Effect of Influencing Parameters on the Vibration Isolation Efficacy of Geocell Reinforced Soil Beds


This manuscript evaluates the effect of various influencing factors on the vibration mitigation efficiency of geocell-reinforced foundation beds. Parameters investigated include the width of geocell, depth of placement of geocell below the footing, depth of embedment of footing, infill materials, and the dynamic force level of the excitation. The effect of aforesaid parameters was studied by performing field vibration tests over the reinforced test beds of 3.6 m × 3.6 m × 1.2 m. To understand the vibration isolation efficacy, different vibration indicators, viz., displacement amplitude, peak particle velocity (PPV), and peak acceleration were evaluated. From the results, reinforcing the soil bed with geocell was found to be a worthwhile approach to control the vibration parameters. For achieving the maximum isolation, the optimum width and depth of placement of geocell were found to be 5B and 0.1B respectively. At its optimum width and depth of placement, the peak particle velocity was reduced by 50%. Similarly, it was observed that the 53% drop in the peak displacement amplitude of the foundation bed. Vibration parameters in the geocell reinforced case were found attenuated with the increase in footing embedment and modulus of infill material. On the other hand, the vibration parameters of the unreinforced and geocell reinforced cases were amplified distinctly due to the increase in dynamic excitation.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in to check access.

Fig. 1
Fig. 2
Fig. 3
Fig. 4
Fig. 5
Fig. 6
Fig. 7
Fig. 8
Fig. 9
Fig. 10
Fig. 11
Fig. 12
Fig. 13


  1. 1.

    Bose T, Choudhury D, Sprengel J, Ziegler M (2018) Efficiency of open and infill trenches in mitigating ground-borne vibrations. J Geotech Geoenviron Eng 144(8):04018048

    Article  Google Scholar 

  2. 2.

    Kattis SE, Polyzos D, Beskos DE (1999) Vibration isolation by a row of piles using a 3-D frequency domain BEM. Int J Numer Meth Eng 46(5):713–728

    MATH  Article  Google Scholar 

  3. 3.

    Massarsch KR (2005) Vibration isolation using gas-filled cushions. In: Woods RD (ed) Soil dynamics symposium in honor of professor. Proceedings of the Geo-Frontiers Congress, American Society of Civil Engineers, January 24–26, Austin, Texas, USA, pp 1–20

  4. 4.

    Murillo C, Thorel L, Caicedo B (2009) Ground vibration isolation with geofoam barriers: centrifuge modeling. Geotext Geomembr 27(6):423–434

    Article  Google Scholar 

  5. 5.

    Ulgen D, Toygar O (2015) Screening effectiveness of open and in-filled wave barriers: a full-scale experimental study. Constr Build Mater 86:12–20

    Article  Google Scholar 

  6. 6.

    Jayawardana P, Thambiratnam DP, Perera N, Chan T (2019) Dual in-filled trenches for vibration mitigation and their predictions using artificial neural network. Soil Dyn Earthq Eng 122:107–115

    Article  Google Scholar 

  7. 7.

    Takemiya H (2004) Field vibration mitigation by honeycomb WIB for pile foundations of a high-speed train viaduct. Soil Dyn Earthq Eng 24(1):69–87

    Article  Google Scholar 

  8. 8.

    Gao GY, Feng SJ, Li W, Zheng JG (2007) 2-D analysis of vibration isolation by wave impeding block in layered ground. J Vib Eng 20(2):174–179

    Google Scholar 

  9. 9.

    Tsai PH, Feng ZY, Jen TL (2008) Three-dimensional analysis of the screening effectiveness of hollow pile barriers for foundation-induced vertical vibration. Comput Geotech 35(3):489–499

    Article  Google Scholar 

  10. 10.

    Xu M, Wang X, Min C (2011) Vibration reduction due to wave impedance block embedded in layered elastic soil with BEM transfer matrix method. J Nanchang Inst Technol 30(3):21–26

    Google Scholar 

  11. 11.

    Gao G, Chen J, Gu X, Song J, Li S, Li N (2017) Numerical study on the active vibration isolation by wave impeding block in saturated soils under vertical loading. Soil Dyn Earthq Eng 93:99–112

    Article  Google Scholar 

  12. 12.

    Kratzig WB, Niemann HJ (1996) Dynamics of civil engineering structures. Balkema, Rotterndan, pp 466–484

    Google Scholar 

  13. 13.

