Cellular Confine Systems Final

CELLULAR CONFINEMENT SYSTEMS

CHAPTER 1

INTRODUCTION Many native soils require some stabilization to provide a strong base and/or sub-base for road construction. Roads often cross soft, saturated or expansive clay soils with very low bearing capacity and fine soil material subject to erosion by seasonal rain. The construction and/or rehabilitation of secondary feeder roads are often in remote rural regions, where quarry aggregate is scarce and must be hauled long-distance, adding complexity, time and cost to every project. Construction of such roads often necessitates thick pavement layers and extensive earthworks. These roads also need to support heavy loaded trucks in addition to car traffic. They typically need to be built with limited budgets, yet with sufficient long-term durability to serve the rural communities throughout rainy seasons, without degradation and repairs. The challenge is how to achieve a strong and durable base and sub-base layer over a weak subgrade in a fast and cost-effective manner utilizing marginal available materials. Alternative cement and chemical stabilizers are complicated and time-consuming to apply while their long-term effectiveness is unreliable. In addition stabilizers are often affected by rain and water, as any cracks provide entry for water and eventual weakening of the road base.

Alternative

subgrade

replacement

is

time-consuming

and

expensive.

Cellular Confinement Systems (CCS) is the best solution to overcome these challanges are widely recognized in the construction industry as a permanent soil stabilization BMP used for a variety of applications including: erosion control and soil stabilization on steep slopes, revetments and flexible channel lining systems, roadway load support and stabilization, and earth retention structures. The goal of this report is to identify potential uses for temporary construction erosion and sediment control applications. Typically, CCS panels or mats, also commonly referred to as “CCSs,” consist of High Density Polyethylene (HDPE) strips ultrasonically bonded together to form a threedimensional honeycomb matrix that can be filled with soil, sand, aggregate, or concrete. The relatively lightweight panels are shipped in a compact, collapsed form that are expanded at the job site. The panels typically come in a variety of cell sizes, and in perforated and nonperforated formats. Originally, CCS mats were developed by the United States Army Corps Department of Civil Engineering,CISAT,2016

Page

CELLULAR CONFINEMENT SYSTEMS of Engineers (USACE) for building roads on soft and sandy soils. The USACE developed the first material testing guidelines for CCS in their Technical Report GL-86-19. Currently CCS is available through a number of proprietary distributors and is manufactured by a few companies, some of which manufacture the panels under patent license from USACE. The BMP Fact Sheets are provided in Appendix A and summarize the results of the investigation and research of the various proprietary systems including descriptions, definitions, applications, advantages, limitations, costs, installation guidelines, and maintenance/inspection items.

. Figure.1.1 Cellular confinement system

Department of Civil Engineering,CISAT,2016

Page

CELLULAR CONFINEMENT SYSTEMS

CHAPTER 2 CELLULAR CONFINEMENT SYSTEM 2.1 Historical Development Since the beginning of civilazation man has attempted to use soil with other materials to enable if for being used for his requirement. Typical uses include use of branches of trees etc to support track over marshy area, to built large structures,temple such as ziggurats of Babylonia, to build hutments with woven mats of reeds etc. These have also been used in part of Great Wall of China. CCS( Cellular confinement system) is honeycomb three-dimensional cell structures that provided containment of compacted fill soils. Decreased the lateral movement of the soil particles and form a mat or rigid for the distribution of loads applied to a wider area slab movement.the system usually known as ‘Geocell’ The term ‘Geocell’ also have two part, first is “geo” which mean soil or earth and second is “cell” which means cellular type of shape for infill material such as soil. CCS were used in the construction of canals, embankments, retaining walls, railways and roads (Dash et al., 2003). New types CCS are made of a new polymer structure characterized by low temperature flexibility similar to high density polyethylene (HDPE). (Pokharel, 2010, Yang, 2010). The base layer reinforced CCS mattress In road construction, acts as a rigid slab or a mattress for distribution the traffic load vertically on a broader subgrade. Therefore, the vertical forces applied to the subgrade was decreased and the capacity was increased. (Marto et al., 2013). Pokharel et al. (2010) stated that the concept of lateral confinement cell structures dating back to 1970. CCS come in different shapes and sizes. Figure 2 shows the typical configurations of CCS reinforcing elements: (1) Vertical perforated elements prepared as a cellular, honeycomb-like structure. (2) Vertical geogrid elements prepared by cutting geogrids. This type of CCS is hand made from geogrid chevron or diamond pattern.

