Cellular confinement

Cellular confinement systems (CCS)—also known as geocells—are widely used in construction for erosion control, soil stabilization on flat ground and steep slopes, channel protection, and structural reinforcement for load support and earth retention.[1] Typical cellular confinement systems are geosynthetics made with ultrasonically welded high-density polyethylene (HDPE) strips or novel polymeric alloy (NPA)—and expanded on-site to form a honeycomb-like structure—and filled with sand, soil, rock, gravel or concrete.[2][3]

A cellular confinement system being installed on an experimental trail in south-central Alaska
Wood matrix after installation in Wrangell–St. Elias Park in Alaska
Geocell materials
Filling a geocell envelope with earth to make a temporary barrier wall

History of cellular confinement

Research and development of cellular confinement systems (CCS) began with the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers in 1975 to devise a method for building tactical roads over soft ground.[4] Engineers found that sand-confinement systems performed better than conventional crushed stone sections and they could provide an expedient construction technique for access roads over soft ground, without being adversely affected by wet weather conditions.[5][6] The US Army Corps of Engineers in Vicksburg, Mississippi (1981) experimented with a number of confining systems, from plastic pipe mats, to slotted aluminum sheets to prefabricated polymeric systems called sand grids and then, cellular confinement systems. Today cellular confinement systems are typically made from strips 50–200 mm wide, ultrasonically welded at intervals along their width. The CCS is folded and shipped to the job site in a collapsed configuration.

Efforts for civilian commercialization of the cellular confinement system by the Presto Products Company, led to the Geoweb®.[7] This cellular confinement system was made from high density polyethylene (HDPE), relatively strong, lightweight[8] and suitable for geosynthetic extruding manufacturing. The cellular confinement system was used for load support, slope erosion control and channel lining and earth retention applications in the United States and Canada in the early 1980s.[9][10][11][12]

Research

Early research (Bathurst and Jarrett, 1988)[13] found that cellular confinement reinforced gravel bases are "equivalent to about twice the thickness of unreinforced gravel bases" and that geocells performed better than single sheet reinforcement schemes (geotextiles and geogrids) and were more effective in reducing lateral spreading of infill under loading than conventional reinforced bases. However, Richardson (2004) (who was onsite at the US Corps of Engineers CCS Vicksburg facility) laments 25 years later on the "near absence of research papers on geocells in all of the geosynthetic national and international conferences."[14]

A comprehensive review of available research literature by Yuu, et al in 2008 concluded that the use of CCS technology in base reinforcement of paved roads, and railways in particular, was limited, due to the lack of design methods, lack of advanced research in the previous two decades and limited understanding of the reinforcement mechanisms.[15] Since then, hundreds of research papers on geocell systems have been published.[16] Extensive research has been conducted on CCS reinforcement for roadway applications to understand the mechanisms and influencing factors of confinement reinforcement, evaluate its effectiveness in improving roadway performance and develop design methods for roadway applications (Han, et al. 2011).[17][18]

Hedge (2017,) and Hedge, et al (2020) present comprehensive surveys and reviews of latest geocell studies, field testing, state of the art knowledge and present trends and scope of future research directions, validating increased use of geocells in ground reinforcement and infrastructure projects.[19][18] Han (2013) summarizes comprehensive research conducted at the University of Kansas, including static and cyclic plate loading tests, full-scale moving wheel tests, and numerical modeling on geocell-reinforced base courses with different infill materials and discusses the main research findings from these studies regarding permanent, elastic, and creep deformations, stiffness, bearing capacity, and stress distribution, and the development of design methods for geocell-reinforced bases. These studies showed that base courses reinforced with Novel Polymeric Alloy (NAP) geocells reduced the vertical stresses at the interface between subgrade and base course, reduced permanent and creep deformations, increased elastic deformation, stiffness, and bearing capacity of base courses.[20] Additional literature reviews can be found in Kief et al (2013) [21] and Marto (2013).[22]