    Takemiya H (2009) Field tests of PCA-WIB with tire shreds fill-in for vibration mitigation. In: Proceedings of the 4th international symposium on environmental vibrations-prediction, monitoring, mitigation and evaluation. Beijing, pp 254–259

  14. 14.

    Mandal A, Baidya DK, Roy D (2012) Dynamic response of the foundations resting on a two-layered soil underlain by a rigid layer. Geotech Geol Eng 30(4):775–786

    Article  Google Scholar 

  15. 15.

    Rajesh S, Viswanadham BVS (2012) Centrifuge model studies on the performance of geogrid reinforced soil barriers of landfill covers. Indian J Geosynth Ground Improv 1(1):20–28

    Google Scholar 

  16. 16.

    Obando-Ante J, Palmeira EM (2015) A laboratory study on the performance of geosynthetic reinforced asphalt overlays. Int J Geosynth Ground Eng 1(1):5

    Article  Google Scholar 

  17. 17.

    Boominathan S, Senathipathi K, Jayaprakasam V (1991) Field studies on dynamic properties of reinforced earth. Soil Dyn Earthq Eng 10(8):402–406

    Article  Google Scholar 

  18. 18.

    Jha JN, Shukla SK (2015) Bearing capacity and settlement characteristics of sand subgrades with vertical reinforcement supporting a square footing. Int J Geosynth Ground Eng 1(2):16

    Article  Google Scholar 

  19. 19.

    Vangla P, Latha GM (2015) Influence of particle size on the friction and interfacial shear strength of sands of similar morphology. Int J Geosynth Ground Eng 1(1):6

    Article  Google Scholar 

  20. 20.

    Yoo C, Lee D (2012) Performance of geogrid-encased stone columns in soft ground: full-scale load tests. Geosynth Int 19(6):480–490

    Article  Google Scholar 

  21. 21.

    Saride S, Dutta TT (2016) Effect of fly-ash stabilization on stiffness modulus degradation of expansive clays. J Mater Civ Eng 28(12):04016166

    Article  Google Scholar 

  22. 22.

    Haldar S, Sivakumar Babu GL (2009) Improvement of machine foundations using reinforcement. Proc Inst Civ Eng-Ground Improv 162(4):199–204

    Article  Google Scholar 

  23. 23.

    Muthukumar S, Sakthivelu A, Shanmugasundaram K, Mahendran N, Ravichandran V (2019) Performance assessment of square footing on jute geocell-reinforced sand. Int J Geosynth Ground Eng 5(3):25

    Article  Google Scholar 

  24. 24.

    Satyal SR, Leshchinsky B, Han J, Neupane M (2018) Use of cellular confinement for improved railway performance on soft subgrades. Geotext Geomembr 46(2):190–205

    Article  Google Scholar 

  25. 25.

    Song F, Liu H, Hu H, Xie Y (2018) Centrifuge tests of geocell-reinforced retaining walls at limit equilibrium. J Geotech Geoenviron Eng 144(3):1–13

    Article  Google Scholar 

  26. 26.

    Dash SK, Choudhary AK (2018) Geocell reinforcement for performance improvement of vertical plate anchors in sand. Geotext Geomembr 46(2):214–225

    Article  Google Scholar 

  27. 27.

    Shadmand A, Ghazavi M, Ganjian N (2018) Load-settlement characteristics of large-scale square footing on sand reinforced with opening geocell reinforcement. Geotext Geomembr 46(3):319–326

    Article  Google Scholar 

  28. 28.

    Nadaf MB, Mandal JN (2017) Numerical analyses of loaded strip footing resting on cellular mattress and strips: reinforced fly ash slope. Int J Geosynth Ground Eng 3(3):26

    Article  Google Scholar 

  29. 29.

    Hegde A (2017) Geocell reinforced foundation beds-past findings, present trends and future prospects: a state-of-the-art review. Constr Build Mater 154:658–674

    Article  Google Scholar 

  30. 30.

    Sherin KS, Chandrakaran S, Sankar N (2017) Effect of geocell geometry and multi-layer system on the performance of geocell reinforced sand under a square footing. Int J Geosynth Ground Eng 3(3):20

    Article  Google Scholar 

  31. 31.

    Suku L, Prabhu SS, Ramesh P, Babu GS (2016) Behavior of geocell-reinforced granular base under repeated loading. Transp Geotech 9:17–30

    Article  Google Scholar 

  32. 32.