2.2. Cellular confinement system CCSs produced by a well known company in USA were used in this study.* The CCSs are comprised of strips of high-density polyethylene (1 mm thick and 254 mm wide) welded together at 305 mm intervals. When expanded, the cells form 2.5 m 3 18 m panels, with each expanded CCS having a diameter of 250 mm and depth of 200 mm.The material and structure of the CCSs were characterized using tensile tests conducted following the procedure Department of Civil Engineering,CISAT,2016

Page

CELLULAR CONFINEMENT SYSTEMS described in ASTM D 4885 and ASTM D4437. Tests were conducted on the bulk material (a sectionof HDPE without welds) using ASTM D 4885 and onwelded material using ASTM D 4437. In all cases, specimens having ‘wide-strip’ dimensions (200 mm 3 200 mm) were used. Tests on the welded material were conducted in peel and shear modes. A tensile test of the bulk material containing a weld at the center was also conducted to assess the influence of discontinuities at the center of the specimen on the tensile strength of the CCS material.Three replicate tests of each type were conducted.A summary of the test results is provided .Nearly identical results were obtained from the replicate tests. Thus only averages are reported . Note that the stiffness was highest for the bulk material and slightly lower (5%) for the bulk. (Figure 2.2.)

Figure 2.2. : Close view of CCS pockets

2.3. Methodology A. Procedure   

Step 1: collect disturbed soil sample from nearby site. Step 2: find out soil properties like liquid limit, OMC, MDD etc. Step3: prepare the specimen of different tests with the soil only in three to four layers

 

according to test requirement. Step 4: add CCS in sample at varying depth to find effective depth. Step 5: perform various test on sample to find different soil properties like CBR (California bearing ratio), plate load.

Department of Civil Engineering,CISAT,2016

Page

CELLULAR CONFINEMENT SYSTEMS 

Step 6: compare different soil properties such as bearing capacity, shear strength, strength and cost of all results for soil with and without CCS.

B. List of Different Test for Soil 

Sub soil Geotechnical Investigations (Borehole method) including collection of

            

undisturbed samples and Standard Penetration Test (SPT). Dynamic Cone Penetration Test (DCPT). Field Density, Moisture Content and Void Ratio Test. Standard and Modified Compaction Proctor Test. Static and Cyclic Plate Load Test. Field CBR Test by Dynamic Cone Penetration. Specific Gravity and Porosity Test. Grain Size Analysis by Sieving and Hydrometer. Atterberg Limits and Indices. Soil Classification. Consolidation Test. Unconfined Compression Test. Direct Shear Test. Triaxial Compression Test.

C. Ground Improvement Technique          

Vibro Techniques Vibro Compaction Vibro Replacement (Stone Columns) Grouted Stone Columns (GSC) Vibro Concrete Columns (VCC) Dry Deep Soil Mixing Vacuum consolidation Preloading Heating Ground freezing

2.4. Different configurations of CCS reinforcement elements CCS come in different shapes and size.Figure.2.4. shows the different types of configuration of Systems.

Department of Civil Engineering,CISAT,2016

Page

CELLULAR CONFINEMENT SYSTEMS

(a) Perforated CCS (Bathurst and Jarrett, 1998). (b) Handmade CCS (Dash et al., 2003).