Recent innovations in cellular confinement technology

The strength and stiffness of pavement layers determines the performance of highway pavements while aggregate use impacts the cost of duration of installation; therefore alternatives are needed to improve pavement quality using new materials with less aggregate usage (Rajagopal et al 2012).[23] Geocells are recognized as a suitable geosynthetic reinforcement of granular soils to support static and moving wheel loads on roadways, railways and similar applications. But stiffness of the geocells was identified as a key influencing factor for geocell reinforcement, and hence the rigidity of the entire pavement structure.[23][24]

Laboratory plate loading tests, full-scale moving wheel tests, and field demonstrations showed that the performance of geocell-reinforced bases depends on the elastic modulus of the geocell. Geocells with a higher elastic modulus had a higher bearing capacity and stiffness of the reinforced base. NPA Geocells showed higher results in ultimate bearing capacity, stiffness, and reinforcement relative to geocells made from HDPE.[25] NPA geocells showed better creep resistance and better retention of stiffness and creep resistance particularly at elevated temperatures, verified by plate load testing, numerical modeling and full scale trafficking tests.[17][26]

Application vs. long-term performance

CCS have been successfully installed in thousands of projects worldwide. However, it is incumbent to differentiate between low load applications, such as slope and channel applications, and new heavy-duty infrastructure applications, such as in the base layer of motorways, railways, ports, airports and platforms.[27] For example, while all polymeric materials in CCS will creep over time under loading, the questions are; how much permanent degradation will occur, under which conditions, and its impact on long-term performance, and if this may lead to failure.[28][29][30]

The lifespan of CCS in slope protection applications, for example, is less critical as vegetative growth and root interlock help stabilize the soil. This in effect compensates for any long-term loss of confinement in the CCS. Similarly, load support applications for low volume roads not subject to heavy loading typically have a short design life; therefore minor loss of performance is tolerable. However, in critical infrastructure applications such as reinforcement of the structural layers of highway pavements, railways and platforms, long-term dimensional stability is critical. As long as the volumetric area of the geocell does not change more than 2-3%, compaction and performance is maintained and settlements are minimized.[31][32]

Development of standards for CCS

The latest milestone in the evolution of geocells is the development and publication of guideline standards. Recently published Standards for Geocells by the ASTM,[33] ISO[31] and other countries (e.g., the Netherlands),[34] is the natural outcome of recent developments in the field of cellular confinement systems:  new polymeric materials for geocells, extensive published research, accepted performance-based testing methods and an expanding knowledge base of field case studies. These are intended to disseminate the most updated knowledge about the best design methods and practices for implementing geocell technology in soil stabilization and road base reinforcement applications.[33]

The new standards discuss relevant factors of reinforcement geosynthetics and confinement system applications, 3D reinforcement mechanisms, design factors, and emphasize the impact of geocell material attributes on long-term durability. Standard ASTM and ISO test methods for polymers commonly utilized by many industries are utilized to predict long-term behavior and accumulated plastic strain in a geosynthetic under loading with different mechanical stresses, frequencies and temperatures. For example, the Dutch standard for the Use of Reinforcement Geosynthetics in Roadways[34] covers geocell (as well as geogrid) applications, support mechanisms, and design principles. It also emphasizes the importance of the geocell material attributes (stiffness and creep resistance) and how they influence long-term reinforcement factors.

The following are key points in the new standards:

  • The extent of the stabilizing effect is determined by the material from which the geocell is made, in addition to its geometry.[31]
  • The retention of geometry is critical to geocell performance for the lifespan of the project. Volumetric change above 2% could result in loss of confinement, compaction, settlement, fatigue and/or failure.[33]
  • The key properties must maintain its elastic stiffness under dynamic loading, elastic properties without permanent deformation (creep), and tensile strength.[34]

Common to the new Guidelines is a performance-based approach, in which engineering parameters, such as modulus, plastic deformation and tensile strength are key factors. Performance-based testing is critical, as heavy-duty infrastructure applications expose geocells to much higher dynamic stresses for longer lifespans.

