CIVIL & ARCHITECTURE DOMAIN
Published September 11, 2026 | Version v1
Journal article Open

Performance Evaluation of Load Distribution in Multi-layered Geocell System for Sustainable Infrastructure Development in Bangladesh

Description

More than 80% of Bangladesh covered by soft alluvial floodplain soils, posing significant challenges to road and embankment stability under heavy traffic and monsoon conditions. This study evaluates the performance of three-layer polyester geocell reinforcement in improving weak sandy-clayey subgrade soil collected from Ghior, Manikganj, Bangladesh. Polyester geocell panels (2mm thickness,400GSM) were installed in three layers with 38mm vertical spacing. Geocell reinforcement reduced peak settlement by 34-38.5% (average 36.7%) and increased load-bearing capacity by 50-53.33% (average 51.1%) under all loading conditions. It also reduced peak subgrade pressure by 40-60%, indicating improved stress distribution. Boundary effects were also evaluated. The findings demonstrate the multi-layered geocell reinforcement in an effective and economical solution for improving weak subgrade in rural road and embarkment in Bangladesh.

Files

(20-35)Performance Evaluation of Load Distribution in Multi-layered Geocell.pdf

Files (749.1 kB)

Additional details

References

  • 1. Dash, S. K., Rajagopal, K., & Krishnaswamy, N. R. (2004). Performance of different geosynthetic reinforcement materials in sand foundations. Geosynthetics International, 11(1), 35–42. https://doi.org/10.1680/gein.2004.11.1. 35
  • 2. Hegde, A., & Sitharam, T. G. (2016). Behaviour of geocell reinforced soft clay bed subjected to incremental cyclic loading. Geomechanics and Engineering, 10(4), 405–422. https://doi.org/10.12989/gae.2016.10.4 .405
  • 3. Pokharel, S. K., Han, J., Manandhar, C., Yang, X., Leshchinsky, D., Halahmi, I., & Parsons, R. L. (2011). Accelerated pavement testing of geocell-reinforced unpaved roads over weak subgrade. Transportation Research Record, 2204(1), 67–75. https://doi.org/10.3141/2204-09
  • 4. Moghaddas Tafreshi, S. N., Khalaj, O., & Dawson, A. R. (2013). Pilot-scale load tests of a combined multilayered geocell and rubber-reinforced foundation. Geosynthetics International, 20(3), 143–161. https://doi.org/10.1680/gein.13.00008
  • 5. Wang, H., Gao, G., Meguid, M. A., Cheng, Y. P., & Zhang, L. (2024). Exploring the influence of size-related factors on geocell-reinforced soil response using coupled continuum-discontinuum analysis. Geotextiles and Geomembranes, 52(4), 435–450. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.geotexmem.2 023.12.008
  • 6. Ghazavi, M., & Valinezhad-Torghabeh, N. (2024). Behavior of geocell reinforced sand supporting footings using response surface method. Geotechnical and Geological Engineering, 42(6), 5283–5299. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10706-024-02841-1
  • 7. Banerjee, S., Manna, B., & Shahu, J. T. (2024). Impact of various geometrical parameters of geocell on reinforced pavement under cyclic loading conditions. Japanese Geotechnical Society Special Publication, 10(41), 1543–1548. https://doi.org/10.3208/jgssp.v10.OS-30-03
  • 8. ASTM International. (2007). Standard test method for particle-size analysis of soils (ASTM D422-63(2007)e1). https://doi.org/10.1520/D0422-63R07E01
  • 9. ASTM International. (2010). Standard test methods for specific gravity of soil solids by water pycnometer (ASTM D854-10). https://doi.org/10.1520/D0854-10
  • 10. ASTM International. (2017). Standard test methods for liquid limit, plastic limit, and plasticity index of soils (ASTM D4318-17). https://doi.org/10.1520/D4318-17