Department of Civil Engineering,CISAT,2016

Page

CELLULAR CONFINEMENT SYSTEMS

(c) Handmade CCS diamond pattern

(d) Handmade CCS chevron pattern

(Dash et al., 2003)

(Dash et al., 2003). Figure.2.4. Different structure and shape of CCS

CHAPTER 3 MATERIALS AND DESIGN METHODS

3.1. CCS’s cell fill materials and envelope The fill materials were coarse or fine granular noncohesive materials. The former were crushed quarrylimestone, 60 to 180mm in grain size. This material is typical for a talus slope. It is hereafter referred to as “stone”. The rock Young modulus was 57 700MPa. The average crushing resistance of stones 100mm in size was 30 kN. The latter consisted of Hostun sand or scrapped tyres. Hostun sand is a well documented and well-graded sand whose size distribution ranges from 0.08 to 1mm and with a friction angle of 32.5_ (cohesion nil). The scrapped tyres result from the puncturing of end-of-life tyres. This material contains 30% by mass of circular pieces 25mm in diameter and 10mm in average thickness, the rest having no particular shape (Fig. 2). This material was considered both for waste recycling purposes and Department of Civil Engineering,CISAT,2016

Page

CELLULAR CONFINEMENT SYSTEMS to take advantage of its particular mechanical characteristics, very different from the properties of more classical granular geomaterials. Sand was used alone or as a mixture containing 30% by mass of tyres. This mixture constitutes a reinforced and lightweight composite material (Zornberg et al., 2004; Gotteland et al., 2005). The envelope was made up of a hexagonal, or doubletwisted, wire mesh. The mesh height and width were 80mm and 100 mm, respectively, and the wire had a 2.7mm diameter. The tensile strength of this wire mesh was 51 kN/m. For fine fill materials, a containment non-woven needle punched geotextile was used in combination with the wire mesh. The CCSs, or cells, considered in this study were cubic in shape, 500mm in height. Gabion cages are generally parallelepiped in shape but subdivided into three cubic parts that are considered here as the elementary unit. Prior to filling, the cells were placed in a wooden box in order to prevent any lateral deformation. Stone cells, i.e. CCSs filled with the coarse material, were filled placing the stones flat. Fine materials were poured dry then slightly compacted. No internal connecting wire was placed across the cell, contrary to what is generally done on real structures. The average cell weight was 205, 203 and 195 kg for stones, sand and mixture cells, respectively (Fig. 3). Their precise density is not known as it was not possible to accurately determine the volume occupied by the fill material.

3.2. Design Method Design of the solutions was based on mechanistic-empirical method for flexible pavements using the layered elastic model, based on the following parameters (Figure 3.2.): 

CBR according to seasonal damage.



Evaluation of Equivalent Single Axle Loads (ESAL's) based on 18-kip single axle (W18).



Definition of the NPA CCS reinforcement properties, including the Modulus Improvement Factor (MIF) for fully and partially confined zones.



Examination of fatigue and rutting failure criteria.

Department of Civil Engineering,CISAT,2016

Page

CELLULAR CONFINEMENT SYSTEMS

Figure 3.2. KOAC-NPC Enclosed Hangar Test Facility and Road Base Test Sections

3.3. Ideal for Porous Surfaces Cellular confinement system, can be used as a porous ground layer in many situations. The porosity of the perforated cells, combined with the porosity of the loose infill material, allows water penetration both vertically and horizontally making Honeycomb structure the ideal choice for sustainable urban drainag system (SUDS) applications. Unlike typically saturated ground, Honeycomb structure retains the structure of the surface by reinforcing and containing the infill, stabilising the ground and preventing erosion/subsidence.

3.4. Ideal for Ground Stabilisation Cellular confinement system acts as a reinforced structure for all granular infills. Unlike other systems, Honeycomb structure uses the confinement of infills to provide load support and erosion control for many situations. Once filled, it provides a stable surface for both pedestrian and trafficked areas such as driveways, paths, car parks, golf courses and artificial surface sports fields. Manufactured from High Density Polyethylene (HDPE) strips and ultrasonically welded into a cellular system, the high tensile strength of the weld and the Department of Civil Engineering,CISAT,2016

Page

CELLULAR CONFINEMENT SYSTEMS geotextile combined provide an ideal structure that prevents infill from spreading, thus preventing subsidence and rutting.