How it works

A Cellular Confinement System when infilled with compacted soil creates a new composite entity that possesses enhanced mechanical and geotechnical properties.[35] When the soil contained within a CCS is subjected to pressure, as in the case of a load support application, it causes lateral stresses on perimeter cell walls. The 3D zone of confinement reduces the lateral movement of soil particles while vertical loading on the contained infill results in high lateral stress and resistance on the cell-soil interface. These increase the shear strength of the confined soil, which:

  • Creates a stiff mattress or slab to distribute the load over a wider area
  • Reduces punching of soft soil
  • Increases shear resistance and bearing capacity
  • Decreases deformation

Confinement from adjacent cells provides additional resistance against the loaded cell through passive resistance, while lateral expansion of the infill is restricted by high hoop strength. Compaction is maintained by the confinement, resulting in long-term reinforcement.[36]

On site, the geocell sections are fastened together and placed directly on the subsoil's surface or on a geotextile filter placed on the subgrade surface and propped open in an accordion-like fashion with an external stretcher assembly. The sections expand to an area of several tens of meters and consist of hundreds of individual cells, depending on the section and cell size. They are then filled with various infill materials, such as soil, sand, aggregate or recycled materials and then compacted using vibratory compactors. Surface layers many be of asphalt or unbound gravel materials.

Applications

Roadway load support

Cellular Confinement Systems (CCS) have been used to improve the performance of both paved and unpaved roads by reinforcing the soil in the subgrade-base interface or within the base course. The effective load distribution of CCS creates a strong, stiff cellular mattress. This 3D mattress reduces vertical differential settlement into soft subgrades, improves shear strength, and enhances load-bearing capacity, while reducing the amount of aggregate material required to extend the service life of roads. As a composite system, cellular confinement strengthens the aggregate infill, thereby simultaneously enabling the use of poorly graded inferior material (e.g. local native soils, quarry waste or recycled materials) for infill as well as reducing the structural support layer thickness.[37] Typical load support applications include reinforcement of base and subbase layers in flexible pavements, including: asphalt pavements; unpaved access, service and haul roads; military roads, railway substructure and ballast confinement; working platforms in intermodal ports; airport runways and aprons, permeable pavements; pipeline support; green parking facilities and emergency access areas.

Steep soil slope and channel protection

The three-dimensional lateral confinement of CCS along with anchoring techniques ensures the long-term stability of slopes using vegetated topsoil, aggregate or concrete surfacing (if exposed to severe mechanical and hydraulic pressures). The enhanced drainage, frictional forces and cell-soil-plant interaction of CCS prevents downslope movement and limits the impact of raindrops, channelling and hydraulic shear stresses.[38] The perforations in the 3D cells allow the passage of water, nutrients and soil organisms. This encourages plant growth and root interlock, which further stabilizes the slope and soil mass, and facilitates landscape rehabilitation. Typical applications include: construction cut and fill slopes and stabilization; road and rail embankments; pipeline stabilization and storage facility berms; quarry and mine site restoration; channel and coastline structures. They can be built as an underlying mass or as a facing.

Earth retention
Main article: Mechanically stabilized earth

CCS provide steep vertical mechanically stabilized earth structures (either gravity or reinforced walls) for steep faces, walls and irregular topography. Construction of CCS earth retention is simplified as each layer is structurally sound thereby providing access for equipment and workers, while eliminating the need for concrete formwork and curing. Local soil can be used for infill when suitable and granular, while the outer faces enable a green or tan fascia of the horizontal terraces/rows utilizing topsoil. Walls also can be used for lining channels and in cases of high flow, it is required that the outer cells contain concrete or cement slurry infill. CCS have been used to reinforce soft or uneven soil foundations for large area footings, for retaining wall strip footings, for load sharing of covers over pipelines and other geotechnical applications.[39]

Reservoirs and landfills

CCS provides geomembrane liner protection, while creating stable soil, berms and slopes, for non-slip protection and durable impoundment of liquids and waste.[40] Infill treatment depends on the contained materials: concrete for ponds and reservoirs; gravel for landfill drainage and leachates, vegetated infill for landscape rehabilitation. Concrete work is efficient and controlled as CCS functions as ready-made forms; CCS with concrete forms a flexible slab that accommodates minor subgrade movement and prevents cracking. In medium and low flow-velocities, CCS with geomembranes and gravel cover can be used to create impermeable channels, thereby eliminating the need for concrete.

