Discussions and Closures

Closure to Behavior of
Geocell-Reinforced Subballast Subjected
to Cyclic Loading in Plane-Strain Condition
by Buddhima Indraratna, M. Mahdi Biabani,
and Sanjay Nimbalkar

Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by Thapar University on 05/22/15. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

DOI: 10.1061/(ASCE)GT.1943-5606.0001199

Buddhima Indraratna, F.ASCE 1; M. Mahdi Biabani 2; and

Sanjay Nimbalkar 3
1

Professor of Civil Engineering and Research Director, Centre for Geomechanics and Railway Engineering, Faculty of Engineering and Information Sciences, Univ. of Wollongong, Wollongong City, NSW 2522,
Australia (corresponding author). E-mail: indra@uow.edu.au
2
Ph.D. Candidate, Faculty of Engineering and Information Sciences, Univ.
of Wollongong, Wollongong City, NSW 2522, Australia. E-mail:
mmb958@uowmail.edu.au
3
Research Fellow, Faculty of Engineering and Information Sciences, Univ.
of Wollongong, Wollongong City, NSW 2522, Australia. E-mail:
sanjayn@uow.edu.au

The writers wish to thank the discusser for his valuable comments.
While the writers are in general agreement with the discusser, some
of his points warrant further clarication. Firstly, the aim of the
paper was to investigate the effectiveness of the geocell mattress
used as reinforcement in subballast under cyclic loading.
The authors agree that the vertical strains reported for the geocell and subballast were different in magnitude from those reported
for the geocell mattress. This is because strains in the geocell mattress were measured using strain gauges attached to the geocell
strips. Strain gauges inclined in both vertical and horizontal directions were used to measure axial and radial strains, respectively.
As clearly stated in the original paper, linear variable differential
transformers (LVDTs) were used for recording the vertical and
lateral strains of unreinforced as well as reinforced subballast
specimens.
The volumetric change in unreinforced specimen was calculated
by summing the lateral strains measured in each vertical wall along
the direction of the minor principal stress and vertical strains along
the direction of major principal stress (v 1 3 ). The axial
strain was calculated by dividing the vertical deformation over
the initial height of the specimen.
During compaction, there was a relatively small lateral stress
( 0 3 0.25 kPa), which had a negligible effect on the vertical
and lateral strains of the unreinforced specimen. Therefore, these
small stresses were not considered in the analysis. The data recorded from strain gauges also revealed that the magnitudes of lateral and vertical strain in the reinforced specimen were negligible
during compaction. The authors acknowledge that the magnitude of
strains resulting from the construction phase, plus those resulting
from cyclic loading phase, would differ from each other. The strains
mobilized during the construction phase are usually very small and
can be neglected in the general track engineering. It is therefore
difficult to estimate whether their trends are similar to those during
loading phase, as the former is primarily controlled by the type of
compaction (vibratory or static roller) as well as the type of material
(sand, gravel, or clay).
For a long and straight track section, two-dimensional
(2D) plane strain conditions are more than adequate because of
ASCE