3.5. Installation 3D Structural CCSs are supplied as collapsed, lightweight bundles that are easily transported and installed on site. The high tensile strength ensures that the whole system can tolerate the strains that occur from the installation stage and keep the surface secure over a long period of time. • Any gullies must be filled and the surface level and well compacted. • An anchor shelf 0.2m deep and 0.5m wide should be excavated along the top of the slope. • The 3D Structural CCS is pulled out laid at the top of the slope. The CCSs follow the gradient of the slope without buckling or warping. • Depending on the design requirements and application, high strength Polyester Tendons, Galvanized Industrial staples, Stell J pins and Earth Anchors are used to fix the CCSs to the substrate prior to filling. • Infill materials include: topsoil with selected vegetation; granular fills such as sand/gravel/stone; and concrete. CCSs allow the use of on-site poor quality granular infills instead of costly imported material. The rigidity of the HDPE walls prevents buckling during topsoil filling. Once the cells are filled to their maximum size, the structure becomes rigid and monolithic. Vegetating the site improves the efficiency of the CCSs.

CHAPTER 4 USES IN DIFFERENT SECTORS AND ITS WORKING METHODS 4.1. Load Support As a road base reinforcement system, the Honeycomb structure spread loading across the extent of the cellular confinement. The cells behave like a stiff, yet flexible horizontal Department of Civil Engineering,CISAT,2016

Page

CELLULAR CONFINEMENT SYSTEMS laminar element beneath the supported load bearing surface. By isolating and supporting the load bearing surface from the softer subgrades below, Honeycomb structure successfully solves load bearing problems and provides a subtle and invisible finish to all surfaces. • Derived from the ability of Honeycomb structure to perform soil compaction. • Supports the soil and gives up to 17 times normal load bearing capacity. • Can be used for heavy duty load support in road systems.

4.1.1. Working The load redistribution that occurs within the confined zone involves 3-dimensional interaction between the infill and the cellular structure. Vertical stress applied to the infill induces a horizontal active pressure at the perimeter of the cell. The infill wall interface friction transfers loads in to the cell structure which in turn mobilises resistance in surrounding cells. It is also evident that cells which surround a loaded cell offer greater passive resistance due to the lateral strain in the vicinity of the load. The combined effect of these mechanisms make the Honeycomb structure layer a composite mattress with high flexural stiffness and load support capabilities.

4.2. Slope and Channel Protection When used on slopes, Honeycomb structure confines and reinforces vegetation by increasing the natural resistance to erosion. On non-vegetated slopes it prevents the down slope migration of the infill, resulting in an overall greater stability across the slope. When used on channels, river beds and swales, Honeycomb structure increases the shear strength of the selected infill against the flow of water. The water is directed above the infilled cells, allowing the root zone to remain undisturbed. Honeycomb structure provides an attractive and economical alternative to concrete lined channels, or can be used within concrete to create a flexible concrete slab with inbuilt expansion joints.  

Improves hydraulic performance of infill materials. Can be used within concrete to create inbuilt expansion joints when used to create an



armoured channel lining. Can be designed for site specific circumstances - flow rates,environmental concerns,

 

ecological aspects and aesthetic requirements are all taken into account. Can be used to help control flow. Perforations mean that drainage issues can also be tackled.

4.2.1. Working

Department of Civil Engineering,CISAT,2016

Page

CELLULAR CONFINEMENT SYSTEMS In the case of vegetated slopes, Honeycomb structure confines and reinforces the vegetative mat and the cells increase the vegetation’s natural resistance to erosive forces protecting the rootzone from loss of soil particles. Especially effective in areas of sheet or intermittent concentrated flow. On non-vegetated slopes, Honeycomb structure improves the erosion resistance of granular infill, dissipating hydraulic energy and preventing down slope migration of particles. Drainage occurs through cells via the perforations. In fully saturated conditions, the drainage of excess water keeps infill friction at a maximum, preventing down slope sliding forces from becoming too big. In vegetated slopes, the perforations allows water to move across the cells and down slope, as well as allowing roots to grow from cell to cell. This gives the added benefit of creating greater vegetative strength in times of short-term hydraulic events (high flows). .4.3.