Sustainable construction

CCS is a green construction solution that makes civil infrastructure projects more sustainable. In load support applications, the increased geocell reinforcement enables a reduction in the amount and quality of infill for structural support. This means that locally-available, but of marginal soil type or recycled materials can be used for construction. This reduces the need for quarry aggregate, thereby reducing quarrying, hauling and earthmoving placement equipment. This in turn decreases fuel use, pollution and the carbon footprint significantly, while at the same time lowering the construction environmental footprint in terms of less dust, erosion and runoff. When used for slope applications, perforated CCS provides excellent soil protection, water drainage and growth stratum for plants for the restoration of green and vegetated landscapes. Long-term design life of advanced CCS technology can also reduce maintenance and long-term economic costs.[41]

See also

References
Wikimedia Commons has media related to Geocells.
  1. Geosynthetics in landscape architecture and design Archived 2015-02-14 at the Wayback Machine
  2. State of California Department of Transportation, Division of Environmental Analysis, Stormwater Program. Sacramento, CA."Cellular Confinement System Research." 2006.
  3. Managing Degraded Off-Highway Vehicle Trails in Wet, Unstable, and Sensitive Environments Archived October 15, 2008, at the Wayback Machine, US Department of Agriculture in conjunction with USDOT, Federal Highway Administration. Page 28. October 2002.
  4. Webster, S.L. & Watkins J.E. 1977, Investigation of Construction Techniques for Tactical Bridge Approach Roads Across Soft Ground. Soils and Pavements Laboratory, US Army Corps of Engineers Waterways Experiment Station, Vicksburg, MS, Technical Report S771, September 1977.
  5. Webster, S.L. 1979, Investigation of Beach Sand Trafficability Enhancement Using Sand-Grid Confinement and Membrane Reinforcement Concepts – Report 1, Geotechnical Laboratory, U.S. Army Corps of Engineers Waterways Experiment Station, Vicksburg, MS, Technical Report GL7920, November 1979.
  6. Webster, S.L. 1981, Investigation of Beach Sand Trafficability Enhancement Using Sand-Grid Confinement and Membrane Reinforcement Concepts – Report 2, Geotechnical Laboratory, U.S. Army Corps of Engineers Waterways Experiment Station, Vicksburg, MS, Technical Report GL7920(2), February 1981
  7. Prestogeo.com
  8. Webster, S.L. 1986, Sand-Grid Demonstration Roads Constructed for JLOTS II Tests at Fort Story, Virginia, Geotechnical Laboratory, U.S. Army Corps of Engineers Waterways Experiment Station, Vicksburg, MS, Technical Report GL8619, November 1986.
  9. Richardson, Gregory N. "Geocells: a 25-year Perspective Part ‘l: Roadway Applications." Geotechnical Fabrics Report (2004).Richardson, Gegory N. "Geocells, a 25-year Perspective Part 2: Channel Erosion Control and Retaining Walls." Geotechnical Fabrics Report 22.8 (2004): 22-27.
  10. Engel, P. & Flato, G. 1987, Flow Resistance and Critical Flow Velocities for Geoweb Erosion Control System, Research and Applications Branch – National Water Research Institute Canada Centre for Inland Waters, Burlington, Ontario, Canada, March 1987