insignificant longitudinal strains occurring perpendicular to the

ties (Indraratna et al. 2014b, c). As explained in the original paper,
conventional triaxial apparatus ( 0 2 0 3, 2 3 ) cannot simulate the real track environment (i.e., ensuring 2 0), therefore the
use of a large-scale prototype process simulation (prismoidal) triaxial apparatus (PSPTA) was inevitable in such studies.
The magnitude of lateral stresses against the geocell resulting
from compaction was very small based on the recorded data from
pressure cells (diameter 50 mm, thickness 10 mm). These pressure
cells were placed on the geocell strips at a height of 75 mm as
discussed in the original paper . The authors do not agree with the
discusser that these stresses would have an effect on the results of
the additional confinement induced by geocell, which was primarily focused on strains mobilized during the cyclic loading
phase. In fact, the additional confinement model is based on
the principle of the well-known hoop tension theory (Henkel and
Gilbert 1952). The method proposed by Duncan and Seed (1986)
considers compaction-induced lateral earth pressure either in
relation to free-field or adjacent to vertical nondeflecting soilstructure interface. Because geocells are highly deformable, none
of the conditions considered by Duncan and Seed (1986) is
applicable to this study, where additional confinement (cyclic loading) was induced due to the nonuniform lateral deflection of the
geocell under the assumed plane strain condition, as shown in
the original paper.
The authors also do not agree that the values of the resilient
modulus appear to be too low for subballast by a factor of at
least 10. In fact, resilient modulus depends on the type of material
(ballast, subballast), its angularity, initial compacted density, and
the parent rock type. For the ballast (volcanic latite basalt), the
values of the resilient modulus were found to be in the range of
200500 MPa (Lackenby et al. 2007; Indraratna and Nimbalkar
2013), whereas for subballast (mixture of sand and gravel), the
resilient modulus was within the range of 2050 MPa, as also
reported in other studies (Mengelt et al. 2006; Grbe and Clayton
2014).
The adverse effects of fines (coal, clay, and particle breakage)
on the ballast have been discussed elsewhere (Indraratna et al.
2013, 2014a). Their influence on the subballast materials is not
yet known. In our study, dry granular material (subballast and subgrade) was placed at a depth of 450 mm in the PSPTA. As a result,
fouling the subballast due to upward mitigation of subgrade fines
or particle breakage was not within the scope of this particular study.
The authors agree that perforations or openings within the geocell walls are important in view of quick dissipation of excess pore
water pressure generated during high-frequency cyclic loading, and
their size is an important parameter. In this study, the authors have
chosen an appropriate size of perforations i.e., aperture size of
10 mm, which is larger than the median particle size of the subballast (3.3 mm). Although this could allow extrusion of some finer
material to some extent, it would not substantially hinder the filtration or drainage capability of subballast material at all. In some
cases, where the groundwater table is not too high to sustain high
excess pore water pressures, the use of geocells with much smaller
perforations is an acceptable option. Furthermore, large-scale laboratory tests to study the effects of size and shape of apertures on
the performance of geocell-stabilized subballast are currently being
conducted at the University of Wollongong, and the data from these
studies will be reported in a subsequent paper.

07015028-1

J. Geotech. Geoenviron. Eng.

J. Geotech. Geoenviron. Eng.

Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by Thapar University on 05/22/15. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

References
Duncan, J. M., and Seed, R. B. (1986). Compaction-induced earth pressures under K0-conditions. J. Geotech. Eng. Div., 10.1061/(ASCE)
0733-9410(1986)112:1(1), 122.
Grbe, P., and Clayton, C. (2014). Effects of principal stress rotation on
resilient behavior in rail track foundations. J. Geotech. Geoenviron.
Eng., 140(2), 04013010-104013010-10.
Henkel, D. J., and Gilbert, G. D. (1952). The effect measured of the
rubber membrane on the triaxial compression strength of clay samples.
Gotechnique, 3(1), 2029.
Indraratna, B., and Nimbalkar, S. (2013). Stress-strain degradation response
of railway ballast stabilized with geosynthetics. J. Geotech. Geoenviron.
Eng., 10.1061/(ASCE)GT.1943-5606.0000758, 684700.
Indraratna, B., Nimbalkar, S., Coop, M., and Sloan, S. W. (2014a). A constitutive model for coal-fouled ballast capturing the effects of particle
degradation. Comput. Geotech., 61(9), 96107.

ASCE

Indraratna, B., Nimbalkar, S., and Neville, T. (2014b). Performance assessment of reinforced ballasted rail track. Proc. Inst. Civ. Eng.
Ground Improv., 167(1), 2434.
Indraratna, B., Nimbalkar, S., and Rujikiatkamjorn, C. (2014c). From
theory to practice in track geomechanicsAustralian perspective for
synthetic inclusions. Transp. Geotech. J., 1(4), 171187.
Indraratna, B., Tennakoon, N., Nimbalkar, S., and Rujikiatkamjorn, C.
(2013). Behaviour of clay fouled ballast under drained triaxial testing.
Gotechnique, 63(5), 410419.
Lackenby, J., Indraratna, B., McDowell, G., and Christie, D. (2007).
Effect of confining pressure on ballast degradation and deformation under cyclic triaxial loading. Gotechnique, 57(6),
527536.
Mengelt, M., Edil, T. B., and Benson, C. H. (2006). Resilient modulus and
plastic deformation of soil confined in a geocell. Geosynth. Int., 13(5),
195205.

07015028-2

J. Geotech. Geoenviron. Eng.

J. Geotech. Geoenviron. Eng.