Earth Retention

When layered vertically, the Honeycomb structure cells become an earth retention system and can be used to construct a retaining wall, Honeycomb structure provides both face protection and reinforcement, as well as the added bonus of a completely natural aesthetic. Its cellular structure confines soils and prevents them from moving, ultimately preventing erosion, but in the process offering many other benefits. The confined soils offer horizontal terraces where grass growth can thrive and provide natural soak away that capture excess stormwater. By placing the Honeycomb structure panels infront of the earth, the thickness of the wall is significantly increased, which in turn increases the weight of the wall and its retaining ability. 

Maintains structural stability against all loading through its mass and the frictional

 

values of the infill. Is able to provide a solution on site to compressible soils. Can be constructed in difficult to access locations.

4.3.1. Working Simple gravity or composite retaining walls can be constructed rapidly using local infill materials. The cellular structure reinforces the fill throughout the entire width of the wall which when combined with the frictional forces acting between the layers, produces a homogenous structural mass. This mass is further solidified by the growth of vegetation, where the rootzone interlocks the layers and seals the soils together further.

4.4. Tree Root Protection Department of Civil Engineering,CISAT,2016

Page

CELLULAR CONFINEMENT SYSTEMS Taking its use as load support, Honeycomb structure has become the way to protect tree roots from the pressures of trafficking and loading from above. Whether it to protect a new sapling, or to introduce protection for a fully established tree, Honeycomb structure can provide the relief needed for the roots to thrive.    

Protects tree roots from the pressures of loading. Offers protection without the need to prevent access by foot or by vehicle. Promotes the migration of water and nutrients. Eventually ensures the preservation of the tree.

4.4.1. Working By using the load redistribution features to evenly spread loading, Honeycomb structure reduces point loading and the associated pressures on tree roots beneath. By confining the soils, lateral movement is prevented, and the ground is stabilised, keeping a flat, firm ground in place and stopping compaction of sub-soils, which put greater pressure on tree roots. Beneath the Honeycomb structure tree roots are free to grow, and the relieved pressure promotes the migration of both water and nutrients, which eventually ensures the long-term preservation of the tree itself.

4.5. Embankment The soft soil often poses design, construction and maintenance hazards to civil engineering structures founded on them. Construction of embankment over soft soil or weak soil is very difficult work. Some soils are so weak that they can’t take the load of construction equipments. Problems may arise during the construction stage due to the inability of the soft soil to provide adequate support to the construction equipments. Post construction, the excessive settlement and insufficient bearing capacity of the soft subgrade may lead to loss of stability of the overlying structures. Rotational slip failure of embankments, cracking and differential settlement of soil under embankments are some of the failures associated with construction of structures on soft soils. In such condition generally upper layer of weak soil is removed and some strong soil is used. The depth of removal of weak soil depends upon the load coming on the soil and strength of the soil. This process governs the overall construction cost of embankment. Use of CCS mattress over the soft soil can reduce the settlement and increase the load carrying capacity . CCS act as rigid mattress and it distribute the applied load over larger area due to which pressure intensity on the soft soil decreases. A study reported the use of CCS mattress at Greatham Creek Bridge, England. The mattress was placed under a 5 meter high embankment over soft silt which was 7 meter deep. The lateral strain reported was small and the vertical settlement was found to be reduced by 50%. The Department of Civil Engineering,CISAT,2016

Page

CELLULAR CONFINEMENT SYSTEMS author attributed the reduction in settlement to the lateral restraint offered by the CCS material that prevents the material from spreading and hence reduces the stresses coming onto the soft sub grade. Similar type of performance was found by Cowland and Wong 1993 for road in Hong Kong when CCS mattress was used under the embankment. Use of CCS increases the stiffness of embankment and it can also reduce cost up to 30%.