  11. Bathurst, R.J, Crowe, R.E. & Zehaluk, A.C. 1993, Geosynthetic Cellular Confinement Cells for Gravity Retaining Wall – Richmond Hill, Ontario, Canada, Geosynthetic Case Histories, International Society for Soil Mechanics and Foundation Engineering, March 1993, pp. 266-267
  12. Crowe, R.E., Bathurst, R.J. & Alston, C. 1989, Design and Construction of a Road Embankment Using Geosynthetics, Proceedings of the 42’nd Canadian Geotechnical Conference, Canadian Geotechnical Society, Winnipeg, Manitoba, October 1989, pp. 266–271
  13. Bathurst, R. J. & Jarrett, P. M. 1988, Large-Scale Model Tests of Geocomposite Mattresses Over Peat Subgrades, Transportation Research Record 1188 – Effects of Geosynthetics on Soil Properties and of Environment on Pavement Systems, Transportation Research Board, 1988, pp. 2836
  14. Richardson, Gregory N. "Geocells: a 25-year perspective Part ‘l: roadway applications." (2004)
  15. Yuu, J., Han, J., Rosen, A., Parsons, R. L., Leshchinsky, D. (2008) “Technical Review of Geocell-Reinforced Base Courses over Weak Subgrade,” The First Pan American Geosynthetics Conference & Exhibition proceedings (GeoAmericas), Appendix VII, Cancun, Mexico
  16. Biswas, A.; Krishna, A.M. (2017). "Geocell-reinforced foundation systems: A critical review". International Journal of Geosynthetics and Ground Engineering. 3 (2). doi:10.1007/s40891-017-0093-7. S2CID 114036241.
  17. Han, J., Pokharel, S. K., Yang, X. and Thakur, J. (2011). Unpaved Roads: Tough Cell - Geosynthetic Reinforcement Shows Promise, Roads and Bridges, 40-43
  18. Hegde, Amarnath M. (2020), Sitharam, T. G.; Hegde, Amarnath M.; Kolathayar, Sreevalsa (eds.), "Cellular Confinement Systems: Characterization to Field Assessment", Geocells: Advances and Applications, Springer Transactions in Civil and Environmental Engineering, Singapore: Springer, pp. 29–61, doi:10.1007/978-981-15-6095-8_2, ISBN 978-981-15-6095-8, retrieved 2023-10-13
  19. Hegde, A. (2017). Geocell Reinforced Foundation Beds-Past Findings, Present Trends and Future Prospects: A State-of-the-Art Review. Construction and Building Materials 154: 658-74. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.conbuildmat.2017.07.230
  20. Han, J., Thakur, J.K., Parsons, R.L., Pokharel, S.K., Leshchinsky, D., and Yang, X. (2013)
  21. Kief, O., Schary, Y., Pokharel, S.K. (2014). “High-Modulus Geocells for Sustainable Highway Infrastructure.” Indian Geotechnical Journal, Springer. September
  22. Marto, A., Oghabi, M., Eisazadeh, A., (2013), Electronic Journal of Geotechnical Engineering. vol 18, Bund. Q., 3501-3516
  23. Rajagopal, K., Veeraragavan, A., Chandramouli, S. (2012). “Studies on Geocell Reinforced Road Pavement Structures,” Geosynthetics Asia 2012, Thailand
  24. Emersleben, A. (2013). “Analysis of Geocell Load Transfer Mechanism Using a New Radial Load Test. Sound Geotechnical Research to Practice 2013. GeoCongress, San Diego, 345-357
  25. Pokharel, S. K., Han J., Leshchinsky, D., Parsons, R. L., Halahmi, I. (2009). “Experimental Evaluation of Influence Factors for Single Geocell-Reinforced Sand,” Transportation Research Board (TRB) Annual Meeting, Washington, D.C., January 11–15
  26. 3. 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, 10th Int’l Conference on Low-Volume Roads, Florida, USA, July 24–27
  27. Hegde, A. (2017). Geocell Reinforced Foundation Beds-Past Findings, Present Trends and Future Prospects: A State-of-the-Art Review. Construction and Building Materials 154: 658-74. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.conbuildmat.2017.07.230
