geotextiles by wide-width strip method (D4595). In 1986 annual
book of ASTM standards. American Society for Testing and
Materials (ASTM), Philadelphia, Pa.
Bathurst, R.J., and Jarrett, P.M. 1989. Large scale model tests of
geocomposite mattresses over peat subgrades. Transportation
Research Record, 1188: 28–36.
Bush, D.I., Jenner, C.G., and Bassett, R.H. 1990. The design and
construction of geocell foundation mattress supporting embank-
ments over soft ground. Geotextiles and Geomembranes, 9: 83–
98.
Cheung, Y.K., and Chan, H.C. 1990. Finite element analysis. In
Reinforced concrete deep beams. Edited by F.K. Kong. Blackie
Publication, Glasgow, UK. pp. 204–237.
Chummar, A.V. 1972. Bearing capacity theory from experimental
results. Journal of the Soil Mechanics and Foundations Division,
ASCE, 98: 1311–1324.
Clayton, C.R.I., and Bica, A.V.D. 1993. The design of diaphragm-
type boundary total stress cells. Géotechnique, 43: 523–535.
Cowland, J.W., and Wong, S.C.K. 1993. Performance of a road
embankment on soft clay supported on a geocell mattress foun-
dation. Geotextiles and Geomembranes, 12: 687–705.
Dash, S.K., Krishnaswamy, N.R., and Rajagopal, K. 2001a. Bear-
ing capacity of strip footings supported on geocell-reinforced
sand. Geotextiles and Geomembranes, 19: 235–256.
Dash, S.K., Rajagopal, K., and Krishnaswamy, N.R. 2001b. Strip
footing on geocell reinforced sand beds with additional planar
reinforcement. Geotextiles and Geomembranes, 19: 529–538.
Dash, S.K., Rajagopal, K., and Krishnaswamy, N.R. 2004. Perfor-
mance of different geosynthetic reinforcement materials in sand
foundations. Geosynthetics International, 11: 35–42.
Dunnicliff, J.C. 1988. Geotechnical instrumentation for monitoring
field performance. John Wiley & Sons, New York.
El Sawwaf, M., and Nazer, A. 2005. Behaviour of circular footings
resting on confined granular soil. Journal of Geotechnical and
Geoenvironmental Engineering, ASCE, 131: 359–366.
Hadala, P.F. 1967. The effect of placement method on the response
of soil stress gauges. In Proceedings of the International Sympo-
© 2007 NRC Canada
916
sium on Wave Propagation and Dynamic Properties of Earth
Materials, Albuquerque, New Mexico, 23–25 August 1967. The
University of New Mexico Press, Albuquerque, N. Mex.
pp. 255–263.
Hanna, A., and Abdel-Rahman, M. 1998. Experimental investiga-
tion of shell foundations on dry sand. Canadian Geotechnical
Journal, 35: 847–857.
Huang, C.C., and Tatsuoka, F. 1990. Bearing capacity of reinforced
horizontal sandy ground. Geotextiles and Geomembranes, 9:
51–82.
Ilamparuthi, K., and Muthukrishnaiah, K. 1999. Anchors in sand
bed: delineation of rupture surface. Ocean Engineering, 26:
1249–1273.
Jumikis, A.R. 1961. The shape of rupture surface in sand. In Pro-
ceedings of the 5th International Conference on Soil Mechanics
and Foundation Engineering, Paris, 17–22 July 1961. Dunod,
Paris, France. Vol. 1, pp. 693–698.
Can. Geotech. J. Vol. 44, 2007
Kotsovos, M.D. 1990. Strength and behaviour of deep beams. In
Reinforced concrete deep beams. Edited by F.K. Kong. Blackie
Publication, Glasgow, UK. pp. 21–59.
Kurian, N.P., Beena, K.S., and Kumar, R.K. 1997. Settlement of re-
inforced sand in foundations. Journal of Geotechnical and
Geoenvironmental Engineering, ASCE, 123: 818–827.
Mitchell, J.K., Kao, T.C., and Kavazanjiam, Jr., E. 1979. Analysis of
grid cell reinforced pavement bases. US Army Waterways Experi-
ment Station, Vicksburg, Miss. Technical Report GL-79-8.
Rea, C., and Mitchell, J.K. 1978. Sand reinforcement using paper
grid cells. In Preprints of the Conference Proceedings of the
ASCE Spring Convention and Exhibit, Pittsburgh, Pa., 24–
28 April 1978. American Society of Civil Engineers, NewYork.
Preprint 3130.
Selig, E.T., and McKee, K.E. 1961. Static and dynamic behaviour
of small footings. Journal of the Soil Mechanics and Founda-
tions Division, ASCE, 87: 29–47.
© 2007 NRC Canada