    Latha GM, Manju GS (2016) Seismic response of geocell retaining walls through shaking table tests. Int J Geosynth Ground Eng 2(1):7

    Article  Google Scholar 

  33. 33.

    Venkateswarlu H, Ujjawal KN, Hegde A (2018) Laboratory and numerical investigation of machine foundations reinforced with geogrids and geocells. Geotext Geomembr 46(6):882–896

    Article  Google Scholar 

  34. 34.

    Ujjawal KN, Venkateswarlu H, Hegde A (2019) Vibration isolation using 3D cellular confinement system: a numerical investigation. Soil Dyn Earthq Eng 119:220–234

    Article  Google Scholar 

  35. 35.

    ASTM D698–07 (2012) Standard test methods for laboratory compaction characteristics of soil using standard effort (12,400 ft-lbf/ft3 (600 kN-m/m3)). ASTM International, West Conshohocken

    Google Scholar 

  36. 36.

    ASTM D4253–16 (2016) Standard test method for minimum index density and unit weight of soils and calculation of relative density. ASTM international, West Conshohocken

    Google Scholar 

  37. 37.

    ASTM D3080–4 (2004) Standard test method for direct shear test of soils under consolidated drained conditions. ASTM International, West Conshohocken

    Google Scholar 

  38. 38.

    ISO, E. 10319 (2015) Geotextiles, wide width tensile test. Comité Européen de Normalisation, Brussels

    Google Scholar 

  39. 39.

    Richart FE, Hall JR, Woods RD (1970) Vibration of soils and foundations. Int Ser Theor Appl Mech XViii:1–414

    Google Scholar 

  40. 40.

    Mehrjardi GT, Behrad R, Tafreshi SM (2019) Scale effect on the behavior of geocell-reinforced soil. Geotext Geomembr 47(2):154–163

    Article  Google Scholar 

  41. 41.

    Biswas A, Krishna AM (2017) Geocell-reinforced foundation systems: a critical review. Int J Geosynth Ground Eng 3(2):17

    Article  Google Scholar 

  42. 42.

    IS. 2720–29 (1975) Methods of test for soil—part XXIX: determination of dry density of soils in-place. Prabhat Offset Press, Delhi, pp 4–8

    Google Scholar 

  43. 43.

    Hegde A, Sitharam TG (2015) 3-Dimensional numerical modelling of geocell reinforced sand beds. Geotext Geomembr 43(2):171–181

    Article  Google Scholar 

  44. 44.

    Kumar J, Reddy CO (2006) Dynamic response of footing and machine with spring mounting base. Geotech Geol Eng 24(1):15–27

    Article  Google Scholar 

  45. 45.

    Bharathi M, Dubey RN (2018) Dynamic lateral response of under-reamed vertical and batter piles. Constr Build Mater 158:910–920

    Article  Google Scholar 

  46. 46.

    Blake RE (1961) Basic vibration theory. Shock Vib Handb 1:2–8

    Google Scholar 

  47. 47.

    Venkateswarlu H, Hegde A (2019) Block resonance test on geosynthetic reinforced foundation beds. In: Meehan CL, Kumar S, Pando MA, Coe JT (eds) Geo-congress 2019: earth retaining structures and geosynthetics. American Society of Civil Engineers, Reston, pp 266–276

    Google Scholar 

  48. 48.

    Tafreshi SM, Zarei SE and Soltanpour Y (2008) Cyclic loading on foundation to evaluate the coefficient of elastic uniform compression of sand. In: The 14th world conference on earthquake engineering, Beijing

  49. 49.

    Hegde AM, Sitharam TG (2015) Effect of infill materials on the performance of geocell reinforced soft clay beds. Geomech Geoengin 10(3):163–173

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information



Corresponding author

Correspondence to Hasthi Venkateswarlu.

Additional information

Publisher's Note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and Permissions

About this article

Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Venkateswarlu, H., Hegde, A. Effect of Influencing Parameters on the Vibration Isolation Efficacy of Geocell Reinforced Soil Beds. Int. J. of Geosynth. and Ground Eng. 6, 16 (2020). https://doi.org/10.1007/s40891-020-00205-2

Download citation


  • Geocell
  • Field vibration test
  • Influencing factors
  • Vibration parameters
  • Isolation efficiency