4.6. Foundation Strength and stiffness of soil is most important criteria for the construction of foundation of over the soil. Failure of foundation takes place when soil is not strong enough to take load or because of excessive settlement may be a reason of failure. Construction of foundation over the weak soil can be done either by selecting suitable foundation like pile, raft etc. or can be done by modification of properties of soil by some ground improvement techniques. Generally use of modification of soil properties may economical. Several studies and researches have been done over the use of CCSs reinforcement under the foundation. Value of sub grade modulus can be increased by inclusion of CCSs. As it provides the 3D confinement to soil, thus provides rigidity to the soil and thereby increasing the bearing capacity of soil.

4.7. Reinforce wall Use of CCS in the retaining wall is very popular now. In such retaining wall concrete panel is not required (Figure 4.7.). Vegetation can also be grown in such reinforced wall. CCSs are used to confine the soil which results in the increase of shearing strength and preventing the failure of the structure. So there are lot of applications of CCSs in reinforce wall. Researchers studied about the use of CCSs in reinforce walls. It has been seen that deformation settlement on both wall and backfill is increased with increasing the facing angle and surcharge. In facing type walls displacement and settlement is more as compare to the gravity type because of its light weight. While in gravity type two modes of failure often seen are failure due to sliding and failure due to overturning. So to avoid these circumstances reinforcement of retaining walls is required. CCS reinforced retaining walls are also performed better in case of earthquake loading. Due to CCS reinforcement the deformation in such retaining wall can be suppress effectively.

Department of Civil Engineering,CISAT,2016

Page

CELLULAR CONFINEMENT SYSTEMS

Figure:4.7. CCS flexible retaining walls.

CHAPTER 5 DESIGN CONSIDERATIONS AND TYPICAL APPLICATIONS 5.1. Design Considerations for Load Support • Infill properties • Infill quality • Subgrade strengths • Trafficking Department of Civil Engineering,CISAT,2016

Page

CELLULAR CONFINEMENT SYSTEMS

5.1.1. Typical Applications • Permeable surfacing • Water crossings • Car parks • Foundations • Grass car parks • Footpaths • Driveways • Structural supports • Temporary site access • Pipeline/sewer support • Road stabilisation • Rail stabilisation • Cart paths

5.2. Design Considerations Earth Retention • Wall height • Surcharge loading • Overturning stability • Shear strength • Foundation substrate strength

5.2.1. Typical Applications • Structural supports • Retaining walls • Vegetated/Green walls • Economical land development • Stormwater capture • Support for hillside roads • Noise abatement walls • Steepened embankments • Dams and flood defence bunds • Retention bunds • Culvert head walls • Sound barriers Department of Civil Engineering,CISAT,2016

Page

CELLULAR CONFINEMENT SYSTEMS

5.3. Design Considerations for Slope and Channel Protection • Slope angle • Slope drainage • Slope length • Slope substrate • Hydrology • Required finish

5.3.1. Typical Applications • Slope protection • Slope stabilisation • Channel lining • River lining • Coastal protection • Revetments • Water crossings • Balancing ponds • Embankment slopes • Containment dykes and levees • Noise abatement walls • Swales and drainage ditches • Stormwater containment lagoons • Process water channels • Culvert outfalls • Intermittent drainage channels • Dams or spillways • Abutment protection • Geomembrane protection • Landfill lining covers and drainage • Steep slopes

5.4. Design Considerations for Tree Root Protection • Infill properties • Infill quality • Subgrade strengths Department of Civil Engineering,CISAT,2016

Page

CELLULAR CONFINEMENT SYSTEMS • Trafficking • Root depths

5.4.1. Typical Applications • Drives • Estate roads • Tracks/Trails • Car parks

5.5. Advantages of CCS 

Steeper gradients: Suitable for slopes up to 1V: 1H as long as slope stability is



maintained. Economical: Replaces the use of expensive stones and their transportation with



locally available soil fill. Installation: 8- 10 times faster than conventional methods; easy to transport owing to

