Geocell Reinforced Soil/Subgrade: Comparative Study of Bearing Capacity Evaluation Methods

Authors

Shubham Prakash Shrirao
Research Scholar, Department of Civil Engineering, College of Engineering Pune, India.

Sukhanand Sopan Bhosale
Professor, Department of Civil Engineering, College of Engineering Pune, India.

Abstract

At present, rapid urbanization results in enormous infrastructure growth, which led engineers to face construction challenges over soft soil or weak sub grade. Many soil stabilization approaches have been established as a viable way to overcome this hindrance. Among all the ground improvement techniques, geocell, being a three-dimensional form of geosynthetics, is often used to enhance the bearing capacity of soft soils. This paper discusses analytical methods developed by researchers Presto (2008) [1], Koerner (2012) [2], Avesani Neto et al. (2013) [3], and Sitharam and Hedge (2013) [4] to evaluate the bearing capacity of soil reinforced with geocell. The paper also compares the results of these methods with those of laboratory experiments conducted by Dash et al. (2003b) [5] and Emersleben and Meyer (2008) [6]. Researcher Dash et al. used cohesive soil in foundation, while Emersleben and Meyer used c-ɸ soil in foundation. The comparisons show that researchers Koerner and Presto underestimate the bearing capacity when compared with experimental results of both Dash et al. and Emersleben and Meyer. Whereas authors Avesani Neto et al. and Sitharam and Hegde offer the best fit with experimental results of Dash et al. But, with Emersleben and Meyer’s experimental results, Avesani Neto et al. gives the overestimated results, while Sitharam and Hegde partially agree for lower geocell aspect ratios beyond settlement equal to 35% of footing diameter.