  28. Jain, R.K. (2013). Creep Behaviour of Geosynthetics for Sustainable Construction. Research Journal of Chemical Y Environmental Sciences, 1 (5), December. 34-46.
  29. Koerner, R.M., Koerner, G., Hsuan, Y. (2014). Creep Tension Testing of Geosynthetics, Geosynthetic Institute. GSI White Paper #29, July 26.
  30. Ruge, J.C., Gomez, J.G. and Moreno, C.A. (2019). Analysis of the Creep and the Influence on the Modulus Improvement Factor (MIF) in Polyolefin Geocells using the Stepped Isothermal Method. Geopolymers and Other Geosynthetics. Intech Open (www.intechopen.com). DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.5772/intechopen.88518/.
  31. ISO Standard WD TR 18228-5. (2018). Design using Geosynthetics – Part 5: Stabilization. International Organization for Standardization. Geneva, Switzerland. Under development.
  32. Zipoli, L.L.R., Avesani Neto, J.O. (2022). Evaluation of back-calculated elastic moduli of unreinforced and geocell-reinforced unbound granular material from full-scale field tests, Geotextiles and Geomembranes, June, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.geotexmem.2022.05.006.
  33. ASTM D8269-21. Standard Guide for use of Geocells in Geotechnical and Roadway Projects, ASTM International, West Conshohocken, PA, 2018, www.astm.org. https://doi.org/10.1520/D8269-21.
  34. Vega, E., van Gurp, C., Kwast, E. (2018). Geokunststoffen als Funderingswapening in Ongebonden Funderingslagen (Geosynthetics for Reinforcement of Unbound Base and Subbase Pavement Layers), SBRCURnet (CROW), Netherlands
  35. Strahl, Z. and Alexiew, D. (2019). Cellular Confinement System Reinforcement – Innovation at the Base of Sustainable Pavements. Proceedings of CAPSA 2019, 12th Conference on Asphalt Pavements for Southern Africa,” ed: Jacobs Z. S.W. Sun City, South Africa. Oct 2019. 999-1018.
  36. Hegde, A.; Sitharam, T.G. (2016). Ground Improvement Using 3D-Cellular Confinement Systems. Moldova: LAP Lambert Academic Publishing. ISBN 9783659829062.
  37. Rajagopal, K.; Veeragavan, A.; Chandramouli, S. (2012). "Studies on geocell reinforced road pavement structures". 5th Asian Regional Conference on Geosynthetics: 497–502.
  38. Khorsandiardebili, N.; Ghazavi, M. (2021). "Static stability analysis of geocell-reinforced slopes". Geotextiles and Geomembranes. 49 (3): 852–863. doi:10.1016/j.geotexmem.2020.12.012. S2CID 234118751.
  39. Berg, R.R., et al, Design of Mechanically Stabilized Earth Walls and Reinforced Soil Slopes. US Dept of Transportation, Federal Highway Administration. Publication no. FHWA-NHI-10-024, FHWA GEC 011 - Vol. 1, Nov. 2009
  40. Chakraborty, A., Goswami, A., Deb, A., Das, D. and Mahanta, J. (2014). Management of Waste Generated in Guwahati City and the Incorporation of Geocells at the Landfill Site. Journal of Civil Engineering and Environmental Technology (JCEET). 1(4), pp. 5-7.
  41. Norouzi, M., Pokharel, S.K., Breault, M., and Breault, D. (2017). Innovative Solution for Sustainable Road Construction. Leadership in Sustainable Infrastructure Conference Proceedings. May 31-Jun 3, Vancouver, Canada.
  • "WES Developing Sand-Grid Confinement System," (1981), Army Res. Ver. Acquisition Magazine, July–August, pp. 7–11.
This article is issued from Wikipedia. The text is licensed under Creative Commons - Attribution - Sharealike. Additional terms may apply for the media files.