 

its flat and collapsible structure. Aesthetics: Supports development of vegetation. Environmental Friendly: Zero quarrying needs and minimal transportation resulting in

   

lower carbon footprint. Material Durability: Long lasting and resistant to extreme soil and weather conditions. Manpower: Lower manpower requirement comprising of unskilled labour. Infilling: Can be in-filled with soil / concrete / gravel. Reduction of road-structure thickness as different from the conventional solutions,



due to elimination of deep soil replacement, Increasing shear resistance of the CCS infill materials due to its their confinement and



compaction within the cells, Reduction of soil settlement as the effect of natural compaction and prevention of



lateral movements of aggregate infill of CCS, Reduction of high stresses to the subbase as the result of the improved load



distribution on the adjacent CCSs. Enabling stormwater filtration through the bedding layers thanks to the application of

  

loose materials, Stability and erosion resistance of earth slope surfaces, Soil reinforcing and stabilisation for example under road Embankments and sports fields.

5.6. Advantages of Perforations: 5.6.1. Lateral Drainage Allow for lateral drainage on slopes and reduces hydrostatic build-up. 5.6.2. Earth Retention Department of Civil Engineering,CISAT,2016

Page

CELLULAR CONFINEMENT SYSTEMS Makes earth retention and various slope works possible. 5.6.3. Shear Strength Increases shear strength as infill interacts with the cell walls creating a 3D friction. 5.6.4. Interface Friction Tests indicate that perforated cell walls are more effective at increasing the interface friction between the cell walls when compared to textured cell walls. 5.6.5. Impermeable Subgrades Impermeable subgrades do not cause a problem as the lateral drainage offered by the perforations allow water to drain elsewhere.

5.7. Different type of infills used in CCS With reference to the design requirements and geotechnical site conditions, the application of different types of infill materials is possible: • topsoil with various selected vegetation, • various mineral materials including sand, gravel, aggregate or stones • concrete of various strengths and surface finishes, • on-site fill materials, • with reference to the design requirements – combined options of the ones above.

CONCLUSION This paper summarized the experimental work of using CCS in ground improvement under an intense rainfall condition, which recently recurs with an increasing rate owing to climate change and extreme weather. The result shows that the installation of CCS can indeed effectively improve the bearing capacity of the loose-to-moderate ground subject to high water content as a result of intense rainfall. The increased bearing capacity should possibly result from the “equivalent cohesion” as CCS and sand are integrated as a composite material. In addition, the deformed CCS inducing a large passive earth pressure in the soil within cell pockets would prevent the development of tension cracks close to the footing, which was observed in the natural ground without the CCS reinforcement.

Department of Civil Engineering,CISAT,2016

Page

CELLULAR CONFINEMENT SYSTEMS

REFERENCES 1: Dhiraj Kumar,Gourav Dhane,Akash Priyadarshee,''PERFORMANCE OF DIFFERENT FORM OF SOIL REINFORCEMENT:A REVIEW'',International Journal of Science Technology & Management, Volume No 01, Feb 2015 pp 667-677 2:Gourav Dhane ,Dhiraj kumar ,Akash priyadarshee ,''CCS:An Emerging Technique of Soil Reinforcement In Civil Engineering Field'',IOSR Journal of Mechanical and Civil Engineering(IOSR-JMCE),e-ISSN:2278-1684,p-ISSN:2320-334X ,pp 59-63 3: Chowdhury Swaraj and Suman Shakti,''A Review of Studies on CCS-reinforced Foundations'',Research Journal of Recent Science,Vol. 4(ISC-2014),24-30(2015) pp 24-30 4: Manish Yadav,Arvind kumar Agnihotri,Akash Priyadarshee,Gauraw Department of Civil Engineering,CISAT,2016

Page

CELLULAR CONFINEMENT SYSTEMS Dhane,''Application of CCSs in Reinforcement of Soil: A Review'', Journal of Civil Engineering and Environmetal Technology,Vol 1,No;5 August,2014 ,pp 60-64

Department of Civil Engineering,CISAT,2016

Page